Perhaps we should explore the idea of cityhood in conjunction with some or all of the surrounding communities, some of which have cityhood movements that are limping along for lack of critical mass. This would give us a broader and more diverse land and community base of the people, businesses, services, recreational and open space resources necessary for a successful community. It would serve to dilute the monopoly power that the lessees would surely be able to exert in a city comprised of just the unincorporated area, were the county veto power to be neutralized.

It is a Herculean task, but what we are unable to do separately might become possible if we work together to resolve the development crises that each community now struggles to overcome.

We are seeking a comprehensive development plan that considers the wider area--what better way to achieve it than by erasing some of the artificial map boundaries that have resulted in a piecemeal, uncoordinated hodgepodge of ill-considered growth?

Having been a resident of Venice for 15 years and of Marina del Rey for the last year, I have always thought that they should be united as they were originally. Marina del Rey is unincorporated and part of the County of Los Angeles. As such, our only access to voicing our concerns is through the Board of Supervisors, none of whom live in our community and seem far more interested in revenue to the County than to the concerns of Marina residents. Venice is under the jurisdiction of the City of Los Angeles. At least it has a Councilperson, Bill Rosendahl, to whom it can address important issues with real effect in City Hall. Other nearby communities with common interests include Playa Vista, Playa del Rey, Westchester and El Segundo. We all have to live the impact that real estate developers and the Los Angeles County supervisors have on our quality of life with very little say in the matter.

Among the advantages of incorporation with some or all of these communities is a broadened tax base, a key to political clout. 30 years ago I lived in West Hollywood and fought in the trenches with many others to incorporate. This was a grass roots effort, going door-to-door. Yes it took a few years,and a lot of effort, but we won and it worked.

There is no "might" or "maybe" As one person on the board of the failed cityhood effort during the mid 80's I can tell you that the state passed a law excluding the Marina from becoming a city.

Everyone seems to be overlooking key facts (re: Marina del Rey) that should change everything. In 1984 a case went before the US Supreme Court to settle disputes about the ownership of Marina del Rey. The US Supreme Court reversed a decision of the CA Supreme Court, holding essentially, that LA (and the State of CA) do not own Marina del Rey [Summa Corp. v. Cal. State Lands Comm'n, 466 U.S. 198 (1984)]. The question in that case was whether or not the City of Los Angeles (party was later changed to the state of CA) could claim the land (where Marina del Rey is today) under the Equal Footing Claus of the U.S. Constitution, and then hold the land pursuant to the Public Trust Doctrine.

Long before CA became a state, it was written into the U.S. Constitution that whenever new states joined the Union they would enjoy control over their tidelands, and the beds to navigable rivers and inlets (or arms of the sea). Tidelands are any areas that have water on the land and that water is effected by the ebb and flow of the tide. This "tideland" boundary extends inward to where the the high water mark would be, or more precisely, at the place of the high tide mark at the moment that each state joined the union. Any lands that fall into the category of Public Trust are to be held in trust by the state who's boundary they are in, for the use and Enjoyment of Citizens from All States - thus Equal Footing. An additional provision of the US Constitution mandates: "No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another". Incidentally, recreational boating has been held, by the High Court, to fall under the protection of this law.

The only way that tidelands could not be part of a states Public Trust Lands, is in those rare circumstances when the land in question was granted out (or given or traded away) by the US Government before that precise time that a State becomes a state. Some Indian land treaties have fallen into this category precluding the states from controlling those lands. One other exception to the rule of Tidelands automatically going to the States control for the Public Trust, are any lands that were granted out as Mexican Land Grants. This is exactly what the US Supreme Court reaffirmed with their ruling in 1984 against Los Angeles and the State of California. There are no Public Trust Lands in any areas that were part of Mexican Land Grants.

Marina del Rey sits right in the middle of a Mexican Land Grant, Rancho Ballona. The US Supreme Court, in it's decision stated that the land of Marina del Rey was part of Los Angeles, or the city of Venice. Los Angeles was ordered off the land... the State of CA was ordered off the land... So how is it that the land of Marina del Rey became unincorporated? The US Supreme Court also ruled that the true owners of Marina del Rey are the decedents (or heirs) of the original grant holders. So how is it that the County of Los Angeles all of a sudden steps in and claims to own Marina del Rey?

As far as I can tell, the true owner of Marina del Rey is Fred Machado, of Culver City... He has the original grant, and the courts have held that deed of grant acts as a quit claim deed against all other claims.

Another interesting thing to note: The CA Costal Commission has no jurisdiction in Marina del Rey. The CA Costal Commission draws it's authority to act from the The Submerged Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. § 1313 exceptions to Submerged Lands Act.). Note: The submerged lands act is a very lengthy and detailed document. I wanted to be sure that I was correct in my assertion that the California Costal Commission had no jurisdiction in Marina del Rey. Just to be sure I called the Ca State Resources Department and I spoke to the top lawyer there by the name of Kirk Miller. I asked him if it was true that the Submerged Lands Act was not valid in Marina del Rey, or that Marina del Rey was exempted from the act... Mr. Miller agreed, the Submerged Lands Act does not apply in Marina del Rey, or in any area that was a Mexican Land Grant. As the Coastal Commissions of the various states derive their authority from the Submerged Lands Act, it would be then true that the California Coastal Commission should have no say, what so ever in Marina del Rey.

Well, I guess that this changes everything doesn't it

It seems that somebody had committed a large oversight with respect to the construction of Marina del Rey. Marina del Rey is on land that was thought to be tideland and it was thought that it normally would have been part of the public trust. Apparently it was assumed by somebody in the California government that the land of Marina del Rey was Public Trust lands and that the state could take this area without compensating the true owner(s). It seems that the mistake was not realized until after the construction of Marina del Rey Harbor was completed. Rather than compensating the owner(s), they instead tried to conceal their mistake, and they seem to have done a good job of doing just that for about 45 years so far. When the case got before the US Supreme Court the US Solicitor General made accusations that the entire case was a fraud. In an amicus curie brief the Solicitor General wrote a scathing critique of the CA high court and of the parties involved. He wrote among other things, "The City of Los Angeles and the State of California nevertheless asserted the right to dredge the lagoon, construct sea walls, make other improvements therein, and open it to public navigation, fishing and recreation, all without exercising the power of eminent domain, and instituted judicial proceedings in state court to vindicate these claims." When Summa v Cal State Lands was originally filed it was titled: Venice Peninsula Properties v. Los Angeles. Venice Peninsula Properties was actually owned by Hughes which changed it's name to Summa Co. The city of Los Angeles was replaced by the state of California due to the issue being public trust which required the CA attorney general's office to become involved. The case was originally filed in 1965. After the US Supreme Court made their ruling in 1984 they remanded the case back down to the CA Supreme Court, ordering them to finish out the case in ways not inconsistant with their ruling and opinion. The CA Supreme Court sat on the case for 4 years, then in 1988 they remanded it back down to the CA Court of Appeals, who remanded it back down to the trial court. The last entry in the case was in 1997 or 1998. As far as I can tell they never did serve the real party in interest, the true owner of Marina del Rey, Fred Machado.

All these documents are easy to find online. If you look into this you will finally see the truth of what has taken place in Marina del Rey. It would seem that both Los Angeles and Hughes were trying to take the land from the true owner. Instead of buying it, they put on this big courtroom circus to try to cause the owner to eroneously believe that his interest in the land was lost -- so far it has worked. It would have worked too, except for one problem... carved out of this land there now exists the worlds largest man made marina, a navigable waterway, and navigable waterways come (for the people) with rights all their own, as boating is a constitutionally protected right. It is a felony to deprive someone of a right expressed in the constitution. But the County of L.A. has been getting away with it for years.

Lastly, the High Court has held that members of the public have a right not to be encumbered by private interests in a navigable waterway, so why is it that the county has leased out all the docks and put them under private control?

And why has the County closed down the Federal Anchoring Area, inside the marina, as they kick out more and more entry level boaters? Everything they do is unlawful from a to z... every single thing. The County of LA doesn't have the authority to put in a gumball machine in Marina del Rey, yet somehow they claim to own it and they run the whole show.

Here is one last piece of proof for you: the County has an entire section of laws they made up to govern the marina. It is the second half of Airport and Harbors , starting at sec 19. Interesting because the State Harbors and Navigation Code section 660 -662 expressly forbids local governments from making any laws that regulate boating. Additionally this violates the CA Constitution to Art 11 section 7 "Where a state department occupies the field of law, expressly or impliedly, local governments shall not legislate"

Well what do you know? Why then does the County have 32 pages of laws, many of which conflict with the State's Harbors and Navigation Code, as put out by the Dept of Boating and Waterways????

I sure would like to know, wouldn't you?