Recall Forces to Turn In Petition to Oust Heilman

Members of a campaign to recall West Hollywood Mayor John Heilman say they are confident that they have collected the 4,200 signatures needed to qualify their petition for a special recall election this fall.

The Recall John Heilman Movement today will turn over to the city the signatures of what members hope will be the required 20% of the city’s registered voters.

It will bring to an end an acrimonious four-month petition drive in which Heilman’s opponents and supporters repeatedly accused one another of harassment and giving out false information.

Members of the recall movement, who represent nearly every established group in the city, contend that Heilman, the only City Council member to serve continuously since the city’s November, 1984, incorporation, has grown out of touch with the community’s varying concerns.

They say he has permitted overdevelopment on the residential west end, ignored crime on the beleaguered east end and weakened the city’s rent-control ordinance.

Activists in the city’s large gay community also have criticized Heilman, who is gay, for not playing a more dominant role in recent cases in which gay residents say they have been discriminated against or harassed.

“There is a feeling in this community that decisions have been made by the City Council long before residents have a chance to voice their opinions,” said Gary Dontzig, one of five residents who started the recall effort. “Residents are not being listened to in the decision-making process.”

But Heilman has long maintained that he has a broad base of support throughout West Hollywood, noting that he was reelected by a comfortable margin in April, 1990. Perhaps more important, Heilman has the strong support of a powerful tenants rights group, the Coalition for Economic Survival.

Heilman said he has received more than 1,000 cards from residents supporting him in response to a recent mailing.

Heilman’s opponents criticize him for his support in 1989 of a plan to build a $23-million civic center in West Hollywood Park.

Opponents argued that the park was highly valued by the community and that construction of the civic center would have meant moving a public pool and other recreational facilities. Voters rejected the plan narrowly in a November, 1989, special election.

His critics also point to the council’s losing battle over a noted rent-control case with which Heilman’s name has become almost synonymous.

The case stemmed from a request in 1986 by apartment owner Mary Simonson to raise rents in her Hancock Avenue building. After being rebuffed by the city, Simonson sued for the right to raise her rents, and won. She became an overnight symbol of landlords’ struggle against rent control.

Many rent-control advocates criticized Heilman and the council for fighting the suit, considering that Simonson’s rents were low by West Hollywood standards. By fighting and losing, the critics contended, Heilman has made it easy for other landlords to seek similar rent increases.

But City Council members insist that the fight was necessary to protect the city’s tough rent-control ordinance, and that it would have been wrong not to challenge it. Council members argue that, had they chosen not to fight the suit, they would have been accused of giving in to the interests of landlords.

Heilman, 33, a law professor at Whittier College of Law, said he has often fought for unpopular issues to protect residents’ interests.

“When you are out there in the public eye, doing something on behalf of the city, there are always going to be those who resist you,” he said. “It is my job to look out for the city, not for individuals who may not agree with a decision of the council.”

Heilman’s allies say the complaints raised by the recall movement are old news. “All of these same issues were raised in the April (1990) election,” said Larry Gross, executive director of the Coalition for Economic Survival. “The voters decided on them then, when they put John Heilman back into office by an overwhelming mandate. The only thing to come of this campaign is an abuse of the electoral process.”

Indeed, Heilman’s supporters say, recall leaders have orchestrated a campaign without substantive issues.

“If John had breached the public trust by lying or stealing money, there would be reason for a recall,” said Councilwoman Abbe Land. “But all we are seeing here is a group of disenfranchised residents who disagree with decisions of the City Council. It’s the same group that didn’t want John Heilman reelected. They are angry that they lost, and this is their vendetta. It would be more constructive if they supported their own candidate in the next election or if they offered new ideas.”

Land, Gross and many city officials charge that recall organizers have acted irresponsibly and will waste public money on the recall election, which will cost as much as $80,000.

They charge that recall organizers have based much of their criticism on misinformation. Recall members, for example, have circulated a flyer suggesting that rents in the city will rise by 200% as a result of the Simonson decision. Yet no rents--except those in Simonson’s building--have gone up in the aftermath of the court’s decision, city housing officials say. They note that the Simonson ruling was a narrow one, applying specifically to the circumstances of that case.

Recall proponents, quoting city documents, also have stated that West Hollywood has lost about 4,000 affordable housing units during the last five years. Housing records indicate, however, that the city has provided 114 affordable units through various housing programs since 1986--a 2-to-1 ratio of new units over removed units. Heilman’s supporters have repeatedly commented on the apparent inaccuracies of the recall literature, hoping to discredit the campaign. Heilman also has commented privately on what he said were inaccuracies. He said he is confident that he will remain on the council.

“The people of West Hollywood have elected and reelected me,” Heilman said. “I have a great deal of faith in their judgment. I believe that they will make the right decision.”