Zuma Dogg Presents An Argument For Being Able To Sell T-Shirts on Venice Beach Boardwalk

To: Rocky Delgadillo, Villargrosa, Lucks and Los Aneles City Council
Fr: The Realest, Dough!
Re: Venice Beach Ordinance 42.15 (Vending Ban on Venice Beach)

Here are some legal highlights a certain "very well legally-educated" person, told me today at Venice Beach that basically wrote the lawsuit I alread have an attorney to represent me on. This will just make it not only much easier for my attorney, it's probably WAY better information (heart of the issue to win on) than any attorney could just walk into and get up to speed to this level, if ever at all.

ZUMA DOGG AT VENICE BEACH




I'll post some of the highlights as to why Los Angeles City Council's Ordinance 42.15 is unconstiutional. (Ban of sales of certain items like incense, jewelery, tshirts and ANY item that has a function BEYOND it's communicative message.)



So in other words, you can sell a wax sculpure, cause it's art. And art doesn't do anything but express the communicative message. (You can DO anything with it, except look at it.) HOWEVER, if you put a wick in it, then it is a candle, and you can't sell it, cause a candle DOES something (seves a function/utility). It provides light. You can sell a cross. But if you put a loop and chain around it (turn it into ring, neclace, bracelt) then the City of Los Angeles says you are in violation of City law if you accept money for your transportation costs, paint, canvas, metals, stones, YOUR CREATIVITY itself.

Unfortunatley, the United States of America has already ruled, in a Federal ruling (which superceeds any local law), that a street vendor is allowed to charge ANY PRICE THEY CAN SELL SOMETHING FOR, to cover the above mentioned costs. And the "any price" part is for the creativity, itself. (That you cannot put a price on.)

For example, there is this one psycic on the boardwalk who makes too much noise sometimes, yelling at people who block her table, or are crowding her....I would pay her to "shut-up." But some people actually pay for the advice everyone who knows her has learned to tune out. So there's that argument.

See here's the problem, the ordinance is overly-broad. In other words, it bans ALL clothing sales. Well excuse me, Tshirts are a protected medium of expression, just like a bumper sticker, poster, billboard, button or painted on canvas message you are trying to get people to read and further express for you. And the Federal judges claim that tshirts are walking billboards for first amendment protected expressions. (Ex: Zuma Dogg says the Venice Beach Ordinace Is Unconstitutional. Or a "Recall City Council" Tshirt.)

So here's what constitutes someone trying to sell an article of clothing because baby needs a cheap new pair of shoes, or plain dollar tshirt, just for basic clothing needs.

1) Expressive value MUST be stronger than the non-expressive value (a plain Tshirt sells for $1 dollar on Venice Beach, a Tshirt with "Zuma Dogg for Mayor in '09, kick Viagraosa back to Boyle Heights" sells for $10 dollars. So that demonstrates that portion;

2) and is interstircably intertwined (sic) to the sale/Must be intertwined with the expressive message. (I guess that means you can't sell a plain tshirt and hand them a "Recall Villargrosa" bumper sticker and say, enjoy your shirt, feel free to put the sticker on your car's bumper. [My attorney will further clarify, but that's MY take? (Feel free to comment on 2).

When ZD brought this to the attention of Venice Beach CM Boondoggler Bill "Rosendoh" Rosendahl's office (in a conversation with his Chief of Staff, it was explained to me that, "Well Gee Zuma Dogg, if we let you sell your homemade Zuma Dogg shirts (that are not available in any of the stores/not competing), then someone might sell a Nike shirt (commercial).

EXCUSE ME CITY OF Los Angeles vs Zuma Dogg...that's called, "not compelling government interest, is overly broad, not narroly tailored, no SIGNIFICANT public interest, no LEGITIMATE public interest and some of the other details, that slam dunk it like (hot basketball player of today).

MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT ZUMA DOGG HAS BEEN SAYING ABOUT THIS ISSUE THAT BROUGHT ME TO CITY HALL APRIL 4, 2006 IS THIS:

BESIDES BEING FACIALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL; it's overly broad and not narrowly tailored means, you can't say "all shirts". Zuma Dogg says he should AT LEAST be able to sell Zuma Dogg shirts, but (maybe not) a Bob Marley shirt (even though it could be argued that Marley is a poltical activist figure and even religious icon. So for now let's start by saying, "Zuma Dogg should be able to sell his own ZD shirts, or any shirt that says an expressive, communicative message. ("Antonio for President", "Leave Los Angeles Before You Get Steamrolled by the Machine" or "Take out the trash, gentrify the community!" (You should be able to sell these shirts.)

So you can't PREVENT the lawful federally protected definition, because someone else MIGHT break the law. That's what enforcement is for. If someone is vending outside the legal definition ZD says is narrow enough to filter out the "Laker jerseys" but not overly broad to filter out the "Recall Los Angeles City Council" Tshirts.

Well, that's a starting point.

[And hello to all the laist readers today! Thanks to laist.com for linking to this story! I'm BEGGING you to go to ZD on YouTube, ZD Blog to read more of my threads. And check the archives, right c'here on Mayor Sam's blog, naw. (Thanks to him, too, OTR, D!) Laist.com]