Venice: Proposed Changes to Boardwalk Setup Draw Criticism

I am writing to express my opposition to three potential changes to the Venice boardwalk area.

First, I oppose straightening the bike path along the sand. As a tourist and visitor to Venice, I enjoy the charm of the winding path around the grassy areas. Also, I predict that the path would be more dangerous if straightened as people would be more inclined to speed.

Second, I oppose restricting performers to specific nook areas. Half of the charm is walking down the strand and “bumping” into different acts and performers. Making specific performance areas would sterilize the area; Venice is so much fun because of its informal nature.

Third, I oppose an overall redesigned boardwalk with new brickwork, etc. I love visiting Venice because it is not a trendy, Yuppie attraction. There’s already a Third Street Promenade--the area doesn’t need another one. I love to visit Venice because it is unique and has its own character.

As both a tourist and consumer I will be less inclined to visit Venice if the proposed changes occur. Sure, Venice merits upkeep, but don’t give it an entire face-lift. I visit Venice because of its quirky nature and not because it is organized and attractive. Don’t change Venice, please.

BRENDON McLOSKEY

Cupertino

In any change-related situation, special interests and community activists show up. While tiny in number, they purport to speak for the entire community--most members of which could care less.

An example of this occurred at the Venice Town Council meeting in June. The bulk of the meeting dealt with the plans for the Boardwalk. The Town Council had sent out a questionnaire regarding the expenditure of Proposition A funds for Ocean Front Walk. Of the 145 questionnaires that were sent out, 67 were returned. Only 20 people said they had participated in the Coastal Conservancy workshops regarding Ocean Front Walk. Also, only 20 people said they were familiar with the Pollard/King revitalization plan for the walk. And, only 22 of the respondents said they fully approve of the plan, while an almost equal number said they approve of the plan in concept only and wanted modifications.

There were 10 people at the meeting. Only four were on the board of directors and there are only 42 paid-up members of the organization. Yet, with this small number of people at the meeting, and an unimpressive number of questionnaire respondents in favor of the Pollard/King plan, Mark Ryavec, the director of the Venice Boardwalk Assn. and an outspoken proponent of the Pollard/King plan, tried to force an endorsement of the plan at the meeting. I brought up the question of whether or not there was a quorum to make such a policy decision. The chair of the meeting, to her credit, said it would be inappropriate to vote at that time.

What I find disturbing is that Mr. Ryavec, aware of the lack of representation at the meeting, tried very hard to push a vote for an endorsement. When I asked him why he wanted to do this, he remained silent.

So, who speaks for Venice? Mark Ryavec desperately wants people to think that he and the various organizations he works with do. But it just ain’t so.

A close examination of the membership lists of the various organizations that Mr. Ryavec says support the Pollard/King plan, which Mr. Ryavec claims to have authored, reveals numerous duplicate names--i.e., people in one organization who are also in other organizations. A neat way to orchestrate what appears, on the surface, to be a great amount of support.

The people opposing the plan have shown up in large numbers at public meetings and argued against the plan. Do they speak for Venice? I don’t know. All I can say is that it is obvious that there are a lot of people opposed to the plan.

The point is that supporters of the Pollard/King plan should stop crying foul and admit that they represent the community no more than their opponents. Then, let the discussion continue without self-righteousness and with a bit more candor.

GARY WALLACH

Friends of the Venice Boardwalk