web analytics

Venice Update

News of Venice, CA and Marina del Rey CA

Comments–24 June 2014

Carolyn Rios
The Marina bike path is in horrible condition, full of cracks, mountains, bumps, holes etc. I still use it as Admiralty is way too fast and narrow, but the bikers with good bikes cannot use that part of the bike path to avoid damage to their bicycles.

If I HAVE to ride down Lincoln, I use the sidewalk as it is quite wide there with very few pedestrians. I go slow.

Bikes sharing the street need to ride at least three feet from the parked cars to avoid unexpected door openings.

Think of the principle of INERTIA. Bikes need the right to respectfully slow down at intersections and then proceed.

To get going from a dead start takes way too much energy.

OFW – an example of the need to consolidate

Mentioned to Cecilia Castillo that signs on Venice bike path saying “Bikes Only” have already worn away. (They used very cheap paint – the same signs in Santa Monica are as good as new)

Anyhow, Cecilia says it’s the county that maintains bike path, not the city!!!!

Karen Burstyn
Until a few skateboarders/bicycle riders are severely injured because of their arrogant attitudes with no regard for the rules of the road, nothing is going to change.

Or, one of these folks causes serious injury to a pedestrian and is sued, their arrogance will just continue

I walk my dog around the neighborhood every day and some days these folks expect me to get out of their way and walk in the street. It just gets me crazy.

Georgann Abraham
As a biker, bicyclist, I appreciate your article regarding pertinent laws. The people who disregard the laws make it bad for responsible riders. There is one counter point I would like to make in regards to riding on streets, including Admiralty. The bike path is certainly not the safest place to ride. Actually, I’ve had my worst crashes on the bike path. Pedestrians pay no attention when crossing, skaters and pedestrians take up entire lanes forcing bikers to ride on the wrong side, the sand makes it a set up for skidding, and again the ignorant riders endanger the real riders. Too many times, I’ve experienced irresponsible people on bikes coming head on towards me because they were looking everywhere except where they were going. Note the guy in your picture and no helmet and was wearing flip flops. He, like so many oblivious to rules and common sense of safe riding, will be the first to blame anyone else when he gets hurt.

I totally agree about sidewalks. They are absolutely no place for bikes!

Scott Myklebust
I assume the “are you kidding!” part of the headline was a rhetorical question in this posting from the last newsletter?

I really have to take issue with this long section aimed at cyclists and skateboarders. I know the one picture included in the post was meant to be a typical example of what makes car drivers angry (I think it was a good example but not for the reason you think) but a simple study of the image would reveal that the “red hand” is illuminated as is the red light (the green light is at the bottom of the signal and is dark on the left side of the image). As mentioned above this is a good example of this kind of misdirected anger due to how small and insignificant this guy’s trespass against the driver was. Unfortunately this kind of small thing begins to add up for drivers over time and eventually leads to a posting like this in a neighborhood newsletter.

Did this person really cause a huge disruption in anyone’s life sitting at a red light like this? I’ve ridden though this intersection hundreds if not a thousand times and I know it’s enormously wide and a driver can easily go around a cyclist once the light turns green. Granted many cyclists and S’boarders don’t obey the rules of the road but cars vastly outnumber everyone else and they also disobey the rules of the road in sometimes egregious ways. Where is the outrage and citing of the entire CA vehicle code directed towards them? A good thing to keep in mind is that virtually very cyclist honked and yelled at for some minor infraction of the law also drives a car. This isn’t an ‘us versus them’ situation and postings like this only serve to incite the anger of people and forces them to pick a corner. And sometimes this leads people act out in aggressive and violent ways towards others, and towards cyclists in particular.

I’m not sure how to conclude my comment here other than to say I’m disappointed to see this kind of thing given so much space in the newsletter. My hope is that tolerance and patience towards other people as they go about their lives will prevail, but this kind of open source anger-trolling doesn’t move us in that direction.

SOV (Spirit of Venice)
The next biggest secret is out – Venice has 108 alcohol licenses in a 3-mile radius. In L.A. the average is 4 per square mile which means we have 34 per square mile!

This is outrageous, and they just keep coming. Many of you already know about the 320 Sunset project which is applying for a full-line on site alcohol and offsite beer and wine license. Not to mention the new upscale restaurant currently planned on Rose Ave, replacing the Ranch Market and Fiesta Brava. Where will it end?

Please consider sending an online email to Senator Ted Lieu regarding this as his office is currently working on a report for Venice.

Go here to send email: http://sd28.senate.ca.gov/contact/email

Chris Williams–My Take on “Venice Life” Town Hall
Councilman Bonin came and gave his brief show before ducking out and not answering a single public question. His ideas about narrowing the streets have been tried in other communities with non-stupendous results. Some of the unintended results from narrowing streets and removing lanes have been much longer police and fire Dept. including paramedic response times. Santa Monica Fire Department is on record stating the “traffic calming” methods SM government required, creates delays that double or more the normal recommended response times. If you are the person having the heart attack you could easily go from resuscitated to dead in that extra time, or your small fire could completely envelop your home in that time, or the immediate police response you needed was not there. Corner extensions serve nothing more than putting bicycles and pedestrians in dangerously closer proximity to 3-5000 pound moving vehicles. Narrowing the thoroughfares also creates streets that formerly have open breaks between traffic to almost solid continuous walls of traffic, like rivers of cars. Can you imagine if Washington was narrowed to two lanes. For an example How would Triangle residents ever get out of their neighborhood with just one short light at Mildred? As the population around Venice ages and can no longer ride bicycles or walk to the grocery stores, narrowing the streets will make them hostages to their homes and at the mercy of the artificial traffic clogging programs to receive any necessary medical needs or medical transportation. Already in Berkeley many traffic calming devices have been removed in many areas in compliance with ADA guidelines after chronic pain transported residents became medical hostages in their homes and sued Berkeley. Should we make the same mistakes?

It seems the Councilman is now encouraging mandatory inclusionary low income housing in any project in Venice, versus the long time accepted method of allowing a builder to donate to a low income housing locked fund that was and is to be used solely for the construction of low income housing as a trade-off. The idea that any new multi-family units built in Venice with its generally development limited very small lots providing say one low income unit out of 2 or 3 built on a lot would make them all economically unfeasible. That is why the existing law was constructed the way it is, in order to allow money to be set aside for a purpose built low income development. Why doesn’t the Councilman use those funds on already vacant City owned properties to accomplish low income ideals? It would accomplish far more units and be much more economical for all of us.

Regarding an overseer for the Boardwalk, we already have one, it is the Councilperson. The councilperson is supposed to be the coordinator to all the various city agencies and departments. He was elected in that position.

Finally the rest of the program involved what the local government will call “process” . That is, a meeting was held, so those with an agenda can claim “process” was done and now move on with their goals even if they are in direct opposition to the majority of Venice residents. It became laughable when the County employee tried to link the amount of alcohol serving establishments in Venice with amount of homeless. I can’t think of too many homeless that can afford $6.00 beer or $8.00 a glass wine in the trendy Venice restaurants and clubs that make up most of that County list. It became abundantly clear that the goal of this meeting was to justify and preserve longstanding local social service funding by redefining themselves as anti-construction and anti-alcohol Partisans with the goal of maintaining an artificial situation that brings an outreached population of street people from all over the country to Venice for services they aren’t interested in. You have to consider as additional services get funded in Venice it will become advantageous to channel more street people from other areas of L.A. to Venice. This combined with the recent Jones decision that allows people to live in vehicles on the streets in Los Angeles (not Santa Monica, Culver City, Marina Del Rey…) will further crowd Venice streets and cause the same kind of public health unsanitary conditions we experienced in the past with the RV’s. All those who have been watching this for decades can do is explain what we see based on the past and hope that the recent Venice residents understand that the largest industry in Venice after Google is the social service industry that apparently needs to be maintained at all costs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *