Hi folks,

we have been informed that LAMC 42.15, Boardwalk Ordinance has been
scheduled for the October 26th meeting of the City Council’s Arts,
Parks & Neighborhoods Commitee.  That meeting will occur at 3pm in
City Hall, Room 1050.  Please mark your calendars.  Should folks
require parking arrangements, I’ve copied Mr. Angelo Yenko on this
message.  Feel free to let him know by providing your vehicle
information, and he will be more then happy to make those
arrangements.  Thanks folks.
–
Arturo Piña
Office of Councilmember Bill Rosendahl
(310) 568-8772, Office
(310) 410-3946, fax

It is striking that this ordinance deals with the Free Expression Zone of the Venice Boardwalk, a public forum devoted to First Amendment protected activities, yet the First Amendment is not mentioned in the ordinance anywhere.  There is commentary on protecting the merchants, protecting the visitors, protecting the ocean scene, but none on protecting First Amendment activity.

Perhaps I am naïve, but I would like to believe (and do believe) that focus on this particular aspect of activities on the Boardwalk would necessarily address the other concerns as well.

There is the claim that regulation is necessary because the amount of space on the Boardwalk is limited; yet the Boardwalk is defined as the man-made promenade extending from the Santa Monica border to the north and the El Segundo border to the south.  It would appear that the space may be unnecessarily limited by restricting activities there to the Boardwalk spanning the region from the northern boundary with Santa Monica to the park headquarters at 17^th Avenue to the south.   A better reason to restrict current activity on the Boardwalk it would seem is that so much of it is unprotected commercial enterprise.

There is the claim that unregulated activities affect the historic character of the Boardwalk.  Given the number of ordinances and amendments and revisions have been claimed necessary because of unregulated activities, it would seem that such activities constitute the historic character of the Boardwalk.  It is difficult to see the merit of this argument.

What is CEQA compliance?  Has it been checked into?

Ordinance

  A.  Definitions

1. Definition of person:  Is this the necessary legal definition?  Why are businesses, etc. included when they are not engaged in first amendment protected activity and therefore not allowed on the Boardwalk to begin with?
2. Program rules will come from Rec and Parks.  Will they be crafted by the city attorney’s office as Mark Brown did with the most recent ordinances?
3. Vendor:  will a vendor be able to hire assistants?  Doesn’t that make said vendor a merchant?

B.  Findings and purpose

2(e)  The Boardwalk commercial life is assumed to refer to the merchants on the east side of Ocean Front Walk.  Ought this reference to east side merchants be specified?

C.  Beach Vending Prohibition

What is the northwesterly boundary of Santa Monica and the northwesterly boundary of the city of Los Angeles?

1. Vending and Performing on Designated Spaces

1. Expressive items ought to include audiovisual format, as much information is now distributed as CDs and DVDs.
2. Are belts considered clothing?  If not, they ought to be specified as prohibited as well.

E.  Allocation of Designated Spaces

1. Food give away spaces – will two spaces be designated as such?  Who decides?
2. (3)Access spaces – if these are for access to the ocean, why are they also indicated in the area next to the Rose Avenue Parking lot, where a wall between the lot and the Boardwalk precludes access?
3. (7-9)  These restrictions were in place in earlier ordinances.  They were essentially unenforceable.  What is being planned to change that situation?
4. (11)  This is a pet peeve of mine and when the lottery was in place, Rec and Parks could have pulled the permits of those who left their assigned spaces a mess – which was almost everyone. They didn’t.  How is this going to be enforced now?  Will this be grounds to have someone banned from the Boardwalk – at least until they can clean up their act?

Last:  Ibrahim (Leroy) Butler has a court order signed by a Federal Judge that permits him to have his drum orchestra between 319 and 325 Ocean Front Walk from noon to 4:30pm on weekends and holidays.  He has performed in that location for years.  He is a Venice Boardwalk icon.  He will not be moved, with valid reason.  How does designated space apply in this case?

This is just one more objection I have to the designated space concept.

Let me close by reiterating my disappointment at lack of focus on enforcing the First Amendment.

Thank you.

Feedback and commentary are welcomed.

Therese Dietlin

Norman Kulla, Councilman Bill Rosendahl’s legal counsel, told the taskforce meeting on Wednesday, April 6, 2011 that the City of Los Angeles is in the process of creating a new LAMC 42.15 ordinance based on the findings of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal in the Hunt v. City of L.A. case.

Since Deputy City Attny. Mark Brown stepped down, the city has hired a female attorney to take his place. She will be the architect of the new ordinance.

OCEAN FRONT WALK (VENICE BOARDWALK) TASK FORCE MEETINGS are usually held at 9:30 am on the first Wednesday of every month at James Beach restaurant on North Venice Blvd. between Pacific Avenue and Speedway.

VENICE BEACH OFW TASKFORCE MEETING 04/06/2011

Free speech activists display new boycott sign on Venice boardwalk phtograph courtesy of www.theartofritter.com

Venice Beach Boardwalk Coalition ~ Working to restore free speech at Venice Beach

Dear all,

It was called to the attention of the organizers that the earlier notice of proposed action down the Boardwalk was perhaps too vague. Therefore, this follow up message includes Sundays 2/20 and 2/27 as possible dates for carrying out this action. The suggested time remains 2pm.

If members have thoughts on other actions as well – either on the same day or for other occasions, we are open to suggestion.

One request: To be sure that our member address directory is correct, we ask that you send a reply stating you received this message.

And here is a bit of information that is of great significance to all of us concerned about the commercialization of the Boardwalk and the penchant of the city attorney’s office to craft legislation that does nothing to protect first amendment activity there:

1. A committee of 10 individuals inside city government, primarily from the City Attorney’s Office, the Department of Recreation and Parks and LAPD, have not yet met to discuss a possible response to Judge Pregerson’s decision granting a temporary injunction against the permit/lottery system. Last word was that they were considering asking for an extension.

2. The representatives from Recreation and Parks were pulled off this committee by the General Manager and told to stay out of the discussions. This effectively leaves decision making in the hands of Mark Brown, the Deputy City Attorney who crafted the ordinance (LAMC42.15), his assistants, and LAPD. There will be no public input.

3. We have just been informed by reliable sources that Mark Brown will be stepping down from his position, effective the end of this month. This event may provide us with a window of opportunity for realizing meaningful change, if we can get our voices heard in determining either his replacement and/or discussions of city officials with respect to future actions affecting the Boardwalk.

Thoughts, anyone????

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to hearing from you and meeting you in person..

VBBC ADMIN
–

http://vbbc.wordpress.com

Assistant City Attorney, Mark Brown, spoke with members of the Venice Boardwalk Ocean Front Walk Task Force meeting on Wednesday, November 10, 2010 about the injunction on the permit/lottery system, amplified sound and illegal vending in the Free Speech Zone on Venice Boardwalk.

You can laugh all you want at Matt Dowd and Zuma Dogg, otherwise known as David Saltsburg.

You can look down your nose at them. You can let them get under your skin and be annoyed by them.

But for the second time in recent years — with Dowd as their lawyer — they outsmarted all the lawyers and politicians in City Hall and won a federal court case against the City of Los Angeles.

On Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Dean Pregerson ruled that two key elements of the city’s oft-rewritten ordinance intended to crack down on the vendors and street performers at Venice Beach is unconstitutional on their face (Venice Beach.rtf).

A couple of years ago, Dowd won a $500,000 judgment against the city on behalf of himself and Michael Hunt over similar issues involving the city’s efforts to control the antics that make Venice Beach what it is.

It was this case that prompted Zuma Dogg and Dowd to become regulars in Public Comment at City Council meetings. The city keeps stalling on the humiliating act of paying them the money by appealing the case although a more recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in a Seattle case has weakened the city’s claims.

The core issue then, as now, was freedom of speech, the First Amendment. More

Please be advised that the U.S. importer of these insect and butterfly specimens must comply with import/export license, declaration and designated port requirements as described below.

Since the U.S. importer is importing these insect and butterfly specimens for commercial purposes, consistent with our definition of commercial, regulations contained in Title 50, of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 14.91, require that they must obtain an import/export license prior to engaging in business as an importer or exporter of wildlife or wildlife products.  The license is valid for one year from the date of issuance and costs $100.00.  In addition, as an import/export license holder, the U.S. importer must pay inspection fees for each wildlife shipment imported or exported under the license.  For information on inspection fees and how to calculate the inspection fees that the U.S. importer will be required to pay, they can visit our website at: http://www.fws.gov/le/AboutLE/2010InspectionFees.htm

Any wildlife shipment would be considered commercial if the shipment is being imported or exported ” related to the offering for sale or resale, purchase, trade, barter, or the actual or intended transfer in the pursuit of gain or profit, of any item of wildlife and includes the use of any wildlife article as an exhibit for the purpose of soliciting sales.”

The U.S. importer can view our complete definition of commercial at the following website: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=2a9652dc6b37e04aa0e7360c424f07e5&rgn=div8&view=text&node=50:1.0.1.2.8.1.7.4&idno=50

The U.S. importer can find the application for an import/export license on our website at the following address: http://www.fws.gov/forms/3_200_3.pdf

An import/export license only authorizes the importation or exportation of wildlife or wildlife products in general terms.  Please be advised that this license is in addition to, and not in place of, any other licenses or permits required for protected species of wildlife.

Generally speaking, exotic insects are not protected however, some species of butterflies are protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).  CITES is an international agreement between governments.  Its aim is to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival.  The species covered by CITES are listed in three appendices according to the degree of protection they need.  Appendix I includes species threatened with extinction.  Trade in specimens of these species is permitted only in exceptional circumstances.  Appendix II includes species not necessarily threatened with extinction, but for which trade must be controlled in order to avoid overutilization that may threaten them with extinction.  Appendix III contains species that are protected in at least one country, which has asked other CITES Party countries for assistance in controlling the trade in that species.

We recommend that the U.S. importer should check the CITES website at: http://www.cites.org to determine if any of the butterfly species that they wish to import are protected by CITES.  If so, they must obtain a valid CITES export permit issued by the CITES Management Authority in the country of export in order to import those butterfly species into the United States.  The U.S. importer can find contact information for CITES Management Authorities on the CITES website at: http://www.cites.org/cms/index.php/lang-en/component/ncd/

In addition, some butterflies are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  Under the ESA, it is unlawful to import, export, take, transport, sell, purchase, or receive in interstate or foreign commerce any species listed as endangered or threatened.  You can view the list of species protected under the ESA at: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=1d344c9c654a81857c26aebb5218d963&rgn=div8&view=text&node=50:2.0.1.1.1.2.1.1&idno=50

Whether or not these insect and butterfly specimens are protected by CITES or the ESA, as the U.S. importer prepares to import these insect and butterfly specimens into the United States, they must complete Form 3-177, Declaration for Importation or Exportation of Fish or Wildlife.  The U.S. importer can find this form on our website at the following address: http://www.fws.gov/le/ImpExp/faqs.htm

This form is not difficult to complete, although the U.S. importer must provide the scientific name for each species of insect and butterfly that they wish to import.

The U.S. importer should have this form completed and have it, any original required CITES export permit, a copy of their import/export license, and these insect and butterfly specimens available for inspection as they prepare to import them into the United States.

The U.S. importer must import these insect and butterfly specimens at a designated port.  The U.S. importer can find a list of designated ports and contact information for those ports on our website at the following address: http://www.fws.gov/le/ImpExp/Designated_Ports.htm We suggest that they contact in advance the port where they will be importing these insect and butterfly specimens in order to coordinate their clearance into the United States.

Thank you for your interest in our regulations that help protect fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats.  Please feel free to respond to this message with any further inquiries that you may have regarding this matter.

Is the sale of these specimens in the Free Speech Zone protected by the First Amendment?

These are questions that need to be answered especially in light of the international laws that govern this kind of thing.

Did you know International Laws govern the entire insect trade?

ARE THESE LEGAL AND DOES THIS VENDOR HAVE A PERMIT?

 

And, do you know if you import any insect dead or alive there are licensing requirements, complex import export regulations and mandatory inspections and declarations to file?

There are great penalties including prison for violators and yet, there is a black market. Some individuals and insect supply companies sell what they shouldn’t.

Call the US Fish and Wildlife Service with any concerns at (703) 358 1949. Visit their informative web site which is at  www.le.fws.gov/index.html.

Venice Free Speech activists have been fighting to restore the First Amendment in the Free Speech Zone (FSZ) on the west side of Venice Boardwalk since 2005 when the unconstitutional permit/lottery system was imposed on the FSZ by the City of L.A.

Now, because of that same permit/lottery system, illegal unconstitutional commercial vending proliferates in the FSZ, having totally squeezed out many of the true free speech advocates, like Jingles, who have a legitimate message to display.

Even the “black spot” NO VENDING spaces have been co-opted by commercial vendors and the City of L.A. does absolutely nothing about it!

SAVE FREE SPEECH @ VENICE BEACH!   http://www.spiritofvenice.net