Posted on

Comment suggestions for CC housing providers for the next two weeks

While Protect Culver City is mobilizing to support Measure B, multifamily owners still need to push back HARD on the permanent rent control ordinance, which is taking shape in an extremely punishing form.  Looks like it will be even tougher than the Interim Rent Control Ordinance. Heaven forbid we get stuck with it!

Plan on commenting about specific features that will be difficult for you in open comments Monday, Sept. 14 during Items Not on the Agenda and then at the special meeting for the permanent ordinance Monday, Sept. 21.  The WebEx verbal comments seem to be more effective than written comments and vividly demonstrate the extent to which the legitimate concerns of housing providers are not being considered.

Culver City Meetings and Agendas are here.

To speak at the meeting by internet, register before the meeting starts here. You will receive a link by email link to join. To speak after the meeting starts, send an email to city.clerk@culvercity.org.

To speak at the meeting by phone, contact the City Clerk’s Office at city.clerk@culvercity.org or (310) 253-5851. Provide your name, phone number and the Agenda Item about which you wish to speak so that they can find you and allow you to talk. To submit written eComments to the 9/14 City Council meeting, click here. Click on eComment. You will be instructed to register if you haven’t registered for written comments before. eComments close at 4:00pm.

We are now past the point where there’s value in highlighting philosophical differences (the council doesn’t care whether you think they’re socialist) or describing how gentle our rent increases have been in the past.  In fact, past testimony about gentle increases are being cited as justification for the penury caps now under consideration.

The two biggest pain points so far are 1) the projected caps, which sound like they will be limited to regional CPI and nothing else, and 2) the potential vesting period for tenant protections, which are poised to be limited to six months instead of a year (for the original tenant) and two years (for every adult added to the unit in the first year) as under AB1482.  You would only have time to address one issue or the other.  You could do so by answering these sets of questions: 

CPI: Would your building pencil out if you were only able to raise your rents at the rate of the regional CPI. Feel free to double check my calculations, but the annual average over the past decade appears to only be 2.14%*

https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/data/consumerpriceindex_losangeles_table.pdf

 https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/data/cpi_tables.pdf

What is the actual rate at which your operating expenses are increasing?  Undoubtedly, they are increasing at a much faster pace.  Put a pencil to paper and compute your delta.  Let the council know whether this formula for a rent cap is going to allow you to earn your fair rate of return (as calculated by maintenance of net operating income – i.e. preserve your pre-rent control NOI plus inflation).  If only being able to raise your rents at the rate of the regional CPI isn’t going to keep you in business, demand that the city include a guaranteed minimum cap increase in addition to CPI.  The city of Los Angeles, the county of Los Angeles and statewide rent control provide such guardrails against low inflation, and we should have them, too!  Such a guaranteed floor is not a guarantee that housing providers would charge the minimum but that we would have the flexibility to do so when needed.  

  • Vesting: Housing providers have advocated for a 12-month vesting period for tenant protections for incoming tenants — as in AB1482.  The idea was to make sure that a new leasee isn’t a problem tenant before becoming eligible for eviction protections and relocation fees, which infinitely complicate their removal. The council appears intent on only allowing a six-month vesting period.  They argue that a longer period would encourage housing providers to evict in order to chase a higher rent with a new tenant.  Does your rental market shoot up that rapidly?  Aren’t your listing and turn-over costs so high that they would never allow you to evict a new tenant except if his behavior were so egregious that it threatened your good tenants?  Alternatively, would a six-month vesting period provide enough of an incentive for you to consider renting to more risky tenants – those with marginal financials, a history of nuisance in prior rentals or perhaps a criminal background? Further, would six months be enough time for you to fairly determine whether an incoming tenant is proving to be a nuisance for the rest of your building. If not, speak up! 

If the above are not your issues, here are other growing areas of concern:

  • Program Costs: Anticipated program costs, which were already suspiciously low when compared to neighboring jurisdictions, appear to be dramatically increasing.  Already, industry experts have warned that the city’s estimates were one-half or one-fourth of those in neighboring jurisdictions. But the council majority has been piling on features, including rental registry updates at every possible interval, elaborate inspection regimes and multiple types of hearings.   Demand that the city provide a new, accurate calculation of the program’s anticipated cost.  It’s bad enough that the city is considering adding a new program when the pandemic has exacerbated the city government’s fiscal woes and deprived many housing providers of collections when they have no relief for their costs.  But to do so without a true accounting does not make sense.  This is no time to write a blank check for a program when rents are falling and ample tenant protections are already in place due to state and federal eviction moratoriums and statewide rent control.
  • Limited Pass-Throughs: Do you have the ability to pack a whole lot of costs onto your base rent following your next vacancy?  The council majority thinks you do.  They are only willing to have existing tenants pick up 50% of the program’s fee – and that for a limited group of mom-and-pop providers.  For tenants who move in after rent control is in place, fees on owners will be responsible for the program’s entire cost (except when there are deficits, which the city has to swallow).  Further, very few pass throughs would be allowed for improvements.  The council expects you to be able to tack those costs onto incoming tenants at your next vacancy.  Is the sky the limit on what you can charge new tenants?  Don’t market forces, especially during economic downturns like the one we’re going through, put strong limits on your starting rents? 

Do you foresee having to recover your unit for substantial renovation?  Listen carefully to council deliberations video  on Aug. 17 around this particular issue (roughly 2:25:49 to 2:44:05).  The council majority is leaning toward the City of Los Angeles’s set of regulations, which are highly restrictive.   

*Corrected CPI from 1.81% to 2.14%

Posted on

Meeting “Homeless Czar” Helen Chin

On Thursday, August 27, a couple of us got on a phone call with Helen Chin, assistant to the city manager on homelessness.  A lot of people wonder why we need this “homeless czar” but the answer is relatively simple.  Recent court decisions have made it very difficult to enforce vagrancy and camping laws, and activists have made sure cities abide by those laws.  This issue came to our city last July, when we changed our own city policy to match Los Angeles policy under the 405. 

What was once a very simple affair is now a nearly impossible task.  If someone sleeps on our streets, and they don’t want to move, we can’t make them. 

There are guidelines our city can meet, and things we can do to nudge people off the streets and get them into shelters or programs.  It is now a complicated process involving coordination among several departments – police, code enforcement, mental health, and a couple others.  Ms. Chin’s job is to act as central point for all these departments in dealing with transients on our streets. 

A recent federal court ruling has given us a ray of hope – a judge ordered that freeway underpasses in LA County be cleared from transient camps.  The ruling itself is actually far more complicated than it sounds, but we found it worth discussing with Ms. Chin.  We had some good takeaways from the discussion.

First, we expressed our frustration that we repeatedly talk about the crime aspect of this – it’s the crime and the public safety aspect of this that we’re concerned with.  When we bring this up, we are accused of “criminalizing homelessness.”  We told Helen about our own policy that those sleeping on our streets need to follow the same rules they would at a shelter.  If they don’t follow those rules – if they commit any crimes – we call the police.

We came to a mutual understanding on that.

We then discussed the issue of beds.  Part of the lawsuit in question was an agreement to reduce the number of beds needed before a city could enforce its camping/vagrancy laws.  Where it was previously held to an odd standard of one bed per every homeless counted in a city (nevermind how many are in use), this judge lowered the standard to 60%.  He also said that cities didn’t have to house homeless within city limits. Other cities are pooling resources to build shelters away from their residents.

Chin then talked about Culver City’s discussions with the county on homelessness.  We also shared the understanding that this “beds vs homeless” calculus was a strange unsolvable metric.  If we build more beds, more will come in.  That sounds obvious, but our brain trust at the homelessness committee have proposed taking $7 million out of the police budget and giving every one of our 300 homeless a two bedroom apartment.  As if once we do this, the problem would be solved. It’s good to know our city staff isn’t agreeing with that.

Chin even mentioned that a lot of our native homeless population – a more benign elderly type – have been chased out by a younger more aggressive crowd.  This supports our observation that we really have a criminal vagrancy issue, and not just locals driven out by rising housing costs.  This experience has been corroborated in other cities. But again, not a position taken over by our homelessness committee or Culver City’s Housing Administrator.

The big takeaway from this meeting is that homelessness is a county issue.  The county is in the business of mental health and homelessness.  Our city, ultimately, is not.  We don’t have to build shelters in the middle of our city, we don’t have to divert half our budget to shelters at Veteran’s Park if we are to keep our streets and parks clean.

Finally, we discussed the underpasses themselves.  We shared stories about the people who’ve taken residence under there.  The city does do sweeps of the south side of Venice/405 every Wednesday.  The city invited a couple of us to join them, and we’ve enthusiastically accepted their invitation. 

We want to know who’s under there and what’s going on.  We ask that anyone who goes on the sweeps to take notes and bring us a report.

Posted on

We avoided the worst – what to expect next

Council voted 3-2 against Culver City Action Network’s initial proposal to defund our $45 million police budget by nearly $8 million at their June 15th meeting. The vote break down was Eriksson, Fisch and Small against the cuts, and Sahli-Wells and Lee for the cuts. The cuts they proposed instead were minor – about $400,000. Such cuts showed both a respect for our police and an understanding for our Covid-related budget shortfall.

Now, CCAN has decided to double down. They are demanding at least a 50% reduction in CCPD’s police budget within three months.

The question now is whether Fisch and Small voted against the cuts because they genuinely support CCPD, or simply because the initial proposed cuts were too hasty.

Indeed, such cuts were hasty on an insane level. This initial budget cut would have been ratified at the June 22nd meeting, and implemented July 1st – leading to massive and immediate layoffs in our police department. And no real plan of implementation.

Rather than implement these immediate cuts at their 22nd meeting, council voted to create a “task force” which would would “reimagine public safety.” It is fortunately composed of city staff only, keeping it relatively isolated from political activists. But it will be working with the Police Chief’s Advisory Panel – a newly formed body of about 20 residents and students, which is still nebulous in its nature and mission. Considering what we heard from students at meetings on the 15th and 22nd, this should concern us. They were the primary voice behind defunding the police, and seemed organized by our own school board.

Fisch and Small have repeatedly paid homage to CCAN in the past and have aligned themselves with it. Meanwhile, Eriksson was the only councilmember who publicly defended CCPD after the riots and subsequent attacks on CCPD’s reputation. Which leaves us concerned that their rejection of the initial proposal was only so they can provide clear legal cover for even deeper, more permanent cuts in the next few months.

This is why our campaign is not just going strong, but is now more urgent than ever. We bought ourselves until September to rally the residents of Culver City to this cause. We need to inform each other of these proposed cuts, and how dangerously close we are to losing our police department. We must confront the lies and smears about our police, which serve the sole purpose of undermining or abolishing it. And we must show our council we want to keep CCPD as is, are organized, and will do what it takes to keep it.

A 3-2 vote against gutting our police overnight was way too close for comfort. We must remind our council that it’s not just the “overnight” part we oppose.

Posted on

June 22nd council meeting and CCPD: what to expect

Culver City council meeting Monday the 22nd will be approving the 2020/21 budget (Item PH-1) and establishing “a Task Force to Review Public Safety Services” (Item A-2).

We have assurances from 3 out of 5 councilmembers that no cuts to Culver City Police Department will be made that will result in any layoffs. CCPD is freezing new hiring and that’s it. That’s not stopping a fringe group organized by councilmembers Lee and Sahli-Wells from pushing a radical demand to defund CCPD by 50% in three months. As we’ve said before, the intent of such cuts is to abolish CCPD entirely, leaving our city at the mercy of the county Sheriff. They’ve referred to this in their demand note.

Defend CCPD Yard Sign
Get your “Defend CCPD” yard sign! Contact us for details.

We knew that getting council to forego gutting CCPD’s budget tomorrow would, at best, buy us some time. That’s why our “Defend Don’t Defund” campaign is still going strong. We recommend everyone get a yard sign, and distribute flyers to their neighbors about what’s at stake. People should also join the council Webex meeting tomorrow and “raise their hand” to speak.

We know online meetings are difficult to navigate. You can also file an eComment (read the tutorial here) or just e-mail comments to public.comment@culvercity.org. But speaking at council is the best way to make yourself heard. Supporters of defunding CCPD are a small minority, but they are loud, well organized, and connected to councilmembers. They will try to get in line first to speak, and pretend they’re the dominant voice.

Here’s how you can speak tomorrow:

  1. Register for tomorrow’s meeting online at this link.
  2. Once you have registered, you will be emailed a link.  Check email and confirm your account.
  3. The DAY OF the meeting (Monday 6/22) you will receive an email allowing you to “Join Event”.  Follow that link and it will forward you to Webex.  You will have a box on your screen to write “I (state your name) request to speak on Agenda Item (PH-1 for budget, A-2 for police task force).
  4. You will be set up and on mute, until they are ready for you to speak, and they will unmute you.  

If this sounds confusing, it is. We still need more details and confirmation on this – like when we are clear to join the meeting. Our goal is to make sure they don’t monopolize the first part of the meeting.

Some talking points to make when you speak:

  1. Thank council for promising us to be able to debate on this issue before they make any profound changes to our police department. We hope they follow through on this promise today.
  2. Our police department heroically saved this city May 30-31. Cutting the police budget would leave them unable to do exactly what they did that weekend.
  3. We passed Measure CC (extending the half-cent sales tax increase) in March overwhelmingly, because council invoked our police department and our need to preserve it. To turn around and gut it now, would mean they lied about why they needed this tax increase.
  4. Our police department enjoys a 78% approval rating. Council, on the other hand, has a 47% approval rating. Council’s rating has dropped precipitously since this time last year.
  5. We are barely keeping up with these “defund the police” plans that are unagendized and unannounced to Culver City residents. We hope these next three months will involve a legitimate discussion and not just legal cover before council goes along with this tiny minority.

Posted on

Defend Don’t Defund – our initial posts

Update June 16: Council majority said CCPD will not see layoffs.
CLICK HERE for a recording of last night’s meeting. Despite a loud, organized minority, sanity prevailed.
Council will approve any changes into budget in their June 22nd meeting, which will become effective July 1st. Join our mailing list for updates on that. We want to be hopeful but cautious that the final budget will not affect CCPD on any fundamental level.

Update June 14th: Council will be meeting June 15th at 7pm to discuss defunding CCPD by ~20%.
Opt-in to SMS updates by texting “PD” to (424) 532-8490
Three ways to get involved in order of effectiveness:

  1. Register for the Webex meeting and speak online at the meeting
  2. Register to post an eComment online
  3. Email comments to public.comment@culvercity.org and CC city.clerk@culvercity.org

The agenda for Monday’s council meeting came came online Friday afternoon – barely the 72 hours advance notice legally required.  Then came last night’s unsigned demand letter by Culver City Action Network demanding a $7.65 million cut out of a $45 million police budget.  We believe this letter represents council’s intentions for tomorrow night.  This gives us just about a day to prepare for something they’ve likely been planning for a couple weeks now.
That we’re relegated to online council meetings, where only the internet savvy can participate, doesn’t help.  
CCPD has heroically protected our city from the looting and destruction on May 30th and 31st.  Now it’s our turn to protect them.  Please fill out a comment about how you feel about them.  Go to protectculvercity.org/ccpd for more information, or you can go with these talking points:

  1. We did not have enough time to prepare for such a consequential decision for our city.  Council needs to reschedule this discussion.
  2. The “reforms” CCAN is asking of CCPD have largely already been enacted.  Culver City Police Officer’s Association mentions this and many more of their current policies which are already compliant with current concerns.
  3. Gutting the police budget by 20% will leave them unable to do exactly what they did to protect our city May 30th/31st.
  4. The end goal of this is not a more equitable police but the city’s escape from the public safety business.  Doing this will leave our public safety at the mercy of the Sheriff’s department – making us little different from an unchartered city.

June 9, 2020

On the weekend of May 30th and 31st, riots and looters hit a number of neighborhoods throughout Los Angeles.  We all witnessed the looting of 3rd St. Promenade and, Melrose and Beverly Blvds, and Long Beach.  Even Rodeo Drive wasn’t spared the mob. 

Culver City remained conspicuously pristine. Aside from a few scattered spots, our major centers remained untouched: Fox Hills Mall , Downtown Culver City, Culver Center on Washington and Overland, Costco.

This wasn’t an accident or routine task.  Culver City PD did a heroic job protecting all these spots from looters.  Looters came in caravans, alerted by social media, in coordinated campaigns.  Our police force were proactive and ready for them.  They monitored social media, set up barricades at key entrances, and anyone stepping foot in key hotspots was quickly swarmed and escorted off. 

For this heroic feat, our council will debate cutting the police department’s budget on June 15nd by a third.  If council goes through with these budget cuts, they could take effect as soon as July 1st.  Effectively rewarding our police department’s heroics with pink slips, leaving it unable to continue to do exactly what they did. 

Our current council, led by councilmember Meghan Sahli-Wells and her “Gang of Four” – vice-mayor Alex Fisch, and councilmembers Thomas Small and Daniel Lee, is leading the charge.  They are jumping on the “Defund the Police” mantra which emerged after the death of George Floyd.  Defunding is exactly what it means – no longer paying for police.  A third of the budget could be gone as soon as July 1st, and the rest of the budget gone soon after. 

We’d like to think we’re over-reacting. Unfortunately, when our councilmembers are jumping on this issue the way they have been, we have to take them seriously that they will act on it. With disastrous results.

CLICK HERE for the full thread of her tweets.

Their rationale is police are a throwback to a slavecatcher past and rooted in racism.  In fact, any use of force is racist.  Such rationales are laughable.  We literally have a pristine Fox Hills Mall to contradict them.  But as we’ve learned these past two years, current council is blind to reality and deaf to residents. 

  As of this posting on June 10th 2020, our city is still largely boarded up because of the looting and riots.  But boards alone don’t protect our businesses.  The ability to use force against those who would do us harm, in a civilized fashion, is that thin blue line that keeps our city from ruin.

Culver City’s Police Officer’s Association has released a statement about this, and we highly suggest people read it. They are fighting back, but they can’t fight this alone. As our police department defends us, we must return the favor and defend our police department. 

Former mayor Andy Weissman (unrelated to our PAC) weighs in on the situation. CLICK HERE for the full-res PDF.

The criticisms levied on our police department since the death of George Floyd have been nothing more than smears, fairy tales that hearken to a bygone era of redlining and sunset town clauses that date back to the 60s, if not the 20s.  Today’s CCPD is the most diverse is ever been: sworn personnel makeup is 39% White, 38% Hispanic, 10% Black, 6% Asian, 4% Pacific Islander, and 3% Middle Eastern.  Actual complaints about racist treatment are nil, unjust killings are nil.  Meanwhile, our elite police department delivers a level of safety that brings people to our city in droves – to live, shop or work.  People of all walks of life, of all races and ethnicities.

Even if we do drive these points home, our council has proven itself to be an unbreakable Gang of Four that votes lockstep.  Here’s our analysis of those four:

Meghan Sahli-Wells and Daniel Lee are both hooked on fairy tales that our city can continue without a proper police force. When they say “defund the police” we need to take them both seriously.

Thomas Small makes overtures to our police department.  But he makes overtures to a lot of people.  In the end, he goes along with Sahli-Wells.  He’s also up for re-election in November. 

Alex Fisch – makes pretensions to be centrist and rational, but consistently sides with councilmember Sahli-Wells.  Barring a recall effort, he’s in office until November 2022. 

The one dissenting voice in our current council is mayor Goran Eriksson. He has steadfastly defended our police department against smears on their reputation.

The Black Lives Matter people sprang into action after the death of George Floyd, taking to the streets to demand defunding or abolishing the police.  We can no longer dismiss such protests, or their disastrous consequences for our city.  If we are to preserve our own police department, and our city itself, we need to mobilize ourselves. 

We hope you will leave a comment at the June 22nd council meeting defending our police.  To get more involved, please reach out to us on our contact page.



Posted on

Council to defund CCPD? After the riots?

On the weekend of May 30th and 31st, riots and looters hit a number of neighborhoods throughout Los Angeles.  We all witnessed the looting of 3rd St. Promenade and, Melrose and Beverly Blvds, and Long Beach.  Even Rodeo Drive wasn’t spared the mob.  Culver City remained conspicuously pristine. Aside from a few scattered spots, our major centers remained untouched: Fox Hills Mall , Downtown Culver City, Culver Center on Washington and Overland, Costco.

This wasn’t an accident or routine task.  Culver City PD did a heroic job protecting all these spots from looters.  Looters came in caravans, alerted by social media, in coordinated campaigns.  Our police force were proactive and ready for them.  They monitored social media, set up barricades at key entrances, and anyone stepping foot in key hotspots was quickly swarmed and escorted off. 

For this heroic feat, our council will debate cutting the police department’s budget on June 15nd by a third.  If council goes through with these budget cuts, they could take effect as soon as July 1st.  Effectively rewarding our police department’s heroics with pink slips, leaving it unable to continue to do exactly what they did. 

Our current council, led by councilmember Meghan Sahli-Wells and her “Gang of Four” – vice-mayor Alex Fisch, and councilmembers Thomas Small and Daniel Lee, is leading the charge.  They are jumping on the “Defund the Police” mantra which emerged after the death of George Floyd.  Defunding is exactly what it means – no longer paying for police.  A third of the budget could be gone as soon as July 1st, and the rest of the budget gone soon after. 

We’d like to think we’re over-reacting. Unfortunately, when our councilmembers are jumping on this issue the way they have been, we have to take them seriously that they will act on it. With disastrous results.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image.png
CLICK HERE for the full thread of her tweets.

Their rationale is police are a throwback to a slavecatcher past and rooted in racism.  In fact, any use of force is racist.  Such rationales are laughable.  We literally have a pristine Fox Hills Mall to contradict them.  But as we’ve learned these past two years, current council is blind to reality and deaf to residents. 

  As of this posting on June 10th 2020, our city is still largely boarded up because of the looting and riots.  But boards alone don’t protect our businesses.  The ability to use force against those who would do us harm, in a civilized fashion, is that thin blue line that keeps our city from ruin.

Culver City’s Police Officer’s Association has released a statement about this, and we highly suggest people read it. They are fighting back, but they can’t fight this alone. As our police department defends us, we must return the favor and defend our police department. 

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is AndyWeissmanLetter-791x1024.jpg
Former mayor Andy Weissman (unrelated to our PAC) weighs in on the situation. CLICK HERE for the full-res PDF.

The criticisms levied on our police department since the death of George Floyd have been nothing more than smears, fairy tales that hearken to a bygone era of redlining and sunset town clauses that date back to the 60s, if not the 20s.  Today’s CCPD is the most diverse is ever been: sworn personnel makeup is 39% White, 38% Hispanic, 10% Black, 6% Asian, 4% Pacific Islander, and 3% Middle Eastern.  Actual complaints about racist treatment are nil, unjust killings are nil.  Meanwhile, our elite police department delivers a level of safety that brings people to our city in droves – to live, shop or work.  People of all walks of life, of all races and ethnicities.

Even if we do drive these points home, our council has proven itself to be an unbreakable Gang of Four that votes lockstep.  Here’s our analysis of those four:

Meghan Sahli-Wells and Daniel Lee are both hooked on fairy tales that our city can continue without a proper police force. When they say “defund the police” we need to take them both seriously.

Thomas Small makes overtures to our police department.  But he makes overtures to a lot of people.  In the end, he goes along with Sahli-Wells.  He’s also up for re-election in November. 

Alex Fisch – makes pretensions to be centrist and rational, but consistently sides with councilmember Sahli-Wells.  Barring a recall effort, he’s in office until November 2022. 

The one dissenting voice in our current council is mayor Goran Eriksson. He has steadfastly defended our police department against smears on their reputation.

The Black Lives Matter people sprang into action after the death of George Floyd, taking to the streets to demand defunding or abolishing the police.  We can no longer dismiss such protests, or their disastrous consequences for our city.  If we are to preserve our own police department, and our city itself, we need to mobilize ourselves. 

We hope you will leave a comment at the June 22nd council meeting defending our police.  To get more involved, please reach out to us on our contact page.

Posted on

City Leaders Speak Out Against Defunding CCPD

Our PAC wasn’t the only one to take calls to defund Culver City’s Police Department seriously. A number of ex-mayors, ex-councilmembers, and other city leaders have stepped forward to give their statements in support of our elite police department. These citizens have no relationship to our PAC. We are just happy to see others are stepping forward with similar concerns. Here they are as follows:

Andy Weissman
Jim Clarke
Jozelle Smith
David Voncannon
Ed Wolkowitz
Jeff Cooper
Marcus Tiggs
Posted on

May 12 Neighborhood Watch meeting recap

The 405 project continues.  On Tuesday, May 12th, we held a Webex meeting to further discuss a Neighborhood Watch around the Venice/405 and other 405 underpasses in Culver City.  Former mayor Richard Marcus (1999-2000) was our featured speaker.  He discussed his experience building a Neighborhood Watch around Sunkist Park back in the 90s.  We then looked compared his experiences with our challenges, and what we could learn from him.  We were surprised at how little things change.

Richard talked about the issues in the 90s.  Gangs, drug dealing, dogs defecating in a park where children play.  The breaking point came when people’s cars were being stolen or vandalized in their own driveways, and burglars who tied a homeowner to a chair while they helped themselves to her belongings and food.  Richard realized if he didn’t do something, he’d be next.

Richard started complaining to the police, then realized they don’t know who he is or whether he’s on their side.  They explained the concept of a Neighborhood Watch, and that if he could get eight people together, they’d come and talk to him and his neighbors.  The idea of talking to his neighbors was a foreign concept, but Richard went ahead anyway.  That first meeting, he was hoping for his eight people.  65 people wound up showing up.  That’s how bad things were.

He mentioned three pillars a proper Neighborhood Watch relies on – which definitely chimes with our own experience:

  1. Taking responsibility for our own safety and security.  There’s only so much the police can help us without our support.  We need to take control of our own neighborhood and realize we are the final public safety program.
  2. Active awareness.  We can’t take responsibility for our neighborhood if we’re not aware of it.  A few of us have already started “walking a beat.”  In our current situation, we want to expand this concept and have a full knowledge of everything happening at our underpasses.  The Venice/405 underpass has gotten bad enough where it will be risky, but we have ideas on how to go about it.
  3. Effective communication with police – this was the most important and tough concept to swallow, especially in difficult times like these.  It’s easy for people to get frustrated, and either say police are part of the problem, or worse: take matters into their own hands. 
    Richard really made a strong point here.  Until we have a real relationship with CCPD, they don’t know if we’re part of the problem or the solution.  We need to show we’re on their side.  We need to build a relationship, so that when we call, they know we’re not just some crank, and will take the call seriously.  The more they got to know us, the more likely they are to investigate. 
    A big concept here is “Probable Cause.”  If police go into an area alone, they really don’t have much authority to question people.  Especially in this climate were police are not allowed to “harass” people or “criminalize homelessness.”  But if someone calls in suspicious activity, especially if they’re tied to a reliable Neighborhood Watch, this is their golden ticket to investigate.

A big point he made was to address the crime, not the people.  We’ve already noticed this in our own calls.  If you call in someone sleeping on the sidewalk, the first thing CCPD will ask is “do they look high?  Do they have any weapons?”  They’re looking for signs of criminal activity.  Again, much as some people would like, the police have no authority to stop and question someone for living on the street and “experiencing homelessness.” 

Richard had the same issue with gangs in Sunkist Park in the 90s.  You can’t arrest someone for being in a gang, or hanging around in a park.  Even if you know they’re up to no good, that’s not enough for police to come and do something.  But you can let them know they’re on notice, and the locals are watching and reporting. 

The police do want to help. They just need the authority to act first.  “Yes, the police are on a leash, but they’re still dogs” Richard said to audible laughter.  Again, if we call in suspicious criminal activity, the police will come, and they will have authority to act on it.  Even under the current legal revolving door, when open drug use and other criminal activity gets you in and out of jail in a couple hours.  You still ruined someone’s high for the day. If they know they can’t get high or cause mischief around your block, they’ll go find another spot. 

That makes deterrence the primary goal of a Neighborhood Watch.  Richard mentioned the “Oh Crap” signs they posted around their neighborhood: “If I don’t call you, my neighbor will.”  Someone up to no good sees the sign, and is officially on notice.  Especially once the word gets out that these signs are backed up by residents.

Building the Neighborhood Watch took work, but was not too complicated and is relatively easy to replicate: make flyers about the next meeting, and hand them out around the neighborhood.  Eventually they got to the point where people came up to Richard, upset that they never got a flyer.  Those people “self-identify themselves as volunteers.”  They would get 30 flyers of their own and instructions to hand them around their block.  This is how the watch grew.  For money, they fundraised by selling their “Oh Crap” signs to neighbors.

We learned last night that while we’re in a new situation with the Venice/405 camp, the basic principles haven’t changed.  If we’re vigilant, we can keep control of our neighborhood.  But we need to be disciplined and productive.  We need to go from frustrated individuals to an organization that the police can trust. That’s when we can get our way.

Ultimately, Richard’s Neighborhood Watch was a victim of its own success.  As Sunkist Park got safer, residents got complacent and dropped out.  Meanwhile, people with political agendas found a captive audience to push their politics. 

But there’s no reason we can’t do what Richard and his neighbors did 20 years ago. 

Posted on

Covid Council Commenting Conventions

Because of the Covid crisis, council has been accepting online comments only.  You’ll now need to set up an account on the Culver City website and post your comments that away.
We’ve included a tutorial to help you get started.


In order to better moderate comments, the city has routed all comments through the city website.  If you send an e-mail to public.comment@culvercity.org, you’ll get a reply saying you need to go to www.culvercity.org/agendas instead, and post your comment there.  Here’s some basic instructions:

  1. Find the meeting you want to comment on by navigating to the Culver City council meetings page through culvercity.org.  If it accepts comments, you’ll see an eComment link on the right side, as the diagram above shows.
  2. Click that link, and it’ll take you to the meeting.  Find the agenda item you want to comment on.  Most agendas have multiple webpages – you’ll have to navigate using the navigation bars at the bottom.
  3. Once there, enter your comment in the field provided.  You’ll then get the option to create an account or link to your Facebook.  I like to create a separate account.
  4. Once you’ve set up the account, it will send an e-mail to the address you provided, asking to verify your account.  Do that. 
  5. If your account was verified properly, you’ll see your own comment when you go back to the agenda item.  I encountered an error when I verified my address.  But I was able to login with my account, re-enter my comment, and I was good to go.

The account setup is a one time process.  The advantage of this is, if you set up a bio, people will get to know your better and who you are.  This way we see who is a stakeholder in this city.
Remember to get your comments in before 4pm – though it sounds like with this process, you can enter them even during the meeting.  Any questions, feel free to reply to this e-mail.  Or check out the city’s how-to Youtube.

Posted on

Introducing the 405 project

It started with a contentious LA Times article about Los Angeles officials accusing Culver City of dumping their homeless into Los Angeles. Now the 405 underpasses in Culver City are filling up with vagrants setting up permanent residence.

Council claims that there is no change in policy, but the unwritten policy is obvious – our streets and parks are open for anyone who would call them home. The effects are immediate and obvious. Local residents and businesses are furious and desperate. Add recent laws like Prop 47, and many crimes now also go unresolved. It seems we have no meaningful way to stop this.

We have decided to step in and figure out what we can do. We held a meeting with city officials at CCPD HQ. We also went to the homelessness committee meeting last month. We learned that if someone decides to set up residence on our streets and in our parks, the city will do nothing to stop them. But if they break any of our ordinances, we have every right to call it in.

That’s what we’re doing. This page will serve as a repository for all our experience with those who would treat our streets as a permanent residence, and how they terrorize local residents and businesses. We will follow up with our police and with our council. Our ultimate aim is to make our streets safe and parks safe again. Our ultimate sympathy is with besieged residents, who feel helpless to stop this.

This project will focus on the 405 underpasses and surrounding areas, like Tellefson Park and Veteran’s Park. Because that’s the canary in the coal mine. If we let these areas be overrun with transients, it’s only a matter of time before our entire community is overrun.