On The Eve Of A Declaration of Independence
By Jim
Smith
In the Course of Human
Events, it has become necessary for Venetians to band together for the
protection of their way of life and the security of their homesteads, and to
assume among the Communities of the Earth, the equal Station to which the Laws
of Nature and Humanity entitle them. We therefore announce and declare the
existence of the City of Venice. . .
Note the destruction shown on the front
page of part of Venice’s largest single affordable housing complex. Then
consider the monstrosity that builders from Massachusetts want to erect at
California and Lincoln. Add to that the humble, but affordable rentals, that are
being torn down all over Venice, so that big, ugly boxes can go up in their
places. Change and progress that serves people’s needs is good. But what
we are experiencing is change for the sake of greater profits for a few. This is
bad, and should be opposed.
To a lot of
Venetians who are just hanging on by their fingernails, this is not just an
intellectual survey of the changing housing market. Lots of people in this
community are mad and frustrated - not by change - but by negative changes in
their neighborhoods.
These days,
it’s not too difficult to go out and get 20, 50, 100 people or more in a
neighborhood to sign a petition or letters against a big development that is
going to do nothing to improve their quality of life. But what we’re
learning is that none of the powers-that-be give a damn about our concerns. Not
our council person, not L.A.’s planning commission and not most of the
people on the neighborhood
council.
Last month, Beachhead writer
Carol Fondiller blasted the neighborhood council for its inaction, particularly
over the case of 88-year-old Albert Dunne who is facing eviction so that the
landlord can redevelop and make a few more bucks. The reaction of some of those
in the line of fire was immediate and caustic. However, in none of the response
was there any mention of soon-to-be-homeless Albert
Dunne.
In their defense, it should be
noted that the neighborhood council system is not designed to empower
L.A.’s communities but to pacify them. The system was devised in an
attempt to head off moves toward secession. In this they were not successful.
Three parts of L.A. filed for secession, two got it on the ballot and it took
millions to defeat it citywide. The neighborhood councils were never given
authority over development, as some wanted. Instead, they can make
recommendations. All this is not to say that our neighborhood council has no
future. It does mean that there are some high hurdles to overcome if it is to
stand up for the wishes of Venetians instead of being a lapdog for Mayor Hahn.
While some of the current GRVNC
officials are quite content to be an arm of L.A. instead of a muscle for Venice,
I don’t believe that it is because they are corrupt. Instead, most of
those in question settled in Venice during the 90s and have no connection to the
history of struggle that Venice went through in the preceding several decades.
They don’t understand that Venice is a real community sans chain stores
and high rises because of the bulldog-like fight that a great many Venetians put
up for a long, long time. They are ahistorical, rather than corrupt. There are,
indeed, some GRVNC representatives – those elected on the Progressive
Grassroots Candidates slate – who are working hard to save Venice and
protect the 73 percent of Venetians who are renters. Alas, they are in the
minority on the council.
It
hasn’t always been like this. Our second Golden Age of self-rule began in
1973 when our L.A. council member, Pat Russell, thought it would be a nice
exercise in democracy - and at the same time win some votes - to create a town
council in Venice. Little did she
know...
In the beginning, there were a
number of neighborhood councils - central Venice, the canals, Oakwood, etc.,
feeding into a town council for all of Venice. It was assumed that this body
would nicely recommend non-controversial concerns - filling potholes, trimming
trees, etc. - to Russell. This being Venice, it didn’t quite work out that
way (see Archives story on the Venice Town Council, elsewhere on this
page).
The Town Council began taking on
developers, opposed a freeway, disagreed with Russell, and more or less made a
nuisance of itself downtown, while thrilling ordinary Venetians. Russell
promptly disowned the Town Council, which morphed into a participatory town hall
structure, unlike anything seen before or since in Venice or L.A. PBS even did a
nationwide TV broadcast of a meeting of the Town Council. After a number of
years of holding developers and gentrifiers at bay (even though it had no
official standing), the Town Council withered away. Home rule - of a sort - was
lost to Venice for the second time. Of course, the first Golden Age of self-rule
was when the legendary city of Venice flourished under our Doge, Abbot Kinney.
After he died, L.A. saw its chance to coerce Venice into being annexed in
1927.
Now, in the early years of the
21st century, Venice is at a crossroads. The next few years will determine if it
is to continue to be the only spot on the coast where poor people of every color
can live and where an island of arts and creativity apart from the
homogenization of late capitalism can flourish.
The reason so many Venetians are
frustrated and angry is that the vultures are circling and there is no defense
against them. The power brokers of Los Angeles have proven convincingly that
they will wield whatever resources are needed to prevent any disaffected
community from breaking away. They will undoubtedly be successful at this until
and unless the law is changed that allows the whole city to vote on the fate of
a seceding community.
It is an axiom of
political struggle that when the law is with you, you go through the legal
process. When the law is against you, you use other tactics. Martin Luther
King’s civil disobedience and non-violent struggle for civil rights is a
case in point for the latter strategy.
If the law is against us what can we
do? Let us simply declare our independence. It worked for the American
colonists. They didn’t have an election where the entire British isles
voted on their independence. They simply drew up a declaration of independence
and got an active majority of colonists to support it.
We don’t want to fight a war
over this, so how would it work? Well first, we declare the rebirth of the City
of Venice. We hold monthly town hall meetings, we elect a city council to
implement the will of the people of Venice between town hall meetings, we print
up letterhead, and begin taking action on important issues to the community. It
would be nice if Beyond Baroque would let us use the old Venice City Hall, just
as the Town Council did in the 70s and 80s.
Since we don’t have legal
authority, we would work with every existing power - the L.A. city government,
the neighborhood council, the state legislature, etc. But we would vigorously
stand up for the rights and interests of Venetians. We could lobby, and unlike
the GRVNC, we could sue to block development projects. In time, the City of
Venice would become recognized as the de facto government of our community. In
some ways, remaining a part of the city of L.A. would have its benefits, but
only if we have a real voice of our own.
Yes, we can create a third Golden Age in
Venice. We can encourage development that benefits us, and we can deny
development schemes dreamed up just to line someone’s pockets. We can make
Venice a delightful place for people to live, even if they don’t have a
financial portfolio.
What would it take
for us to create our City of Venice? Probably about 100 Venetians walking their
streets, getting others active and enlisting at least the passive support of
most of their neighbors. After that, it would get easy. Who knows? We might even
get on PBS again!
Posted: Thu - May 1, 2003 at 05:53 PM