not native:  You are so right.  Legislation involving Vending on OFW is forthcoming.  And it is said to be able to pass the constitutional challenges that have plagued previous ordinances.  

So do you think Santa Monica would tolerate this madness??

Rosendahl WANTS TO BE RE ELECTED!!!!!!!!!!

tired of the disrespect said:

MichaelinVenice:  I agree with you that Homelessness is the entire community's problem or for that matter, all of LA's problem and even a national issue.  And to just shoo them off the OFW would not be a real solution.  No argument.  However, the OFW is ground zero for insane middle of the night lawlessness.  We will step up LAPD patrols along OFW to remove this public nuisance and safety threats posed by the druggies.  These folks will be moved to another neighborhood (jail).  Then the more difficult task remains but to insure a humane and long lasting solution we will seek to place all homeless folks that want shelter into temporary space that the City will supply (it is in the works).  While int temporary shelter the community and social services networks can assist them with the important services that they can provide.  

 

This is the scope of my commitment to the Task Force being formed right now.  Obviously, a looming issue will be the District Court decision's impact on the remaining people that do not want help that are not breaking any other laws on the books. Clearly, new legislation is required to close this loophole.  

 

I will not vilify the politicians including including Rosendahl (who always returns my calls) or Linda Lucks (who has worked her entire life to help others).  I certainly do not always agree with them but is that even possible?  Politicians are not our leaders. We, the people of this great community, are the leaders and we will summon our elected representatives to serve our needs in a democratic and effective way.  If we have enough support I can assure you we will lead true change.  

You make very good points, here. But I am not convinced that the City government is serving all of us as it should.

When I moved into Venice back in the early 1970's I expected and found that the community was a mixture of people from regular families with kids, a lot people who owned homes, a lot of people looking for cheap rents for a lot of reasons, some petty criminals, a few mentally ill people, a few homeless people, a few would be free souls who were mostly just interested in partying all the time, a few artists and musicians, but mostly people lived here, and the population changed continuously, a lot of people came and went. The only common idea was to let people be, to let them have their space, to live and to let live. There was no more nor less bad and inconsiderate behavior then compared to now. City government pretty much ignored the community. Now the City government devotes a lot of attention to Venice but some of it is wrong headed and it really is destructive, now.

Ocean Front Walk is a public thoroughfare just as all the other streets and sidewalks happen to be, and it makes them available to all to use pretty much as they wish. The law does provide constraints upon the kinds of behavior that go beyond anyone's rights under the U.S. Constitution just as anywhere. People are not obliged to endure a loss of basic rights within their homes or property because of the behavior of people on public thoroughfares. Currently, the City has taken a position that it wants the Ocean Front Walk to be public attraction and has declared it to be a free speech zone, and it encourages performers and exhibitors to attract people as they can for out of doors activities along the entire length of Ocean Front Walk everyday. To make this work, if City ordinances pertaining to quality of life issues would impede this purpose, they are not enforced.

The Ocean Front Walk is barely ten yards wide, and it's just 50 yards from an old and densely packed residential neighborhood, so the intrusions upon the neighborhoods have become significantly greater over the years. The City can control this by changing it's policies towards Venice to recognize that it is primarily a residential community rather than a public attraction and enforce the same ordinances here as it does across the City. The problem seems to be not just the courts reacting to so called civil liberties suits but the the Council District 11 powers that be who have been promoting the area as an entertainment destination or something of that sort who don't have a plan to respect the rights of residents to live normal lives in their homes, too.

Rosendahl's staff are very responsive to residents' communications and Rosendahl has offered community input through meeting frequently in the past. The problem is that controversial issues remain unresolved for the most part, even when remedies are already available in the law. The explanations seem to have more relevance to keeping various key constituencies from being disappointed than in addressing the problems.

Nothing will happen without the threat of lawsuits.