I messed up big time in reference to the flyer put out by Mark Ryavec, which I found out later was his, and which I commented on regarding the Mass, Scale, and Character report that has been brewing for three and a half years. What didn’t get put in for one reason or another was that someone had marked red on the flyer, and as far as I knew, was distributing such … name calling. I thought it was obvious and wrong but in keeping with big politics. Believe me, I now know it was not obvious.
This is my public apology to Mark. Mark has made wonderful contributions to Venice and is continuing to do so. This is without question. To besmirch his name would be ludicrous and certainly not my intention. Sometimes I wonder what Venice would be without Mark and the Marks of this world who counter what others go boldly forward with without thought. Thank you Mark for all you do.
Please readers understand that the Venice Update tries to be totally unbiased–not committed one side or the other, one person or the other, homeless projects for or against. The Update presents facts and tries to present both sides … be a reflection of the community. Sometimes there is only one side.
As an individual, I am totally committed to certain things, projects, happenings, I am totally against certain things, projects, happenings and I have my own slate that I will be voting for in secret. I offend some because of my position of being noncommittal. I love all Venetians; I just don’t like the way some vote on certain projects. I love Venice and want the best for Venice. Sometimes what I think is right for Venice, others disagree. I don’t like injustice and I don’t like slandering or misstatements regarding people.
This election Venice faces many big concerns and perhaps more so than at any other time.
One is the ability to build … We have the mass, scale, and character document in the wings which, if incorporated in present state, would limit, to say the least, considerably one’s ability to build on his property. We have projects that have passed the city requirements and are thrown back by the California Coastal Commission. We have appeals on projects that have been passed by the City. These later two circumstances are costing home owners, developers time and money to fix, not to mention discouragement for them and for future development in Venice.
We have homelessness … Where do we go from here? Will building permanent homes for homeless here, stop homelessness in Venice? Is it right for taxpayers to pay for a project on a site near the beach, where they can’t afford to live themselves, and perhaps, put at jeopardy the businesses, the residents who are in close proximity? Will this extinguish the Venice Welcome light? Is this the most feasible approach? Who is thinking about the residents of Venice, their safety, their investment, their vision/s for Venice?
Venice has many issues but these are the two large ones that every voter should keep in mind when he casts his vote. If you wonder how to vote, ask someone of like mind for his suggestions. There are many slates out there.
The real question before Venice is whether we vote for a VNC that stands to make a profit on it’s land use decisions, or one that respects City and State law. This is a question of “conflict of interest”. Ryavec’s slate is comprised mostly of people who earn money from real-estate speculation in one form or another. They view Venice not as a community, but as a commodity. Their “50%” claim is wholly inaccurate. No one’s property value is going down as a result. Realtors have told me that small homes have a higher value per square foot than a large home in Venice. And this non-binding, proposed formula does not appear to have that much traction anywhere. Folks, this is a non-issue. What is most telling about Ryavec’s flyer is that this slate advocates maintaining the current “VSO”, the Venice Sign Off. The VSO was to “streamline” approval for small projects. But, in practice the VSO has been totally corrupted and has become a way to approve entire demolitions, massive houses, and cover up illegal evictions from affordable units – without any oversight, accountability or public input. The corruption of this process stinks to high heaven. The real complaint the speculators have about the current LUPC and VNC is that they follow the law. The law is the strongest ally Venice has. Ryavec’s slate support of the current, corrupt VSO indicates their true intent. Personally, I don’t want my family’s property overshadowed by some 35 foot high box that fills the entire lot. We don’t live in Venice for the shade. Yes, we should all perform our due diligence and make sure we vote for people on the VNC without inherent conflicts of interest.
Every point begins with exaggeration and gets more radical from there.
) VNC doesn’t control a single City policy. Neighborhood Councils have no power to do anything but advise the City about the effects of its policies on neighborhoods.
) The City needs to enforce ALL laws, specifically those that govern the thousands of illegal vacation rentals whose rampant proliferation has driven longterm residents out of their homes and in many cases onto the streets.
) The City’s ongoing failures to follow its own regulations has needlessly pitted neighbor against neighbor, when our common foe is City Hall.
) The City’s failure to obey a standing court order to provide supportive homeless housing has caused more chaos on Venice streets than any other condition (may not be true, but it’s simple and to the point). The City Attorney’s bad advice created the conditions that precipitated this chaos.
) The City is serving its self-interest by applying increasing controls to all Neighborhood Councils, creating a pressure cooker environment in which dissent is considered chaotic.
) Anyone who has attended a VNC Board meeting during the past four years knows that, from 2012 to 2014, the Board and LUPC favored large-scale commercial development, such as the Abbot Kinney Hotel. From 2014 to 2016, the Board has been anything but vocal, led by a President who actively throttled public and Board comment at every turn.
) Name one beach without higher crime on the coast than inland AND that doesn’t have a wall and gate to keep the world out.
) Change isn’t sweeping streets clean of everything that challenges us; change is separating homeless from street criminals, ending homelessness where supportive services exist, obeying standing land use regulations and enforcing on violations and Coastal Zone residents’ acknowledging our responsibility to share our public and visitor-serving resources.
) LUPC has even less power than the Board. Until the Board reviews any LUPC motion, that issue has no standing.
) That house in the formerly beautiful, spacious canals should probably have been prohibited in the first place.
Please vote for people on the VNC without inherent conflicts of interest.
PRESIDENT – Lydia Ponce
LAND USE & PLANNING – Robin Rudisill
VICE PRESIDENT – Mark Lipman
COMMUNITY INTEREST – Kevin Keresey
SECRETARY – Matthew Beltran
COMMUNICATION – Mike Bravo
COMMUNITY INTEREST – Kevin Keresey
COMMUNITY OFFICERS – Mark Kleiman, Ilana Marosi, Noel Gould, Gabriel Ruspini, Erin Darling, George Gineris, Jed Pauker
Hi Kevin,
Which property on the canals are you referring to? Why should it have been prohibited?
James
Thanks for the clarification. I have to admit, I thought twice about attaching part of his flyer to the small packet I put together about the VNC elections that I’m passing around the Oxford Triangle because of the “50%” assertion (the packet includes Mark’s candidate recommendations, as well). In the end, I decided to include it because, as was stated in Nick’s comments on the original post, the committee’s proposal (and the flyer clearly states that it is a proposal, not binding legislation) took a couple of years to put together and is representative of the general disregard for homeowner concerns and rights that this current VNC seems to evince. Obviously, our concerns differ from those of folks in the walk streets or other parts of Venice, and everyone should do their due diligence. And this proposal is much less likely to pass in its current form if we elect another slate of people to represent us.