L.A. City Hall wants to correct L.A. County’s failures by asking property owners to pick up the tab

At:  http://argonautnews.com/opinion-power-to-speak/

 Westside homeowners would bear the brunt of the $1.2 billion homeless housing bond

By Mark Ryavec

The author is president of the Venice Stakeholders Association and the former chief deputy assessor for Los Angeles County.

When it comes to the City of Los Angeles’ proposed $1.2-billion bond for homeless housing, residents should look past the obvious question of whether this will really get the 27,000 people living on our sidewalks into housing.

Instead they should focus on more fundamental questions:

Is this the city’s responsibility?

Is a new tax really needed?

Will the tax burden be spread fairly?

Is an adequate process in place to avoid mismanagement and corruption?

The answer to all four questions: No.

Under California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 17000, counties — not cities — are the government entities primarily responsible for taking care of mentally incompetent, poor, indigent and incapacitated persons.

Yet Los Angeles County provides only $221 per month in general relief (which jumps to a grant of $877 from Social Security if a person is totally disabled). As an old saying goes, the only problem with poor people is that they don’t have any money. If the county had regularly indexed the $221 figure to account for decades of inflation, a significant number of the homeless would be able to afford to live in shared apartments and houses.

In the face of the county shirking its duty, the goodhearted folks at L.A. City Hall have volunteered to help — as long as someone else pays for it.

Before residents let City Hall again put its hand into their wallet, they might consider that the City Administrative Officer is projecting the city’s budget will grow from $5.55 billion to $6.20 billion in just the next four years, with about $650 million in new revenues each year by 2020. If the city simply committed 10% of its planned budget increase over the next 20 years, it could easily pay off the $63 million needed each year to service the bond without a tax increase.

If adopted in November, the bond’s tax burden will fall unevenly, with most of the cost being covered by those who have more recently purchased property, whether houses and condos, apartments, or commercial and industrial buildings. This is due to the operation of Proposition 13, which reassesses properties to market value upon sale (or new construction).

Renters — including those who are quite wealthy — will pay nothing, and those who have owned their property since 1978, when Proposition 13 passed, will pay very little.

While city officials say the average yearly increase would be $44.31 per year for a home assessed at $327,900 (the current median in Los Angeles), the tax on the Westside and other places with more expensive real estate will be far higher.

My duplex, purchased in 1989, is assessed at about $800,000. Over the expected 28 year life of the bond, I would pay an average of about $106 a year (on top of the $1,470 I already pay each year to retire school and community college construction bonds). However, a new buyer of my property, at about a $3.5 million sales price, would pay an average of $473 per year, with a spike in the 11th year to about $800.

These effects play out much differently between apartments and commercial property. The city’s rent control ordinance does not allow apartment owners to pass on property tax increases to renters, so the apartment owners will have to absorb all the increase. But commercial property is frequently under a triple net lease, which requires the lessee to pay the property taxes — meaning lots of mom-and-pop businesses will have to pick up the bill.

With more than $1 billion at play, the potential is high for mismanagement, favoritism and corruption.  However, the oversight committee designed by the City Council has the foxes guarding the hen house. Four are appointed by the mayor; three by the City Council. And there are no qualifications required — such as 10 years or more of multimillion-dollar construction management experience, or being a certified public accountant. There also is no funding for the committee to hire independent staff or retain experts. Nothing in the bond ordinance prevents the appointment of political cronies or individuals from the affordable housing industry who have a financial interest in which projects are funded.

This all suggests the county, with funding from Sacramento, should finally step up and assume its legal requirement to take care of the homeless. If the city still feels it wants to help, it can fund a housing bond from future revenues. Even without a new tax, strengthening the independence and qualifications of the oversight committee would be prudent.

WIC 17000 reads: Every county and every city and county (i.e.; San Francisco) shall relieve and support all incompetent, poor, indigent persons, and those incapacitated by age, disease, or accident, lawfully resident therein, when such persons are not supported and relieved by their relatives or friends, by their own means, or by state hospitals or other state or private institutions.

Neighborhood Council Fails to Act on Resolution Opposing Storage and Homeless Services at Westminster Center

For the third time in two weeks the president of the Venice Neighborhood Council, Ira Koslow, has led an effort to derail resolutions properly presented for action by the VNC Board.  Unfortunately, a majority of the Board has gone along with his lead despite the urgency of all three matters.

Last night Mr. Koslow used the receipt of a letter from our attorneys, Luna and Glushon, providing a copy of the deed restriction on the Westminster/Dog Park property that limits the property's use to park and playground as the pretext to refer the stakeholders' resolution to the new Homeless Committee, chaired by Will Hawkins.  The existence of the deed restriction had been widely reported in social media and was discussed at the VNC Administrative Committee last week.  Mr. Koslow announced then that he would have the City Attorney's Office represented at last night's meeting to discuss the deed restriction and so it made sense that the Board members should have a copy of the deed restriction to review beforehand. It should not have come as a surprise nor been the cause for referral of the item to committee.  

The surprise was that so many of the new VNC members deferred to Koslow and delayed the resolution by sending it to committee.  A request for the public to comment on the removal of the item from the agenda was also opposed by Koslow.

Several members of the public, including several parents of students attending Westminster Elementary School, were prepared to wait all evening to speak in favor of the resolution out of their concern that placing storage and services right across from the school will act as a magnet and draw scores of transients to the area on a daily basis.

The urgency for VNC action is seen in the City's continued pursuit of permits to allow the storage and social services uses at the site despite the deed restriction.  

Without informing the community, in early June Councilman Bonin had the City Planning Department file an application with the Coastal Commission for an exemption for the change-of-use from senior center (which has only been used sporadically over the last five years for community meetings) to homeless storage and services.  It has also recently been reported by a nearby resident that construction work has been underway on the center to prepare for the new use.

Our attorneys will be filing a letter with Coastal Commission today calling for a complete environmental review, including traffic, noise, trash, etc.

Community Officer Will Hawkins assured this writer today that his committee will consider the opposition resolution in an expeditious manner, possibly as early as next week.

Last week at the VNC's Administrative Committee meeting Koslow derailed the Oxford Triangle residents' resolution calling for low density residential zoning, not dense, homeless housing on the Thatcher Yard site by sending it to the VNC Land Use and Planning Committee (LUPC), which has not historically addressed such neighborhood-wide planning issues despite its name.  LUPC is backed up with many pending applications and it is unclear when it can consider the Oxford residents request.  In the meantime, Councilman Bonin has directed city staff to pre-qualify developers of low income, homeless housing for the Thatcher Yard project, even though there has not been a public hearing on the project.

Koslow also refused to place before the VNC Board another resolution calling for "No Oversize Vehicle 2-6 AM" signs around Westminster Elementary School, Westminster Park, and the paths of travel along Lincoln of young students attending Broadway Elementary School.  He mistakenly concluded that the Council Office had requested the signage be installed.  However, Taylor Bazley of the Council Office has confirmed to the parents who requested the signage due to verbal abuse, obscene language, harassment and bottles thrown at students by those living in RVs and campers near the schools, that the Council Office has only requested the signage for the curb side next to the school and park, not for paths of travel or the opposite sides of the street across from the school. Bazley told one parent that they would have to obtain the signatures of all the residents on the opposite sides of the street even though this is not legally required by the city ordinance.  With school starting August 16th, parents are reasonably concerned about the safety of their children.

In light of Mr. Koslow's thrice refusing to allow stakeholder matters to come before the VNC Board for public discussion and a vote, some stakeholders are preparing a recall petition to remove Mr. Koslow from his position.  If you are interested in obtaining a copy of the petition please contact me at delphiassociates@ca.rr.com.

Resolution Opposing Use of Westminster Center for Storage Up Before Neighborhood Coucil Tuesday the 19th at about 10 PM

PLEASE ATTEND THE NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY EVENING AT WESTMINSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TO SUPPORT THE MEMBERS OF THE NEW COUNCIL AND TO SUPPORT THE WESTMINSTER CENTER RESOLUTION (SEE BELOW).  THE RESOLUTION WILL BE UP AT ABOUT 10 PM.

Also, please send an email to all your contacts asking them to send this message before Tuesday to the VNC Board at board@venicenc.org:
 
Please pass the Resolution opposing the use of the Westminster Center for storage of the possessions of the homeless.  The Westminster Center is too close to the elementary school, a park and residences and thus is inappropriate for storage use because it will attract more homeless to camp out in the area, which poses a danger to school children and residents. 

While both a deed restriction on the property and the City's new parks ordinance prohibits this storage use, the City Attorney has not yet agreed and Councilman Bonin has not let go of this inappropriate location for the storage - so we are asking the Neighborhood Council to underscore the opposition of residents to this use.

Resolution Opposing Use of the

Westminster Senior Center for Storage

Whereas, the Councilman of Los Angeles City Council District 11 has introduced a Motion (CF 15-1138 S-8) to convert the Westminster Senior Center at 1234 Pacific Avenue for use as storage for the possessions of persons who are homeless; and

Whereas, this facility is in a public park, and adjacent to an elementary school and scores of residences; and

Whereas, the majority of the residents residing near this facility are opposed to this use; and

Whereas, many parents of children attending Westminster Elementary School are also opposed to this use; and

Whereas, there have been no public hearings on this conversion; and

Whereas, the location criteria of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) includes the following language: Potential locations for expanded storage and services will be evaluated based on the following: 3. Impact on residential and high-traffic commercial areas; and

Whereas, no study has been conducted of the impact of the proposed storage use of the Westminster Center will have on park users, nearby residents or students attending the Westminster Elementary School; and

Whereas, the City of Los Angeles is legally prohibited from this use of the property by a a restriction to the property’s deed recorded by the Los Angeles Superior Court on July 5, 1950, which limits the use to public playground and recreation uses, and

Whereas, the proposed use is illegal under recently adopted amendments to Los Angeles Municipal Code 63.44, which state at B. 26 (f):   

Removal of Stored Personal Property; Discarding of Stored Personal Property.

   (1)   No Person shall Store Personal Property in any Park.

(2)      All Stored Personal Property remaining in any Park after closing may be removed by the City.

And,

Whereas, the use of a large storage container at the Venice Beach Paddle Tennis Courts has proved the efficacy of using such a container for storage use; and

Whereas, several other options exist for storage which will not impact a neighborhood park, an elementary school and adjacent residents, including the former MTA bus yard, which could be rented by a non-profit such as Chrysalis and out-fitted with containers, and private storage facilities, e.g. Stor It Self Storage at 4068 Del Rey Ave, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292, which is located next to industrial and commercial uses, not a school, park and residences; and

Whereas, enforcement of the new versions of LAMC 63.44 (prohibition of storage in parks) and LAMC 56.11 (limits on storage on sidewalks) will necessitate City storage for abandoned property, prohibited bulky items, and illegally stored property; now

Therefore, be it resolved, that the Venice Neighborhood Council opposes the use of the Westminster Senior Center at 1234 Pacific Avenue for use as storage; and

Further, the Venice Neighborhood Council calls upon the Councilman of District 11 to secure storage facilities at least 300 feet from any residences or parks for the proposed storage use identified in CF 15-1138 S8 and for abandoned and other property acquired by the City under LAMC 56.11 and LAMC 63.44 and when operational to relocate the stored items at the Venice Beach Paddle Tennis Courts to the new location to remove them from proximity to residences and their location in the park, which now violates LAMC 63.44.

 

VSA Now Collecting Sponsors for Resolution to Remove Encampments from Public Sidewalks Near Residences - the Boardwalk, Walk Streets, Market Street, Third Street, Rose, Hampton, Sunset, Fourth Street and Behind Ralphs, etc.

WE NOW HAVE 190 CONFIRMED SPONSORS AND COUNTING!
 

The homeless situation has gotten completely out of control in Venice but there is a solution.

The City can and must go back to enforcing the “no sitting, lying or sleeping on a sidewalk” ordinance.

This ordinance (LAMC 41.18) is still on the books.  

All the City has to do to be able to use it again is to prove to the court that over the last 8 years the City has built or funded the building of 1,250 units of permanent supportive housing.  The City's Housing Department predicted that figure would be reached last October.

The Resolution below will be submitted to the newly elected Venice Neighborhood Council for action and from there, we hope, to Councilman Bonin and Mayor Garcetti.

We want to show them that there is plenty of support in Venice to break up the encampments, move them away from residences and at the same time offer rapid re-housing to those campers who want it.

If you support this approach please send your name and address to the VSA at:

VeniceStakeholders@ca.rr.com 

Your address will not be released publicly; we are asking for it to establish that you are a Venice resident.

We have over 140 sponsors at the time of this posting.

Resolution Calling for the City of Los Angeles to Conclude the Jones Settlement and Return to Enforcement of the “No sitting, lying or sleeping on a sidewalk” Ordinance (LAMC 41.18 (d)) within 300 Feet of a Residentially Zoned Property

Whereas, the current City practice of allowing encampments of transients to exist right next to residences is intolerable and uncivilized, depriving residents of sleep, free use of sidewalks and a zone of safety and quiet next to their homes, and

Whereas, individuals in these encampments frequently trespass on the property of nearby residents, to defecate and urinate, to engage in theft and vandalism and burglary, or to store their possessions; and

Whereas, tents allowed in such encampments routinely entirely block sidewalks and violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and force both the able and disabled into the street to pass; and

Whereas, the City fails to enforce the requirement that no tent be erected before 9 PM and all tents be dissembled by 6 AM; and

Whereas, the City fails to enforce the existing bar on sitting, lying or sleeping between 6 AM and 9 PM; and

Whereas, the City fails to enforce LAMC 56.11 banning bulky items, attachments to fences and walls, and limiting possessions stored on sidewalks to that which can be contained in a 60 gallon City trash receptacle; and

Whereas, encampments are breeding grounds for disease, rats and insects and produce tons of trash which in Venice is driven in the rainy season directly to storm drains and then into Santa Monica Bay; and

Whereas, LAMC 41.18 is still in effect and the only impediment to its enforcement is the 2007 Jones Settlement, in which the City agreed in  a civil lawsuit to refrain from enforcing 41.18 until it had built or caused to be built 1,250 units of permanent, supportive housing; and

Whereas, the Los Angeles Housing & Community Investment Department produced a report in early 2015 that anticipated that the City would meet the requirements of the Jones Settlement by October of 2015; and

Whereas, eight months have elapsed since October of 2015 and it can be reasonably assumed that the City has now more than met the target of 1,250 units of permanent, supportive housing; and

Whereas, Captain Nicole Alberca, Commander of the LAPD Pacific Division, has recently stated that officers who are making daily contacts with campers in Venice report an increase in out of state youth 18-26 years of age, both males and females, who refer to themselves as "drifters" or "travelers" and do not see themselves as homeless and as such, they have not accepted outreach for housing placement; and 

Whereas, Tim Pardue, the former director of the Teen Project P.A.D. on Market Street, has reported that approximately 70 percent of their 16-24 year old clients are from out-of- state; now

Therefore, be it resolved that the Venice Neighborhood Council calls upon Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer and the Housing & Community Investment Department to immediately present to the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, a list of the permanent, supportive units built over the last nine years in satisfaction of the settlement and that the City Attorney petition for the settlement to be declared satisfied and null and void; and

Be it further resolved that the Venice Neighborhood Council calls upon the Councilman Mike Bonin, the Los Angeles City Council and Mayor Eric Garcetti to immediately amend LAMC 56.11 (the ordinance limiting storage on sidewalks) to bar any storage of personal possessions (other than a bicycle for 24 hours or less) on a sidewalk, parkway, alley or street within 300 feet of any residentially zoned property for more than one hour; and

Be it further resolved that upon the vacation of the Jones Settlement the Venice Neighborhood Council calls upon the Los Angeles Police Department to begin warning anyone sitting, lying or sleeping within 300 feet of a residentially zoned property that they are in violation of LAMC 41.18; and

Be it further resolved that the Venice Neighborhood Council calls upon Councilman Mike Bonin and Mayor Eric Garcetti and the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (or social agencies acting on their behalf) to offer shelter beds, shared housing, Section 8 housing, transitional housing or transportation to safe family members at the same time and in conjunction with the LAMC 41.18 warnings by the LAPD; and

Be it further resolved that in instances when an individual acting in violation of LAMC 41.18 refuses to either leave the area within 300 feet of residences, or to accept housing or transportation to a safe family member, the Venice Neighborhood Council calls upon Los Angeles Police Department to cite the individual for violating LAMC 41.18 and if future violations occur, to secure a stay-away order to prevent that individual from returning to camp out in Venice.

Full Frontal on Rialto Avenue

Summer is here and with it all the bizarre behavior we associate with our lawless community this time of year. Residents on the 400 block of Rialto Avenue woke up this morning to see a naked man running around in the street. Apparently he had not read the fine print of the Venice Neighborhood Council's topless sunbathing proposal and must have thought we'd already returned to earlier days when nude sunbathing was tolerated in Venice Beach. Police were called and 20 minutes later they arrived. They got him to get dressed and then arrested him.
 
The resident who took the photo on the right had earlier taken her dog out through the alley for a walk and found another man asleep in her neighbor's parking spot. 

Combine sun, beach, drugs and free food programs with Bonin's lack of enforcement and his proposals for housing and storage, and Venice is just irresistible for the travelers, drifters, dopers and the deranged - and now naturalists.

Help Us Change the Direction of the Neighborhood Council - Vote Sunday

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MANY YEARS WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ELECT RESIDENT-FRIENDLY OFFICERS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL.

IF YOU LIVE, WORK OR OWN PROPERTY IN VENICE 

YOU CAN - AND SHOULD - VOTE!

Venice Neighborhood Council Election

Sunday, June 5^th, 10 AM to 6 PM

Oakwood Recreation Center

767 California Avenue, Venice, CA

Bring a photo ID and a utility bill, deed or proof of ownership of Venice property, or pay stub with a Venice address. 

This year a group of reasonable, talented and bright candidates are running for the council who offer a chance for real change and leadership on the many issues that confront our community.  

If you would like my recommendations, please email me at delphiassociates@ca.rr.com, and I'll send them to you.

From YoVenice: VSA Files Appeal in Boardwalk Public Nuisance Case

Venice Stakeholders Files Appeal in Public Nuisance Lawsuit for Conditions Along Venice Beach

June 1, 2016 

OPINION
8:02pm

By Mark Ryavec

Last week our organization filed an appeal in our lawsuit against the City and County of Los Angeles for their maintenance of a public nuisance and dangerous conditions along the Venice Boardwalk and beach. In the suit the Stakeholders contend that these conditions deprive residents of the quiet and safe enjoyment of their homes and the Venice community of the safe use of the Venice Beach Recreation Area.
 
Judge Gregory Alarcon had sided late last year with the VSA against the City’s and County’s motions for summary judgment. However, when the City and County appealed his decision our organization did not file a legal brief at the appellate level due to the advice of several attorneys that such requests for a “writ of mandate” are rarely granted. Unfortunately for Venice residents, this was one of the rare cases in which that maxim did not hold up.

At that point in January we reached out to the City and asked Councilman Bonin if he would meet with us on behalf of the City to address our concerns about noise, crime, burglaries, trespass and the inability of the public and residents to enjoy many areas along the Boardwalk that have been taken over permanently by transients and vendors.

Mr. Bonin did not reply to our invitation.

This is the opposite tack from that taken by his predecessor, the late Councilman Bill Rosendahl. When we first considered filing a public nuisance lawsuit several years ago, Bill immediately asked then-City Attorney Carmen Trutanich to meet with us to see if the City could address our concerns. We had several discussions with the City Attorney’s staff and the result was that the City Attorney led several City departments, along with the council office (where Bonin was the chief deputy), in an effort to improve public safety along the Boardwalk. This included the installation of new signage that banned camping along the Boardwalk and beach and highlighted the 12 to 5am beach curfew. This was followed by renewed enforcement of the camping ban and beach curfew by the LAPD as long as Rosendahl was in office.

When it became evident in 2014 under the new regime of Bonin, Mayor Eric Garcetti, City Attorney Mike Feuer and Supervisor Sheila Kuehl that the City and County were not enforcing “no camping” and “no storage” laws and noise limits in the Venice Beach Recreation Area, we met with City Attorney Feuer. In the course of the meeting we told him that we were contemplating a public nui- sance lawsuit. Unlike Mr. Trutanich and Bill Rosendahl, who headed off our lawsuit by ramping up City enforcement, Feuer said, “Well, it’s your right to sue.” So, we did.

Today the contrast between the City’s and County’s lack of enforcement along the Boardwalk compared to other parks continues to be striking. As we pointed out three years ago, many areas of Venice Beach are covered by tons of private possessions of both vendors and transients, while the park next to City Hall DTLA is kept in pristine condition. The same laws that govern the City Hall park govern Venice Beach, and were employed to remove Occupy LA from the front of City Hall a few years ago. But under the current authorities, little is enforced here in Venice. In fact, residents who live along the Boardwalk and walk streets have told me that the situation has deteriorated in recent months.

The City has recently amended two ordinances, LAMC 63.44, which now significantly limits what can be taken into a park in the day and requires that every item leave a park at night, and LAMC 56.11, which reduces what can be stored on a sidewalk, gives the City latitude to remove bulky items, and shortens the notice period. However, there has been no move to enforce these new laws in Venice, a failure I attribute to Mr. Bonin. If there had been, this might address some of the issues raised in our suit, and lead to fruitful negotia- tions with the City. But again, Bonin has not returned our call.

The law under which we brought the case is the same law the City Attorney uses to close down crack dens and other buildings that generate crime and activities which are a nuisance to neighbors. Certainly the Boardwalk, as an elongated drug emporium and crime generator, is a public nuisance the City Attorney would move to close if it was in private hands. The City’s and County’s failure to enforce their own laws against drug sales, camping, tents, noise, public inebriation, defecation and urination, and storage of private property on park land all contribute to the erosion of residents safety and quiet enjoyment of their homes.

In their appeal of Judge Alarcon’s initial decision to dismiss their motions for summary judgment, the City and County did not dispute that their lack of enforcement caused the public nuisances that residents constantly experience. Instead, they pointed to municipalities’ “prosecutorial discretion;” i.e., their right to decide what laws to enforce and when to enforce them. Without a legal brief from us rebutting this claim, the Appellate Court gave Judge Alarcon a choice of letting us belatedly submit a legal brief opposing the City and County’s position or dismissing the case. He chose the latter, which set up our right to appeal the entire case to the Appeals Court, known as a “de novo” review. Instead of just appealing the narrow issue of prosecutorial discretion we will be trying the entire case before the Appeals Court.
 
The case will probably be heard late this summer. Donations to the legal fund are welcome and can be sent to the VSA at 1615 Andalusia Avenue, Venice, CA 90291.