A New Vision.

Fears of a Villaraigosa mayoralty driving business away are off base

READING Joel Kotkin's diatribe "Pro-Business Era Fading at City Hall" in last week's Business Journal, one would expect to see a host of businesses heading for the hills. The picture he paints of a quasi-socialist city controlled by unions, a "green-red" coalition and beset by rising crime, would indeed be highly unsettling if it were true. Fortunately, it's not.

I've been an avid follower of Mr. Kotkin's pronouncements over many years. While I've not always agreed with his positions, I've found them reasoned and, in many cases, persuasive. I can't say the same in the case of his latest intemperate outburst.

According to Kotkin's thesis, the Los Angeles electorate is about to choose a mayor whose left-wing or labor-controlled agenda, when combined with the election of a similarly oriented City Council, will probably end Los Angeles' "capitalist renaissance."

While there is general agreement that Los Angeles has seen a remarkable economic recovery under the stewardship of Mayor Richard Riordan, many of the least fortunate in our society have been effectively left behind. One need only look at the looming public health care crisis, the increasing number of homeless families on our streets and the lack of affordable housing, to understand that the so-called trickle-down theory doesn't always work. As we again enter perilous economic times, these gaps in the social safety net will inevitably get larger, threatening the strength of the very economic renaissance about which Kotkin is so concerned.

It's therefore critical that the next mayor, be he Villaraigosa or Hahn, be able to build consensus and coalitions to deal with these longstanding but neglected issues. Riordan, for all of his commitment and business acumen, was unable to work cooperatively and effectively with the City Council. Villaraigosa, on the other hand, was respected in Sacramento for his ability to reach out and develop consensus. This is an important asset in a new mayor.

For almost 40 years, my firm has represented the interests of real estate investors and developers and been directly involved in presenting their point of view. In my experience, the developers who have been most successful were able to engineer compromise and find accommodation with those who opposed their projects. That's not to say that reason always prevails; it doesn't.

The process is imperfect. It can be costly, time consuming and frustrating. But somehow projects still get built and, judging by the vacancy rate for office space and apartments, people still want to live and work in Los Angeles.

I don't for a minute buy Kotkin's proposition that "enviro-nimbys" want to turn all brownfield sites into open space. Given the congested nature of the urban landscape, all should be concerned about maintaining the best possible quality of life. Recognizing this need, the Urban Land Institute, which certainly couldn't be classified as a bunch of enviro-nimbys, has mounted a nationwide effort to engage all interested constituencies in an ongoing dialog on balancing development while maintaining and even enhancing the quality of urban life.

The fact is, nimbys come in all political and economic persuasions. The recently adopted Greenlight initiative passed by the voters in ritzy Newport Beach is an excellent example. This requires all major projects in that city to be voter-approved prior to construction, thus effectively curtailing development.

Kotkin's attack on Villaraigosa as being "soft" on crime is emotionally charged and very damaging.

First of all, although some might argue that simply being a member of the ACLU makes you an apologist for criminal behavior, the fact is that organization guards and protects all of our rights as citizens. Although we may be sickened and disheartened by the street gang violence so well documented on the local news, there are some very real constitutional issues related to what Kotkin calls "draconian" measures taken against them. Freedom of speech and assembly has a price. Are we willing to give up these rights in return for a Singapore-style crime-free society? I think not.

If there is any area in which the Riordan administration has shown a lack of leadership, it's in law enforcement. The Rampart debacle has cost the city millions in lost tax revenue that could have been better spent in solving some of the city's problems. What the ongoing scandal is doing to the city's reputation probably cannot be measured.

To indicate, as Kotkin does, that rising crime is a challenge that both mayoral candidates face, is valid. To suggest that the issue is Villaraigosa's "Achilles' heel" is unfair. We badly need significant oversight changes at the Los Angeles Police Department, and hopefully, the new mayor will be up to the task.

In 1977, I was part of a citywide coalition called The Committee For The City, whose primary goal was to elect Tom Bradley as Los Angeles' first African-American mayor. His opponents at the time voiced similar concerns as those expressed by Kotkin. As we all know, when Bradley was finally elected, be became arguably one of this city's most outstanding mayors.

If he's victorious, Villaraigosa would bring a new vision to the Mayor's Office. That perspective reflects the city's new constituency and will be different from that to which we've become accustomed. I believe he's smart enough and committed enough to work cooperatively with business and industry to keep Los Angeles the vital 21st century city it has become.

Clive Hoffman is president and owner of a Beverly Hills public relations firm, Clive Hoffman Associates Inc., and previously chaired the Southern California Leadership Network.