West Hollywood "The New Frontier"
by Ed Malave

When West Hollywood was incorporated on November 29, 1984, becoming the 84th city of Los Angeles County, the skeptics predicted that the city could not make it on its own. The business and residential community that pioneered its success saw the great potential of the city and they persevered despite strong opposition. Those who were against incorporation were apartment owners afraid of rent control; developers and homeowners who were worried that incorporation would increase property taxes, and other interest groups that had a special relationship with the county government and were at that time granted zoning variances in open defiance of the West Hollywood Community Plan. The fears that the incorporation opponents shared were that West Hollywood was liberal and primarily tenant populated, and that they would probably endorse both a tough rent control law and tighter development controls if West Hollywood were to incorporate. But the campaign to incorporate was one fueled by a desire for residents as well as the business community to have more of a say that would impact immediate changes and decisions for the betterment of West Hollywood; it would cut through the bureaucratic mess of downtown Los Angeles, and put the power into the hands of the West Hollywood community. Both residential and business would work together to effectuate the changes needed to thrive as a city, and do away with all the `red tape' that stagnates the processes to get things done; and to get right to the core of problems before they become problematic. The idealism of a community in which residents and business could co-exist together providing benefits for both parties were novel; thus the new city would become the forerunner of a municipality that works, invoking the idea of a `manifest destiny' attained by the right to self-determination. The question of why West Hollywood should become a city echoed throughout the community, that by incorporating, the city would be able to keep more of its tax dollars. Not to incorporate meant that West Hollywood would lose $5 million annually in tax revenues. Another characteristic of incorporation meant that West Hollywood could develop a government that would be more responsive to the needs of its people, offering a participatory voice on the issues that would affect everyone in the community. The proponents for incorporation knew that they could increase the degree of influence over their own affairs; not to incorporate would mean that a vote ratio of 1 in 7,500,000 against 1 in 36,000 with cityhood-200 times more influence could be theirs by incorporating. The county failed to see West Hollywood's potential, taking too long to defend its community planning, unable to uphold key provisions due to the madness of a large bureaucracy and the lack of talent among the decision-makers' unwillingness to see the big picture. Because the county bureaucracy is widely dispersed, it had become inaccessible to the community at large, changes took forever. By having its own mayor, they would gain local representation of their district. The idea that a beautiful city could emerge due to a greater awareness of proposed zoning changes as well as other important issues made the idea of incorporation pleasing to residents and business alike. Despite considerable revenue surpluses, the quality of municipal services in West Hollywood were in decline. Upon seeing the big picture for West Hollywood, a new government would secure federal grants available to cities such as block grants totaling in the millions. A guarantee to earmark local revenues for the sake of spending it locally such as money received for the rental of park facilities would go into the County General fund. This would allow the county to spend more time on county-level issues instead of wasting their time on whether a particular building should be one story or two. The idea that West Hollywood city officials would have more leverage in terms of legal matters would be realized by becoming a legal entity onto itself. The `new city' would assume the full responsibility that comes with a democracy. The incorporation movement reflected the same sentiments of the 1700s when colonists began talking about establishing their own government in defiance of England's King George III or Thomas Paine decrying British colonialism, and that `self-rule' would become cityhood supporters' battle cry. The Boston Tea Party participants like West Hollywood's business and residential community were motivated by the issue of "no taxation without representation." The West Hollywood community felt that they were not being adequately represented by the Board of Supervisors and believed that they could thrive as a self-governing independent city. By becoming a city, West Hollywood could preserve and increase the supply of affordable housing, it would have access to federal Housing Urban Development (HUD) grants and obtain the ability to make local decisions on housing. West Hollywood would have the option of keeping the Sheriff's Department as their overseer of law enforcement, making it the 33rd city under the jurisdiction of the Sheriff's Department. One assurance was that their voting privileges would not be lost toward the 3rd District Supervisor on the County Board. This new city a.k.a. "The Creative City," is nestled between Beverly Hills on the west and Hollywood on the east, the San Fernando Valley to the north and Los Angeles' Mid-Wilshire District to the south. West Hollywood has four Zip Codes - 90038, 90046, 90048, & 90069. There are an estimated 36,118 people residing in West Hollywood with approximately 25,617 households within the city. The average household income is $35,162.00. The City of West Hollywood is governed by a Council/Manager form of government. Each of the five City Council members are elected to serve a four year term. The social consciousness of West Hollywood is indeed unique, particularly for a city of its size. West Hollywood has always been a trend setter in terms of culture, art, entertainment, fashion, and restaurants-and it continues to thrive as an economic power within Los Angeles County, also sharing a powerful voice both socially and politically within the gay and lesbian community. This essay will commence with present day West Hollywood in terms of what it has to offer, listing the numerous aspects of what has made it a city to reckon with; the culmination of a passionate drive for independence; the success of a city realized due to the efforts of its citizens. How incorporation has changed the dynamics of a city that was already doing well. Then you will be taken through the steps from the initial idea of how it all began, the driving forces involved who were for and against incorporation, and the thought processes of either side at work, each challenging the other's points of interest. Incorporated as a general law city in 1984, West Hollywood is one of the youngest cities in Los Angeles County. This profile summarizes some of its main physical, institutional, and socio-economic characteristics. Projected receipts in the General Fund is estimated at $30,826,876; Special revenue funds: $5,834,699.00; Proprietary funds: 2,252,381 for a total of $38,913,956. Authorized expenditures shows Operating expenses of $35,077,465; Capital outlays is $3,790,139 for an annual total of: $38,867,604. Business is booming in West Hollywood topping the $3 billion mark annually in this tiny 1.9 square mile enclave. The creative industry boasts over 40 percent of business volume in industries such as: design, entertainment, fashion, art and communication. Centrally located between the legendary Hollywood and posh Beverly Hills, West Hollywood has become the focus for top names in these stylish fields. It has developed the reputation as being a place where creativity gets down to business. Official projections of city revenue was estimated at $11 million annually. This year's budget (1998) is expected to top $11 million to $40 million, three quarters of it coming from the business sector. Retail sales tax revenue has jumped from under $2 million to over $6 million annually, while hotel tax revenue jumped a whopping 17% last year (1997). The population of West Hollywood according to the 1990 Census, was 36,118 (i.e., 18,000 persons per square mile). West Hollywood is a youthful city, the age distribution showing a significant concentration in the 25 to 49 age group which comprises well over half the population in 1990. The median age is just over 38. There's is also an educated population; twenty-five percent have some college education and 32% are college graduates. With a large gay and lesbian population estimated at 40% of all people living in West Hollywood, they have made significant contributions to the cultural, political and economic life of the city. The racial composition is predominantly Caucasian (82%); African-Americans and Latinos constitute 4-to-9% of the population respectively. One of the unique aspects of West Hollywood is the significant number of residents who are Russian speaking -- approximately 13%. In the city's first elections, West Hollywood voters elected a strong pro-tenant city council, with three of the five original members being openly gay or lesbian. One of the council's first legislation was a moratorium on new development, sparking apprehension that controversy and inexperience would tarnish the business climate in the new city. Prior to incorporation, developers were in violation of city ordinances by building hotels in heavily populated residential areas. The community were alarmed of this invasion of their neighborhood, worried about the problem of traffic and that an extended population of non-residents would create more congestion as well the potential for more crime. Another example of how residents lacked any control over civic matters was a story in the L.A. Times (March 22, 1984) about a parking lot adjacent to a restaurant. A `for sale' sign had gone up on the property creating a real dilemma for the restaurant owner whose customers used the lot to park their cars. The restaurant owner had no idea of what was to become of the property which was barely big enough to accommodate the customers who frequented the restaurant. The restaurant owner was faced with the possibility of going out of business or moving. "As we stand now (unincorporated), we don't have any chips, we don't have any bargaining leverage " said Cynthia Grace, formerly of the West Hollywood Incorporation Committee. To offset polarization in the new city, business leaders and the new council worked out a system in which both forces would join together to create West Hollywood Marketing Corporation in 1986 to address concerns of business and residents. Its primary purpose was to promote the city's avant-garde reputation and to foster economic growth. This innovative strategy has won national attention for being on the cutting edge of city marketing in ADWEEK magazine in 1987. Is West Hollywood in danger of too much success? For the time being residents and business are quite content with the progress it has made since incorporation. The city swells with pride, dedicated to preserving the delicate diversity that embraces everything from Russian delicatessens and gay discos to communications conglomerates. Increased retail traffic has contributed to parking woes, prodding the city to embark on a multi-million dollar parking expansion program. Success also meant changes. The L.A. Style which grew up there was purchased by American Express and moved on. Then along came the trendy "Exposure" magazine to cover the newest scenes. The City contains 1,126 acres, almost all of it developed. Multiple-unit dwellings are predominate in the residential areas which constitute 70% of all developed land. The City's housing stock in 1990 stood at 23,821, a figure that is slightly down from 1980. Median rent is $608. West Hollywood's current stock of affordable housing is protected under the City's Rent Stabilization Ordinance which regulates rental increases and standards of housing service. The West Hollywood Rent Stabilization Ordinance is one of the toughest rent control laws in nation. Established in June 1985, the law rolled back rents to the level charged as of April 30, 1984, and put a ceiling on the percentage of annual rent increases. It also regulates the rents of vacated units and sets a schedule for maintenance standards such as painting and replacing carpets and drapes. Residential property built after April 1979, and all commercial development, are exempt from this ordinance. The City also creates affordable housing opportunities through its sponsorship of the non-profit West Hollywood Community Housing Corporation. The median household income in West Hollywood in 1990 was more than $29,000, with over 40% of households having incomes in excess of $35,000. West Hollywood has a residential consumer base extending far beyond the city limits due to its central position on the west side of Los Angeles. Within a three mile radius of the City center are over 200,000 people and 120,000 households with a 1990 estimated average household income of $53,306, well above the Los Angeles County average. Industry, Employment and Labor Force Trends capsizes West Hollywood's economically diverse city with over 3,500 businesses that collectively generate between $2.5 and $3 billion in gross annual sales. About $700 million of sales are in the retail sector. The City serves as a regional commercial center attracting customers from throughout Southern California who visit daily to shop at many of the unique specialty shops in West Hollywood. An estimated 27,000 people are employed in West Hollywood which has enjoyed a slightly decreasing rate of unemployment since its incorporation in 1984. While the rest of the country was experiencing the loss of jobs and companies were downsizing that started back in the late 80's and into the 90's, West Hollywood's economy experienced just a short decline of unemployment. Not only has West Hollywood escaped the economic woes of the city and the county, the success of the local economy has enabled the city to provide an array of social services to its residents. West Hollywood provides more money per capita to fund social services for its residents than any other municipal government in the United States which is a `helluva' feat in comparison to other municipalities that lack creativity and real leadership. The assessed value of property in West Hollywood in 1992 was $2,942,000,000, an increase of almost 6% over the figure for 1991. The monthly cost of leasing office space in the City varies from $1.00 to $2.50 per square foot, according to quality and location. Retail space varies a bit more widely, from $1.00 to $3.00 per square foot. Generally, the more inexpensive property is situated towards the east side of town with prices rising toward the west. The City has become extremely sensitive toward civil rights issues and has taken a determined, aggressive stand to protect those rights overlooked in state or federal law. Its residents are proud of this progressive legislation because it weaves fairness for all and tolerance for alternative lifestyles into their laws and ultimately into their lives. Addressing one of the most important civil rights issues ever to face this country, the ordinance "Prohibiting AIDS Discrimination" prohibits discrimination against those with AIDS or an AIDS- related condition. This applies to employment practices, housing, city services and facilities, educational institutions, or the goods and services offered by a business establishment. West Hollywood and the City of Los Angeles were first in the country to pass an AIDS discrimination ordinance. The Domestic Partnership Ordinance is another ground-breaking piece of legislation and one of the country's first. Under this ground-breaking ordinance, two non-married adults can declare a domestic partnership if they are each other's sole partner and responsible for each other's welfare. Domestic partners are legally treated as spouses and cannot be denied visitation rights in health care facilities as well as jails. The community of West Hollywood, in an effort to protect their own personal dignity and individual rights, had passed an ordinance prohibiting discrimination in employment based on "Sexual Orientation," is one of the first and certainly the most comprehensive in the country. It prohibits an employer, employment agency, or labor organization from discriminating against, harassing, refusing to hire, dismissing, or refusing to promote an employee or applicant based on his or her sexual orientation. It also prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation with respect to renting or selling housing, lending money, or using city services and facilities. Although discrimination based on religious beliefs is legislated at the federal and state level, the ordinance is unique among cities. No West Hollywood employer, employment agency, or labor organization can discriminate against, harass, refuse to hire, dismiss, or refuse to promote an employee or applicant on the basis of his or her religious beliefs. The ordinance that sets "Business Establishment Entrance" and "Service Requirements" prohibits a West Hollywood business establishment from requiring more than one current picture ID as proof of age. Nor can any business establishment use a dress code arbitrarily to refuse entrance to anyone (even if the person is wearing clothing not customarily associated with his or her sex). The government of West Hollywood's mission was to provide and enhance the well being of all the elements of a community at the same time balance conflicting interests. The inspirations of elected officials as well as city employees were to aspire to promoting an environment that fosters a high sense of physical and social awareness enhanced by a sense of wholeness, vitality and balance in a highly diversified urban residential and business community. It has also provided a broad range of municipal services to its residents by making housing affordable and providing social services accessible to its residents while being committed to the sensitive issue of Human Rights for all people which includes visitors, artists and the business community. The municipality of the city is small, catering to a smaller population as opposed to the monstrosity of Los Angeles municipality that oversees a vast land and a huge population. West Hollywood lives up to the idealism of "The Gettysburg Address" that states "government of the people, by the people, and for the people." giving its residents a say in the decision-making of their city, to question established practices, and encourage idealism, creativity and innovation for residents and employees alike. The city has worked toward treating all individuals in a manner that respects their personal dignity, encouraging its people to pursue policies and programs that enhances the quality of life for everyone. The city has been committed to assisting all the members of the community, especially those who can least help themselves, like residents who are stricken with the deadly AIDS virus by providing food and even money to help make their lives as comfortable and stress-free as possible. Responsibility for the environment has been realized through sensitive and competent leadership in the protection and improvement of their natural and urban environments. The business community of West Hollywood is encouraged to actively support the community in which they work in a consorted effort to maintain business development and citizenship. Size, Location and Transportation are the cornerstones of West Hollywood's success. It offers convenient access to major freeways, bus lines and airports. Four major east-west thoroughfares- Sunset Blvd., Santa Monica Blvd., Melrose Avenue and Beverly Blvd.-serve as conduits for over 150,000 cars each work day, giving the retail community enhanced visibility to key consumers. Santa Monica Blvd. provides mobile access for extensive commercial and retail activity throughout the city as well as through traffic from Beverly Hills and Century City business districts on the west and Hollywood on the east. Sunset Blvd., located along the northern boundary of West Hollywood, is one of the most famous streets in the world. The Sunset Strip features some of the most popular nightclubs, hotels and restaurants in Southern California. The east-west artery, Santa Monica Blvd., has enhanced the business climate; development along the blvd. has added or renovated buildings to 50,000 square feet in the last two years. Millions of the tax dollars that West Hollywood has kept has gone toward renovating Santa Monica Blvd. while improving the physical appearance of the rest of the city. Other major expansions also include landmarks like the Sports Connection, a new NIKE headquarters outlet and the proliferation of outdoor cafes has led the Los Angeles Business Journal (1995) to speculate about an urban beach atmosphere right in the heart of the "Creative City" enhanced by the climate, another essential quality of West Hollywood. Nestled along the foothills of the Santa Monica Mountains, the City's coastal Mediterranean climate provides an atmosphere that encourages healthful outdoor activity. The average year-round temperature is 72 degrees with winter lows ranging from 40 to 50 degrees and maximum summer temperatures rarely exceed 90 degrees. The relative humidity remains low and rainfall averages about 14 inches per year. The climate of the city only adds to the ambiance of a city that is always on the go, prospering and setting new trends. City officials have been careful to protect the city's human scale architecture and to foster pedestrian orientation in new developments. Other projects for West Hollywood was the nearly half-a-million square foot expansion of the internationally Pacific Design Center, adding over 3 million square feet of interior design showrooms along the Avenue of Design in West Hollywood. Leading entertainment giants such as Carolco, EMI-Warner and the Geffen Organization continue to locate or expand in West Hollywood. Already known for its lavish hotels before incorporation, more lavish hotels have spring up around the area attracting more tourism, bringing with them a lot of outside revenue into the city. Now there are HHHhhtwelve lavish hotels with some 2,000 guest rooms offering world class accommodations. The list of hotels are: The Hyatt on Sunset, Le Montrose Hotel de Gran Luxe, Le Parc Hotel de Luxe, Le Reve Hotel de Ville, Mondrian Hotel, Park Sunset Hotel, Ramada West Hollywood, Summerfield Suites Hotel, Sunset Marquis Hotel & Villas, Sunset Plaza Hotel, The Argyle, and the Wyndham Bel Age Hotel. Additionally, the San Vicente Guest House, a nine-room bed and breakfast, caters to a gay clientele. Several other smaller motels are scattered throughout the small city. West Hollywood is known all over the world for its many fine restaurants offering a broad variety of food, everything from fast food to fine dining. Outstanding new restaurants continue to open throughout a city already acclaimed for its hefty share of the best eateries in Los Angeles. Added to the list since incorporation were: Trumps, Mortons, Babylon, Cicada, Eclipse, Jackson's, Joss, Telasai, and Hugo's. The Sunset Strip continues to thrive with as much vigor as the early days of Hollywood. Casa Blanca has recently joined the world-class restaurants on the Sunset Strip. This Mediterranean supper club offers outstanding Lebanese cuisine. Old favorites like Spago, Chasen's, Le Dome, Barney's Beanery, Formosa Cafe, Palm, Dan Tana's, and Cafe La Boheme continue to attract the affluent from all over Los Angeles and tourism from all over the world. West Hollywood has created a reputation across the United States and abroad as having an exciting and varied night life. For over 25 years, legendary performers like The Doors, Guns `N Roses, Elton John, Bruce Springsteen and Robin Williams, have christened the stages of equally legendary clubs like The Roxy, Troubadour, Whiskey a Go-Go, and The Comedy Store. Other clubs in the area feature rock, jazz, comedy, pop, and R&B. Theater, and cabaret, and even dancing has brought tourism from all over the world to new clubs like: Bar One, Coast Playhouse, Gardenia Room and Lounge, House of Blues, Luna Park, Roxbury, Hard Rock Caf, and House of Blues, and the Tiffany Theaters. The Viper Room, a club owned by Johnny Depp, books an eclectic range of musical groups throughout the week. The gay and lesbian night life is also legendary in West Hollywood. Clubs such as Axis, Rage, Micky's, and The Palms, offers the best of Los Angeles' gay and lesbian-oriented venues of entertainment. In 1983, West Hollywood was the base for at least 100 gay-owned or gay-oriented businesses including two banks, a health club, restaurants, bars, and clothing stores. Shopping in West Hollywood is an adventure for tourists and Angelinos alike. Specialty shops that can not be found anywhere in the city line the Sunset Plaza. Among them are upwardly scale shops like: H. Lorenzo, Butler & Wilson, Armani A/X, Nicole Miller, and Oliver Peoples. Melrose Ave. has become famous for shopping in West Hollywood, showcasing the hottest new designer trends and specialty shops. It boasts names such as Maxfield, The Bodhi Tree, The New Age bookshop which offers topics on metaphysics, frequented by Shirley MacLaine, as well as a steady stream of other famous people. Replay Country Store and Cafe, a jeans sportswear store offers an array of flavorful twists on shopping. Urban Inversion is a unique store "for people who love and hate urban life," offering a "Car Pool Survival Kit?" In fact, many of the city's shops are full of cleverness and individuality. "Name That Toon" is known for its animation cels and claymation, "The Eighth Muse" with a gay and lesbian theme offers wall hangings and other art, "Shu Uemura" is a cosmetics store, and "Kaleido" is another store that offers beautiful handmade kaleidoscopes and scope art by local artists. Other shops can be found in the Beverly Center shopping mall. The "Creative City" which features over 30 art galleries, offers diverse kinds of multi-media adventures. Most of them are located in a stretch starting at the intersection of Melrose Ave. and N. Altmont, running one block east of San Vincente and west to Doheny. The art galleries include: Herbert Palmer, Jan Abrams, Remba, Kantor, DeVille, George Stern, Kohn/Turner, Louis Stern, Manny Silverman, Regen Projects and Phermone. Architecture and design has made West Hollywood a city that can be proud of its artistic beauty. The Cesar Pelli-design of the Pacific Design Center has helped to distinguish West Hollywood as the "Interior Design Capital of the Pacific Rim." It shares space with the factories and railyards of Pacific Electric, and Los Angeles' famous Red Car. Comprised of 1.2 million square feet, the Center houses more than 200 showrooms, antique shops and art galleries, and is the perfect location for exhibits and conferences. It continues to flourish as leaders in the design industries choose the PDC for exhibits, lectures and seminars. WestWeek, is a marvelous celebration of the finest that the interior design world has to offer, takes place every March. Other notable architectural structures include: Sunset Plaza for its Georgian-influenced buildings; the Herman Miller Showroom (now home to Sapporiti Italia) was designed by Charles Eames; and the William S. Beckett office building is one of the city's best examples of modern architecture. Annually, West Hollywood hosts a number of festivals, including a Halloween observance; a Mardi Gras party; Bastille Day; a Russian Festival; and Christopher Street West's Gay & Lesbian Pride Celebration (which celebrates its 25th anniversary this year), a two-day festival which features California's third largest parade. Only the Rose Parade and the Hollywood Christmas parade can boast bigger observances in the state. West Hollywood has pioneered the many assortments of influential food, fashion and fitness trends that have sprung from California in recent years. Now that Los Angeles has emerged as the financial and media gateway to the Pacific Rim, West Hollywood has been recognized as an international powerhouse in the merchandising of contemporary ideas and images. The many features previously listed were made possible through the collaborative efforts of both business and residents. When their are only a few making decisions for the masses, those making the decisions will implement policies that favor the few. Whereas, a democracy gives a voice to everyone; through compromise and logic, plans are implemented to favor the majority in a social structure that helps to cultivate the mindset its people. Business leader Ron Kates, as he looks back, feels vindicated that the skeptics have been disproved. According to Kates, the ingredients were all here: prime location, phenomenal demographics, and an entrepreneurial environment. But before cityhood these were well kept secrets. Recognizing the unique environment they inherited, the city's new leaders have been savvy enough to support their competitive edge offering good business and a strong vision for the future. With parts of Los Angeles flourishing, West Hollywood has stayed one step ahead of the game. "We have worked hard to retain and attract business that serve our community and meet the goals of the creative city," said former Council member Abbe Land. "We open our doors to businesses on the cutting edge of creativity." With over seven million people whose lives are impacted by the decisions made by a five member Board of Supervisors, the Board is always having to grapple with ever-increasing regional problems of L.A. such as pollution, transportation, crime, welfare, disaster preparedness, education, and integration. Ron Stone, a community and gay activist and founder of the West Hollywood Incorporation Committee for which he was the chairman didn't know how much of the community interests existed to initiate such a complicated and time-consuming incorporation endeavor, or whether the benefits would outweigh the possible disadvantages, such as the need to establish new police, fire, and social services. However, Stone re-introduced the idea of West Hollywood incorporating in 1983 because he believed that the residents may have a stronger voice for shaping the future of their community by having a local government to turn to. He even went on to say, "I suspect the county should get out of municipal government altogether and concentrate on major county issues." Previous attempts in 1957, 1963, and 1967 were made to free West Hollywood from the clutches of the county but failed and Stone was well aware of that. In fact, West Hollywood stands to be the only city in California to be de-incorporated back in the 1920s. "And we're paying for it now," said Stone. Undaunted by the fact that if successful, Stone would have to rest the area from the county supervisor (Edelman) who was popular among his constituents and who loath to relinquish direct control over the area. West Hollywood was under the political domain of a five-member Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors; 3rd District Supervisor Ed Edelman being the specific representative to the community. Stone never had a problem with Edelman, he felt that the supervisor was doing the very best job he could addressing issues concerning the 3rd District which stretched from West Hollywood to East Los Angeles, over 1 million people. Stone also felt that with the many constituents to take care of, Edelman couldn't devote as much attention to local problems than could a city council member in Beverly Hills, Culver City, or any other smaller incorporated community. Stone scheduled a meeting on the night of August 4, 1983 to address the issues that an incorporation endeavor would entail. On January of 1984, the West Hollywood Incorporation Committee (WHIC) was formed to pursue the goals of establishing West Hollywood as an independent city. A fiscal analysis was presented by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to the community indicating that incorporation was fiscally feasible. Future talks for maintaining the success of West Hollywood would be an open-ended discussion in a never-ending process between government, residents, and the business community. A proposal that was comprised by WHIC summarized projected costs and expenditures as well as assumptions that was made by WHIC illustrating the potential city's cost of services for the first two operational years. The projected numbers of the report showed that West Hollywood would have a substantial surplus; surpluses that could improve municipal services. The proposal contained a description of the physical, social and the economic characteristics of the community; the availability of revenue sources which would be available in the city's first two operational years describing the transition from county to a functional independent city; the analyzed impact of incorporation on existing special districts; the final section capsizes expenditures and revenues of WHIC's plan with respect to the level of services in the first two operational years. (See Proposal (last item)) In a press release on December 2, 1983, Ron Stone stated that LAFCO, the government agency responsible for the formation of new cities, issued a fleeting report favoring the potential of West Hollywood to become the 84th city in Los Angeles County. Although West Hollywood was considered the most densely populated area in California (35,703 residents on 1.9 square miles of land); it still remained part of the unincorporated territories administered by the County Board of Supervisors. The LAFCO study found that the cost of providing the current level of local services in West Hollywood was $4,866,470. The revenue the City of West Hollywood would receive to pay for such costs would be $8,333,029, plus the local share of property taxes. Property taxes that would be collected from West Hollywood could exceed $15,000,000 annually and the local government would be allowed to keep a substantial portion of it. Because of the tax-base of West Hollywood, the local government would benefit greatly. No more haggling between the county and city over how taxes should be divided or spent. Also, any future decisions would be made by the `new' city council and not the committee if West Hollywood were to become a city. A fervent move by the WHIC had begun, dedicated to bringing home-rule to West Hollywood after the LAFCO study. "We've known for years that cityhood made sense politically, but now we have the proof that cityhood makes sense economically. We're losing millions of dollars every year by not being a city," said Stone. The study by LAFCO indicated that the city would greatly benefit from being incorporated without having to raise taxes. By not incorporating, the city loses $5,000,000 in tax revenue every year. "In fact, we could lower taxes and still provide better municipal services while protecting local interests. Our next step will be to get these facts out to the general community in order to enlist the popular support necessary to put cityhood on the ballot in 1984," said Stone. After several months of campaigning for cityhood, several WHIC members were dissatisfied with the path the organization was taking. Six-to-eight members of the West Hollywood Incorporation Committee, including two of the original members had resigned to form a new cityhood group Citizens for Cityhood. There were power and personal struggles among certain members of the group. A rift had developed inside the Incorporation Committee between more moderate members and those in favor of cityhood primarily to obtain stronger rent control for West Hollywood. "I felt there was not enough opportunity for the entire community to become involved," said Helyne Landres, one of the two top executives of the committee who resigned. Landres felt that the 12 member executive group was primarily interested in a renter-dominated Coalition for Economic Survival (CES) which according to Landres had become the cornerstone of the movement toward cityhood. "It seems to me that the incorporation committee is becoming more of a vehicle for CES," concurred Jean Mathison, one of the six-members of the 26-person General Committee who also resigned. Landres felt that no group of people should put itself in all the seats of power. "I don't feel there should be one special interest group in front," said Landres. Committee Chairman Stone, and Committee Secretary Arthur Guerrero said that the reason for the resignations were due to reprimanding certain members of the committee for taking `unauthorized actions.' Grace, the committee's treasurer and chief attorney, was stripped of her role as treasurer after taking repeated actions without committee approval. The actions attributed to Grace were filing a complaint against an opposition group with the state Fair Political Practices Commission, filing a response to a lawsuit aimed at stopping the cityhood campaign and making claims to the fair Political Practices Commission that CES had been negligent in filing its financial contribution statements to cityhood. "We differ from WHIC over the way in which incorporation should be presented to the public," said Grace of Citizens for Cityhood. The new committee would likely endorse a slate of candidates when incorporation reaches the ballot and would stand on post-incorporation issues. The new committee claimed that WHIC had never taken any real stand on the issues, leaving a vacuum of leadership. Grace felt that WHIC's movement wasn't "giving people a sense of what to expect. That breeds a climate of fear and uncertainty." The new group's plan was to take a more conservative stand. They wanted to endorse a more moderate rent control ordinance similar to Los Angeles rent control law. Without doubt the CES would oppose them. The group also expected to maintain law enforcement by the Sheriff's department-a stance which could draw fire from gay activists who may prefer to see West Hollywood hire its own police department with a greater percentage of gay officers. Whether WHIC and Citizens for Cityhood could work together is dependent on how long the ripples of the resignations linger although both groups claimed that it was possible. "If they want to work for cityhood, wonderful," said WHIC's Guerrero. "They'll have their narrow, little coalition and we'll have our coalition, and we'll both work toward the same goal." The resignations of certain members of WHIC did not hinder in the least the passions of the incorporation drive. A two-month fundraising campaign was launched and a lot of dollars spent to have a "Cityhood Day" on March 10, 1984. The purpose of the festive event was to create community awareness that would place the cityhood question before the voters. It was an all-day celebration that included many participating businesses; bars, restaurants, and shops that held their own cityhood events. At the celebration, petitions (5,000 signatures required to put it on the ballot), and voter registration tables were set up throughout West Hollywood and various entertainment events were a part of the scheme of things. On the same day, there were private fundraising parties at private homes and offices in which WHIC provided speakers to explain the advantages of incorporation. It was a very successful cityhood festival. West Hollywood Study Group, a new opposition group, had hired a public relations firm (Marathon Communications) to study WHIC. Marathon Communications put out a brochure questioning cityhood, asking LAFCO to take more time in studying the proposal. Marathon Communications along with WHSG attended a LAFCO meeting on May 23, 1984. At the meeting held at Hyatt-On-Sunset, were representatives of the Apartment Owners Association as well as other groups. Numerous letters were received by landlords stating their opposition of incorporation. Many of the names were familiar, as the same names reappear whenever there is an issue regarding landlords' rights according to LAFCO Chairman Ken Chappell, except one letter signed J. David Nagel, a Denver attorney who supposedly came to Los Angeles for a land acquisition deal who also opposed incorporation. The letter urged a delay of incorporation and it suggested that landlords write letters without mentioning that they were landlords. An investigation was launched about the identity of J. David Nagel which revealed that no such person existed and that the letter was fictitious. The letter had a Los Angeles postmark which Ruth Bennell, the executive officer of LAFCO, found to be curious. This was a perfect example of some of the deceptive methods, and the "wheeling `n dealing" that went on among the opponents of cityhood who wanted to kill the incorporation efforts. Naturally, the parties that were anti-cityhood said they knew nothing of the letter. Other fears by the opponents of incorporation were that if West Hollywood failed as an independent city, the county would not take them back, leaving them to fend for themselves. Failure could be catastrophic for West Hollywood. All that the city had built would come tumbling down. The attitude of the opponents was that the city was doing well, there was really no need to create any changes to the present structure of West Hollywood. In accordance with this mindset was Sheldon Andelson, chairman of the board of directors of West Hollywood's Bank of Los Angeles and one of the largest property owners there. He was satisfied with county control of West Hollywood. To coin a phrase, "If it ain't broke why fix it?" One of Stone's many hurdles was to challenge Supervisor Ed Edelman to a debate which he declined. The committee accused him of misleading the public while painting a negative picture of incorporation; his financial report was indicative of those allegations. According to Edelman, he wasn't for or against incorporation, therefore a debate would not be forthcoming. The proponents for incorporation felt that the figures from a study by the Los Angeles City Administrator's Office underestimated the revenue- producing capability of West Hollywood by nearly $10 million. They also felt that Edelman was trying to defeat the incorporation effort. "Edelman is purposely trying to mislead the people of West Hollywood for his own political purposes," said Stone. Stone said that the 3rd District didn't want to lose power in West Hollywood if it were to incorporate. Stoned fired off three press releases challenging the figures and calling on Edelman to make corrections to his report. His report excluded vehicles of revenue such as hotel and motel bed taxes and vehicle code fines that would give the city $10 million more in revenues. "In addition to the mistakes and omissions that have already been found, we have identified a major error in the cornerstone of Edelman's study," said Stone. Edelman's report completely omitted the most important source of revenue for any city, West Hollywood's share of property taxes, an omission along with the other vehicles mentioned. The $1,833,516 capitol amortization (which means to liquidate; a mortgage debt; especially by periodic payment; Random House Dictionary, 1980) of Sheriff's Department facilities, a cornerstone of Edelman's study, was discovered. George Voight, Director of the California Contract Cities Association (CCCA) had confirmed the LAFCO findings showing that the Sheriff's Department expense could not be as high as Edelman's projection. Edelman's report included an amortization of building and facilities in his Sheriff's budget which according to LAFCO and CCCA, had never been done before. "To my knowledge, over 30 of the member cities in our association in L.A. County contract with the Sheriff, and no one is charged for amortization of buildings or facilities. The cost of buildings and facilities has always been considered a countywide cost necessary for the Sheriff to fulfill its statutory obligation of providing law enforcement services for the entire county," said Voight. This move by Edelman was a ploy to see if the parties for incorporation would be nave enough to overlook the amortization question, something he made up in a futile attempt to throw them off balance. But as it turned out cityhood proponents clearly did their homework, bringing to the table a conciseness to their plan. This new mistake found in Edelman's study clearly indicated that his report needed to be completely revised. "I urge Ed Edelman to refer his constituents to the original study prepared by the experts of LAFCO, which shows that West Hollywood would make an economically viable city," said Stone." If cityhood was approved in the November elections, the new city would immediately receive financial aide from both the county and the state until the beginning of the first fiscal year in July of `85 while the fledging city assumes the ability to finance itself. The Apartment Assn. of Greater Los Angeles were also fearful of the potential of incorporation, that once West Hollywood became a city, it would impose a strict rent control ordinance like that of Santa Monica. By the mere hint of rent control was the culmination of this opposition by the landlords of the area. Charles Isham, executive vice-president of the Apartment Assn. of Greater Los Angeles, an organization for landlords was greatly concerned that cityhood was just a front for rent control. The county already had its own rent control ordinance which was being phased out in January of `85. Isham believed that the landlords could support incorporation providing their rights are respected. A race by WHIC to put cityhood on the ballot in November of `84 would mean that if they won, a new rent control ordinance would be implemented by the new city government. Larry Gross, executive director of CES who aligned his organization with WHIC favoring rent control, had mobilized his members to work along with the incorporation effort. Gross said, "If they (landlords) could somehow see that we wouldn't end up with a rent control ordinance like Santa Monica, then I see no reason why we wouldn't support cityhood. It's a perfectly good idea." Gross said that ultimately it would be up to the voters of West Hollywood to incorporate. Naturally landlords would oppose any incorporation effort if rent control was attached to it. Gross also went on to say that landlords would fight any rent control regardless of the provisions. The landlords spent $2 million against Proposition M, and it still passed in West Hollywood. Proposition M was a rent control ordinance voted down in the county in '82. But it did well in West Hollywood where voters supported it by a ratio of 5 to 1. Apartment Age, the apartment association's newsletter ran several critical articles in May of '84 about the incorporation efforts, condemning it as an abomination of free enterprise. They accuse the incorporation movement as a front for tenants' rights organizers trying to use incorporation to launch a tough rent control campaign in West Hollywood. The article also labeled Stone as a coalition member. Stone who was not involved in any coalition for rent control had asked for a retraction. With the idea of building a "broadbased" movement for cityhood by incorporation proponents, they had hoped that the landlords would join in on the incorporation effort but the coalition involvement that was later strapped onto the cityhood effort made that possibility unlikely. Stone went on to say, "It's not liberals against conservatives, or anything like that. Some people are willing to change and some are not." A decision by the six members of LAFCO was unanimous in favor of incorporation. At a county Board of Supervisors meeting held on May 30, 1984, elderly renters and well-dressed organizers cheered the incorporation concept before the votes were even cast. LAFCO commissioner Thomas Jackson cast the fourth and deciding vote with an "aye." Upon commencement of the meeting, hordes of disgruntled incorporation opponents filed out of the room disappointed and confused. Stone, however, was told by LAFCO chairman Ken Chappell, that he had his work cut out for him. Incorporation opponents thought of launching their own campaign to persuade more than half of West Hollywood's 19,000 registered voters to sign a petition that would kill incorporation before it reaches the ballot. But WHIC had already collected more than 25% of the area's voters so the probability of that had become somewhat remote for the time being. Another option for the landlords and incorporation foes might be either to challenge incorporation directly at the ballot box or swing their support behind anti-rent control candidates who would run in West Hollywood's first City Council elections, held at the same time that the area would decide on incorporation. (If cityhood is approved, the five candidates with the highest vote totals are elected, if it is voted down, the candidate would not take office.) Joyce Hundal of West Hollywood Study Group said, "I don't know where we go from here. Everyone was stunned. We expected the commission to give us more time. These are our lives we're talking about." The attorneys of the opposition groups said they will look at other options through legal maneuvering to stall the incorporation efforts while they seek another course of action, one of which was taking legal action all the way to the Supreme Court, a move that would force LAFCO to produce an environmental impact report on the effects of incorporation. Chappell was confident the action would be defeated. He expected this action as it is the norm in such proceedings. He also believed that there were a lot of legal precedents on the side of those favoring incorporation. The legal action could delay the incorporation efforts though, if filed in the Appellate Courts, a move that could stall putting incorporation on the November ballot. In a 1980 report by LAFCO placed West Hollywood in Los Angeles' "sphere of influence"-a status that established the possibility of annexation. But the fledging annexation movement didn't garner much support in West Hollywood due to the time consuming efforts of haggling over how property taxes would be split between the City of Los Angeles and the County in 1983, and was soon replaced in 1984 by the growing success of the incorporation drive. Stephen Jones, an attorney, filed a suit on behalf West Hollywood Study Group that wanted LAFCO's to overturn its decision to place incorporation on the ballot. Jones claimed that LAFCO failed to provide an environmental impact report on the effects of cityhood would have in the area. He said that such a study is required by the California Environment Quality Act of 1980. The study group which is composed mainly of West Hollywood homeowners, landlords, and businessmen, also questioned whether West Hollywood could survive as a city. Cityhood critic's felt that LAFCO ignored the possibility that Los Angeles might want to annex West Hollywood. (Annex: 1. to attach, suspend, or add; 2. to incorporate (another state or country) into one state or country; 3. something annexed; 4. a subsidiary building; Random House Dictionary, 1980) "People in the area feel the commission didn't explore all the alternatives," said Jones. West Hollywood developers suggested that the area would be confronted by a $2.5 million deficit in the first year of operation. At a LAFCO meeting, two city councilmen alluded to the idea that the city might be more interested in the annexation of West Hollywood or even portions of it. "We have plenty of legal precedents on our side," said Chappell. Critics of incorporation had blamed LAFCO for rushing the proposals through its hearing process at the order of pro-cityhood's West Hollywood Incorporation Committee. "Why hurry? Let's know all the facts," said Lorraine Howell. (One of the sponsors of the new audit which cast doubt on incorporation's financial viability.) Arthur G. Lawrence, a West Hollywood developer also stated that the opponent's of incorporation projects a deficit of $2.5 million in West Hollywood's first operational year. Prior to these proceedings at the time the environmental survey was first introduced in May of `84, Councilman Joel Wachs characterized the move by the opposition as "just a ploy to stall this enough to kill it." The measure fell by one vote short of the eight needed to request a survey at the first hearing. The vote was 7 to 5 against an environmental survey. Gerald S. Crump, LAFCO's county counsel, advised the commission during its May 30 session that an environmental study was not needed because "The only thing that this incorporation would do is to change the governing body. That isn't changing the environment." WHIC filed a lawsuit with the Fair Political Practices Commission against the West Hollywood Study Group, the new group that had tried to sabotage putting cityhood on the November ballot. WHIC accused WHSG of violating the Political Reform Act of 1984 by not filing an organizational statement listing its members. "Many people believe that the WHSG is nothing more than a front group for the Apartment Owners Association of Los Angeles," said WHIC Treasurer Arthur Guerroro. He also added that the group is trying to confuse the voters by not making itself known to the public. The WHSG was formed in May of `84 describing itself as a "broadbased' coalition of West Hollywood homeowners and tenants, young people and senior citizens, shopkeepers and professionals. Because WHIC wanted to implement a strong rent-control ordinance for West Hollywood, landlords were concerned that they would not only be able to raise rents on their properties. Not only would landlords not be able to raise rents, but rent rollbacks to the level of April 30, 1984 was expected, so they formed WHSG to challenge cityhood. The new group claimed that they have not taken a position of either support or opposition for incorporation. Because the group according to WHSG spokeswoman Joyce Hundal, is not a political organization, they did not have to file. WHSG filed its own lawsuit to keep the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors from setting up a November election. Opponents of incorporation such as the accounting firm of Oppenheim, Appel & Dixon claimed that there were some serious flaws in the proposed budget of West Hollywood once they incorporate which included expenditures for hypothetical items as well as mismatched revenues and costs. Seth Aaronson, an attorney for the Taxpayers Assn. of West Hollywood, one of three groups that oppose incorporation referred to the new audit with urgency in asking the Board of Supervisors to stall a hearing date for determining if incorporation would be put before the voters of West Hollywood. But because 3rd District supervisor Ed Edelman wanted the election date to be resolved as expeditiously as possible, he scheduled a hearing on July 26. A decision would be made if whether to put incorporation on the ballot or not unless court proceedings stalls the hearing. Accusations from the opposition stated that the audit by LAFCO overestimated the amount of revenue West Hollywood could take in each year and greatly underestimated its expenditures. The audit suggested that LAFCO did not include expenditures for such items as a rent control board ($1.45 million), street and storm drain reconstruction ($1.9 million), and rental costs for a police station ($500,000). Stone said that "These are all hypothetical situations." He went on to say that many of the opposition's figures were comprised by the standards of full-service cities such as Beverly Hills and Culver City. He also pointed out that West Hollywood could obtain some services from various county agencies by contracting with them, one he claims is unique, "an operation that is markedly different from Beverly Hills and Culver City," said Stone. On June 26, 1984, the county commission was slated to vote to give West Hollywood's voters the right to choose if whether they want to become a city or remain governed by the Board of Supervisors unless 50% of West Hollywood voters were to file written objections by that time which could derail the incorporation efforts, otherwise an election must be set. With virtually no debating of the issues at this point, although LAFCO turned down two requests by incorporation opponents to reconsider its decision of putting cityhood on the ballot. The two requests for reconsideration challenged LAFCO's economic estimates on the projected figure of $4.8 million surplus in the first operational year if they were to secede from the county. West Hollywood property owners Arthur Lawrence and Lorraine Howell, with the help of a private audit firm, were the two parties seeking reconsideration, who insists that West Hollywood would actually have a $2.4 million budget deficit if it wants to become an independent city and maintain the same level of services. Their argument was weak because at the time municipal services for the city were already in decline. Such a claim did not go unchallenged though as LAFCO Executive Director Ruth Benell charged that the audit firm made some drastic assumptions and it unfairly compares the cost of running West Hollywood to that of Beverly Hills, Culver City, and Santa Monica, who at the present time were providing services in-house, rather than through contracting with other agencies at a cheaper price. Benell examined the private audit's numbers which showed revenue projections estimated at the '83, '84 levels while expenditures estimates were projected based on '85, '86 levels. A comparison of apples and oranges. The '83, '84 projections showed none of the potential revenue growth of '85, 86 to accommodate the expenditures of the latter period. Expenditures for flood control which was one of the items questioned would be paid for by the county regardless if West Hollywood became a city or not. To broaden the spectrum of the incorporation efforts were the ramification of incorporation in respect to the surrounding areas of West Hollywood. LAFCO member and L.A. City Councilman Hal Bernson considered the reconsidering efforts of allowing more time to study the economic estimates. His main concern was the financial impact cityhood would have on surrounding cities. Once the ball got rolling for incorporation, other parties joined in on the movement such as: Bud Seigal, chairman of the West Hollywood Citizen's Advisory Committee and one the guiding forces of the West Hollywood Community Plan; Fran Wittenburg, president of the West Hollywood Home Owners Association; attorney and property-owner representative Ira Stein; social worker and tenants' advocate Audrey Isser; and Stonewall & Harvey Milk democratic clubs, the areas two largest gay democratic organizations. At a public meeting held in Plummer Park involved the community members' overwhelming approval for cityhood. At this time the cityhood movement began to gain momentum with the inclusion of many pro-city business and community members. Ruth Benell, executive director of LAFCO was on hand to verify the voters signatures and approve cityhood applications in order to get it on the November ballot. On August 8, 1984, WHIC filed a complaint with the California Bar Assn. against Cynthia Grace for not returning a number of financial and legal items that she kept when she resigned from WHIC. A race had begun among the opponents of incorporation to make last minute maneuvers to stall putting cityhood on the ballot. They wanted more time to debate the issues. In actuality, they did not want West Hollywood to become a city as they truly believed that incorporation would put their interests in jeopardy. A last ditch effort to gather signatures of those who oppose incorporation totaled about 8,000. The signatures were enough to delay proceedings for two more weeks while the county registrar pored over the signatures. As it turned out, registrar Charles Weissburd was able to only validate 980 of the 8,000 signatures, hardly enough to make the slightest dent. County Supervisor Edelman said the vote count was "miserably low." Cityhood supporters accused their opponents of irregularities that was validated by the low total of valid signatures they collected. This was one of the many delay tactics by the opponents of cityhood. This tactic also revealed the naivet and stupidity of the opposing parties. The driving force behind the petition attempt was Marathon Communications, the political consulting firm hired by WHSG. Rich Lichtenstein, a consultant of the firm said that any irregularities were not intentional. According to Stone, there were landlords pressuring their tenants to sign petitions against cityhood. He said, "That's not exactly inspiring good will." No sooner the county supervisors' (August 7, 1984) narrowly voted to put cityhood on the November ballot (by a 3-to-2 vote), the race for five city council seats had begun. A city council was also to be elected by the voters on the same day (November 6, 1984). The five candidates to amass the most votes would take office if incorporation is approved. Ron Stone as well as other members of WHIC had filed papers to run for an office in the city council. Other notable names were Bud Segal, a longtime West Hollywood civic activist; John Heilman, an attorney and tenants rights supporter; and Valerie Terrigno, a gay rights activist, who would become mayor then later indicted for embezzling $6 million from the city treasury and jailed. Others interested in a seat at the city council was like a `cast of thousands,' everybody and their mother vied for a seat in the potential new government. Forty-five, five of which later bowed out of the race, leaving forty candidates, included representatives of the communities largest homeowner's association, gay rights and tenant activists, business people and a large number of tenants. "See you in the City of Commerce" quickly became the catch-word in the Board of Supervisors hearing room. It referred to the county registrar recorder's office in the City of Commerce where candidates must go to apply for the council race. A number of other cityhood supporters with ties to Citizens for Cityhood, the pro-incorporation group that split from WHIC have also taken out papers, including gay political figures Don Genhard and Steve Weltman. Cynthia Grace, former treasurer of WHIC, was also interested in running for office. Gross felt very confident that West Hollywood would become a city. He went on to say that the opposition would have to put up a lot of money if they were to have any chance. CES for which Gross is the chief coordinator had developed a strong alliance with WHIC to fight for cityhood. He also felt confident that a legal challenge of LAFCO's original decision of letting the incorporation issue go before the voters would stick. The challenge was heard at a hearing held by LAFCO on the following Tuesday and it was denied. On August 14, 1984, Judge Vernon Foster of the L.A. Superior Court threw out the lawsuits that were filed by the WHSG and Taxpayers Association. Stone began developing a strategy to get elected by offering a six-month freeze on rent increases to give the new city council time to conduct public hearings so that they could adopt a "comprehensive rent control ordinance" for West Hollywood. The provisions for rent control that Stone would like to implement once in office would be the following: Limiting rent increases to the consumer price index. Rental increases above that index standard only should be allowed for capital improvements agreed to by the tenant and for "extraordinary" maintenance costs; It should be virtually impossible to evict any tenant who pays his rent and takes "reasonable care" of the property; landlords should be allowed to rent vacated units at any price, but the rent controls must be back in place once a new tenant moves in; apartments shouldn't be converted into condominiums units unless two-thirds of the residents approve, and at least 50% state an intention to buy. One example of the unscrupulous dealings of landlords toward their tenants was a story in the L.A. Times on October 14, 1984 in which a tenant, Alex Brik who receives a 9% rent increase annually much to his chagrin, was given a letter by the owners of the property, Hamptom 30, Ltd., stating that his rent would be raised from $479 to $685 a month. The letter also stated that the foregoing rent notice will become effective if on November 6, 1984, the premises are no longer a part of the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County. This is another example of how landlords use fear to have voters side with the anti-incorporation movement by voting against cityhood. John Farley, spokesman for Rent Adjustments, an organization of the county, said that his office had been inundated with calls from tenants who were either being harassed by landlords or even evicted in anticipation of the incorporation vote. The 900 signatures that were collected by the anti-cityhood campaign and the 5,000 signatures obtained by cityhood supporters only indicates the strong support for incorporation by the West Hollywood majority. Cityhood critic, Hundal of WHSG said "Our petition drive never got a chance to get organized." She claims that the Board of Supervisors did not give them enough time otherwise their campaign would have worked. When the message of incorporation began to circulate around West Hollywood, WHSG waited too long to act. They treated the rumors of incorporation as something that would never get off the ground as they were well aware that previous attempts to incorporate proved fruitless. Rent control and crime were some of the issues that the other candidates wanted to address. Alan Viterbi, a West Hollywood resident said, "In many respects, I view this election as a referendum on rent control. The thought of senior citizens being evicted because some speculator is trying to raise his profits is criminal." Viterbi went on to say that "an equitable rent law must be drafted by the new City Council that will protect tenants yet still allow landlords a fair return on their investments." He also wanted to push for an increase budgetary commitment to fight crime. Guerrero proposed a transformation of sidewalks for the many residents who enjoy walking as well as the usual problems such as crime, rent control, etc., etc. There were many other candidates with the usual rhetoric of promises that for the most part are swept underneath the carpet once they're elected, lacking in any originality to their proposals. One of the major scares for the majority of residents both gay and straight was the strong focus on gay issues which could lead the voters to reject cityhood altogether come November. They were afraid that if the election campaign splinters into a struggle between militant gay advocates who are pre-occupied with pro-gay legislation, the issue of cityhood could be greatly compromised and rejected by the majority for extremism. CES had backed three candidates for the new City Council. Helen Albert, a retired teacher and founding member of the United Teachers of Los Angeles; John Heilman, an attorney who was active in gay rights causes; and Douglas Routh, a personnel analyst for the Los Angeles County Department of Personnel. Frances Montgomery, a wealthy West Hollywood property owner and strong opponent of cityhood, launched his own anti-incorporation campaign by soliciting the support of influential businessmen in the area. Up to this point, incorporation supporters had not been able to identify the source of funding behind the opposition movement. A San Francisco polling firm was pulled into the drama by conducting telephone surveys in West Hollywood which according to gay activists were designed to raise fears about a dominant gay movement that was looking toward gaining control of the city as well as allegations of financial instability. Up to this point, most of the political action in West Hollywood was being spawned by the 40 candidates running for a spot on the City Council. More anti-cityhood sentiments have re-surfaced with regularity since the Board of Supervisors decision to put cityhood on the November ballot. Numerous West Hollywood residents received phone calls from pollsters asking questions about the cityhood issue, including Steve Weltman, chairman of CES, who was questioned about his voting pattern and his attitude about cityhood. The inquiry was slanted toward anti-cityhood feelings he thought. Some of the questions that were asked were: "If cityhood were to lead to gay control of the city, would you vote for cityhood?" "Do you believe if gays control the city, there will be an influx of gays from all over the country?" When Weltman asked the pollster what firm he represented, the caller refused to tell him. Several council candidates criticized the questioning methods of the firm. Fairbanks, Canapary & Maullin, the San Francisco firm conducting the survey was a powerful group that had been around since 1932. They claim that their questions were not loaded. "To do so you get misleading answers," was their reponse. William Arkin, a gay activist said that this kind of survey polarizes the community. His fear was that the movement for cityhood could turn into a hate campaign between gay and straight. Guerrero of WHIC said that the poll was a last minute ploy for anti-cityhood supporters to try and kill incorporation. He also went on to say that West Hollywood is not the kind of place in which such tactics would be effective. On September 27, 1984, the California Secretary of State office had received an organizational statement from a new group called "Keep West Hollywood United," an anti-cityhood organization. The treasurer of the organization, Helen Hickish, was an employee of Montgomery; he started the new group. He owns Sunset Plaza, a two block stretch of land on either side of Sunset Blvd. which clusters Le Dome restaurant as well as other fine eateries. West Hollywood businessmen were concerned of the possibility of a massive influx of gays moving into the area if West Hollywood was branded as a "gay city." Severyn Ashkenazy, a financier who helped to build six hotels in the area, was worried that such an influx of gays could "detroy the delicate balance of people we have here." The political race began to heat up as cityhood opponents put out flyers detailing arguments against cityhood. The message that the flyers conveyed were that taxes would be raised, municipal services would diminish, and that rent control could not be guaranteed. This effort was headed by Banks Montgomery, son of Francis Montgomery, founder of Keep West Hollywood United. Stone referred the matter to the district attorney's office for the organization's failure to identify itself. Montgomery acknowledged that the unknown number of flyers sent without identification were due to a printing problem. He claims that no deception was intended. He said that his organization was as surprised as everyone. (Yeah, right!) Incorporation supporters also made claims that Montgomery's group had printed erroneous information to confuse the voters. The Board of Supervisors had passed a motion to extend rent control. A final vote for rent control would be made in late November by the new city council. The county has the authority of extending rent control according to state court rulings that would allow such an action to take place if the area involved meets certain criteria such as a low vacancy rate. At this time, West Hollywood was facing a vacancy rate of only 5%. Gross of CES called this move "a shallow promise." He thought this was another nugatory attempt by landlords to undermine the elections. For two weeks prior to elections, 600 owners petitioned the supervisors to extend rent control. This was another move by Montgomery who claims that this action was taken to separate the issue of rent control from the incorporation vote, and not used as a campaign ploy. He said "The purpose was to secure rent control and allay the fears of the renter." On November 6, 1984, voters approved cityhood by a two-to-one margin and elected five council candidates-four of whom were backed by CES. Three of the five-member council were openly gay candidates who ran strong campaigns, addressing issues regarding West Hollywood and the gay community. Tough rent control and anti-discrimination laws were expected to be high on the immediate agenda. The strength of the incorporation campaign garnered 67% of the vote and council members saw the probability that their laws would pass easily. Another agenda high on the list was to alleviate traffic and parking problems that threatens to scare away potential businesses and shoppers. The five council members were: Alan Viterbi, Valerie Terrigno, John Heilman, Helen Albert, a retired teacher; and Stephan Schulte, a former social services administrator. Ron Stone, the father of the Cityhood movement did not win a seat in the City Council. He said that the gay movement was not an important factor in his campaign. "It's significant, I suppose, that a city should start out with such demographics, but being gay was not tantamount to winning," he concluded. The priorities for any campaign should be based on the advantages and disadvantages of incorporation; to enhance the advantages through careful leadership and deal with the disadvantages with a strong and concrete plan to improve them. Good leadership will be progressive and responsive to the needs of its constituents whether they're gay, straight, women, senior citizens, tenants, property owners, the privileged and underprivileged, in order to live the true meaning of a democracy. West Hollywood is a city like no other in the country. It was the only affluent area in L.A. that was still tied to the county government; an urban paradox where gay bars co-exists with Sunset Strip rock clubs, singles condominium flourishing alongside complexes for the elderly. West Hollywood has always been a melting pot for senior citizens, gays, Jews, film industry workers and Russians. It is the only city in America that is run by a predominantly gay City Council. Never has a homosexual enclave or any other group for that matter, had gain such a strong voice in its own affairs in such a short time. The legislative power of the gay community has allowed them to deal openly with gay issues and it has enable gays to prove that they too can govern effectively and fairly as a majority. At the time there were 13 openly gay elected officials in the U.S. Government. To name a few: Bob Gentry, a Laguna Beach councilman; Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Mass.); San Francisco Supervisor, Harry Britt as well as Santa Cruz and Key West, Fl. mayors, and city councilmen in Minneapolis and Boston. The elections according to national gay leaders saw the West Hollywood elections as a stepping stone for swelling in the ranks of politics and also to show that they too could wield to legislative powers effectively. Nowhere in America would gays have the political clout to deal with issues concerning the gay community. The issues concerning gays would not only be confined to West Hollywood, but would send ripples of its message clear across America. The cityhood drive was a `David-and-Goliath' type of struggle proving that there is still power in `grass roots' movements. The idea that people and organizations could still outmaneuver big money had been realized. Of course the success of any movement in a country in which the importance of money is so deeply rooted in its psyche, could only be realized by the resources that fuels the movement. Like when politicians who win because more money was spent on their campaigns, an issue that the political structure is dealing with at the present time regarding the amount of political contributions made toward a certain politician who shares an agenda that is favorable to certain interests groups. The biggest task of the new government came in the way of a `balancing act,' between developing a general plan of preserving the community while encouraging economic growth. It has saved small businesses which were facing rising rents, competition from large retail chains, and an invasion from upscale Beverly Hills-type shops. Of course, West Hollywood had a robust economy to begin with, surpluses of $7 million a year in tax receipts which has stayed in West Hollywood instead of making its way into the greedy hands of the county. It is safe to say that the idealism shared by the many who saw the neon lights at the end of the tunnel flickering `Cityhood,' was symbolic of the freedom to control their own destiny, had come to fruition, as West Hollywood continues to flourish. West Hollywood has dispelled some of the stereotypes that renters' rights precludes economic growth and prosperity. Then there's the majority gay council who had been running the city successfully ever since it was incorporated, was a major step toward reinforcing the notion that gay efforts had gained respect and acceptance nationwide. Bibliography West Hollywood Incorporation Committee, "Why make West Hollywood a city?" P.O. Box 691476, West Hollywood, CA. 90069. Ron Stone Press Release, "Cityhood Feasible for West Hollywood" December 2, 1983, West Hollywood Incorporation Committee, P.O. Box 691476, West Hollywood, CA. 90069. Author unknown, "Cityhood for West Hollywood Financially Feasible, Report Says," The Post, 8 December 1983. Mary Curtius, "Cityhood Sought for W. Hollywood," Los Angeles Times, 15 December 1983 sec. Westside. Author unknown, "West Hollywood Cityhood," Frontiers, 28 November-1 February 1984, vol.2, #28. B.K. Stinshoff, "$500,000 + 5,000 Signatures Needed for WestHolly Cityhood," The Post, 2 February 1984. Author unknown, "Community Leaders Join Cityhood Drive," Frontiers, 8-15 February 1984. Editor, "Cityhood for Better Representation," Frontiers, 15-22 February 1984, vol.2, #30. Richard Labonte, "Cityhood Drive is Popular," Update, 22 February 1984, issue 129. B.K. Stinshoff, "Cityhood Organizers Gets Down to Business to Gather Support," The Post, 23 February 1984. Author unknown, "West Hollywood Cityhood day March 10," Edge, 23 February 1984. B.K. Stinshoff, "West Hollywood Groups Plan Tandem Cityhood Effort," The Post, 1 March 1984. B.K. Stinshoff, "Ideological Rift Splits West Hollywood Cityhood Effort," The Post, date unknown. Author unknown, "This should keep you as busy as a March hare," Nexus Magazine, March 1984, Vol.1, #6. B.K. Stinshoff, "Banners, Balloons and Bumper Stickers Ready for Cityhood Fest, The Post, 8 March 1984. B.K. Stinshoff, "Incorporation Movement Nears Next Step Following Cityhood Fest" The Post, 15 March 1984. Stephan Braun, "Incorporation Bid Hit by Questions on Viability," Los Angeles Times, 15 March 1984, sec. Westside. James Rainey, "Edelman Turns Down Debate on Cityhood," Los Angeles Times, 18 March 1984, sec. Westside. Author unknown, "Reports examine incorporation plan," Hollywood Independent, 21 March 1984. Richard Labonte, "County Opens Battle Over West Hollywood City Budget," Update, So. California gay NEWSpaper 21 March 1984. Author unknown, "Group disputes Edelman data," Hollywood Independent, 28 March 1984. Richard Labonte, "Charges Fly in Cityhood Debate," Update, 4 April 1984, Issue 132. Stephan Braun, "Cityhood Report Sees Budget Surpluses," Los Angeles Times, 6 May 1984, sec. Westside Barbara Baird, "Challenge to W. Hollywood Cityhood Fails," Los Angeles Times, 24 May 1984, sec. Westside. Stephan Braun, "The City of West Hollywood," Los Angeles Times, 31 May 1984, sec. Westside. B.K. Stinshoff, "Go-Ahead Given to Hold Cityhood Vote." The Post, 31 May 1984. Stephan Braun, "CITYHOOD: Lines Being Drawn in Battle Over Incorporation Effort," Los Angeles Times, 3 June 1984 sec. Westside. Stephan Braun, "W. Hollywood Incorporation Critics File Suit to Delay Vote," Los Angeles Times, 21 June 1984, sec. Westside. B.K. Stinshoff, " Commissioner Stands by Decision to Put Cityhood on Ballot," The Post, 28, June 1984. B.K. Stinshoff, "Cityhood Supporters File Complaint Against Opposition Group," The Post, 28 June 1984. Author unknown, "QUIT: Rival West Hollywood Cityhood Group Formed," Los Angeles Times, 12 July 1984, sec. Westside. Jani Gunn, "Can W.H. make it as a city," The Post, 31 July 1980. B.K. Stinshoff, "The City of West Hollywood? It's a Possibility," The Post, 4 August 1983. Stephan Braun, "West Hollywood Race Takes Shape, Candidate Line Up After Board Puts Cityhood on Ballot," Los Angeles Times, 9 August 1984, sec. Westside. B.K. Stinshoff, November Cityhood Election Scheduled in West Hollywood," Los Angeles Times, 9 August 1984, sec. Westside. Author unknown, "Incorporating West Hollywood: What Will It Take to Become a City? The Post, 11 August 1984. B.K. Stinshoff, Crowded Field in Council Race," The Post, 16 August 1984. Author unknown, "Stone Calls for 6-Month Rent Freeze; Guerrero Proposes Transformation" The Post, 9 September 1984. Joan Cort, "Gays, Lesbians Caught up in W. Hollywood Vote Fever," Advocate, 18 September 1984/9 Author unknown, "Candidates' Views on Cityhood, Council Campaigns," The Post, 27 September 1984. . Stephan Braun, "Cityhood Foes Make First Move," Los Angeles Times, 27 September 1984. Stephan Braun, West Hollywood: Vote May Make It First Gay-Run City," Los Angeles Times, date unknown, sec. Westside. Stephan Braun, "Rent Control Issue Dividing Line in W. Hollywood Vote," Los Angeles Times, 14 October 1984, sec. Westside. Author unknown, "GAY CITY: West Hollywood Mobilized for Vote," Los Angeles Times, date unknown, sec. Westside. Stephan Braun, "Fractions Swap Charges in Waning Days of Race," Los Angeles Times, 1 November 1984, sec. Westside. Murray Dubin, "West Hollywood is born, with gay council majority," Philadelphia Inquirer, 8 November 1984, sec. 2-A. Stephan Braun, "After the Excitement, Comes the Hard Work," Los Angeles Times, 8 November 1984, sec. Westside Stephan Braun, "CITY: Agenda Prepared," Los Angeles Times, date unknown, sec. Westside. B.K. Stinskoff, "The Road to Cityhood," The Post, 15 November 1984, sec. D Stephan Braun, "Rent Control, Gay Rights Lead New City's Agenda," Los Angeles Times, 10 November 1984, sec. CC/Part II Welcome to City of West Hollywood's Virtual City Hall, 8300 Santa Monica Blvd., Los Angeles, CA. 90069, http://www.ci.west-hollywood.ca.us West Hollywood, The New Frontier by Ed Malave English 103 Instructor: Ed O'Neal Term Paper Due: