John D'Amico, West Hollywood Non-Incumbent, Wins Historic First Seat in City Council Race; Heilman, Land Close Behind

Business Directory Melbourne

I'm a huge fan of Tom West, and I really believe that he did everything possible to make sure that everything in this election went off without a hitch.

business listings

I don't think they will get the flattering attention they garnered in this election next time around, and there will be no need to call the sheriff to "protect" any candidate during an "endorsement" meeting. Thanks.

Pepe Fenjul Jr.

I look forward to more such good coverage by the L.A. Weekly on into the next election cycle in which I for one look forward to more change in our city government.

Paul Decroix

John Duran hasn't done a whole heck of a lot except go along with Heilman & Land for the most part. Heilman endorsed and support Duran when he ran for city council. I'm delighted to see Duran befriend John D! Maybe now he will breal away from Heilman & Land? I'll take a wait & see attitude. Hopefully John D. won't let us all done after the Horvath appointment.

Gaston Cantens

woodymcbreairty

@ Guest (with no name): The exact same people would have won, the Dem or Stonewall "endorsements" had nothing to do with it and have been rendered virtually irrelevant. John D'Amico had meaningful endorsements like Council Member John Duran, Planning Commissioner John Altshul, activist Jeanne Dobrin, and other community members who had a personal interest in this race and who the voters related to, not Los Angeles or state elected people who didn't know Lindsey Horvath from Baby Jane Hudson. I might add that Jeffrey Prang's "endorsement' carried the weight of a deflated balloon. He went through all that song and dance at the "endorsement" meetings for naught. I think he made an ass of himself and his "endorsements will have a negative bearing on his ability to get reelected. Woody McBreairtyWest Hollywood

Guest

So the people who supported D'Amico are "meaningful," while the people who supported Land and Heilman are "irrelevant" and have "nothing to do with it." All three were elected. They had 47%, 46%, and 43% of the vote, respectively. All the votes, and all the supporters, are meaningful and relevant.

truthhurts

Guest, you are clearly a narcissistic, sociopathic asshole. It's public knowledge that Heilman, Land, & Horvath were taking bribes from developers and engaging in very corrupt practices. It's a fucking rotten shame that two out of three 'incumbants'(although to be an 'incumbant', one has to have previously been elected into the position) has been re-elected. Anyone who has that much interest in being in the same political office for over 25 years MUST be a criminal. Oh, and Guest, your eagerness to defend these motherfuckers only lets the readers know how moronic you are. Go watch some Fox News, asshole.

Woody McBreairty

Just a little clarification, truthhurts: An incumbant politician is defined as one who currently holds the position of office. (It does not mean they had to be elected to it.) Woody McBreairty(P.S. But we need to keep this dialogue going to make Heilman understand that his "John Heilman, Owner" sign has been removed from over the door at city hall. I know many who consider this person sociopathic and say he will stop at nothing to maintain his reign of terror. John D'Amico is a very capable man, but he is also very sweet and lovng, and must be encouraged not to succumb to Heilman's threatening MO. Thank you for your input, even though the language is a little "spicey". :)

Guest

@truthhurts -- I heard these accusations during the campaign, but they were never accompanied by any actual information as to the alleged bribes. When I looked into them, they all boiled down to wild fantasies by people who hated the incumbents for some other reason, or were based on the strange idea that all campaign donations to incumbents are bribes. I am sorry the incumbents chose to deal with these wild accusations by trying to ignore them, on the mistaken assumption that voters were too well-informed to fall for the lies. Many are, but many aren't. The incumbents paid a price for it, because when even stupid charges are not answered, a certain number of voters will assume they are true.

If you have any actual information about any officials taking bribes, please give it to the district attorney at (213) 974-3512 or 210 West Temple Street, Suite 18000, Los Angeles, CA 90012-3210.

I couldn't disagree with you more about whether someone staying in the same office a long time is automatically a criminal. There are many great elected officials who have had long and honorable careers in a single position.

Paul Decroix

That's the way the cookie crumbles. It's hollow victory but at least Horvath was sent packing. I hated the way she was brought on as council member. Hopefully that type of thing won't happen ever again. John D or someone like him should have been brought in as an appointee after the death of council member Sal not Horvath.

guest

Dear LA Weekly,

Why are you so biased against the incumbents? This WeHo coverage makes me never want to read anything you publish.

Thanks.

Not a friend

Signed: the incumbents' agents...

woodymcbreairty

So much for the endorsements of the Stonewall & WeHo Democratic Clubs. I don't think they will get the flattering attention they garnered in this election next time around, and there will be no need to call the sheriff to "protect" any candidate during an "endorsement" meeting, and no more fleeing through the bushes to avoid questions from a local reporter. In hindsight, we can see that all the hulabaloo about their endorsements was much ado about nothing and won't be considered so critical from here forward. For that matter, so much for the endorsements of Zev, Gavin, Sheila Kuehl, Fran Pavley, et al, not to mention those of the firemen & sheriff's who said we needed Heilman, Land & Horvath to keep us "safe". That was an embarassment. Hopefully in the future, candidates will state their qualifications ahead of their endorsements. I am grateful to the L.A. Weekly for it's constant coverage of the election from start to finish, I think they made a difference in the outcome. The L.A Weekly did what the L.A. Times and the small local publications failed to do - they introduced and interviewed the candidates (at least those who agreed to talk to them, all were given a chance and treated fairly), did stories on issues important to the voters, and included input from citizens in their stories. I think the L.A. Weekly did for the voters of West Hollywood what the L.A. Times did for the city of Bell. I look forward to more such good coverage by the L.A. Weekly on into the next election cycle in which I for one look foward to more change in our city government.Woody McBreairtyWest Hollywood

Guest

@Woody -- As for whether the Democratic endorsements matter, they are only one part of the picture, but they backed 2 of the 3 winning candidates, which seems to be more than you did. Also, how many votes would Lindsey have gotten without them? A whole lot less. As for the impact of the LA Weekly, their cover story featured Mito, not D'Amico -- and Mito came in seventh, supported by fewer than 1 in 5 WeHo voters. Sure, the Weekly probably played a role -- without it, he might have come in eighth or ninth.

jimmy palmieri

useless endorsements....they are archaic....no longer needed. they stacked the incumbents with 60 new members and called an emergency meeting. they are so laughable that their own members are telling me they are embarassed.

jimmy palmieri

lol such donosaurs. the clubs are not needed for endorsements. the people have spoken.....WERD.

Guest

What are you talking about? Neither club had an emergency meeting, and the only group of "new members" were ones that D'Amico's campaign manager arranged. Stop the lying.

Paul Decroix

Dang it! Heiland still edged out Martin. I'm still questioning the 930 provisional/absentee votes that was changed to 800 and now 757. Something smells bad about that ever changing number.

Woody McBreairty

I think it's pretty well settled now, but we have to keep questioning those whom we have entrusted with doing our business - and spending our money and keep demanding answers. We still don't have an explanation who the big money spenders are at city hall, who has the $1800 a year membership at a private club paid for by the people of WeHo and who has been having dinners priced at $100 to $800 or more on the taxpaper's bank account, and what the unexplained expenses are connected to accts at BofA. We still need answers...

EdBuck

Paul, I spent the day at city hall watching the ballot count. The reason we had the drop off was that some people were not in fact registered to vote in West Hollywood, or not even registered to vote. Tom West, the City Clerk, had us staring over his shoulder all day, so there is't anything amiss here.

Tony Wilson

Thanks Ed for the reassuring post. I so wanted Steve M. to win this one too but also voted for D'Amico as well.

JIMMY PALMIERI

I am so happy this has happened. It not only elected, rather than appointed someone as a steward to our city, but it has shown the people have spoken. AND SPOKEN LOUDLY. Now if we can just get the two incumbents to listen. AND LISTEN CLEARLY.