Are Term Limits Good For West Hollywood? Voters to Decide in Upcoming Election

Jennie Warren

2011 City Council candidate Mito Aviles

The Los Angeles Times ran a piece about West Hollywood terms limits today. It's filled with the usual, and very simplified, arguments by City Council members John Heilman and Jeff Prang about why terms limits are bad.

"The people in West Hollywood are smart enough to know that if there's a council member they don't like," Prang told the Times, "they don't have to vote for them."

But the 2010 L.A. Weekly cover story "West Follywood" goes into more detail about why terms limits could be a good thing for that small, world-famous city.

In essence, the Weekly found that with council members staying on the job for so long -- everyone except for newcomer John D'Amico has served more than a decade -- they have created an entrenched political establishment that makes it nearly impossible for worthy challenging candidates to win and bring new ideas to the city.

Only two incumbents have been voted out of office in the 28-year history of West Hollywood.

The council members control who sits on the city's commissions and advisory groups, they hold the purse strings for various city projects that involve developers and non-profits, they make the laws that can make or break businesses. Take the controversial outdoor smoking ban at the city's nightlife spots or the upcoming ban on fur sales.

In other words, Council members John D'Amico, John Duran, John Heilman, Abbe Land, and Jeff Prang hold all the power and money in the city, and few people -- from real estate developers who contribute to their political campaigns to non-profits who need city funding to commission members who want to keep their seats -- are willing to challenge them and risk losing something.

If anything, the developers and crew give the council members all the money and resources needed to win their re-election campaigns.

Council members also seek special favors. John D'Amico told the Weekly a year before he was elected to office, "It happens all the time. Birthday parties [for West Hollywood City Council members] turn into fund-raisers for their favorite charities."

Additionally, when the Weekly covered a City Council race two years ago, challengers constantly complained that prospective campaign contributors told them they only gave money to incumbents.

As a result of this stranglehold on power and money, the council members get re-elected time and again.

Take this excerpt from "West Follywood," with good government activist Kathay Feng explaining the "very dangerous situation":

"In smaller cities like West Hollywood," says Kathay Feng, executive director of California Common Cause, "it may be easier for a small group of people to take control because they only have to reach out to 20,000 voters." With only about 4,000 actively participating in West Hollywood city elections, the insider grip on governance becomes a "very dangerous situation."

"You have a tendency to only talk to people who support you," says Feng, a good-government expert. "You only talk to a very small cross-section of voters -- and try not to wake anyone else up."

With West Hollywood's liberal political establishment now threatened, it's not surprising that the Los Angels County Democratic political establishment recently backed them up and voted to oppose term limits.

The term limits question will come to West Hollywood voters this March. Duran and Prang are also up for re-election.

Contact Patrick Range McDonald at pmcdonald@laweekly.com.

Tags:

City Council, Jeff Prang, John Duran, Los Angeles Times, Mito Aviles, Patrick Range McDonald, West Hollywood

We Recommend

Sheila Lightfoot

Thank you, Patrick, for stripping down this issue to its essence… as you do so well. It is a risky business for any resident or business who ever expects to stand before the Council over any issue - to have their name spotted as a contributor on the public Campaign Report of a challenger in a City Council race or for an initiative like the Term Limits’ Measure C.

It takes a lot of brave people to contribute enough money for even one campaign flyer to help someone get their name and/or message out at all. Meanwhile, those who know what’s good for them at City Hall just start writing the check when the calls come for their contributions to the incumbents. It’s a vicious cycle of petty intimidation that has to be broken.

If I have to hear one more resident or business say that they can’t get involved for fear of retribution… well, I guess that’s a great motivator for me and a lot of other people to keep fighting City Hall. I’m one of the original proponents on the petition for Term Limits and we had so many volunteers helping us get signatures we didn’t have to depend on raising a lot of money to get it on the ballot. Of course, now that we have it on the ballot, the Council is pulling out all the stops to bring the power of the political machine and a truckload of money to bear against us. The more they lie and misdirect the more you know they’re scared.

So, maybe, just maybe, having Term Limits on the ballot this March will finally help us hit a critical mass of fed-up people and we’ll take a Council seat or two along with the Yes votes on Term Limits’ Measure C.

meister4weho

Kathay Feng of California Common Cause certainly had it right: "With only about 4,000 actively participating in West Hollywood city elections, the insider grip on governance becomes a "very dangerous situation... You have a tendency to only talk to people who support you... You only talk to a very small cross-section of voters -- and try not to wake anyone else up."

That said, Weho Term limits was able to collect over 3,000 signatures in a very short period of time (that's more people than most council members are elected by). I do believe we have a light at the end of this tunnel. Vote YES on Measure C.