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.

If any animations, pop-ups or other weird things show up, they were inserted by an evil third party, and I'd like to hear about it.

To report website malfunctions, please email webslave@virtualvenice.info

To receive VirtualVenice e-mail news: send a blank email with "subscribe" in the subject line

"Table of Contents" or site map here it is

25 Years Ago in the Free Venice Beachhead

25 Years Ago in the
Free Venice Beachhead