Easily one of the stupidest things I've ever witnessed here in Atwater, and that's saying something.

I've posted pictures and video, all shot yesterday, at my L.A. River blog --
naturetrumps.wordpress.com

We need to stop this, now.

really bad news. what should we do?

1) Contact O'Farrell at Garcetti office and tell him it needs to stop.
2) Contact any members of the press or media and alert them to what's going on.
3) Get in the way.

Thanks for the pics / video Jaybabcock however I don't share your view that trimming the vegetation on those river islands is a bad thing. On the contrary, I’m glad to see that the City or whatever agency doing it is maintaining our river. Also, that over grown vegetation gives cover for a lot of the illicit activity on the river.

I for one will be writing Council District 13 to commend the good work they are doing and I encourage others to do the same!

Luis,

Clearing the Arundo (although useless because it will grow back) is understandable.What about cutting down the cottonwood trees? Do you commend that?

Is sounds like the city is destroying our river, not maintaining it.

perfect...cut down much needed trees that soak up carbon monoxide from the 5 interstate (brillant) and make less area for homeless poeple to put a sleeping bag down. Let's go ahead and pave it over while we're at it and stop all this pesky water from flowing by. That is a terrible waste of resources esp at a time w/record deficit.

Luis,

Glad to see your knee is still jerking.

Point of fact: That vegetation is not overgrown.

Moving forward: We're looking into lawbreaking going on here as some of those trees may be violating the city's tree protection ordinance, and it appears that they may need a DFG Streambank Alteration permit, which I very much doubt they have.

Sorry. Meant to say:

Moving forward: We're looking into lawbreaking going on here as some of those trees may fall under the city's tree protection ordinance. It also appears that they may need a DFG Streambank Alteration permit, which I very much doubt they have.

I've been told that the workers are also almost certainly disturbing the native birds nesting on the River's islands -- this is nesting season, after all.

This whole thing is just so stupid.

Jay did you email Mitch and get a response? I did.

FYI Mitch and a botanist from the Army Corps. of Engineers walked the islands a couple weeks ago and the botanist marked the Arundo and some other vegetation for removal so that when they come back shortly to remove the Arundo root systems they can minimize the intrusion. The money is coming from a grant.

He also said they looked for birds nests and other signs of wildlife at that time to make sure they would not disturb anything.

MANY people at the recent Legion Lane park proposal complained the city has failed to maintain and protect the river for years. This is an effort to do just that. And while I share your concerns about disturbing the wildlife and native plant species along and in the river, I am putting my trust in Mitch and the city to remove the invasive plant species with as little intrusion as possible. It certainly is shocking to see your videos and pictures, but it might be a case of things have to get worse before they get better. In the long term removing the Arundo, roots and all, will benefit all the native plant species.

I am concerned about the piles of debris left over, and hope it can be dealt with at the FOLAR River clean up. Otherwise you can ask the neighborhood council to look into it.

I have met Mitch now a few times and find him to be a very nice person with two duties to balance - protecting/restoring the river and working to keep the people that live near it safe. It's not an easy equilibrium to maintain and at times not everything the city does will be appreciated or approved of by everyone. But I don't think calling him stupid and an idiot is productive or going to solve any problems. From my experience Mitch is a very reasonable guy and if you were to reach out to him in a civil and respectful tone you would probably get much further in having your ideas heard and responded to. Let him know that if there is more clearing to occur you or someone from FOLAR would like to attend the initial walk-through so that you can make sure there is transparency in what goes on. Being pro-active and participating in the process before it happens will make you feel much better than complaining after the fact.

It is not an isolated post invasion complaint. The city/mitch o'farrell/army corp of ingenious are all noticeably more active on the Glendale Narrows. It is important that increased attention is measured and contributes to the long term health of our section of river. Cutting down protected trees and disturbing newly resident wildlife is bona fide meddling. What grant is funding this "clean up?"

Tim Warner,
thanks for digging a little deeper- It puts the event into context.

I still have a problem with a Botanist from the Army Corps. making decisions without others involved. A river authority would bring clarity to actions taken regarding the river. Members of FOLAR and the community meeting with the Army Corps. is a good start.

The clean-up is Saturday. Anyone willing to meet up and focus on removing the debris?

Tim - I emailed Mitch and got no reply. Also, I did not call him names. Re-read what I wrote.

There should be an open date with regards to the arundo and how to deal with it. There is first of all an open question as to whether the presence of arundo is a problem so great that removal is called for, even at the considerable expense to the rest of the habitat. Let's have an open debate with all the naturalists involved. Let's talk about what the arundo does. Let's talk about what removing the arundo means. Let's talk about whether it's worth it. Let's hear from the river's various observer, stewards and guardians, especially the ones who aren't dependent on City funding and relationships. Most of all, let's hear from the permaculturalists, who usually have the best info on this sort of thing.

That's what is called digging deeper. I've reached out to those people, and they're all against this, for multiple reasons. They're aghast. They're also so used to seeing this kind of idiocy in Los Angeles, and around the River, that they're using their energy and expertise elsewhere where they're more likely to be listened to and their ideas put into motion. Hopefully they'll join this debate. But first, there has to be a debate to join. Right now, we're talking AFTER THE FACT. Why is that?

Tim Warner,

Your comment about "Being pro-active and participating in the process before it happens will make you feel much better than complaining after the fact", is rude and unnecessary.

You also said, "But I don't think calling him stupid and an idiot is productive or going to solve any problems". Where exactly was anyone called stupid or an idiot???

My point is this...why must you scorn and slap the hands of bloggers on this forum? You have done it to me and many others. You are a neighborhood councilman not the Pope of Atwater Village. Please remember that we are not children here. Our opinions are as valid as yours.

Thank you

In Jay's link it refers to "idiocy" and Mitch as "him again". If I were Mitch, a city employee, and read that I would be offended. I too get frustrated with the city but find keeping my tone lower key gets a response.

I'm sorry if you feel my comment is rude but it is true. I did not know Jay had in fact made efforts before and will contact Mitch about having an open forum meeting to at least get some communication going. For that I am sorry to him. But I do find on this board and life in general that many people like to talk about everything that is wrong in the world but few take the next step and get involved to do something about it. I would just like to see more people stand up and help.

Where else have I slapped your hands? I ask people to keep posts respectful and civilized. I can handle irony and sarcasm, but when it degrades into name calling and insults I take issue with it. I am not censoring your opinion or saying mine is more important than yours. All I am asking for is to be respectful of others.

Back to the issue - Jay I will email Mitch to see if he will be at the FOLAR clean up or available for a meeting to specifically address your and the others concerns.

Jay,
it's unfortunate Mitch did not reply. I agree with you, we need an open debate before actions are taken, not after.

Let the naturalist debate over the Arundo begin here. Although globally the Arundo serves many important roles (biofuel, paper, fishing rods, etc) and was supposedly used as roofing and erosion control in 1820's los Angeles, in my opinion removal of the Arundo on the river is appropriate . The river's eco-system has developed a balance over time - the arundo can disrupt this balance by crowding out the native species and reducing biodiversity. Also, the Wikipedia entry on Arundo Donax states that "arundo provides no food source or nesting habitat."

To learn more on Arundo's impact on native species check out the PDF "Impacts of Invasive Reed Arundo Donax on Bio-diversity at the Community Eco-System Level by Gene Guthrie.

What benefits to you see in keeping the Arundo?

What ever happened to the effort to revitalize the river and removing all the concrete so the "river" is more like a true river. ?? I heard about that project 5 years ago when I first moved to Atwater but I haven't heard much since.

RealityGirl,

that plan is being realized, but it won't happen over night. FOLAR estimates it will take 40-50 years to complete.

Tim Warner,

Thank you for your response. To refer to a situation as "idiotic" is in NO WAY calling someone an "idiot" or "stupid", which is what you have accused Jay of. To refer to Mitch as "him again" seems pretty mild to me. Is "him again" a bad word in the english language?

I understand you would like this forum to be respectful and decent. I agree. My problem with your blogs is that there is a sense of superiority to them. If you would like to impinge upon people and have your viewpoint taken into consideration, there are better ways to go about it. To my knowledge you are an Atwater Village resident, just like the rest of us.

Thanks again.

All of this discussion rests on the assumption that the arundo can be removed without causing other damage. The people who are clearing the arundo are not botanists, they are 'at risk' youths or adults armed with chainsaws, killing time, with no on-site, professional botanist supervision.

Go see their handiwork if my pictures and video aren't enough. Nobody should expect that they can do this job (which assumes that the job is doable in the first place).

And the evidence will be there for everyone to see when, in a few months (or less), the arundo stalks will be back.

This is just wasteful. Put the folks to work somewhere else -- how bout carting good soil/compost/hummus up into Griffith Park and planting gardens there that can act as firebreaks a la Amir's Garden? Etc.

Tim -

"Idiocy" refers not to a person but to a situation.

"Him again" refers to Mitch O'Farrell, yep, but that is not an insult.

The people in CD13 evidently stop taking onboard information and input regarding the River long ago. They studiously ignore and evade input from interested parties who are not tied to neighborhood booster organizations or political party machines or businesses or non-profits dependent on City grants, greasing of wheels and so on. The offer of transparency has never been made, and frankly, it shouldn't have to be offered, it should be standard operating practice.

Secondly, the idea that the only people who get to have a say over what is being done in/with the River are those who come to meetings on non-existent or underused parks is laughable.

Thirdly, the River does not exist only for the pleasure of Atwater residents -- it's for the whole City. Very few people know what CD13 is up to until they do it, then we have to find out about it, and react the best we can. Same thing with Molina's office, who recently whitewashed an entire beautiful River mural under the most ridiculous of pretexts, and with a questionable legal basis.

These people in government won't let the River *BE*, which is all that most of us want. They don't want people to be there, using it. And so on. This latest fiasco is just another instance of government officials stepping in where they're not wanted, nor needed, and making things WORSE.

The River could use a lot less of this so-called "pro-active" approach, not more. The final insult in this is that Tim is suggesting FoLAR volunteers are expected to pick up the trash and debris generated by these work crews. That stuff shouldn't be there in the first place.

HOLD ON WAIT A SEC.......why would it take "40-50 YEARS" to remove concrete along the river???

Is this akin to letting it fall apart by itself over time?? Seriously, we can do WAY better than that. The LA river could be an amazing resource, and I find it truly ironic that we can build yet another mall (AMERICANA anyone?) in what, a year?! And we can't plan to fix our river - that should be the lifeline of the city - sooner than in 5 decades??? That's truly pathetic.

First - Jay & Brandon & everyone else - I emailed Mitch to see if he will be at the FOLAR cleanup and/or is willing to have a public meeting so I will let you know when I hear back.

Weems,

"Him again" is not too bad but I was running out the door to work when I wrote that and I remembered one line really stuck out to me but couldn't remember. Going back I saw that it was the "you have to admire the evil genius" line. It's a blog and Jay is free to write and express what he wants but I'm sure that has something to do with why Mitch is staying away from posting here (I've actually had quite a few people tell me they avoid reading this forum or posting on it because they are afraid to get attacked which I think is too bad - this forum is a great place for communication).

I'm sorry if my tone has come across as superior - not my intention at all. Call me out on it whenever you think I need a reality check. I used to be pretty apathetic but seven years of President Bush (and having kids) made me realize that complaining is just not enough for me anymore. And I've found that the positive energy I've stumbled into in working on improving the neighborhood feels makes me feel good - better than sitting back and waiting or expecting someone else to do something at least. That's all I am trying to say and encourage others to experience.

You can also email me at twarner@atwatervillage.org anytime to discuss this further or bring up any other issues or concerns you have. Thanks!

Tim- "Evil genius" was not a reference to O'Farrell per se, it was a touch of levity regarding the farcical situation. Clearly O'Farrell has good intentions, but good intentions aren't enough, especially when you're unable to see the ramifications of what you're proposing. Evil geniuses don't have good intentions. Etc. Come on, stop clouding this discussion.

HarshReality,
it does seem like a long time to accomplish something so important to the quality of life of Angelenos. To gain some insight check out the revitalization master plan: http://www.lariverrmp.org/

Jay,

true, the debris was not there- but it is now and it needs to be removed. FoLAR volunteers are asked to clean up the river: the plastic bags, shopping carts, car parts...and debris if necessary.

Update -

Mitch says the project should be over within two weeks and that he will not have time to have a meeting before then. Sorry I wish I had better news than that.

He also said that crews have started cleaning up the debris and will continue to do so over the next couple days and that it will hopefully be gone before the FOLAR clean up.

I asked if in the future the public can have more involvement and prior knowledge of such work or proposed work and he said he would be happy to talk to and include members of the public in the process. He did mention there is the possibility of some more projects in the near future for any of you interested in finding out more.

His email is:

Mitch.ofarrell@lacity.org

Lost in dissecting words instead of talking about the issue.

Garcetti/O'Farrell won't talk with anyone -- I'm hearing that FoLAR can't even get through to these guys. This is really outrageous.

I walked down there this morning and the amount cleared out is surprising. I also saw that a lot of the debris is still there. I have been getting email responses so I will follow up and see what other info. I can get.

Tim,

The statement "he said he would be happy to talk and include members of the public in the process" doesn't jive with unanswered phone calls. Since you seem to have access to his ears, did you mention that members of the community you represent are being ignored? Did he say why?

I'm also hearing that Rangers have started giving out tickets to people again for being down by the River. Apparently even the Duck Man got one -- now, that guy can be a jerk to people, but feeding the ducks in the River is not something somebody should get ticketed for, especially when previous tickets have been thrown out by the courts . O'Farrell at Garcetti's office has encouraged this sort of pointless harassment of River users by the Rangers in the past -- see naturetrumps.wordpress.com for the evidence -- so I'm gonna assume they've resumed their encouragement. What a waste. Tim, good luck in talking sense into these people.

The L.A. River is the city's main flood control cannel... it is not a nature preserve. At best, the L.A. River can become a passive recreational area with limited wildlife while continuing to serve as flood control cannel… for this to occur the river needs to be maintained (overgrown vegetation needs to be controlled) and illicit activity needs to be curtailed.

I welcome the governmental agencies’ current efforts to maintain and curtail illicit activity on the River.

Please don’t forget to contact CD13 and express your support for their current efforts at the River.

Luis,
but the idea is to create a nature preserve that also serves as flood control. Read the master plan @http://www.lariverrmp.org/

Can't we strive for both, seeing as though LA needs more open space. And shouldn't we, as members of the community, be involved in the decisions being made that impact the river? I don't think we differ on whether or not the river should be maintained. But let's do it in a transparent way to make sure the best interests of the river are taken into account.

Hello,

FYI they are scheduled to clean up the debris today, next Thursday, and then the following Friday.

Brandon I emailed Mitch about your point as well. Try emailing again if you can. I completely agree with your statements regarding striving for both and more local involvement.

Brandon if you have the interest/time to get more personally involved there are some options. The Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council (GGPNC) meets at the main Ranger Station in Griffith Park and has more knowledge and experience in dealing with river related issues than the AVNC. The LARRMP also sends out email notices of meetings they have open to the public. But if you want to keep it local you could approach the AVNC about creating an ad hoc "river" committee that you could chair. As part of the council it might be easier to communicate and work with the city and act as a liaison between the local community and Mitch/Garcetti's office. It seems like it would be a step in the right direction at least. We could at least get more prior warning about scheduled maintenance and work to be done to the river so that people can have their opinions heard and addressed prior to the work beginning.

This whole series of events is just nuts and reflects poorly on Garcetti. Eric Garcetti is a very smart guy, who I've voted for, who I've met, and who who I admire and respect -- but he's also been very busy in the last six months, what with holding the president's chair at City Council and campaigning for Obama. Somehow I doubt that he knows about what his deputy is up to here. I can't believe Eric would approve of the high-handed way in which river users, naturalists and advocacy organizations are being treated by his office. Just doesn't make sense.

Tim-

1) I have signed up to be alerted by email to LARRMP meetings and have never received a notification. Do you know when the next meeting is?

2) The River is a BIGGER than CD13. It is not even completely in CD13's jurisdiction, it also falls under other city council districts, county supervisorial districts, and so on, up to and including the federal level (Army Corps of Engineers), etc. No single office has power here, not even CD13. CD13 should not be going in there and doing stuff on its own, or even in tandem with a single botanist from ACE. They don't have the right to do so. This is a power-grab, and it should not be tolerated, or enabled, by setting up a system in which unelected, unaccountable CD13 staff are put at the top. This is not their River to do with as they please.

Jay - the last meeting was April 30 and I have not received any notices of new meetings. I seem to recall having to send a couple emails to verify that they put me on the email list of meeting announcements so you might want to send an email to the address below to confirm that they will start sending you the announcements:

la.river@lacity.org
or call about meeting info., Carol Armstrong at (213) 485-5762.

I understand the river is bigger than just CD13, but when Mitch informed the council of the Sunnynook park project two months ago he referred to CD13's efforts to create a "river authority" that consists of the city, county, ACE, and I think Parks & Rec. For that reason CD13 seems to be the first place to go to with river concerns. There is also some ACE contacts posted here that might be able to help/give info:

http://www.atwatervillage.org/iac.php?id=C0_46_20

Thank you to all of you for having this discussion here. The back and forth about word choice did seem like a distraction when it seems like there were a lot of important discussions to be had, and it's good to be focusing on the issue now. I just want to weigh in as someone who hadn't been following this at all until I read what I see here, I value these forums for precisely that -- a place where people less familiar with (but interested in) an issue can hear various viewpoints.

Tim, I'm sorry to hear people are telling you they're afraid to post here. I actually think people are mostly civil and relatively respectful for a public forum (perhaps they are people less familiar with online fora?), and i hope those people will take a second shot. This kind of discussion (even when it goes off on a tangent or degrades somewhat) is the kind of thing that the first AVNC outreach committee designed this for. I appreciate the role you're playing with AVNC and the bridge between the board and readers of this forum. Your commitment to follow through and keep open communication is incredibly refreshing for AVNC, and it's great that you're bringing more of AVNC into these boards than has really been done before.

Jay and Brandon and others -- thank you for keeping on this. I really like the way you framed the goals of the river, Brandon, and it would be great if Atwater residents can push momentum that way. I'm very concerned with this since it can be impossible to build something once it is destroyed, and government has a way of moving swiftly in response to small but loud pressure, and finding later the action was flawed and either irreversible or too costly to undo.

Luis, it sounds like you're part of an organized effort of some kind to support this effort by CD13. Can you tell us more about that? Someone also mentioned residents at the Legion Lane park meeting asking for clean-up. It sounds to me like "clean-up" is getting really blurry. There's a difference between cleaning up graffiti and crime and cleaning up vegetation. What precisely have people been calling for? (I do frequent the river and frankly haven't seen many problems of any of these kinds. I'm honestly interested -- as I posted a while back -- in hearing what the problems have been for those who see it that way).

THanks.

From my limited knowledge - Mitch from CD13 initiated a program last year that is ongoing. It is focused on relocating the homeless and drug users living on the islands in the river. The reasons for this were to protect the people during flood times and to rehabilitate and relocate them. He also has reports that show that petty crime in the area (home and car break-ins) go down when those people are relocated/rehabilitated. Most of this has been done south of the Hyperion Bridge from what I understand. I believe that Jay opposes this program citing that the people living on the islands have a right to live there if they want. Please elaborate/correct me if I am wrong Jay.

Somehow related to this and other river issues is CD13's effort to get the county, the city, ACE, and Parks and Rec. to work together on river related issues instead of everyone pointing fingers saying "it's your problem". The river authority is still a work in progress as evidenced by all the back and forth about the Legion Lane property and road between the city and county. Also, the residents at the Legion Lane meeting were mainly commenting on the gangs, homeless, tagging, and lack of maintenance along the sides of the river.

The current grant-funded Aztec fire patrol program between the Hyperion Bridge and Sunnynook is from what I gathered focused on maintenance and removing non-native species though and not relocating people. The details I listed above. If the focus is on removing the Arundo then depending on funding I would guess we will be seeing more of this as it's on all the islands.

Mitch has assured me he is trying his best to balance the priorities of keeping the neighborhood safe and protecting the river. Whereas Jay's argument might be to leave it alone citing FOLAR and other studies and experts I think the response would be that if they did that the Arundo would take over everything and as Brandon pointed out the Arundo is not viable nesting grounds for birds. Here is where I don't know what to think. I'd like to hear more details from Jay about the experts he mentioned above and also hear from the city experts.

In summation everyone deserves to have their voice heard. That's why I am thinking if someone were to volunteer to head up an AVNC ad hoc river committee it might be a first step in becoming part of the "river authority" so that local opinions can be part of the process.

Katie, I’m not involved in any organizational effort to support CD13's current effort, per say. It more of consensus among many Fletcher Drive merchants and advocate’s that problems at the L.A. River spill over to Fletcher and vice versa. When we complain to the City (CD13 and LAPD) about crime on Fletcher the conversation always includes the L.A. River by the Fletcher Drive Bridge and the 2 Freeway. The homeless and drug users at the River frequent visit Fletcher Drive throughout the day… often cause problems…

I’ve noticed improvements on Fletcher Drive, with regards to crime, when the City (and other agencies) started to clamp down on the homeless and illicit activity on the River. So from my perspective anything being done at the River to reduce illicit activity or to relocate the many homeless at the River is a good thing.

Hello........this is my 1st post but I have been reading AVNC forum for a long time. Just a little background, I moved to central Atwater in 1971. Grew up in Silverlake area and went to John Marshall High School. As did 2 of my kids. Tim.........I really appreciate the way you try to keep everything on a respectful and even keel. I feel you are doing a great job. Thank you. Also, someone mentioned something about taking the cement up out of the river? My mother told me years ago that the river actually overflowed circa 1939 and all of Atwater was flooded. this is why it was cemented.....to carry the water faster to the ocean. Do you know if this is correct?

Luis,
the crime you speak of is a problem, and I sympathize with the you and other business owners that are negatively impacted by this. I would not argue with you that some of it is generated by people who use the river. But in my opinion the solution is to make the river a place that is used more by all Angelenos. To do that we need to support efforts to make the river a nature preserve. This will attract bird watchers, bikers, skaters, roller bladders, parents with strollers, naturalists, painters etc. The more people frequenting the river, the less illicit activity.

Thanks gardenmusic and sorry I've taken a while in responding.

I went back and read some posts I remembered reading about flooding in the area and from those yes it does appear that Atwater Village does sit on a flood plain of the river and that in the 1930s there were at least two floods that affected the area. So I am guessing that prior to removing the concrete they will need to do some pretty extensive engineering studies to figure out how to make it work without flooding us all out. Also, although it's something I think all of us would like to see the idea of ripping out the concrete presents some pretty significant environmental issues. First, how do you remove it all without disturbing the ecosystem too much? If clearing out the islands now is controversial just wait until some tractors or bulldozers roll in. Second, parts of North Atwater Village are Superfund sites and the area behind Costco is a brownfield so would toxins held in place by the concrete leach into the river if if was removed? In my opinion they would need to do some environmental soil testing prior to any work and deal with that issue as well. Forty years does sound like a long time though - maybe they are assuming that not much money will be allocated to the project all at once so they will have to go step by step? The river has been so mistreated and misused for so long I think a little patience and care is going to need to be taken to make sure it's restored right.

Got a tidbit more info. from a local this morning. He said he remembers a city project begun about ten years ago to remove Arundo from the river because every year much of it dies and flows down the river and clogs up sections creating flood hazards along the way. I have no idea if the current project is related to that at all but it is one more piece to the puzzle to consider.

The clearcutting has continued. Large foot-wide tree limbs have been severed. Meanwhile, as predicted, the arundo is already growing back strong in the areas where it was chainsawed last week. You cannot remove arundo from an area without removing the underlying root mass, which requires herbicides... and that's in the best case scenario, where you have a limited infestation. We do not have a limited infestation of arundo in the Narrows -- it's massive. To get rid of the root mass would likely require removing the islands altogether.

To summarize: if the goal is to curtail the infestation, a half-measure like clear-cutting stalks

a) is doomed to fail
b) causes inadvertent damage and disruption to the rest of the environment and its inhabitants
c) may actually make the arundo distribution in the environment wider, as roots, plant detritus and so on enter the air and water and find new places in the River to grow

This is a fatally flawed plan. Apparently the chainsawing work crews are part of a "Clean and Green" program the City is doing. Whoever organized and approved this plan should know better. They should also cease this counter-productive work immediately.

New photos of fresh chainsaw damage, and the arundo growback, now available at Nature Trumps. I'll add video later if I have time.

Responding to jaybabcock's posts about the clear-cutting, the inexperience and/or incompetence of the persons actually doing the work doesn't surprise me. When they trimmed the trees on my street, they managed to come into my fenced, gated, locked, front yard and chop off 1/3 of my three-pronged Monterrey Cypress.......five feet INSIDE my fence. It will never grow back. For some reason, I saw this as trespassing and vandalism. Silly me.

It is wonderful to see people watching and caring for our green spaces! Tim is right about the flooding and reasons why the Army Corps did the cement work. The City team working on the River restoration has some great plans for the future that include removing the cement wall and remaking a natural marsh area just south of the 2 freeway. The Arundo is a big problem waiting for funding. In the mean time, I believe they are beating it back just enough to avoid another flood situation. As more people pay attention, the chances of getting meaningful change keep getting better. A small but very significant event happened last week. The Griffith Family Charitable Trust filed a massive application to have Griffith Park named a historic monument. This would forever put a limit on wild commercial development schemes in America's largest urban wilderness, which is just walking distance from Atwater Village. We are fortunate that so many people are insisting on a greener Park and River in our neighborhood. Movement may be slow, but it is happening.

Jeff- The arundo is a "big problem" according to whom?

Arundo was the headliner at some meetings a few years back. Dire consequences if we let our dirt bottomed section of the River succumb to arundo. I don't remember the details, but it was pretty bleak.

Anyone who has examined our situation will tell you invasive species have to go. There have been lots of meetings about castor bean, arundo, etc. Unfortunately, this is a long term effort that lives at the bottom of our budget priority list. Great credit needs to be given to anyone who can find funding to address these problems.

PROS, (Park, River, and Open Space) is a committee that meets at the Griffith Park Ranger Station each month. PROS has representation from HUNC (Hollywood United Neighborhood Council) GGPNC (Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council) and AVNC. Lots of hikers, bikers, runners, and over educated Sierra Club types who care come to connect. Open to the public and looking for more volunteers.

June 9th, 7:00pm DWP Festival of Lights meeting. Should LA change the annual festival of taillights into a more people friendly pedestrian event?

June 12th, 7:00pm Should Griffith Park be protected with monument status?

Check out the Griffith Park advisor for information on the possibility of a new park in Atwater Village near Chevy Chase.

Tim...Thank you for your response regarding the flooding in the 30's. This concerns me. I sure do hope there will be a lot of study as to what to do before they get rid of the cement in the river.

Jeff - "Arundo was the headliner at some meetings a few years back. Dire consequences if we let our dirt bottomed section of the River succumb to arundo. I don't remember the details, but it was pretty bleak. Anyone who has examined our situation will tell you invasive species have to go. There have been lots of meetings about castor bean, arundo, etc. Unfortunately, this is a long term effort that lives at the bottom of our budget priority list. Great credit needs to be given to anyone who can find funding to address these problems."

You're gonna have to do better than this, Jeff. Friends of the LA River follow this stuff closely -- it's their mission, after all, and they're good at it. They're not concerned at all about the arundo. If they're not concerned, why are you?

Secondly, what makes you think that this is a good way to go about getting rid of arundo in the River? Have you seen what they're doing down there? Have you seen the damage done to the rest of the habitat by the work crews: the severing of one-foot-diameter tree limbs, the trampling of non-arundo, the disruption to the wildlife, etc.? Have you seen how the work crews have left arundo and tree debris in the water, and on the concrete slopes? Have you witnessed the verbal harassment of female pedestrians and bicyclists by the work crew members? Most of all, have you seen the arundo growing back already? In short, what exactly is being accomplished here that is worthy of "great credit"?

Arundo Update:

I spoke to an ecologist for Army Corps. of Engineers today. I asked a simple question: why are the Arundo being removed? The ACE representative said it's being removed because members of our community complained to CD13 about the islands being a health and sanitation hazard due to the homeless population and the improper removal of feces. It was also stated that the river provided criminals with a place to hide and aided them in their criminal activity. In response to these complaints CD13 then contracted the Aztec Rising group to remove the Arundo. In the near future ACE is planning a complete removal of the Arundo from Burbank to the 110 to increase water flow. According the ACE, the natural bottom has produced too much nature, which will impede water flow during a storm and perhaps cause flooding over the concrete banks.

All those interested in the river should attend the next AVNC meeting on the 12th. I would like to propose an LA River Committee that would serve as a liaison between the AVNC and CD13.

The truth comes out.

I find this thoroughly disappointing and appalling that all of this wreckage and destruction is because of complaints about homeless people, under the cover of an environmental necessity

I for one am so tired of all the anti-homeless sentiment voiced by a few in this community leading to actions like this. The collateral destruction that comes when people get amped up about homelessness in Atwater is excessive, out of proportion to the problem, and not well tailored to solve anything. I would be utterly surprised if any (or very many) of the people on the homelessness rampage actually spend any time at the river or have ever been personally bothered by homelessness or homeless people at the river.

I can only imagine the responses I'll get. i do think that's a value of this forum and I'm happy to discuss the issue.

I'm also disappointed that all of this happened because a handful of people prioritized this, were ill-infomred about the actually needs of the homeless or the river, and got the ear of CD13 and the Corps and whoever else made this happen.

I really appreciate Brandon's suggestion (and information) and think the River committee of AVNC is a great idea. Might I also put in a plug that it be river and parks (or that a parks committee be formed separately).

Twice before in this forum on this topic, I have invited community members who raised these issues to provide information they have that have fueled these changes. I honestly do not see the criminal activity and would like more information. If I am wrong, and there is a legitimate risk or problem, I'd like more information about that.

In the meantime, one more thing to add to the mix:

Federal law allows people to sleep in public places when shelter beds aren't available and there is a historic overcrowding of shelters. Criminalizing homelessness was ruled to be cruel and unusual punishment here in LA just last year because the city has so few shelter beds and services for homeless people. See the 9th Circuit ruling from last year in Jones v. City of Los Angeles. The decision overturned the long-standing city ordinance that criminalized sitting, lying, or sleeping on streets, sidewalks or other public places, which includes the river. see: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/04/15/HOMELESS.TMP

I don't want to assume that Eric Garcetti is behind this plan, and I hope he's not. Especially given his public positions on behalf of the homeless. See the cover article in this magazine, starting at page 8. http://www.pathpartners.org/pathlines/PATHLines%20Fall%202007%20-%20Web.pdf

PATH (People Assisting the Homelessness) is an amazing resource regarding homelessness issues and I've personally heard Eric tout them more than once. Perhaps if there is an ongoing discussion about homelessness in Atwater and at the river, the folks from PATH can be linked in.

From the interview of Eric Garcetti, in his words:

"For too long, we’ve dealt with
homelessness in fragments. We talk about
where we can move people off the street,
but not about where they can live. We talk
about where people can stay, but not how
they can stay there. We talk about how we
can help them, but not about how we can
get them to accept help. Any conversation
about solving the homelessness crisis begins
with a strategy that emphasizes outreach,
services, and housing, much like the model
that PATH Partners provides to its patrons.
These three elements are the three legs of
a stool – without one of them, we all fall
down. Los Angeles is the homelessness
capital of America – and the only way we
will shed this label is with a comprehensive,
big picture solution."

Katie: AMEN to everything you're saying. This is outrageous.

Katie,
Thanks for providing the link. It points out the incongruency between his words and these actions. Garcetti should be held accountable if his deputy is organizing this.

There is criminal activity going on in Atwater, and the river probably provides a convenient escape route for that activity. But how I does ripping out the Arundo stop the criminal activity? Can someone explain to me the connection? Does moving the homeless population to another location solve the sanitation issue? Won't they go the bathroom somewhere else? More shelters and public restrooms might help, but ripping out the arundo? If the ACE is planning on ripping it all out anyway, why are they paying Aztec Rising?

Still no word from CD13 on my end. Has anyone gotten a response?

Brandon -- I wasn't very careful with my words -- I meant to say I haven't seen criminal activity on the river. Other than graffiti and littering of course. I agree with your framing of the question completely. This reminds me of when cities put convex rounded benches in parks to prevent sleeping, or Hollywood's famous sweep of homeless youth, or the skid row buses that take people away from services to some remote area where they have nothing. All a NIMBY reactions to homelessness, but sadly, just a band-aid and in no means a solution. The fact that Garcetti has publicly taken a "Y!MBY" solution (apparently, "Yes! In My Back Yard!, in his words," to homelessness is really fascinating and suggests an opportunity for some actual conversation about this.

Tim -- you have the best luck with Garcetti's office and a level head, it sounds like. Perhaps when you next follow up with Garcetti's office, can you ask about this homelessness issue as well as Garcetti's larger position on homelessness (and how they square)?

Thanks all.

Brandon,

Thank you for the update. I’m glad to hear that our elected officials and government agencies are responding to my complaints (and I’m sure similar complaints from other fellow Atwater Village stakeholders) about the ills of the L.A. River and that they are doing their duty to keep my business and community safe from flooding. This is good news, very good news.

As for creating some type of Adhoc Committee that “would serve as a liaison between the AVNC and CD13”… I think that is a good idea. However, I would like to point out that CD13 already seems to be listening to its’ constituents directly. Good for them.

Luis, let's please have a straightforward conversation about this. I know your issue has been about homelessness, among other things, and you haven't hidden that on these forums. That your concern is suddenly flooding is disingenuous and makes it difficult to discuss these issues in any real way.

I repeat my request directly to you, since you are one of the people requesting CD13 take these actions, that you provide information. We don't have to agree on the desired outcomes, but I do respect your devotion to Atwater issues. So again, please provide more information about what it is you have experienced at the river that you're trying to change. What are the ills you've been complaining about? I ask you that genuinely and hope you'll respond. If these are concerns that you have shared with CD13, I can't imagine you wouldn't be willing to share them here.

Katie,

I don’t appreciate you dismissing the legitimate concerns complaints about the homeless and illicit activity at the L.A. River shared by MANY in our community as some type of overreaction or hysteria by just a few individuals. It is very disappointing that you could dismiss these valid concerns because you haven’t witnessed any illicit activity during an occasional walk thru the neighbored that may or may not include the L.A. River.

I’ll tell you what… I’ll start encouraging the Fletcher Drive homeless, day labors and other troublemakers to frequent Revere ALL DAY and lets see if you have a “NIMBY reaction”

Katie,

All I can share with you is one bad experience after another with the homeless (and Day Labors) that come from the LA River to Fletcher Drive and what I witness from my place of business or when I go out on many test drives (I often go toward the Fletcher Drive Bridge)… And what other local merchants and residents share with me.

Do you want me to share an actual experience? They are just so many of them and they just tend to repeat…. fights (verbal and some times physical) between the “regular” homeless and the “just arriving”, public drinking, urination, customer complain that some stole their catalytic converter at night and then a few days later one of the “regulars” trying to sell me a used catalytic converter… drunkards passing out on the street… Sould I continue???

When was the last time I witness some of this activity… how about today… why did I call the police.. by the time the police responds they move back into the River…

I'm not dismissing your concerns Luis - I'm asking you to tell me what they are.

I am on the river frequently on both sides between approximately Fletcher and the 134. I go for walks my myself, in groups, pushing a stroller, or riding a bike and I have never once felt threatened or unsafe. It is from that perspective that I genuinely ask you to tell me what you're witnessing at the river that you think merits this result.

I think you may be mixing mismatched issues -- the day laborers are not on the river. The vast majority of day laborers are not homeless, and I can bet the few that may be homeless are not on the river. If your real issue is about day laborers, and that is another set of issues (part of which we may agree about, part of which I know we don't), maybe I'm just completely dense but I see no relationship between the day laborers on Fletcher and the Arundo and the L.A. River or the homeless people who spend time there.

What I'm objecting to is the conflagration of unrelated issues that's happening here. It ok for you and others to not like homeless people or homelessness or not want the homelessness near you, and we can have a reasonable disagreement about that and the role of society in that issue. What I am upset about is that the concerns -- apparently of yours -- about homelessness can be so blurry that they lead to destruction of wildlife on the river. Especially if (and I'm taking this from your post) your real concern is about something happening on Fletcher.

Again Luis, all I'm asking here is for you to tell more about your concerns and the information you have that I apparently don't. I apologize if I offended you. That was not my intention. I do not apologize for my frustration that these issues seem to have gotten blurred unnecessarily, as they often do, and destruction and irresponsible governance are occurring as a result. IMHO.

P.S. Katie, just because I haven't express any concerns about flooding before does not mean I don't have them... even if flooding concerns, at least for me, are less important then the homeless and crime on the River.. and the spill over it has on Fletcher.

Our posts crossed -- I hadn't seen yours yet when I responded.

This information is helpful Luis. You're suggesting a connection between people on Fletcher and the river that I haven't witnessed but you apparently have.

I'm still not sure the people committing crimes are the people staying on the river. It also isn't clear that the day laborers have anything to do with this. And definitely not clear to me why clearcutting FAR north of Fletcher or even Glendale Blvd solves any of the problems you identify.

I'm aware of the camps that were closer to Fletcher that have been cleared. But I don't think it follows that just because there were more homeless at or near Fletcher that that means the homeless that are on the river are criminals. Or that clearing the river will solve any of these problems. THAT is a big part of what bothers me, Luis.

Of course you can care about flooding Luis.

Also Luis, of what you describe, the theft is a criminal activity. The rest is a nuisance to people around you and makes a lot of people uncomfortable, I grant you that. But Luis, do you ever go down on the river? I don't see what you describe there. Beer and liquor bottles and other refuse, sure. But not the other stuff.

If I'm wrong and I'm just not there at those times, wouldn't a better solution be a combination of a) better policing regarding the criminal activity; and b) coordination with social services for the non-criminals?

Katie,

I am not mixing mismatched issues... the day labor, homeless and other criminally activity are all interconnected to each other and the L.A. River… at least in the Fletcher Drive area.

You are asking me to type my concerns and the information that I have on this forum… I already have. I’m not the best writer nor can I spend too much time writing an essay…sorry for not being more elaborate.

All I can say is that I continue to welcome current efforts by CD13 and other governmental agencies to reduce the lawlessness whether is by reducing hiding places for criminal activity (cutting back the vegetation) or other measures. I believe that less crime at the L.A River will translate to less crime to Fletcher Drive.

And if we can get better flood control to… even better.

Luis, ou have clarified your concerns. I understand your position now. I don't agree with it, and don't agree that this clear-cutting further north on the river comes anywhere close to solving the issues you describe, but I do understand what you're saying. (as i said, our posts crossed -- the one I posted at 10:14 I was typing while your other ones above it came in).

For Brandon, Jay, and others, the fact that this was -- at least in part -- aimed to solve the Fletcher area homelessness issue that it clearly cannot solve, coupled with Garcetti's more public positions, suggests there is a conversation to be had. Not that that can repair the damage already done to the trees and plants on the river.

Tim, do you think there is any chance Garcetti himself would come on the 12th or to another meeting? He used to come every so often to AVNC meetings (although my experience was before he became Pres.)

Katie

Lots to respond to (probably too much):

1. Brandon thank you for taking the initiative to call ACE. It seems to me that the upcoming Arundo clean-up they are planning could make the current one look like small potatoes, so it's good were finding out about it now before it commences. As we've discussed here before having a river committee may give us a seat at the table so we can have a voice in how this will affect the river. If Brandon wants to take on parks too that's great but I think the river may be a handful on its own. Also, the meeting on the 12th has a full agenda so we will not have time to get into the details of the river politics. We only have time to focus on the creation of a river committee and support or opposition to it. If approved the committee can then set it's own meeting and agenda (and invite Mitch and/or Garcetti) and have a much more detailed conversation and clearing of the air.

2. The homeless situation - Mitch has been extremely clear that the program he is running is not just about removing people. The focus is on rehabilitation and relocation. The intention is to find housing and care for those that need it (drug users, those with mental illnesses, etc.) . One of his main points is that it's also as much for their safety (think river rescues during heavy rains) as it is protecting the neighborhood from crime. Katie - more policing along the river would be nice but probably not going to happen. Also, many people complain that our society should focus more on rehabilitation and prevention and I think that is exactly what Mitch is trying to do. Shouldn't we support his proactive effort instead of just calling for more police? It may not be a perfect program and mistakes are occurring, but those mistakes are addressable and as Luis reports there has been a dent in the crime level.

more...

3. Examples of crime along or attributable to the river - I understand that the homeless have a right to live there, and most live and let live. But there are a few who do ruin it for everyone else. I remember one nice homeless guy who ended up leaving after being beaten to the point of needing hospitalization by another homeless man. The abuser turned out to be a third striker upon arrest. I have also on multiple occasions found piles of what appears to be stolen property from cars along the yoga path (coffee mugs, pictures, etc.). Finally, I've heard that many of the customers of the Sunnynook drug house came from and returned to the river. One of these guys, "Sergio", once threatened to kill me and my children while walking in the neighborhood. Also, the "why lie I want skunk weed" guy has harassed and intimidated many local business owners.
4. Why the islands need to be leveled to rehabilitate/relocate the homeless I do not understand. I can understand some trimming and maintenance but as Jay has demonstrated what is going on is pretty severe. I was told by Mitch that it was maintenance which does not gel with what the ACE contact told Brandon. And because I'm the only one able to track down Mitch from time to time we are not getting the full story. My guess is he is trying to serve two purposes - clear the Arundo and rehabilitate/relocate more homeless as he goes. Once again this highlights the need for the river committee as right now all any of us can do is guess and hypothesize. As we are learning here the Arundo does seem to present at least a flood risk, so its permanent removal does seem to be necessary. But one of the bigger problems Jay pointed out is that the people currently doing the removing appear to have no comprehension of how invasive Arundo is and that by just hacking it up and tossing it around they could in fact just be spreading it to somewhere it wasn't before.

This is obviously a very complex issue and one that is not easy to solve. But I am optimistic that the formation of a river committee will at least get our voices heard and addressed.

Tim,

Glad you're on this.

Quick clarification Tim -- as a poverty lawyer/advocate I am likely one of the LAST persons to suggest that policing is what homeless people need. I suggested more policing when addressing what I understood to be Luis's concerns on Fletcher itself, not the river. I completely agree that if in fact, Mitch is doing what you say at the river (and this is the first I'd heard about that -- glad to hear it is a more holistic service-oriented approach), that is far superior to a criminalization approach. See my other post re: the ruling that the city's ordinance that formerly criminalized activities and behavior of the homeless is now unconstitutional. I am in no way calling for more policing instead of a proactive approach. To the contrary. I'm glad to hear there is such a proactive approach in place. Where do we find out more about this? It doesn't seem to square with what's happening on the islands (which seem like the old clear and steer tactics).

You cite that crime has decreased on the river due to Mitch's efforts -- can you tell us more about that?

Katie

I'm just referring to what Luis said about crime being down on Fletcher after the islands were "cleared". Mitch made the same comment but had nothing concrete to back it up. Hopefully we can get this river committee going and get Mitch and/or Garcetti in person to answer some of these specific concerns.

There is obviously a communication breakdown occurring with CD13 as Brandon has pointed out and hopefully that can resolved soon.

I'm going to bed. Good night.

Tim, thanks again for doing such a good job as a liaison between AVNC and the community on these boards. That has always been a challenge for AVNC (since most people aren't at the meetings or as up to date as the board is) and I thank you for making such an effort. I can only imagine how much time that takes, especially since you're doing so much for AVNC and all as a volunteer.

re: Luis. The idea that clearcutting of L.A. River islands should be done because Luis Lopez doesn't like certain people near his business is ludicrous. Perhaps we should remove freeway overpasses because people live under them. Perhaps we should level all of Griffith Park, because people are doing who-knows-what behind trees and brushes. Perhaps we should remove the sidewalk on Fletcher Boulevard!

I love how the original issues get so distorted. It's gone from removing island foliage to removing the homeless.

The river has always been a weird place.

Removing arundo will take more than some guys with chainsaws. Maybe one of those clearing machines from Indiana Jones.

Could be the first clearing was just an experiment.

Speaking of an holistic service oriented approach, why not have CD 13 hire the local homeless to clear away the Arundo under the watchful gaze of the Army Corps. of Engineers and Huell Howser. This brings jobs to the community's least advantaged and would empower Atwater's homeless contingent with a sense of self worth by cleansing themselves with hard work and, allow them to fulfill their campaign pledge of "will work for food". In addition, the paycheck that they will each earn can be cashed at the local check cashing service (where I buy my bus pass). This money can then be circulated into Atwater's local economy with purchases at their favorite liquor store or fast food mini-mart, providing a boost to local business in this economic downturn. Heck, with overtime, perhaps a paid night in the local Inn could be possible. And best of all, the taxes that would be withheld from their checks would help to lessen the state's budget gap so that education for the children would not be cut. We all win.......

Well, just a couple of notes. I personally saw Rangers walking the strip of land scheduled for the new River park last month. They were helping the homeless people by giving them options and explaining that living in that area would no longer be possible. No force, just communication and offers of help.

Having the brush in the River cleared by disadvantaged people is offering a helping hand to those who want to rejoin working society. Many of our homeless people are severely disabled by substance abuse. They cannot be forced into working, they must choose that road.

Communication is a two way street. It would be much easier for us all if CD13 had a staff of people dedicated to outreach. Unfortunatley, people like Mitch have to do it all on a limited budget of time and money. It is far more common to get the communication without the funds or action in most council districts. We are fortunate to have people like Mitch and Eric working on our behalf in these difficult times. I have heard questions like these addressed at many meetings about the River over that past few years. If you are serious about seeing progress, attend the meetings and volunteer to help.

This is a courtesy e-mail from the Ad Hoc River Committee

******************************************

WHAT: Meeting to discuss updates regarding the Los Angeles River

WHEN: Monday June 9th, 3PM

WHERE: City Hall Room 1060

Please disregard the previous email. This is not a river update meeting but a meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee for the Los Angeles River. Sorry for any confusion.

MONDAY, June 9th, 2008

ROOM 1060, CITY HALL - 3:00 PM
200 NORTH SPRING STREET, LOS ANGELES, CA 90012

Agendas are posted at least 24 hours prior to the meetings. To receive
an agenda, please subscribe at
http://parc3.lacity.org/ens/index.cfm?dept=clk , enter your name,
email address and click Ad Hoc River Committee. The agenda will
automatically be sent to you when it's posted.


Ad Hoc River Committee
www.lariver.org

Luis, Jeff:
Here's a photographic update on the taxpayer-funded labor you're so happy about --

Arundo comin' back strong.

You guys wanna waste money? Waste your own.

Yes, I already know that water and sun makes plants grow. Thank you for pointing that out.

Luis - You're welcome.

Have we fallen through the rabbit hole? First of all, Jay, if you have a problem with the arundo grass being cut down, why didn't you have the courtesy to bring your "opinion" directly to Mitch instead of attacking him and being most discourteous to him in a public forum? Neither Mitch nor any City department would deliberately do harm to the river. Mitch is one of its greatest proponents and supporters. There's a saying "Put your mind in gear before you open your mouth". Perhaps you should pay some attention to that. Did it ever occur to you that maybe the arundo grass is all pervasive and if not checked could take over the river entirely so that the river stops and disappears at Atwater Village. There goes any bird life or other wild life. We'll just be left with another kind of weed that is pervasive on the river -- specifically the multi drugs that are smoked, injected, inhaled and God knows what else by the homeless who are squatters on public land, pay no property taxes, pay no rent to the city, but defecate, trash and pollute the river and its environs. I think you owe Mitch and this community a big apology. Somehow we never see you at any river or community clean-up. If you showed up, you might want to rethink what is inhabiting our river and how each element affects it. So far, for most of the river clean-ups groups of people who don't live here are brought in to do the work. Why not join us some time and bring your friends?

Concerned -

1) I did contact Mitch.

2) "Did it ever occur to you that maybe the arundo grass is all pervasive and if not checked could take over the river entirely so that the river stops and disappears at Atwater Village. There goes any bird life or other wild life."

This is not the way to check it.

3) "We'll just be left with another kind of weed that is pervasive on the river -- specifically the multi drugs that are smoked, injected, inhaled and God knows what else by the homeless who are squatters on public land, pay no property taxes, pay no rent to the city, but defecate, trash and pollute the river and its environs."

Actually, I think the urban campers help the River more than hurt it. Let's do a study!

4) "Somehow we never see you at any river or community clean-up."

I clean up around the River all the time. You've never seen me? Weird.

5) What's your real name?

Several people on these boards have levied some serious allegations that generalize the homeless population. Admittedly, some those who inhabit the river are likely more chronically homeless and perhaps harder to assist, but some of the assumptions of drug use and illegal activity don't match up with the facts.

As Mitch and CD 13 well know, the city did a very detailed report that is on the homeless, basically a complex census of the homeless, and makes reports by council district, county SPAs and other breakdowns you might be interested in (at http://www.lahsa.org/2007homelesscountreport.asp) It showed a number of things that dispel some of the common myths about the homeless that are repeated above. This is a pretty comprehensive report with information that -- even if you disagree about the homeless -- should at least demonstrate that branding the homeless at the river as criminal drug users seriously oversimplifies things. About the homeless in LA (these are citywide #'s with some specific CD 13 stats too):

1/4 are in families (in CD 13, 20% are kids)

1/3 have substance abuse problems.

45% of all homeless people in CD 13 have mental health problems (citywide, 31% mental illness; 52% depression); also 74% "disabling condition". Those who are chronically homeless are more likely to have mental health problems and be in more need of help. See appendix 12 which talks about the chronically homeless and people with serious mental illness in further detail.

20% of the women are domestic violence victims

15% are veterans

35% tried to access a shelter or transitional housing within the last 30 days and 45% of those were turned away; most common reason was the lack of available beds (69%).

The homeless are real people. Their lives are excrutiatingly difficult and many, often compound factors out of their control lead to and continue their homelessness. We can do better than platitudes about lawlessness and drug use. Just because people don't have permanent shelter doesn't make them criminals and drug users. And for those who are, I'm not sure what it is exactly those of you who are mad about it propose to do that would solve anything (except moving them along).

Insidious Bliss: an LA River Story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLZGy3d_N98

"there is a s&^% load of drugs down here"

a quote from a Atwater Village "Urban Camper" at the L.A. River.

Another quote in the video that may catch your attention...

"there are people in the bushes that are watching us that we can even see..."

Cutting back that arundo doesn't seem like such a bad idea to me.

This just in:

Sat., June 14 Heal the Bay sponsored river cleanup
8:45 - 11:30am
Meet at the Griffith Park Rec Center, 3401 Riverside Dr.

Flyer can be downloaded from AVNC home page

Luis, I don't doubt that is this man's experience. I'm not sure what you're suggesting about the part about seeing people in the bushes. It may show some mental health issues, which is exactly my point. Don't go confusing mental health issues with substance abuse. Some may have both, but they aren't the same thing. And mental health problems aren't criminal.

Even if this guy is completely right, and even if only the arundo is cleared without damaging other wildlife, how does that solve any of the problems you describe? Wouldn't that just move people along, just like your friend in the video says?

Did anyone hear Warren Olney last night on the issue about whether the river is navigable and the clean water act? I see Jay has a lot on it on his blog. Seems particularly important here in Atwater since we have the Glendale Narrows. Interesting that it was in the same broadcast as the speed train issue, which also is interestingly, all about Atwater right now.

No I did not hear that part but I did catch him talking about the High Speed Railway... we are very timely I guess.

Brandon posted a topic about an article in the LA Times re. the clean water act/river navigation issue about a week ago. If you click back and scroll down a bit you should be able to find it. I forwarded it to Mitch as well so he is aware too.

Here's the link to Brandon's post:

http://www.atwatervillage.org/forum/threads.php?id=1588_0_13_0_C

What I was suggesting about the comment "there are people in the bushes that are watching us that we can’t even see..." made by that homeless fellow is that people, homeless or otherwise, do illicit activity at those river islands. So cutting back the vegetation would be a good thing since it would allow everyone to see what happens at the river.

This man on the video seems to have intimate knowledge about what goes on at the river and seems a better source to the realities of the river then Jay Babcock, the apparently racist Duckman or any of us that occasionally visit the river.

Hi Luis - This may be news to you but people are doing and dealing illegal drugs EVERYWHERE in Los Angeles. On the streets. In alleyways. On sidewalks. In cars. In offices. In houses. In apartments. In the bathrooms of restaurants, and stores, and bars, and clubs. And yes, outdoors. Can one get illegal drugs down by the River? Or do them?

I'd be surprised if the answer wasn't Yes, given that the area is large and also, as you're quite aware, largely unpoliced. But the victimless, unreported, alleged "crimes" described in the River area by you and by Mr. Reliable Beerdrinker at your YouTube link hardly rise to the level of importance where we should seriously consider removing all vegetation from the River (assuming that someone could actually do that at a price we could afford).

But, um sure: Trees? Bushes? Rocks? Why stop there? The same argument could be made for...oh, let me put on my d*** Cheney hat here... let's make all building walls in Atwater transparent, put everything under camera surveillance, and make everyone subject to 24/7 search. Atwater Police State!

Geez, Luis.

This thread started over concerns about the arundo removal. If you thought that was important, check this out: the LA River could lose some of the Clean Water Act protections. Please write your city, state and federal representatives and urge them to keep the protections. This LA Times editorial is a nice explanation of why this matters now, when the river restoration is picking up speed:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-river21-2008jun21,0,3580473.story

Good bye Jay Babcock.