John Hamilton Part 1
John Hamilton Part 2
Back issues in my
eBay store
25 Years Ago in Call
Someplace Paradise and/or Ghost Town
Free Venice Beachhead archives
selected articles 1980-81
Beachhead Archives 1982
Beachhead Archives 1983
Lighthearted Beachhead
pieces
People of Venice (from Beachhead)
Windward Avenue Articles
from Beachhead
Art in the Beachhead
Venice institutions
from the Beachhead
Venice in Books A-C
Venice in Books D-K
Venice in Books L-P
Venice in Books Q-Z
Quotations about Venice
Venice in Magazines and other ephemeral
sources
1981 Resistance Celebration
Schedule
1981 Resistance Celebration
Articles
Birth of Venice:
old-timey magazines
1914-1916 Part 1
1914-1910 Part 4
1914-1916 Part 5
Destiny's Consent by
Laura Shepard
Townsend
Lions and Gondolas
Poem about Venice
Beachhead
Rana Ayzeren
Tales of the Blue Meanie
by Allan Cole
New Year's with Santana from
Tales of the Blue Meanie by Allan Cole
"Brick" Garrigues
The Spectre
|
25 Years Ago in the
Free Venice Beachhead
October 1983 #166
FOR THE RECORD
(Note: This letter was written in response to Stan Price's letter on behalf
of Tuum Est which appeared in the Sept. Beachhead)
Dear Stan,
I can only guess at your reaction to the letter you
sent me, if it had, in the past, arrived on your desk at Venice Legal
Services. But I certainly don't have to guess about my reaction, especially
having heard from a number of the current tenants of the St. Charles
and having seen a copy of the eviction notice they received only 15
days ago.
I erred in my article only as regards the actual legal
lessee of the St. Charles. In our phone conversation you stated that
the relative of a person connected with Tuum Est had lease the building
for use by Tuum Est. I have now been informed that a group of people
from Tuum Est "inspected" the building. You are splitting
a very fine hair by stating "Tuum Est is thus not involved in the
eviction from the hotel..."
Your statements concerning the letter and spirit of the
Rent Control law and that neither you nor Tuum Est know anything about
the future of the building are difficult for me to reconcile with the
facts in this matter. The owners, or whoever is leasing the building,
may be complying with the letter of the law, though even that is debatable,
but the spirit is quite a different matter. We are, after all, dealing
with 40 people who have been given 30 days to find new places to live
at the height of the summer months in what I'm certain you know to be
a very tight rental market. Given the current rental situation, where
it costs a minimum of 3 times the rent simply to move into a new apartment,
the offer of $1,000 is quite minimal these days. So, neither the time
allowed nor the relocation "benefits" appear to have much spirit
attached to them.
As to the future use of the building you might want to
look at the eviction notice, especially given your statement about having
been informed of the eviction process. That notice quite frankly declares
that the eviction is proceeding in order to remove the building from the
residential market "to be converted to commercial use. Said conversion
is to be accomplished as soon as the units have been vacated." Furthermore,
if, as you contend, Tuum Est is such a good neighbor don't you feel that
they ought to be concerned about the future use of the hotel as it may
affect the environment in which Tuum Est functions?
As to my single reference to Sienna, it had nothing to
do with the Tuum Est drug program nor any other aspect of that organization
save its current involvement at the St. Charles. It was not meant as a
scare tactic, and the reference to red-baiting is patently absurd, but
for many people here the analogy holds quite strongly. You, and the people
of Tuum Est, are quite out of touch with reality if you do not understand
that many people make a connection between the two organizations, especially
considering the origin of Tuum Est. Tuum Est, by its almost total non-participation
in the community, has done nothing to dispel the partially negative image
it has. Having attempted on a couple of occasions to contact and involve
Tuum Est in community issues some years ago and having met with great
disinterest, I had little reason to feel that matters had changed presently.
But now, partially due to what I wrote and certainly in no way die to
Tuum Est taking the slightest initiative, the (last) Beachhead
contained articles from the Hotel residents and from Tuum Est.
I understand and empathize with Tuum Est's housing problem
due to the necessity to bring the building up to seismic safety standards.
I have been aware of their dilemma for some time. The fact that Tuum Est
has not been able, for more than a year, to find a building or a community
to which to move is testimony to the unique quality of "live and
let live" found in Venice people. I hope you will make your client
aware of this accepting attitude and impress on them the fact that the
very people who are being displaces are among the most tolerant type of
Venice resident. No matter who replaces them, if the past few years are
any indication, they will be more affluent and less tolerant of such things
as a substance rehab program in their neighborhood. Tuum Est is, in my
judgment, working against its own interest in this community by its involvement
in the eviction of the 40 residents of the St. Charles Hotel.
All of the above is my personal opinion in this matter.
It in no way attempts to represent any other person or party. I hope this
letter clarifies my feelings in this matter and that you understand the
broader implications of the eviction of the residents of the St. Charles.
Yours truly, Moe Stavnezer
Dear Moe:
I appreciate your concern about the eviction of the residents of the St.
Charles. However, Tuum Est is irrevocably committed to its renovation
plan and cannot alter it at this point.
Tuum Est has only a short term sublease interest in the
property. What the owners intend to do when Tuum Est vacates the premises
is something you'll have to ask the owners about.
Sincerely yours, Stanton J. Price
Dear Venice Beachhead,
This letter is in response to the Werner Scharff interview where he speaks
about cleaning up Venice and getting rid of the "riff-raff."
He feels it would be a much nicer, safer, pleasing place to live and asks
to hear from anyone with any ideas on how to accomplish this. Well, here
is my idea, but first let me say that I totally agree with you that Venice
would be much nicer and cleaner if people DID NOT have to live on the
streets - but the concept of "getting rid of the alcoholics, drugs
and riff-raff" bothers me. I don't believe this is something we can
just rid ourselves of. There are many mentally ill, lost and hopeless
people on the streets - they need our help because they cannot help themselves
(at least at this point in their lives.). Because you are a humanitarian
Mr. Scharff and have the money and property, I suggest you build a shelter
on one of your vacant lots to home the homeless. This would be a wonderful
and courageous gift to the people of Venice who have given you such a
prosperous life. I realize it is a huge undertaking and I won't go into
the details on how it should be done - since government is not doing anything
for the poor, I believe it is time for a person with the funds to step
forward. We are all connected and living on this planet together - when
one person suffers we all suffer.
I know from personal experience
that drug addicts, alcoholics, and the sick can be helped. I was never
living on the streets but I am an ex-drug addict who was helped and "made
it back." I have my dignity now and would like to see others get
back theirs. These people can be helped and it is up to the stronger people
to help the weaker people.
I'm sure you could get professional
people and volunteers to work in the shelter. Here is your first volunteer.
Sincerely, Karen Goldberg, Venice
The Case of the Disappearing Benches
by Carol Fondiller
At one time there were sixty of them.
They were double benches. That is, one could sit and
face the west and watch the ocean, or one could sit and face the east
and watch the human parade that strolled, shuffled and bumped up and down
the Ocean Front Walk.
I always ended up perched on the top of the bench with
my fee on the bench seat.
If one sat there long enough, and I did, friends and
cronies would collect and we'd spend the day at the bench.
Sixty sturdy benches like duennas at a cotillion, strung out from Navy
to 18th St. offering aid and comfort to those with blisters, broken skateboards,
too many packages, too much sun and alcohol, too much time on their hands,
and not enough money in their pockets. Postcards printed in the late '20s,
when Venice was annexed to the City of Los Angeles showed double benches
on the Ocean Front Walk.
In World War II, the Avalon Ballroom was open 24 hours
a day and the little trams ran up and down the O.F.W. till 2:00 a.m.,
the benches with the seal of the City of Los Angeles branded on their
cement haunches supported soldiers, sailors and shipyard workers as they
massaged their feet, smoked, made out, and/or looked at the moon or the
sun. Venice was swing-shift city.
In the late '50s, when I first visited Venice, the last
Bingo parlor was being closed down.
Between Navy and Marine streets were coffee shops, souvenir
shops, newspaper kiosks, bars, and lots of people day and night. My friends
and I would walk and talk and sit on the benches.
**Lady Chatterley's Lover was not allowed to be
read or published in the good and pure U.S. of A.
Herb Caen, San Francisco columnist portmanteaued the
word "Beatnik" to describe the men and women who dressed in
black, played guitars, listened to jazz and wrote poetry that was street
language one could get arrested for. The benches were used as rallying
points and meeting places after the Ocean Front Improvement Association,
headed by that seeker after equality, truth and beauty. Werner Scharff,
pressured landlords, the police and the Los Angeles Department of Health
and Safety to bulldoze and/or close down every coffee house in Venice.
They succeeded.
Curt Simon, Werner Schaarf and other property owners,
smaller property owners who thought they were in the same league as Werner
& Co. tried to get the Ocean Front Walk closed down at 10:00 p.m.
But it was pointed out that the Ocean Front Walk was a public thoroughfare
and the benches and pagodas were on the public walkway, and such a curfew
would be unconstitutional, or something like that. Every spring, the benches
would be painted, and broken slats would be replaced.
The benches with the seal of the City of Los Angeles
had withstood rain, sun, salt air, being moved, sat in, humped on and
vandalized for nearly 40 years. When the Roller Skating Craze literally
hit Venice, the old benches were moved to the grassy area west of the
walk to ease access for the skaters. They were moved carelessly and cruelly
without regard for age or condition of previous servitude as they were
dumped on soft uneven earth, or moved to the middle of Ocean Front Walk
where they were destroyed even faster, as skaters used them for jumping
off places, and people shoved them back to the cement in an effort to
restore a feeling of community. Nobody wanted to sit in the middle of
Ocean Front Walk. It had all the charm of waiting on a traffic island
in the middle of Lincoln Blvd. in Marina del Rey.
With the advent of Proposition 13, the benches were no
longer repaired and gussied up every spring. During the speculation boomlet
of the mid-'70s, a new business organization called the Venice Beach Association
was convinced that Venice would be the new Gold Coast. Some of the members
who owned or leased Ocean front businesses were appalled at the fact that
people could sit on the benches for free and didn't have to buy $3.00
drinks in order to sit down and enjoy the beach. The Venice Beach Association
declared war on "the over-age hippies on Welfare" as they described
the people who stared back at their customers. Some of the members of
the V.B.A. boasted at meetings how they moved benches away from their
establishments, how they broke the benches to prevent the undesirables
from discomfiting the trendy folk who came to Venice because it was quaint
and raffinee.
People saw frayed but still usable benches being hauled
away by City or County trucks.
There were ten benches left between Navy and 18th Street.
There used to be approximately 60 benches.
Carol Berman called Councilwoman Russell's office.
How about bus benches with advertisements on them?
... Well...better than nothin, but...
She got in touch with Pam Emerson at the Coastal Commission.
Didn't the Coastal Commission mention that amenities
were to be provided for the public, and shouldn't benches be considered
public amenities - and since there were benches, and benches had always
been used by residents and visitors, shouldn't those benches be considered
essential to the welfare and enjoyment of all people including those people
who couldn't afford $2.00 cups of coffee?
Ms. Emerson said she'd look into it. A few weeks later
she called back and told Ms. Berman that the Coastal Conservancy had no
money for benches. However, she came up with the idea of having someone
who was building a condominium on 18th St. donate money for a bench in
lieu of an extra parking space. Ms. Kelly Doyle of Sail Realty suggested
the idea to her clients. They loved the concept and were willing to pay
for it, but couldn't they be like the old double benches?
WHO'S IN CHARGE?
No one in the City seemed to know who was responsible
for the upkeep and replacement of benches, and whether or not privately
funded benches could be put on publicly owned property, and whether the
property was County or City owned, and whether the County or the City
would be responsible for the benches after they were installed. Ms. Emerson
called Ms. Berman to inform her that watching the City and County bureaucracies
trying to escape each other while entangled in each other's coils was
not a pretty sight.
With the help of Carol Shapiro, aide to Councilwoman
Russell's office, Ms. Emerson wended her way through Recreation &
Parks (City), through Street Maintenance, Bench Division (City) where
she was stalled for a while in the Department of Benches and Banners (City.)
For a while, the Case of the Orphan Benches was tossed between Recreation
& Parks (City) and Parks & Recreation (County.)
Ms Emerson found in a contract between the County of
L.A. and the City of L.A., that the County is responsible for all property
west of the Ocean Front Walk, and the City of L.A. is responsible for
property including the Ocean Front Walk. The benches were on No Man's
Land. A clause in the contract stated that the County was responsible
for the benches.
Craig Woodell of County Department of Harbors and Beaches
looked through the Bench Catolog - something approximating the old benches
was found, but they cost $500.00. Well, that's that. Scratch that idea.
A few weeks later, Ms. Emerson reported that Craig Woodell found the original
mold for the old benches. He'd arranged for the men at Wayside Honor Farm
to manufacture 10 benches at a cost of $125.00 each. The new benches have
been placed. Most of them are on Rose Ave, north, in front of the Israel
Levin Senior Citizen Center.
Unfortunately, $1,250.00 is all the County can afford
for the benches.
However, there is an opportunity for individuals, organizations,
and businesses to donate money - tax deductible - to a fund for the benches.
One bench will cost $150.00 (costs of materials are going up.)
What a lovely idea if all the take-out places on the
Ocean Front Walk would plow back some of the money they make from the
beach back into the community and make it more comfortable for their customers.
What a lovely idea if all those people who want restaurants
but have no parking could provide some benches in lieu of some parking
spaces.
For more information, call Craig Woodell at Department
of Beaches & Harbors at 823---- or 870---- Ask about the Viewing Beach
Fund.
A Rude Awakening
by Loise Nevelle
"Get out of LA...it's illegal to live in LA...Whatever
we do is legal...I'm not here to answer your questions."
These quotes from Officer Slinkard, Badge #21640 of the
LA metropolitan police although stated out of context, appear to sum up
the new attitude of LA CIty Hall towards persons living in campers.
It applies even more to the 30,000 destitute unemployed
forced to sleep on beaches, in parks, under freeways and even on the streets.
Despite the fact that most have lived in LA for years under happier circumstances,
LA does not want them.
Social service agencies advise those unable to find housing
and fortunate enough to have cars or campers to live in their vehicles.
The police ticket them if they do so at night whether in public or private
lots or on the streets. They are illegal.
"There are many desperate situations and we cannot
do a thing. We cannot find housing for people. The situation is terrible.
It is not publicized, the public does not know about it," declared
a social worker from the Public Social Services Agency. "Nothing
is being done."
Churches and private agencies do their best to temporarily
house and feed the few they can before turning them out on the streets
again. All have stated that they cannot begin to cope with the growing
problem. LA plans, it is said, to "clean up the city" by removing
the poor from sight before the Olympics. How they will do this without
offering them some aid is a question.
All of which brings us back to Officer Slinkard, Badge
#21640, and one example of how the technique of "Protect and Serve"
is applied.
Of the many evicted from the Venice public parking lots
at about 3 AM the morning of Monday, September 26th, two of them were
Penny and Bill. Penny is a mature woman, mother of an adult daughter who
lives and works in LA. Penny is a vendor on the Ocean Front Walk.
Bill, a 7-year military veteran with a bachelors degree
in the arts, now works in Venice full time making and delivering buffers
for metal auto parts.
Even though they are both employed, they cannot afford
to rent at the present high prices. So for $3 a day, they rented a space
in the public parking lot. Knowing that they would be illegal anywhere
else they parked at night, they decided they had no choice but to remain
on the lot.
About 3 AM they heard a terrific banging on both sides
of the camper (which they discovered next day had dented it and put a
hole in one screen.)
"Police, come out."
Penny: "Wait a minute while I get dressed."
Officer Slinkard: "Come out right now as you are.
You haven't got anything we haven't seen before. If you don't come out
now, we'll break down the door."
Afraid they would indeed break the door, Penny and Bill
emerged, Penny scantily clad in only a longish tee shirt which barely
covered her hips. They emerged on the parking lot. Bill protested. He
was told to shut up. Nevertheless, he asked what he could do about their
parking situation.
Officer Slinkard: "Get a job."
Bill explained he had a job and was asked for the name
and address of his employer.
Officer Slinkard did the talking. The other, a Venice
policeman merely stood by. As Officer Slinkard was particularly hostile
to Bill, Penny decided it would be better if she did the talking.
Penny" "Where can we park legally at night?"
Officer Slinkard: "Park on someone's front lawn."
This, obviously not a serious answer to a serious question,
made Penny angry.
Penny: "Do you like this job of moving people out
of their homes?"
Officer Slinkard: "I like moving people out of their
homes."
Penny: "Since I'm taking a ticket, what would happen
if we leave our vehicle here tonight?"
Officer Slinkard: "We will tow your vehicle with
you in it.
Penny: "Isn't it illegal to tow a vehicle with people
in it?"
Officer Slinkard: "Anything we do is legal."
Penny: "But where can we park if we can't park here?"
Officer Slinkard: "Get out of LA. It's illegal to
live in LA."
Penny: (now very upset) "I'm an American citizen.
I pay taxes. I have rights.
Officer Slinkard: "You don't have any rights!"
Penny: (accepting the ticket) What would happen if I
refused to sign this ticket?
Officer Slinkard: "I'm not here to answer your questions.
Now get out of here."
According to some ticketed that night, the procedure
was more or less the same, especially the obscene opener, "Don't
wait to get dressed. You don't have anything we haven't seen."
The obscenity is not surprising considering other things
we hear of the LA police, but is it considered proper procedure by the
police department? If so, this is serious. Others can be arrested for
obscenity.
As for Penny, she was upset for several days. "It
was a terrible feeling to be treated like a non-person. No one knows what
it's like to be treated like a non-person with no rights until it happens
to him. It was like facing the Gestapo. It wasn't so much what they did,
as how they did it."
"But where will we live? Bill's job is here. We
can't leave LA. We don't know what to do."
And what of the homeless beach-sleepers ticketed that
night? Next day a police car and the county garbage truck came to the
beach, threw their sleeping bags and blankets and whatever other necessities
they had into the garbage truck and drove away.
Will the Olympics bring 1984 to LA?
|


St. Charles Blues
Andre Hall, Ex-St. Charles tenant
Will the struggle to keep the tenants of the St. Charles
Hotel on the corner of Windward Avenue and Speedway from being evicted
become a rallying point of protest within the community of Venice against
forced evictions, or shall it be swept aside by the profit seeking co-owners
of the St. Charles Hotel, whose past and present intentions have not been
in the best interests of the tenants?
The St. Charles Hotel. more than 80 years old, has been
a home (roach infested, of course) for many Venetians of the avante garde
persuasion. It has also been a place of residence for many people with
a low income.
The forced eviction with a relocation bribe is tantamount
to total disregard for the welfare of the St. Charles Hotel tenants. The
CO-owners (Reesy Shaw, Tom Lochtefeld $ Co.) of the St. Charles and others
will more than likely claim that the relocation bribe fee sill suffice
as being adequate compensation.
What they will have failed to understand is that no price
can be put on the months and years of living in a building where one has
planted roots of care and love of one's surroundings and neighbor tenants.
To those who accepted the eviction bribe with or without
a feeling of remorse; it can only be said that life itself is worth living
if one struggles for the benefit of all against exploitation and oppression
being perpetuated by the ruling rich class and not for one's individual
greed and self-interest.
The letter submitted to the August '83 Beachhead
by the attorney for Tuum Est, Stanton J. Price, should be examined closely.
It should be noted that the Tuum Est attorney's statement of finding an
"empty" building such as the St. Charles Hotel is a distortion
of the truth. The St. Charles is, in fact, presently housing tenants who
wish to stay on in their rightful place of residence.
The point of contention is not whether or not Tuum Est
has been a service to the Venice community. The line of demarcation is
the rights of the people vs. business interests.
A question arises as to why Tuum Est would seek temporary
residence at the St. Charles Hotel knowing full well that they would indirectly
be accomplices to the eviction of the St. Charles tenants? Was the bid
for the St. Charles lucrative in regards to the profit margin for both
parties involved?
And, for what reason could the co-owners want to evict
the tenants of the St. Charles for the relatively short period of eight
to twelve months occupancy by Tuum Est? Are the co-owners of the St. Charles
planning to turn the building into a business enterprise?
One may toss this about: the 1984 Olympics.
It has been reported in the Westside section of the LA
Times (9/8/83) that the tenants of the Cadillac Hotel on Ocean Front
Walk have been given eviction notices. A suit challenging the evictions
of the Cadillac tenants claims that the owner, Werner Scharff, plans to
convert the hotel into a restaurant, hotel or bed-and-breakfast inn for
the 1984 Olympics. Could the same 1984 Olympics debacle also be in store
for the St. Charles Hotel before or after the possible temporary take-over
by Tuum Est? And, after Tuum Est and the Olympics...
SUPPORT THE TENANTS OF THE ST. CHARLES HOTEL TO CONTINUE
THEIR TENANCY with your moral and written support at this time of need.
The St. Charles Tenants Association is circulating a petition regarding
their eviction. They may be contacted by writing them at 25 Windward Ave,
Venice CA 90291 or call (213)----
ADDENDUM:
As a result of the St. Charles Tenants' Association's
having challenged their evictions, the case for Unlawful Detainer was
dismissed and rents were collected for September.
The tenants, represented by attorney Steve Clare, raised
the defense that they were not provided with their relocation benefits
and that the purported conversion of the building for commercial use was
nebulous. Further, the owners had not complied with the Municipal Code.
At this point, it remains to be seen whether rents for October will be
accepted of it new Notices to Vacate will be issued. PLEASE SIGN OUR PETITION!
Cadillac Hotel
by Arnold Springer
Elderly tenants living in the Cadillac Hotel (Dudley
and Ocean Front Walk in Venice have obtained a temporary restraining order
which forbids the building's owners from evicting or harassing them. Owner
Werner Scharff denies that he intended to evict the tenants.
However tenants report that notices were posted in the
building lobby informing occupants that extensive repairs and renovations
to the structure would take place at some unspecified future date and
encouraging those wishing to avoid the noise and inconvenience to move
at their convenience.
Elderly tenants became frightened and with the aid of
the Israel Levin Center contacted the Bet Tsedek legal services agency
which specializes in aid to low income people. Lawyer Janna Zimmer went
into Santa Monica Superior Court in Sept. and convinced conservative judge
Lawrence Rittenband to issue a temporary restraining order against Scharff.
Rittenband ruled that no repairs or renovations could begin prior to Scharff's
obtaining all necessary permits from the City of Los Angeles and the California
Coastal Commission. Pending issuance of those permits the owners were
cautioned not to harass or attempt to evict the Cadillac tenants.
News of the alleged harassment and evictions followed
publication in the Sept. Beachhead of a long interview with Mr. Scharff
in which the prominent landowner announced his "return" to Venice
development, acknowledged his recent purchase of the Cadillac Hotel, and
pledged to build low cost senior housing near the beach in Venice, in
part to house those seniors who would eventually be displaced from residential
apartments to a tourist hotel.
Lawyer Zimmer is presently seeking a permanent injunction
against Scharff. The hearing on that request is scheduled before Judge
Rittenband in Dept. C, Santa Monica Superior Court on Oct. 21.
|