Dog Owners Aren’t Looking for Trouble

Re: July 11 reader comments about “Hot Take: Is Oakwood Park Going to the Dogs?”

I have lived two blocks from Oakwood Park for 30 years and visit daily with my dog. Most of the dog owners walk to Oakwood, and thus we are all neighbors.

We usually bring dogs in the morning and late afternoon, when often no one else is using the park. Everyone I’ve seen is extremely conscientious about picking up after their dogs. I and others were happy to pay $100 for a tag that helped support park maintenance. I don’t think dog owners want to be at the park when organized social events or sports like youth soccer or kickball are in play. This just needs to be posted. The dogs and owners are just happy to be outdoors and enjoying the park together.

In a world where we all have a lot of stress, an hour playing outside with your dog and meeting your neighbors is a wonderful thing. All of these dogs and people walk to the park. They live nearby and it’s their park too. I’m hoping we can find a way for all groups to enjoy the park. No dog owner that I know has ever supported making Oakwood a dog park. We only want hours to be with our dogs when the park is not otherwise being used.

Daniel Samakow

Market Sales Pitch Ignores Noise, Traffic & Parking

Re: “Kim’s Market Saga Resumes: Convenience store near Venice Canals would become an indoor-outdoor restaurant,” News, July 11

So not many neighborhoods would take issue with a corner market becoming a restaurant. Really? Maybe you should have actually taken a look at what Tesuque Village Market (formerly Kim’s Market) owner Tezuke LLC has submitted to the city Planning Department before you just praise their “local bodega” concept and repeat their sales pitch.

This will be a 43-seat restaurant, with 18 of those seats in an open-air patio right up against residential properties. There will be no parking, and the plans make it clear that the restaurant will be accessible from the Ocean Avenue side where people being dropped off and picked up will block traffic. There is no indication that they plan to restrict their hours so that neighbors aren’t continually bothered by the resulting traffic and noise until 2 a.m. seven nights a week.

In the words of the applicant, “the area has been identified as having an overconcentration of alcoholic beverage licenses” (currently 16 instead of the four allowable by ABC). Yet, also in their own words, “This will not adversely affect community welfare because the use is part of a high resident- and visitor-serving area that attracts a far greater population than resides in the census tract. Since the site is located in a prime neighborhood … a restaurant serving alcoholic beverages is essential for the neighborhood.” They state that “the proposed project is in an area underserved by restaurants.” Once again: Really?

According to Tezuke: “Venice is the second most popular tourist destination in Southern California, yet it has relatively low number of neighborhood restaurants in comparison to other beach communities.” Could this be because restaurants are located in commercial districts and not allowed to make residential neighborhoods unlivable? Tezuke is clearly planning to cater to tourists, so maybe they should have located their so-called neighborhood bodega on Abbot Kinney or Washington boulevards.

Shame on The Argonaut for publishing — as news — a slanted piece that denigrates local residents for fighting to ensure that a company can’t just buy up property and impose noise, traffic and parking problems on us because they think they are entitled to a piece of the tourist market.

Helen Fallon


Re: “The Mayor Who Fell to Earth,” Opinion, July 11

The real issue with L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti is that he really does not have a voter mandate for anything other than fixing potholes. The author repeats the Garcetti landslide fallacy that “he got an astounding 81% of the vote” in the March 2017 election, but neglects to add the critical context that there was only 20% voter turnout, so 80% of the voters did not vote for Garcetti. Only in the 2022 election will any L.A. mayor be able to claim a voter mandate for anything other than business as usual.

David Holmes

Re: “Trump is Right – The Feds Can and Should Intervene in California’s ‘Disgraceful’ Homeless Crisis,” Hot Take, July 11

Really?! You think Donald Trump has a solution that won’t make this issue worse? Clearly you haven’t been paying attention.


Trump should not give money to L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti that he will give to the Homeless Industrial Complex — it’s only attracting more homeless from out of state. The federal government owns 45% of land in California, including unused military bases. The Army Corps of Engineers could set up beds, toilets, showers and Wi-Fi on federal land in a week or two and immediately start getting people off the sidewalks.

Travis Binen


Re: The Conclusion of Last Friday’s Police Chase in Venice

Monique DeLoach: Tasing a suspect — what a novel idea. Ohhh … he’s white.