NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL ELECTIONS: Venice sprouts its Grass Roots
By Jim
Smith
After decades of struggle by
Venetians to restore cityhood, Los Angeles has declared officially that Venice
is – a neighborhood!
The Grassroots Venice Neighborhood Council
(GRVNC) was sanctioned by the city of L.A. in March (nearly 10 years after the
Venice Town Council ceased to function) and held elections for its Board on June
13.
More than 600
“stakeholders” showed up at the Venice United Methodist Church to
vote on 21 board positions, most of which were hotly contested thanks to two
competing slates of candidates. Under the new L.A. charter anyone who lives,
works, volunteers, worships or can think of some remote connection with a
“neighborhood” is a stakeholder and can participate and vote in the
council.
I was one of 12
“Progressive Grassroots Candidates who ran on a detailed platform
<http://home.attbi.com/~venicecandidates> to preserve a diverse and
affordable Venice. Our candidates (see box below) were tenant activists,
community and union organizers, who have deep roots in Venice. Politically, we
were Democrats, Greens and Peace & Freedom
members.
GRVNC had been initiated by
Tisha Bedrosian – who was elected president without opposition – and
a core of other residents who had been active in the Rose Avenue Working Group
and/or the Venice (Re)Action Committee (which Beachhead writers have railed
against for years).
The Rose Avenue
Working Group’s claim to fame was trying to get the “bums”
(homeless) out of Venice. Others among them took aim at the low-income Holiday
Venice buildings in Oakwood.
When I
wrote a letter to the Argonaut opposing the “Homeless Abatement
Program,” the game was afoot. Letters appeared in the Argonaut and the
L.A. Independent attacking my stance in support of homelessness and on other
issues.
In addition to writing
responses, opponents formed their own slate, “Groovenik” (one way to
pronounce GRVNC). The Grooveniks quickly claimed the mantle of incumbency and
baited us as the Peace & Freedom
slate.
According to one document,
entitled “From the Desk of Tisha Bedrosian,” the Grooveniks
“...followed our vision – it’s about community service and
connecting people through their commonalities and not political
posturing.”
Our Progressive
Grassroots slate was certainly guilty of political posturing if its definition
is stating, in writing, where we stood on the issues affecting
Venice.
Prior to our issuing our
platform in early May, there had been two dreary years of GRVNC
“process” with nary an issue coming before the
council-in-formation.
Voters - even
those who supported the Grooveniks - still don’t know for sure where the
other candidates stood on development and gentrification, or any other
issues.
Nevertheless, most contests
were close. Groovenik fielded 24 candidates, sometimes without asking if the
candidate wanted to be on their slate. Of these, 12 were elected. Where they
were opposed in one-on-one contests by a Progressive, they won only four
contests, one of which was by a coin toss after a
tie.
Progressive Grassroots Candidates
put up 12 people, of whom, eight were elected. In head-to-head contests with
Groovnik, the Progressives won three elections (I lost my election to Tisha
Bedrosian’s sister, Chris). In addition, all five Progressives finished
ahead of the pack for the seven at-large
seats.
The election results show that
there is still strong sentiment for progressive or left politics in Venice. This
confirms the outcome of the 2000 presidential election in which Ralph Nader got
more votes than George Bush in a number of Venice
precincts.
The vote also demonstrated
the power of slates - both of the left and the right. Only two candidates not on
a slate – Naomi Nightingale and David Moring – were elected –
and both of them ran unopposed. Nightingale had been on the Progressive slate,
but withdrew.
The election also showed
the power of women. Out of the 21 elected Board members, 14 are women. Six of
21, or 29 percent are Venetians of color. In zipcode 90291, nearly 40 percent
are other than white.
Will the new
neighborhood council help preserve Venice from rampant development? That remains
to be seen. L.A.’s rush to give some decision-making power back to its
residents (excuse me, stakeholders) was intended to head off secession.
However, big developers lobbied and
won concessions which turned the councils into advisory-only bodies.
This being Venice, we would expect the
neighborhood council to aspire to much more. After all, the old Venice Town
Council remained a powerful force, even after City Councilmember Pat Russell
disowned it.
The other factor is
whether the new Board members will stand up against development and
gentrification. There are presently several big development projects pending
– the Marina Pacific Hotel expansion and projects in the Oxford Triangle
and on Abbot Kinney Blvd., among
others.
Many Venetians are barely
hanging on to their homes because of out-of-control rents. Low and
affordable-income housing is being replaced by luxury condos and big, ugly box
homes. These trends will continue unless there is government action to preserve
the racial and income diversity of Venice. This is where a strong, assertive
neighborhood council (or cityhood) is needed.
In this regard, the disappearance of
our L.A. Council District and Ruth Galanter (last seen driving around the East
S.F. Valley) will probably make “saving Venice” more difficult than
it’s been.
Our new - and
unelected by us - city councilmember, Cindy Miscikowski, is reported to have a
pleasant personality. The question is whether she will be more pleasant to her
husband, Marina developer Doug Ring, or to Venetians and our new
“advisory-only” council.
Posted: Mon - July 1, 2002 at 06:16 PM