Yo! Venice! Venice Beach, California

Forum

A A A

Please consider registering
guest

Log In Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search:

— Forum Scope —



— Match —



— Forum Options —




Wildcard usage:
*  matches any number of characters    %  matches exactly one character

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Topic RSS
Councilman Bonin Files Motion for Venice Beach Boardwalk Safety
Read the original blog post
Topic Rating: 3.7Topic Rating: 3.7Topic Rating: 3.7Topic Rating: 3.7Topic Rating: 3.7 Topic Rating: 3.7 (80 votes) 
August 7, 2013
10:02 am
Venice Rob
Member
Forum Posts: 1346
Member Since:
January 20, 2012
Offline
13
5

Long_time_resident said
Is Bonin afraid that another crazy person is going to run down people on Ocean Front Walk, in a copy-cat way, soon? Or is his haste due to having made a knee jerk response to the event which he now must carry through or look like somebody who made a knee jerk response to an event? Bonin seems to understand the political benefits of decisive action done quickly to projecting a strong image.

If 15-20 cars accidentally drive onto Ocean Front Walk each day, surely some proportion of them have been by drivers under the influence? What are the statistics on collisions, injuries and property damages from these incidents? Why have not barriers been installed already?

Bonin is a day late and a dollar short on this one. The transients lawyer is going to use this data, 15-20 cars accidentally drive onto Ocean Front Walk each day, that Rosendahl's office had for a long enough time to make the proper changes, but didn't. That lawyer is going to use that data as a leverage to reduce the charges for his client. If, this happens and I hope it doesn't. It will be a fitting legacy  of incompetence that Rosendahl and Bonin will have left on the people of Venice Beach and the city of Los Angeles. I would hope that this triggers an investigation as to why this has not been addressed in the past and what branch of city government is responsible. I WON'T HOLD MY BREATH.

August 7, 2013
11:41 am
dexter
Member
Forum Posts: 472
Member Since:
May 28, 2009
Offline
14
1.8

transients? that was a brand new dodge… he lived in colorado.. this debate is always about the homeless to you people.. so shallow. so single minded.

cars may be one of the most dangerous things in los angeles…. but no one talks about them

August 7, 2013
12:43 pm
Bird Man of Venice
Member
Forum Posts: 486
Member Since:
October 7, 2010
Offline
15
0

Venice Rob said

Long_time_resident said
Is Bonin afraid that another crazy person is going to run down people on Ocean Front Walk, in a copy-cat way, soon? Or is his haste due to having made a knee jerk response to the event which he now must carry through or look like somebody who made a knee jerk response to an event? Bonin seems to understand the political benefits of decisive action done quickly to projecting a strong image.

If 15-20 cars accidentally drive onto Ocean Front Walk each day, surely some proportion of them have been by drivers under the influence? What are the statistics on collisions, injuries and property damages from these incidents? Why have not barriers been installed already?

Bonin is a day late and a dollar short on this one. The transients lawyer is going to use this data, 15-20 cars accidentally drive onto Ocean Front Walk each day, that Rosendahl's office had for a long enough time to make the proper changes, but didn't. That lawyer is going to use that data as a leverage to reduce the charges for his client. If, this happens and I hope it doesn't. It will be a fitting legacy  of incompetence that Rosendahl and Bonin will have left on the people of Venice Beach and the city of Los Angeles. I would hope that this triggers an investigation as to why this has not been addressed in the past and what branch of city government is responsible. I WON'T HOLD MY BREATH.

I agree that the city is a day late and a dollar short in this case.  But I can't agree with the remainder of your assertion.

His lawyer won't have an argument that the city should have prevented him from committing homicide.  It might be different if he had been a simple drunk driver, but this was clearly a premeditated act.  The failure of the city to secure the boardwalk won't come into play as a mitigating factor in this case.

Where this will play out is liability.

The city has a duty to take "reasonable steps" to protect motorists and pedestrians on city property, much like a homeowner or landlord must take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of their tenants and visitors.  In many cases, this means signage, crosswalks, traffic lights and so forth.  In cases like OFW, it means that there should be reasonable barriers to separate vehicles from pedestrians.  There will be debate as to whether the barriers that existed were reasonable.  I'm skeptical the city will win that argument, since he was easily able to navigate around the barriers, and they don't even exist on many streets leading onto the boardwalk.

The fact that numerous vehicles accidentally drive onto OFW each day only further makes the plaintiffs case that city should have reasonably known that the danger existed and failed to take any steps to mitigate the danger.

The reason they will sue the city is because the city has deep pockets.  It's also a reasonably valid legal argument.

I'm predicting that the city will be cutting a lot of checks before all of this is over, and not to contractors.

The reason there is an urgency to act on it now is not much more than damage control, so the city is in the best light possible when the inevitable lawsuits hit the courts.

 

August 7, 2013
1:31 pm
Venice Rob
Member
Forum Posts: 1346
Member Since:
January 20, 2012
Offline
16
3.7

dexter said
transients? that was a brand new dodge… he lived in colorado.. this debate is always about the homeless to you people.. so shallow. so single minded.

cars may be one of the most dangerous things in los angeles…. but no one talks about them

If you have listen to the news and read the papers, he was from Colorado. He was a transient who lived in his car.

August 7, 2013
2:26 pm
Shane
Member
Forum Posts: 2085
Member Since:
June 16, 2009
Offline
17
5

"surveillance footage showed a man believed to be Campbell near a sedan later identified as a 2008 Dodge Avenger this past Saturday. "

August 8, 2013
12:36 am
Riviera Max
Member
Forum Posts: 297
Member Since:
March 23, 2010
Offline
18
0

The street that he entered from does have barricades, he had to go up on the sidewalk to drive around them.

 

Does this make a more difficult case for the Defense? On the subject of so many people accidentally driving on the boardwalk.

   
August 8, 2013
6:54 am
Bird Man of Venice
Member
Forum Posts: 486
Member Since:
October 7, 2010
Offline
19
0

I suspect the issue that will be argued in this case is that the barricades were "inadequate."  This seems plausible, since the defendant had no difficulty driving around them with minimal effort.

August 10, 2013
11:04 am
kai
Member
Forum Posts: 114
Member Since:
January 20, 2010
Offline
20
5

Driving around the barricades shows intent.    This is why his defense shouldn't work--

August 10, 2013
3:20 pm
Shane
Member
Forum Posts: 2085
Member Since:
June 16, 2009
Offline
21
5

So they've installed some plastic barriers (bollards?) blocking off  access to OFW as you enter the Rose lot.

Also at Marine?

They won't stop any determined individual but are definitely a heads up to others.

August 10, 2013
4:45 pm
rjg
Member
Forum Posts: 70
Member Since:
January 7, 2010
Offline
22
5

and they've done nothing else…the situation at Dudley is the same it was when the original deadly incident occurred…some plastic barriers at Rose..wow…quick thinking..no barriers at Venice Blvd. lot and of course not a single police office on patrol

August 11, 2013
8:12 am
Bird Man of Venice
Member
Forum Posts: 486
Member Since:
October 7, 2010
Offline
23
5

I actually feel back for the politicians.  People on here were yelling at them for having a knee-jerk reaction to the situation and lamenting that restricting access would hamper emergency vehicles, and now people are yelling at them for not doing anything quickly enough.  Seems like they are in a no-win position on this one.

August 11, 2013
8:17 am
Venice WatchDawg
NoRo
Member
Forum Posts: 1272
Member Since:
February 17, 2010
Offline
24
3

No, apparently we will be getting bollards and bullsh!t rather than increased law enforcement and a change in policy regarding the tolerance for too many potential criminals living on the streets amongst us…   I have not heard anything to the contrary… 

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: wp_sferrorlog

Currently Online: zgsirfst
36 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 32

Members: 19507

Moderators: 2

Admins: 3

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 37

Topics: 8388

Posts: 61638

Newest Members: munro leaf

Moderators: ModBot (8), CanalsAdjacent (0)

Administrators: Bret (8421), EmilGH (108), Mick (277)