Developer Donations Used Against Them : Contributions to Yaroslavsky, Braude Help Finance Drive Against High-Rises

Hundreds of thousands of letters promoting an initiative to curb commercial development were dropped in mailboxes from San Pedro to Tujunga recently, warning that, “Greedy developers and their hired army of City Hall lobbyists are ruining Los Angeles!”

But it turns out that developers themselves--to the dismay of many--helped finance that attack through their political contributions to the measure’s two key sponsors, City Councilmen Zev Yaroslavsky and Marvin Braude, a Times study of campaign contribution reports shows.

If approved by voters, the initiative would cut in half the size of future buildings allowed on most of the city’s commercial property outside of major centers such as downtown, the Wilshire corridor and Hollywood. The campaign is shaping up as a landmark political struggle over how and where Los Angeles should grow, pitting slow-growth advocates and neighborhood groups against developers, organized labor and their traditional allies in City Hall.

Many developers were not pleased to come under attack from politicians they supported. “I was furious, absolutely furious,” said Brian Weinstock, recalling the day he received one of the “greedy developer” mailers. “. . . I feel betrayed.” Weinstock is president of Weinstock Construction Corp., which has donated $3,500 to Yaroslavsky and $3,000 to Braude in recent years.

The two councilmen drew $100,000 each out of their personal campaign accounts to fund a successful two-month drive to qualify the measure for the November ballot.

Nearly 40% of the money--more than $500,000--in those campaign coffers has come from development interests, The Times found.

Yaroslavsky has raised nearly $1 million in campaign funds since 1980, with 37% of it coming from developers. Over the same period, Braude collected about 41% of his $361,000 in campaign funds from real estate interests.

The contributions to Yaroslavsky and Braude reflect a longstanding pattern in City Hall, where building projects are regulated, of developers making heavy contributions to City Council, mayoral and other municipal campaigns.

Watt Industries Inc., a leading residential and commercial developer whose many projects include two large Century City office towers, contributed $3,500 to Yaroslavsky and $5,000 to Braude.

Veteran City Hall lobbyist Philip Krakover, whose firm, Engineering Technologies, represents many developers and contributes heavily to city campaigns, gave $4,500 to Yaroslavsky and $3,500 to Braude. Among Krakover’s clients have been CBS and Gilmore Co., which together want to build a large development near Farmers’ Market.

Tishman West Management Corp., which develops and operates office buildings, contributed $4,500 to Yaroslavsky and $2,500 to Braude. The firm in recent years has made a concerted effort in development along the Westside’s so-called Olympic Corridor, roughly between Wilshire and Pico boulevards, west of Sepulveda Boulevard.

Ray Watt, head of Watt Industries Inc., said some developers “are very upset” with the actions by the two councilmen they have supported. It is uncertain “whether we would support them in the future,” Watt said, although, like many developers, he was cautious in his comments and said he personally has “no hang-ups” about how his money is used.

Dori Pye, president of the 1,000-member Los Angeles West Chamber of Commerce, which includes many Westside real estate interests, said developers “feel quite used (because) they have supported the councilmen very strongly. . . . To be called (names) and attacked that way is not very appropriate.”

Not all developers expressed unhappiness.

Krakover, who opposes the initiative, expressed “a little bit of regret” that “maybe your own money is used against you.” But he said he still considers both councilmen “men of integrity” who “philosophically believe in what they are doing.”

Why He Gave

He said he gave to Yaroslavsky because he is a “bright, forward-looking, intelligent person” who has “a lot of potential for leadership.”

Developers who gave to Yaroslavsky and Braude said they did so for the same reasons that they give to other politicians--because they generally agree with their philosophy, like their style or want to ensure access to discuss their projects.

Jerry Fine, a developer of office buildings and shopping centers, said he contributed $1,000 to Yaroslavsky because “we agree on many social issues. . . . I didn’t give Zev money to support me in City Council. All giving money to a politician does is give (you) access.”

Weinstock, who said he has dealt with both Yaroslavsky and Braude over the years concerning his projects, said: “It’s not so much an effort to buy their vote. . . . To get a meeting with councilmen, it sometimes helps to have one-to-one relations and that (is) developed at political dinners.”

The fact that developers’ political contributions are now being used for a measure opposed by developers may be a major issue in the initiative campaign.

Focus on Yaroslavsky

Critics of the initiative are citing those contributions in their attack on the measure, concentrating particularly on the more ambitious and visible Yaroslavsky, who is considered a potential candidate for mayor.

In interviews, they seek to cast doubt on Yaroslavsky’s motives, portraying him as an ambitious man who is currying favor with homeowners for a mayoral campaign after taking money from developers.

One developers’ representative, who asked not to be named, summarized the view of many critics of the initiative. “Zev has got his (campaign funds); he doesn’t need (developers) any more, and now he’s going after the homeowners.”

Weinstock said that “there has been a lot of talk about Zev wanting to be mayor. Certainly he needs more than developers. . . . We’d all be naive if we didn’t think there wasn’t some impetus to organize the homeowners.”

Because of the development-limiting initiative, said Weinstock, a director of an organization of commercial developers, there is talk among developers of seeking “someone to run against him” for mayor.

More Suspicion

Even some homeowner groups that support the initiative are suspicious of Yaroslavsky’s motives. “Politicians look for a trend and then run out to lead it,” said Laura Lake, a UCLA professor of urban planning and co-founder of Not Yet New York, a year-old citywide coalition of neighborhood and environmental groups. Had it not been for the work of the coalition, she said, “this (initiative) wouldn’t have happened.”

Such attacks on his motives and sincerity point up the long-term political gamble Yaroslavsky is taking. On one hand, Yaroslavsky is antagonizing the development industry and opening himself up to heavy personal attacks that could lower his standing in the polls long before a mayoral election. On the other hand, he has the chance to build a citywide political network of homeowner groups, and possibly emerge from the initiative battle as a front-runner for mayor.

Yaroslavsky said political ambition “was not a factor at all” in his decision to sponsor the initiative. “I see it as something in which I believe, and that’s all that matters to me.”

‘Dirty Pool’

Braude said that linking the initiative to Yaroslavsky’s political ambitions is “dirty pool” and an attempt to deflect attention from the fact that 105,000 voters signed petitions to place the issue on the ballot. “That’s the kind of attack that sophisticated manipulators and lobbyists employ,” he said. “You attack the politician’s motives. . . .”

The criticism is focused on him, Yaroslavsky said, “partly because the people on the other side want to regionalize the issue” and because “I think I pose in the eyes of some more of a threat than anybody else.”

As for how the long-term political benefits and risks of the initiative may affect his career, Yaroslavsky said, “I don’t think it’s a clean-cut, black-and-white issue from a political point of view.”

Yaroslavsky and Braude offer no apologies for taking money from developers or using it to fund the initiative drive. Yaroslavsky claimed that no developers have voiced objections to him. His critics, Yaroslavsky said, are suggesting that “when you take a developer’s contribution, or anybody else’s contribution, you really ought to clear everything you do with the contributor the rest of your life.”

“I’m sorry,” he said. “I’m sorry to disappoint some people. I don’t operate that way. I don’t accept any contribution with any strings attached.”

No Cause to Complain

Braude said developers have no cause to complain because “they know they don’t buy anything” with a contribution.

However, both councilmen did express regrets about the tone of their mailers, which were developed by the Westside consulting firm headed by Michael Berman and Carl D’Agostino. In an interview, Yaroslavsky insisted that he never intended to portray all developers as greedy, although, he acknowledged, “I can see how some people read it that way.”

“Most of the developers in this town are not (greedy),” Yaroslavsky said. “Most of the developers in this town are excellent developers. They’re high-quality people.”

While he signed the mailer, Braude said he had argued against the “greedy” characterization because it was “all inclusive. . . . There are many developers who are reasonable.”

Record Questioned

Some critics claim that Yaroslavsky’s high-profile leadership in the campaign to limit development does not square completely with his record. They note that a large share of the growing unrest among neighborhood groups over development and traffic is coming from Yaroslavsky’s Westside district. Since he has been the area’s councilman for more than 10 years, he should be held accountable, the critics say, among them developers and City Council colleagues who oppose the initiative.

Yaroslavsky insists that he inherited a district in 1975 that was planned and zoned for far too much development. “From the day I walked into office, from that day on we have done nothing but roll back and . . . impose limitations on development rights on every single commercial street in my district.”

Some homeowner groups and developers agree that Yaroslavsky has pushed to control development--citing, for example, an ordinance that he introduced giving the city greater control over large-scale projects along Pico, Westwood and Sepulveda boulevards. “I believe generally that he has” tried to limit development, said Brian Moore, president of the Federation of Hillside and Canyon Assns., a Westside and Valley coalition of homeowner groups that has been at the forefront of efforts to slow growth.

Looking at Votes

Richard Close, president of the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn. and a longtime city activist, said Yaroslavsky and Braude have led efforts to curb development, despite their campaign contributions from developers. “I look at how they vote,” he said. “Councilmen Braude, (Joel) Wachs and Yaroslavsky have voted well. That shows their independence.”

However, Bob Breall, a spokesman for the North Westwood Village Residents Assn., is among Yaroslavsky’s constituents who blame him for overdevelopment.

“I don’t think he should be allowed to get away with being the white knight, when he has sold out and destroyed this community,” Breall said. Breall has been spearheading a fight to halt the razing of older north village apartment buildings, which are being replaced with new luxury complexes. Breall’s group is most upset about exemptions from a building moratorium that some developers received, with Yaroslavsky’s support, after claiming financial hardship.

Breall, who said he voted for Yaroslavsky in the past, now says that the councilman should be held to answer for “gridlock traffic (in Westwood) and a diminishing quality of life.”

Different Issue

Yaroslavsky said that issue is different, pertaining not to commercial development but to residential development around UCLA that the initiative does not cover.

“What you have is a conflict between people who are there and like it there. They like it the way it is, who like the rent controlled apartments there. . . . On the other hand, you’ve got to look at the long-term needs of the university community.”

Yaroslavsky also praises a 215-unit, 14-story Westwood hotel proposed by Murdoch Development Co., which contributed $3,500 to his campaign fund, although he does not give it his full support, citing incomplete community planning. Lake, the UCLA professor, flatly opposes allowing the hotel to be more than three stories high.

The assertion that council members control all development in their districts is “a fallacy that has not been valid as long as I have been here,” Yaroslavsky said. Council members maintain control only “as long as an army of lobbyists doesn’t gang up against” them, he said, citing several projects in his district that he said were “rammed down our throat.”

The most bitter such defeat, after heavy lobbying by developers, was the council’s 1984 vote to kill Yaroslavsky’s proposed moratorium on Westwood high-rises. Several high-rise projects in that congested area of his district are now going ahead. “I’ve never gotten over that case. . . . I think I was betrayed,” Yaroslavsky said. “I wouldn’t say that moment, that day, the initiative light went on in my head. But (I thought), I’ve got to do something.”

Times researcher Cecilia Rasmussen contributed to this article.

DEVELOPERS AND THE INITIATIVE

Los Angeles City Council members Zev Yaroslavsky and Marvin Braude used $200,000 from their personal campaign war chests to help qualify for the November ballot an initiative limiting commercial development in the city. Here is how much development interests contributed to the two initiative backers from 1980 through 1985.

Total Contributions Developer Contributions Yaroslavsky $968,398 $356,685 Braude $361,445 $148,675

Percent Yaroslavsky 37% Braude 41%

MAJOR DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTORS

Yaroslavsky Philip Krakover, developers’ lobbyist $4,500 Tishman West Management Corp., office buildings $4,500 Watt Industries, Inc., residential/commercial builder $3,500 Weinstock Construction Co., residential/office builder $3,500 Barclay-Hollander Corp., residential developer $4,000 Beverly Park Estates, residential development $5,000 Charles Chastain/Headland Properties, home builder $2,000

Braude Philip Krakover, developers’ lobbyist $3,500 Tishman West Management Corp., office buildings $2,500 Watt Industries, Inc., residential/commercial builder $5,000 Weinstock Construction Co., residential/office builder $3,000 Barclay-Hollander Corp., residential developer $1,500 Beverly Park Estates, residential development $7,500 Charles Chastain/Headland Properties, home builder $5,000