Home Invasion on 30th Avenue Near Beach Adds to Venice Victim Tally

On 30th Avenue near the beach a mentally ill female transient climbs through doggie door at 1 AM on Sunday, December 20th, adding one more home invasion to the victim tally.

The Venice victim tally since August 2013: 

• Deranged transient Nathan Campbell, living in his car in Venice, mows down 17 pedestrians on Boardwalk with his car and kills young Italian woman in a rage over being ripped off in a drug deal gone bad.
• Transient brutally assaults resident Robert DiMassa on walk street because DiMassa's service dog urinated on the sidewalk near where the camper was sleeping.
• Five home invasions between April 8 and November 29, 2014 - four by wasted, mentally ill transients - in a six block area centered on Windward and Riviera.
• Clabe Hartley's fingertip bitten off by transient Jonathan Lemons on Washington Blvd.
• Homeless Jose Gonzalez dies April 19th after suffering a blow from transient Thomas Glover on Abbot Kinney at California. 
• The death of transient Brendon Glenn on May 5th in altercation with LAPD on Windward. 
• Transient Jason Davis shot on July 14th by LAPD at Groundworks Cafe on Rose after approaching police with a knife.  He later died of his wounds.
• At Third and Rose in July, homeless Sam Cosentino is stabbed multiple times by another transient, requiring hospitalization of Cosentino.
• Two transients shot on the Boardwalk at Dudley on August 30th, apparently in altercation over camping spaces.  One dies at the scene and one is transported to the hospital and later released.
• Transient Mark Scanlan hurls chair at restaurateur Clabe Hartley, striking him in the back of the head.  The injury results in a severe concussion and requires five staples in Hartley's scalp.
• A knife-wielding transient invades apartment at 28th and Speedway on October 12, 2015; resident flees to a neighbor's apartment and calls police.  Police apprehend a possible suspect though he is later released.
• On Saturday, October 17th, resident John Frane is punched in the face and knocked to the pavement by a transient on Third Street near Rose after he and his partner are called "girls" by a group of anti-gay transients. 
• On October 29th on the Boardwalk at Sunset and Pacific a 25 year-old black male transient attacked a rollerblader, knocking him unconscious.
• On Thanksgiving Day a white transient in his early 20s climbed up to the second story of 36 Paloma, broke in through a window and proceeded to help himself to a shower. He was later discovered by one of the owners - stark naked - going through her possessions.  He was described as mentally ill by those who interacted with him.  He was arrested by the LAPD.
• On November 28th visitors Aria Lahmann and Tyler Seiders were attacked by a female transient wielding a vacuum cleaner wand on the Boardwalk.  The incident and several others involving transients were captured on video and broadcast on December 1st at: http://ktla.com/2015/12/01/caught-on-video-homeless-woman-attacks-tourists-on-venice-boardwalk.
• On December 20th at about 1 AM resident Marilyn Roland awoke to find a mentally ill female transient mumbling to herself next to Roland's bed.  The transient had crawled through the doggie door.  Roland fled to her garage with her cell phone and called 911.  The transient left the house but was arrested by police.  However, since Roland could not positively identify the woman due to lack of light in her bedroom, the woman was released.

Message to Mike Bonin and Eric Garcetti: 

Drain the swamp:  stop the camping along Venice Beach, the walk streets, Mildred, Venice Boulevard, Grand Avenue and on Third Street, stop the storage of tons of transients' stuff on Venice Beach and local sidewalks, bring back the City's ordinance banning "sitting, lying, sleeping" on sidewalks and establish 300 foot buffer from residences for camping or unattended property.

Or more people - residents, visitors and transients - will be harmed in Venice by the lawless conditions the City continues to allow to exist here.

Yo!Venice: Does Venice Really Need More Sidewalk Vending?

Ocean Front Walk

Does Venice Really Need More Sidewalk Vending?

November 17, 2015 Yo! Venice Contributor

Columnist Mark Ryavec.

The City Council is poised to adopt a new ordinance that will allow some amount of sidewalk vending in the city.  This could take the form of a few vendors per block selling food or products in a few areas of the city, or it could result in commercial streets throughout the city being lined with vendors of every stripe.  Recent hearings of the Council’s Economic Development Committee did not make clear exactly where the Council is headed, though there appears to be a consensus that some vending should be allowed.

In the most extreme case, imagine Abbot Kinney, Rose Avenue, Washington Boulevard, some areas of Main Street, Lincoln, and the first couple blocks of Windward lined with carts and stands selling a wide assortment of items, some of them the same items for sale in nearby shops.  Also picture hundreds of additional carts and tables strewn all along the Venice Beach Recreation Area and Boardwalk, since vending in parks is also being considered.

As the Council takes testimony on what should be allowed and where it should be allowed, City leaders would be well advised to take a look at Venice’s experience.  Vending on our Boardwalk is the one exception to the City’s ban on sidewalk or park vending, and sales are only allowed under color of the exercise of the vendors’ First Amendment rights.

I recently walked Ocean Front Walk to check out the scene and was surprised that there actually is a lot of original art – both good and some very bad. There also were many examples of mass produced items that were not the work of the person staffing the table.  Several vendors also offered henna tattoos, which are made using mass produced templates, not freehand, which in my mind is not original art either.

Vending along the Boardwalk causes problems beyond the occasional violation of the municipal code. The police tell us that some “artists” are fronts for drug sales. Some vendors store their wares, tables and carts in vehicles permanently parked on nearby streets, denying these spaces to residents. Others block nearby sidewalks with their carts, piled high with equipment and products. Some of the vendors do not leave at night as required by the Beach Curfew and many store their stuff in the park, violating the new parks ordinance, which requires that everything leave the park – and Boardwalk – at night. This all contributes to the look and atmosphere of Skid Row West.

For decades the merchants in the brick and mortar shops on the east side of the Boardwalk have complained about the sale of commercial products, as opposed to original art, on the Westside. These vendors posing as artists are able to dramatically undercut the east side merchants since they don’t have to pay rent, taxes, permit fees, utilities or insurance. The lack of city enforcement in Venice’s case raises the question of whether any sidewalk vending regime would be enforced or enforceable. The LAPD and the City Attorney’s Office have generally turned a blind eye to violations on the Boardwalk so I am not assured that they would enforce any controls that are meant to regulate sidewalk vending elsewhere in Venice or the city. Indeed, this concern about enforcement has been raised by several other neighborhood groups.  Without inspectors tasked with just enforcing whatever regulations are set-up, enforcement will likely end up at the bottom of the list for the LAPD, City Attorney’s Office and Bureau of Street Services.

One of the other problems with any sidewalk vending in Venice is the substandard width of our sidewalks. Laid out and built in the early years of the last century, they barely can carry the crowds that regularly visit Venice now.

So, questions of unfair competition, lack of enforcement and sidewalk capacity all need to be addressed, and I would propose they be addressed on a block-by-block basis. That is why our organization has joined some neighborhood councils in arguing that any ordinance legalizing sidewalk vending should contain an “opt-in” provision which could only be exercised by a super-majority (e.g., 67 percent or 60 percent) vote of adjacent property owners.

A Los Angeles Times reporter asked me why this decision should be left to property owners when the sidewalk is a public space. Shouldn’t city officials make this call, he queried.
To start with, sidewalks exist to be just what the name implies – a raised walkway separated from and on the side of the street for pedestrian passage.

However, the City does not own the land under the sidewalk or the parkway (the strip of land typically between the curb and the sidewalk). The fee simple title to the sidewalk and parkway is held by the adjacent property owner. The City just has an easement over the property requiring that it be left undeveloped so that unhindered passage is maintained.

Historically, the City required that the property owner maintain the sidewalk and parkway, and even replace damaged sidewalks.  It was only when the Johnson Administration offered federal funds for sidewalk repairs as part of an economic stimulus package that the City assumed responsibility to repair sidewalks.  The City is now planning to return the responsibility for sidewalk repair to property owners, an acknowledgement that sidewalks and parkways are the possession of the adjacent owner, not the City.

Further to this point, a City ordinance requires that the adjoining owner keep their sidewalks free and clear so as to not thwart the City’s easement.

In the instance of sidewalk vending, the City is considering taking land that it controls under an easement for passage and giving small islands of its easement area to vendors, violating the purpose of the easement. (I could question whether the City even has legal authority to make such grants since the City does not own the sidewalk, but if limited and controlled, such grants may well be de-minimis in their impact on the easement.)

Since the property owner owns the dirt under the parkway and sidewalk, and the City, with sidewalk vending, is proposing to do something that is counter to its easement, I believe the owner must be consulted on whether he or she agrees to such a use of their property.

If you would like to weigh in on this matter, you can write to:

Councilman Curren Price, Chair
Economic Development Committee
Los Angeles City Council City Hall
200 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA  90012

It's not our imagination; the young travelers really are more obnoxious now...

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-state-street-panhandlers-20141029-story.html

Why young homeless travelers aren't welcome in tourist cities

Joe McCabe sits on a wooden bench and calls out to two men strolling up State Street, "Have any spare change? I'm actually a traveler."

latimes.com|By Los Angeles Times

Oddly, this story did not run in the Times in LA, at least not in Venice.

VSA Opposes Vacation of Public Easement at NW Corner of Abbot Kinney and Venice Blvd.

November 4, 2015

Councilman Mike Bonin  (Councilmember.Bonin@LACity.org)             

City Hall

200 North Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA  90012

Joey Vasquez   (Joey.Vasquez@LACity.org)

Hearing Officer

Department of City Planning

200 North Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA  90012

Re: 1656 South Abbot Kinney Blvd./Case #: TT -72841-REV, ENV-2015-2716-MND, DIR-2015 -823-CDP

   

Dear Councilman Bonin and Mr. Vasquez:

I am writing on behalf of our organization to oppose the proposal to abandon and vacate any portion of the street dedication at 1656 Abbot Kinney Boulevard and 583 Venice Boulevard, on the northwest corner of Venice and Abbot Kinney Boulevards.

This land is located at the intersection of two of the main boulevards in Venice, and is currently used for important public purposes, providing a significant segment of the tree lined parkway bordering Venice Boulevard. This land and 43 other contiguous dedications of land along Venice Boulevard are part of an approved landscaping plan for Venice Boulevard, the “City of Los Angeles Venice Boulevard Planting Plan,” adopted by the City Engineer in May, 1995.

The current municipal easement for future public uses and landscaping was wisely adopted many years ago to allow the City to expand the street with transportation and park improvements.  One can easily imagine this land being used to accommodate future projects such as a light rail system on Venice Boulevard and/or the installation of a wide bike lane plus jogging path that would be physically separate from the boulevard itself.

There are other alternatives to vacation of the easement that would maintain future public uses.  These include a Public Works Revocable Permit which would allow private use until such time as the property is needed for new public transportation uses.  Further, vacation of this easement would set a dangerous precedent for all the other similar easements along Venice Boulevard, leading to a significantly diminished parkway on each side of the boulevard and greatly limit the City’s future transportation and landscaping options.

We believe it would be shortsighted and improper for the City to relinquish any rights to this land.

Thank you for your consideration of our thoughts on this matter.

Sincerely,

Mark Ryavec

Mark Ryavec

President

LA Times: Sidewalk sales debate exposes sharp divide on where -- or if -- vendors can operate

VSA proposes neighborhood "opt in" choice for any future legalization of sidewalk vending...

http://www.latimes.com/local/cityhall/la-me-sidewalk-vending-dilemma-20151102-story.html

We Need a Little Help from Our Friends

This is a request for donations.

We have succeeded in defeating the City's and County's attempts to have the court dismiss our suit against them for maintaining a dangerous public nuisance in the Venice Beach Recreation Area and along the Boardwalk.  A trial is scheduled for early December.

Their effort caused our attorneys to work night and day to prepare the legal briefs, which were voluminous, to oppose the City's and County's legal arguments.

The City Attorney and County Counsel are supported by your tax dollars. 

The VSA, on the other hand, has to raise every dollar we pay our attorneys.

This last effort, while successful, has resulted in a bill for tens of thousands of dollars.

If you agree the situation along the Boardwalk is a travesty for residents and visitors alike and would like to help the VSA keep up the pressure on the City and County to clean-up Venice Beach, please make a contribution, in any amount.

Checks payable to the Venice Stakeholders Association should be sent to the VSA at 1615 Andalusia Avenue, Venice, CA 90291.

All donations are tax deductible.

Thank you.

Venice Beach Public Nuisance Case Heads to Trial

Court Rejects City and County’s Motions 

for SummaryJudgement

This morning Superior Court Judge Gregory Alarcon denied motions by the City and County of Los Angeles to dismiss the Venice Stakeholders Association lawsuit which alleges that the City and County have maintained a public nuisance on their park land, parking lots and the Boardwalk at Venice Beach.

In the decision the Court cited legal authority which included:

“Government liability under Government Code section 815 et seq. may be
nuisances per se,… Such an action would not force the City to prosecute others for
nuisance on private property, but rather require the City to take action as is
necessary so that it no longer suffers a nuisance on its own property.”
 
Venice Stakeholders applauds today’s Court decision:
 
“We are heartened by the Court’s support of our position that the City and County have a
legal responsibility to abate the nuisance which they are allowing to exist in the Venice Beach Recreation Area (VBRA),” said Mark Ryavec, president of the Stakeholders. “Just like all other owners who are responsible for their property, the City and County need to be held responsible to residents for the harm we experience.”
 
Ryavec noted that an award of monetary damages could even be used to allow residents to hire private security to protect themselves and their families from assaults, break-ins,
trespass and defecation and urination on their private property which result from people
illegally living in or storing their possessions on nearby public park land.

Gay Bashing by a Transient on Third Street/Drain the Swamp

In a Gay bashing incident last Saturday evening, a group of transients confronted John Frane and his partner on Third Street near Rose, called them "girls" and then one of the transients punched John in the face and knocked him to the pavement.  His partner is able to diffuse the situation and they escape without further harm.  A police report is filed; the assaulter has not been found.

The Venice victim tally since August 2013: 

• Deranged transient Nathan Campbell, living in his car in Venice, mows down 17 pedestrians on Boardwalk with his car and kills young Italian woman in a rage over being ripped off in a drug deal gone bad.
• Transient brutally assaults resident Robert DiMassa on walk street because DiMassa's service dog urinated on the sidewalk near where the camper was sleeping.
• Five home invasions between April 8 and November 29, 2014 - four by wasted, mentally ill transients - in a six block area centered on Windward and Riviera.
• Clabe Hartley's fingertip bitten off by transient Jonathan Lemons on Washington Blvd.
• Homeless Jose Gonzalez dies April 19th after suffering a blow from transient Thomas Glover on Abbot Kinney at California. 
• The death of transient Brendon Glenn on May 5th in altercation with LAPD on Windward. 
• Transient Jason Davis shot on July 14th by LAPD at Groundworks Cafe on Rose after approaching police with a knife.  He later died of his wounds.
• At Third and Rose in July, homeless Sam Cosentino is stabbed multiple times by another transient, requiring hospitalization of Cosentino.
• Two transients shot on the Boardwalk at Dudley on August 30th, apparently in altercation over camping spaces.  One dies at the scene and one is transported to the hospital and later released.
• Transient Mark Scanlan hurls chair at restaurateur Clabe Hartley, striking him in the back of the head.  The injury results in a severe concussion and requires five staples in Hartley's scalp.
• A knife-wielding transient invades apartment at 28th and Speedway on October 12, 2015; resident flees to a neighbor's apartment and calls police.  Police apprehend a possible suspect though he is later released.
• On Saturday, October 17th, resident John Frane is punched in the face and knocked to the pavement by a transient on Third Street near Rose after he and his partner are called "girls" by a group of anti-gay transients. 

Message to Mike Bonin and Eric Garcetti: 

Drain the swamp:  stop the camping along Venice Beach, the walk streets, Mildred, Venice Boulevard, Grand Avenue and on Third Street, stop the storage of tons of transients' stuff on Venice Beach and local sidewalks, bring back the City's ordinance banning "sitting, lying, sleeping" on sidewalks and establish 300 foot buffer from residences for camping or unattended property.

Or more people - residents, visitors and transients - will be harmed in Venice by the lawless conditions the City continues to allow to exist here.

The Olympics Are Coming to.....Santa Monica?

Mr. Mayor, this is Venice Beach and the Boardwalk.  The white buildings 
in the background are in Santa Monica. 

Mayor Garcetti Mistakes Santa Monica 

for Venice Beach

Given the obvious choice of L.A.’s own Venice Beach, with its ocean views, blue sky and palm trees, as the venue to hold the press conference to announce Los Angeles as the official U.S. bid city for the 2024 Olympics, it was odd to see Mayor Eric Garcetti standing at a podium in Santa Monica instead on Sept. 1.

Don’t get me wrong, I love Santa Monica. I was born there and have fond memories of growing up in the sleepy town that Santa Monica once was.

But doesn’t the Mayor know that Santa Monica is a separate municipality? It is not like Santa Monica is going to host a lot of events or absorb any of the cost overruns on the Olympics, which the rest of L.A., including Venice, will face if the 2024 Olympics go the way of almost every other Olympics in history.

Part of the purpose of garnering the Olympics is to boost Los Angeles’ notoriety and garner all those tourist dollars. So, what’s with putting the spotlight on our toney neighbor next door?

One poster on Yo! Venice suggested that the Mayor is scared of Venice.  Well, I understand that it would not do for him or one of the many athletes or journalists at the press conference to get a finger bitten off but I’m sure that the LAPD could have provided sufficient security just this once.

Maybe the Mayor is just not very familiar with all that Venice has to offer.  Two years ago, during the mayoral campaign, a group of Venetians attempted to remedy this. We held two well-attended fundraisers for Garcetti that raised about $30,000. We used the events as an opportunity to tell Garcetti about our on-going nightmare with the transient population and the use of Venice Beach as a campgrounds that attracts deranged and drug-addicted campers from all over the nation. He seemed to get it and gave us his personal phone number, telling us we could call him anytime. Oddly, after the election that number was disconnected and his campaign liaison moved on to other pursuits. Now no one in his office replies to telephone calls or emails. This must just be an oversight, of course.

So, let me use this column as an opportunity to acquaint His Honor with Venice’s many Olympic attributes.

First, he should consider that Venice has been pioneering new sports for Olympics consideration.

While Spain has the running of the bulls in Pamplona, we have the running of the cars on the Boardwalk. Imagine, visitors can stroll Ocean Front Walk, carefully listening for the rev of the engine of a car driven by a drugged-out guy angry at a drug deal gone bad.  Their challenge is to jump out of the way before they’re run over. No medals here, they just get to keep living. Trust me; the course is still open; I could have driven a car onto the Boardwalk at Rose Ave. last week.

Then there’s competitive roof climbing.  The object of this sport is for the roof climber to find and disable the half naked resident before she can call for help or escape. (The climbing venue pictured is at Windward and Riviera Avenues.)

On Washington Blvd. we have the novel and ever popular homeless-on-restaurateur finger-biting and chair-tossing competitions (Clabe Hartley was just clobbered again, by a chair hurled by a deranged man. Clabe had the temerity to ask him not to keep dumping all the trash cans lining the street).

On Rose Ave. there is the annual police versus knife-wielding psycho challenge. So far, the LAPD is beating all comers.

We also have the unusual sport of curtain wrestling. Never heard of it? The objective is to frighten a young woman and her children out of their skin while you bleed all over their apartment and finish by convincingly wrestling a shower curtain to the floor of their blood covered bathroom before the police can arrive.

Then, to help all those athletes increase their performance and treat their pain, there is the mile long drug emporium from one end of Venice Beach to the other.

Now, who would want to stroll the dull streets of Paris with all these entertaining options available on the streets of Venice?

And Rome, well, I’m sure the Italians will look past the revulsion I saw in their faces when they heard that their countrywoman Alice Gruppioni had been run over on a pedestrian walkway at Venice Beach and they’ll just give up their Olympic bid.

Maybe, if Garcetti can arrange to hold all the Olympic events in Santa Monica, he can convince the world that none of the visitors and athletes arriving in 2024 will get hurt. But he seems to have given up on protecting the rest of us.

Protection from the Homeless

From this morning's "Letters to the Editor:"

Editor:

The phrase “criminalization of the poor” is simply a mask for the removal of all laws that protect residents from the noxious behavior of transients.

The Times spouts this misleading characterization of modest controls that once protected residents. In the process, it turns a deaf ear to residents who find it unbearable to live with the harassment, loud nighttime noise, trespassing, thefts and defecation, urination and inebriation that spring from homeless encampments, which are often right next to our homes.

There is no evidence to support the federal homelessness task force's contention that breaking up encampments makes it harder to get homeless people into permanent housing. The voiding of vagrancy laws and tolerance of encampments actually make the homeless more “service resistant,” as they become habituated to their outdoor lifestyles and the drugs that are often a part of it.

Mark Ryavec

Venice

Giuliani: De Blasio’s progressivism created city’s homeless crisis

http://nypost.com/2015/09/06/giuliani-to-de-blasio-the-citys-homeless-crisis-needs-tough-love/

A  city with homeless on its streets is a city that has no love of its people.

The so-called “progressive” view, that people have a right to live on the sidewalk, is not only legally devoid of any merit but is inhumane, indecent and dangerous. As is the case in many other policies — redistribution of wealth, social engineering, weak national defense — it’s a contradiction to describe this stance as progressive. It should properly be regarded as retrogressive.

People living on the street, urinating and defecating there, marked the Dark Ages of Western civilization. In a humane, decent and civilized city, the problems of the homeless are dealt with through intervention rather than denial.

My analysis of social policy always begins with how I would treat my child, sister, brother or friend if they fell on hard times. Suppose I found someone I loved living on the streets. What would I do? Let him remain there because he wants to and claims some fictitious legal right to do so? Or would I find out what was wrong and intervene, even if a bit of tough love was necessary?

When family members aren’t around or can’t handle the problem, it falls to the government. Under my hypothetical situation, I would find out why he is on the streets. Is he without funds to pay rent? Is he drinking too much or taking drugs or suffering from mental illness? In any one of those situations, I would suggest and then, if necessary, exert pressure on him to get appropriate help.

If it’s simply a lack of housing, I would find him a place to live and as soon as possible find him a job so he could regain the self-respect to care for himself and his family.

If he is an alcoholic or drug addict or suffers from mental illness, then I would bring him to appropriate programs — many of which have great success in dealing with these afflictions using therapy and medications.
Modal Trigger

Under no circumstances would I leave him an option that does not and should not exist in a loving city — a right to live on the streets.

This approach is not hypothetical. As mayor, I utilized it and was able to successfully remove the vast majority of homeless from the streets, providing humane and effective solutions for many of their problems. This should be at the core of a city’s program for the homeless.

The plan we followed was simple and effective. We didn’t need a task force to devise it, and it should be utilized now by New York City before we become a homeless haven like we used to be.

The police should approach every person attempting to sleep on the sidewalk and tell them they are not allowed to use the streets as a bedroom and toilet. If he only needs a place to stay, that can be provided. If he needs a job, the city should help him find one as my New York City Job Agency did, or if private work can’t be found, he can be required to work for the city for the legal limit of 20 hours a week.

‘WE HAD A STRATEGY THAT WORKED. WHY WAS IT ABANDONED?’

 - Rudy Giuliani

This will instill or maintain a work ethic — easily lost if you get something for nothing. It will also teach and reinforce that you must contribute to earn money.

If the problems are more severe, then referrals can be made to alcohol and drug rehabilitation programs and for mental evaluation to determine if therapy and medication can be helpful.

This will not work with everyone. In my experience, it worked more often than not, but not always at first. It’s always best if the police officer is accompanied by a social worker — as often was the case — to explain to a homeless person that coming in for an evaluation is better than walking all night because, if the person refuses to come, he will be followed and not allowed to sleep outside anywhere else.

Under my program, most came in for evaluation and some just left the city.

Modal Trigger

Photo: David McGlynn

When I was mayor, we did all we could to remove the homeless from the streets not only for safety and sanitary reasons, but out of love and compassion for each of the homeless as persons, as children of God.

Modal Trigger

Photo: David McGlynn

The situation only deteriorates for people allowed to live on the streets. It often leads to drinking and drugs. As for the mentally ill — about 40 percent of homeless have been, according to some studies, described as paranoid schizophrenics — as they become more isolated, their illness becomes much worse, too often leading to violence committed by them or on them.

If a person wants homeless people living on their doorstep or if a church wants to allow people to sleep on its steps, then they should be invited in to give them adequate protection and sustenance.

In fact, anytime you see homeless people in the doorway of a church bedding down for the night, ask yourself why the church hasn’t invited them in.

Difficult, seemingly implacable human problems need even more determined interventions rather than repetitions of retrogressive, old-fashioned applications of left-wing guilt.

We had a strategy that worked. Why was it abandoned?

Rudy Giuliani was mayor of New York City from 1994 to 2001.