Integrity of Incumbents Challenged at Debates

The moral integrity of the West Hollywood was called into question repeatedly at a debate among City Council candidates Wednesday night. 

All nine candidates for the three City Council seats up for election on March 8 participated in the forum, the second and final of the City Council debates. Candidates addressed a dizzying array of topics, but several themes emerged as the evening progressed, the No. 1 being the moral code under which the council members, and by extension itself, operate. 

“There is a malaise in City Hall. There is a culture that doesn’t respect residents,” said challenger Steve Martin, who served on the council from 1994-2003. He charged that City Hall is ruled by a clique made up of the three incumbents who do not listen to what the people want. “We need to bring the city back to the people, back to the progressive values it was founded on.”

Challenger John D’Amico charged that the incumbents, who tend to vote as a bloc, have a dominating effect upon City Hall that doesn’t allow dissenting opinions to be heard.

Challenger Lucas John said there is a “generation tired of having their voice stifled by [incumbent] .”

Challenger Mito Aviles agreed, saying, “West Hollywood is going in the wrong direction. ... There is a lack of transparency and accountability in City Hall.” He later called the city’s government a “political machine that preys on fear.”

Challenger Scott Schmidt said he believes the city deserves better than it's getting, adding that many people believe they need to “hire a lobbyist” to get permission to paint their garages.

Meanwhile, the incumbents ignored those charges and tried to defend their records.

“I love the city of West Hollywood and love what we’ve been able to accomplish here,” said Heilman, who has served on the council since 1984.

“I want to ensure this city remains the creative city,” said Councilwoman , who has served on the council for 18 years. Meanwhile, , who was appointed to the council in 2009, said, “I am proud to live in the creative city founded on rent control.”

More than 200 people attended the two-and-a-half hour debate held in  auditorium, while many more watched the first 90 minutes at home on the city’s public access channel. The final hour did not air on the public access channel.

The Coalition of West Hollywood Residents Associations sponsored the debate, and local actor/market researcher Michael Willens served as moderator. Candidates were held to strict time limits (60 seconds for most questions), a policy that permitted many topics to be covered, but did not allow for in-depth discussion.  

Development

As with the first debate held a week earlier, the issue of development and land use came up repeatedly. “Bigger, louder, faster has become the anthem for the city ... ," D’Amico reprimanded. "It is critical not to let buildings be more important than people.”

D’Amico later commented that the city’s urban village was at risk of disappearing into the Greater L.A. basin because of overdevelopment, saying “Don’t turn West Hollywood in Los Angeles.”

Challenger Mark Gonzaga said he is against overdevelopment and wants to protect the renters who are at risk of being evicted because of buildings being torn down to make way for luxury condominiums. 

Martin added that he is opposed to the city’s proposed new General Plan that calls for taller buildings and increasing the city’s population by 20 percent. Heilman said the most important issue facing the city is maintaining affordable housing.

Challengers frequently charged the incumbents with voting in favor of large real estate developments in exchange for the donations to either their re-election campaign or their pet charities/projects, a practice generally referred to as “pay for play.” 

Campaign Funds

Finally, an audience member demanded each candidate reveal what portion of their campaign funds came from developers. The three incumbents all said they had no idea what percentage was from developers.

Heilman added that he’s received campaign donations from both developers and people living in affordable housing. Martin quickly countered that he would bet Heilman’s developer donations carried greater weight than the affordable-housing donations.

Martin then added that he certainly knows who and how much has been contributed to his campaign. He said he’s received no money developers, but said some money is from lawyers and lobbyists.

D’Amico proudly announced he has raised $92,187 (the most of any candidate) from friends, some of whom are developers. He then added those developer donations totaled less than $5,000.

Schmidt said he had not received any money from developers while Aviles has vowed not to take any developer money. Gonzaga said he is financing his campaign entirely with his own money. 

Ethics Commission 

The question of whether an ethics commission should be created was raised. John said he would support such a commission and would select “anyone who doesn’t know John Heilman and hasn’t contributed to his campaign” to serve.

Schmidt agreed that an ethics commission is needed and added that its members shouldn't be appointed by the City Council. Martin concurred, saying the council members should keep their hands out of it. Aviles suggested that such a commission be hosted by an unbiased third party.

D’Amico said an ethics commission should review donations that City Hall solicits, saying “Our city shouldn’t be for sale,” to which Land promptly replied, “Our city is not for sale.” 

Term Limits

As in last week’s debate, the question of term limits for City Council members was raised. The incumbents all said they do not favor term limits, with Horvath giving the standard City Hall reply, “We do have term limits, they’re called elections.” 

John favors term limits, saying, “a seat on the City Council should not be for life.” D’Amico said the question could be resolved simply by voting the incumbents out of office, an answer that brought a loud round of applause.

Special Election 

The question of whether to hold a special election to fill a vacancy on the City Council was raised, a direct reference to Horvath’s appointment to the panel in May 2009 after the death of longtime councilman Sal Guariello.

John said he would favor the special election because he “supports democracy.” Horvath answered she would favor the election, “if there’s time,” to which D’Amico immediately replied, “there’s always time.” Schmidt pointed out the Horvath was not to blame for the circumstances of her appointment, and that Heilman and Land were. 

Parking 

The ongoing shortage of parking in the city was touched upon numerous times. Martin speculated that some businesses may be leaving the city due to the parking problems. John said that “other than John Heilman, parking and transportation are the biggest problems facing the city.” 

D’Amico suggested creating a Parking Commission, whereas Schmidt said the city’s often confusing parking regulations need clarification. He further called upon the city to stop relying on parking tickets as a major source of revenue.

Schmidt also expressed concern about keeping the city’s Triple A bond rating given the fact that the city had a reserve of $117 million in 2008 that will shrink to $58 million by the end of 2011.

John called for better marketing of West Hollywood as a gay destination. Schmidt expressed concern for the increasing gentrification of the city noting that he doesn’t want to see West Hollywood go the way of Key West, FL,  and Laguna Beach, cities that were once gay destinations but in recent years have lost both the gay tourist and many gay residents.

For changes the candidates would like to see City Hall implement, Horvath called for greater citizen input, while Land would like to improve technology. Heilman called for improvement in community information about government to help dispel “misinformation.” Martin immediately replied that there is a lot of “misinformation about alleged misinformation.”

In closing statements, Heilman called on voters to judge candidates by what they have done and offered a long list of his accomplishments. D’Amico thanked Land and Heilman for their years of service but told them it was time for them to move on, while Schmidt said there is “nothing creative about recycling the same politicians.”