So this will go to the courts I imagine. Can the city still put up signs that prohibit oversize parking?

Did I hear correctly that the city already has authority to restrict the oversize parking, as in the signs that went up behind Golds?  From the appearance of it, that zero tolerance signage, ie. 24/7.  I wonder if instead of suing the ccc, efforts and money needs to be put into forcing the city to enforce those laws.  In all honesty, this route is a bit harsher than the one proposed by VSA, wheras, there is no need to provide services and alocate resources.  For the homeless advocates, I feel the decision by the ccc actually underminds their initiative.

I will definatly support forcing the city to take action whether through the power of elections and or support lawsuits.  But, if the laws are already there, that should be the main focus of attention.  Calling the police and council on a daily basis everytime you see someone entering into an RV and reporting them.  Pain in the ass, but at least it would force more action.

Just as the homeless and their advocates do, we need to be LOUD.

and yes, tax revenue speaks volumes.

Also, doesnt it seem that the vote by the ccc is going to cost california taxpayers a lot more money in litigation, lawyers etc.  Do they think this problem will just go away?  All the vote did today was reject the proposal.  We need to get that legislation offered up by Liou again too.  That was when the city and the ccc got involved.

that was the drunk guy who said he peed on peoples fences because we, the taxpayers, dont provide him with toilets.  not a good representative of the homeless plight.

So, how do we get more signs posted everywhere.  that will give the police the opportunity and ease to enforce the laws as well as keep a check on who's who in the streets.

If something isn't done, there will be more lawsuits.  Unfortunatly, I feel the decision today will only make the plight for the homeless that more difficult.  There are a lot of people who do not want OPD's and do not RV's.  The signs as they are now, if implemented everywhere would give venetians some breathing space.

I hope this decision kills the SB RV parking model.  It doesn't seem to me it will work unless there is a nudge to get people registered into it, ie. no parking places.   And, it will not solve the problem of making venice an RV friendly town.  you build it, they will come.

Those who are homeless also need to remember, that if you are to conisder yourselves a part of the community, you have to give back.  It will help with tolerance in the long run.  Sure, everyone has a right to be here, but it is the homeless responsibilty to be good neighbors, just as those who live in homes are. 

Sadly this is the outcome I expected. Even with most of the NOPD people sounding like a pack of crazed freaks & treating the meeting like a Jerry Springer show. So Lets get the laws already on the books enforced. By the by, are the oversized restrictions really for vehicles over 6'? I only ask because I just measured my neighbor's Escalade & it's 6'3" tall. Will permits be available for families with SUVs who don't have garages , driveways or carports? And if those permits are available will this just be another opening for the RVers to manipulate the system by getting their "friends" to buy permits for them? I keep hearing that the problem with enforcing the no sleeping/living in vehicle laws is that they have to catch the people sleeping in them. Considering how many of them are giving televised interviews all over the place I should think it would make it just a tad easier. I think it's safe to say that the only people who would have make shift curtains in all their windows (including the front shield) are the people living there. I can't imagine any other reason to do that. If they have to stay in Venice & the residents have no say whatsoever about the situation can't we just allocate a portion of the large parking lots to a proper RV park? That way they can have their toilets & stuff. Then we can tow/arrest anyone who parks outside those lots. It's not perfect, not even desirable, but it's an idea. 

Won't the oversized vehicle restrictions (I hearby dub "OVR"s to make typing easier) have a similar effect to OPDs? If one street gets an OVR and the RVs have to move, won't every other street want an OVR? And then won't that drive the RVs into the beach lots? If the RVers are smart, they'll hit the beach lots before the residents get home from work so as to guarantee a spot? Wasn't that a negative outcome that Chris was worried about?

As far as people sleeping in cars, hard to hide that. Police just need to enforce if residents are bothered. Admittedly, it's one thing to complain about it, but if people really want them gone, then call the cops, call them again, call them again. All those calls get logged in a database. Enough calls will eventually get their attention.

Now that I think about it, maybe we have all the tools we need – at least to get the same effect as OPDs. Am I missing something?

FYI – The OVR height restriction is 7 feet, so Cadillac Escalades are okay, no comment on environmental impact…

drocks74 said:

I hope this decision kills the SB RV parking model.  It doesn't seem to me it will work unless there is a nudge to get people registered into it, ie. no parking places.   And, it will not solve the problem of making venice an RV friendly town.  you build it, they will come.

Those who are homeless also need to remember, that if you are to conisder yourselves a part of the community, you have to give back.  It will help with tolerance in the long run.  Sure, everyone has a right to be here, but it is the homeless responsibilty to be good neighbors, just as those who live in homes are. 

You're right, that any Safe Parking program needs Oversized restrictions or it's not going to work.  But as a stick oversized restrictions are so much better than OPDs to motivate people into a program or out of Venice.

And this is true: Had everyone living in an RV been polite, clean and courteous most of this could have been avoided.  There's no time like the present to start.

AmorosoNate said:

FYI – The OVR height restriction is 7 feet, so Cadillac Escalades are okay, no comment on environmental impact…

Thanx for the clarification. FWIW I agree about the petrol pig, but my neighbors are nice people & they don't complain about my bike so I wont complain about their SUV. 

Good question. 

And why is the CCC so against this concept ONLY in Venice?  What stopped the CCC from passing the OPD's?  And why does the LAPD not enforce the "no living in RVs on the street" law?  And why do I get tickets for being two minutes late to a meter but "Mouse" can party with abandon? 

I truly am curious. Anyone?

Here's an idea – How about permits for RVs and large trucks? You need to have a legal Venice address and park within one block to where the van is registered. Yeah, Yeah, That's the ticket.

It don't matter – the squalor generators won this round – notice former Councilwoman and CCC Member, Ruth Galanter, Queen of the "let it be" crowd, was there cheering on the bum brigade.

Figure this out yet?  We not only want a Venice Surplus Property Fund financed Safe Parking Program, we want the RVs on the streets as well and maybe camping on the sand, as Ruth had them by the scores in the 1980s…….  And, if you don't like it ….MOVE!!!

STOP PAYING TAXES!

WatchDawg Rick

Oh, I have a feeling a lawsuit is on the horizon…