Bradley’s Support by Blacks, Jews Eroding

The very core of Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley’s most loyal support in the city--black and Jewish voters--eroded in the November election for governor, according to a Times analysis of precinct returns.

The Times study of results by census tract shows that Bradley lost support in heavily Jewish areas and failed to inspire voter turnout in many black areas. In spite of a concerted campaign effort to get out the vote for Bradley in the black community, the black vote--the one trump card the Bradley campaign felt it had--did not materialize in force.

The combined support of blacks and Jews has been important for Bradley since he was first elected mayor in 1973.

And the November returns also contained troubling signs for the mayor as he considers running for a record fifth term. Voters citywide cast more votes for a slow-growth initiative than for the mayor himself. The success of the initiative is already being interpreted as good news for potential Bradley challengers in search of a popular issue to carry into the 1989 mayor’s race. Bradley, who has said he is “damn close” to announcing that he will run again, has been viewed as a pro-growth mayor.

For the first time in Bradley’s nearly 14-year career as mayor, “a lot of politicians around here smell blood,” said one longtime Bradley adviser. “They will be testing him to see if he will be aggressive or take a lame-duck posture. If he does the latter, he won’t be a lame duck, he’ll be a dead duck.”

For example, in a census tract representative of the Pico Fairfax area, a working-class area of modest homes and small businesses from delis to fruit stands, Bradley’s support dropped 14 points from the 1982 election. Many of the elderly Jews who live in the neighborhood, who had been satisfied with the mayor’s quiet, non-confrontational style, assailed him openly last year when he did not speak out in advance of a local appearance by Black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan, who had been known to make anti-Semitic remarks in his speeches.

In the Crenshaw-Washington area, home to some working-class Latinos and affluent blacks who have hosted Bradley fund-raisers, voter turnout declined 15 points from four years ago. Some of the same blacks who worked hard for Bradley in 1982 often said privately this year that although they would support him, they did so without great fervor, believing that he had squandered his best opportunity to win four years ago.

Support was unwavering citywide, however, for Proposition U, the city’s slow-growth initiative. In Los Angeles, votes for Bradley substantially outnumbered Proposition U support in only four of the 15 City Council districts.

The passage of the measure causes another headache for Bradley because, although particularly popular with suburban voters, its controlled-growth philosophy disturbs big business and labor interests who have supported Bradley through hefty campaign contributions. The question of growth is a potential political tightrope for Bradley, who owes $1 million as a result of his failed campaign for governor. He must look largely to local business and labor to help him retire the debt--the same interests that fear a loss of construction contracts and jobs if slow-growth policies going beyond Proposition U are pursued.

The measure cuts in half the allowable size of new buildings on more than 70% of the commercial and industrial property in the city. The measure was promoted by Councilmen Zev Yaroslavsky, a often-mentioned potential candidate for mayor in 1989, and Marvin Braude. The overwhelming success of the initiative has been seen as a barometer of discontent about unfettered growth and its consequences in everyday life: more traffic, more smog, more year-round schools.

The initiative excluded areas of the largest high-density development such as downtown, along Wilshire Boulevard and parts of Hollywood, where the major developers have concentrated most of their efforts. But those behind the large-scale projects are already concerned about what happens next because, as one businessman put it, “people don’t want to invest in a city where it’s difficult to do business.”

“The question is, will he (Bradley) be an active mayor in the next two years?” asks Christopher Stewart, president of of the Central City Assn., an organization that represents downtown business interests. “I think he will. But perhaps the larger question is, can he wage a compatible coexistence between the business and residential constituencies? As this movement is elevated to bigger, broader areas of the city, where is the mayor going to stand on it?”

‘Needs to Take Charge’

“The business community does not want to see this Zev-Braude movement expand,” one prominent downtown business attorney said bluntly. “The mayor needs to take charge.”

The mayor, who has generally been pro-development, is not talking yet about how he wants to handle the growth issue.

“He’s been close to the business and labor communities. They’ve been big supporters in past campaigns. They obviously don’t want substantial restrictions on how they do business,” said another Bradley aide who asked not to be identified. “On the other hand, the people are apparently clamoring for some leadership on growth issues.”

In the San Fernando Valley, an area of the city particularly attractive to commercial developers, the slow-growth measure won, from rustic Tujunga, where it received 63% support, to affluent Sherman Oaks, where it received 77% of the vote.

In Hollywood, support also was in the high 70% range. And, in spite of opponents’ contention that minorities would oppose the slow-growth measure because it might cost them jobs, Proposition U received 69% of the vote in Lincoln Heights, 68% in El Sereno and 62% in Boyle Heights.

Even Higher Totals

The measure attracted even higher totals in predominantly black areas: 79% in South-Central and 81% in Watts, although those totals may be attributed less to grass-roots support and far more to a “Yes on Proposition U” slate mailer that deluged those areas.

Some close to Bradley say they expect him to tackle the growth issue soon after the new year.

“Now that the ghost of the governorship has been laid to rest, expect a stronger, more activist Tom Bradley,” said Maureen Kindel, president of the Board of Public Works and a Bradley confidant. “I think he will be willing to exercise power more openly. I think he will be active in implementing Proposition U . . . and trying the meet the challenges of growth in the city.” She added that the job of mayor “is a job he enjoys and one he’s not likely to give up.”

Central City Assn. president Stewart, who is also a Bradley appointee on the Community Redevelopment Agency, said he asked the mayor directly if he plans to run again in 1989. “We see the mayor as a strong, viable candidate for mayor,” Stewart said. “When I asked him, he didn’t give me an answer.”

Others who know the mayor suggest that even if he does not plan to run again for mayor, he is unlikely to say so since he has a large campaign debt and more than two years remaining in his term.

‘Back to Basics’

One direction Bradley apparently will take is one of greater visibility throughout the city. At a retreat of senior staff members earlier this month in Oxnard, Bradley emphasized that he wants to adopt a “back-to-basics” approach--one that includes admonishing the staff to come to work on time--and that stresses more “hands-on” contact with constituents.

Again, census-tract results show many areas of the city where Bradley especially needs to shore up his support. In Pacific Palisades, where voters were angered by Bradley’s approval nearly two years ago of onshore oil drilling, he received 37% of the vote, compared to 53% in 1982.

In largely Jewish areas, Bradley’s support waned. His 65% of the vote in the Pico-Fairfax area fell from 79% in 1982. In Encino, which includes a substantial number of affluent Jews, Bradley plummeted from 61% four years ago to 49% last month.

Bradley got good support from the Eastside, ranging from 59% in El Sereno, 76% in Lincoln Heights and 78% in Boyle Heights. But, even though he was not a home-town candidate, Democratic Sen. Alan Cranston got more votes than Bradley in all those neighborhoods, and the same was true in the city’s Westside.

Predominantly black areas gave winning margins to Bradley typically in the 90% range. The story in the black community, however, was turnout. The percentage of eligible voters who went to the polls was often lower than the statewide average of 58%, the worst state average since World War II. In Watts it was 45%, contrasted with 62% in 1982; in areas of South Central it was 53%, contrasted with 67% four years ago.

‘A Lack of Excitement’

Black leaders, speaking on the condition that they not be identified, attributed the poor black turnout to, as one put it, “a lack of excitement” about the familiar and cautious Bradley, and a feeling that he could not win the governorship, with or without black support.

Stewart and former city attorney Burt Pines, both Bradley supporters, said they do not believe that the lower totals for the mayor are ominous signs.

“The vote boiled down to one incumbent governor who people believed was doing a good job. I don’t see it as an anti-Tom Bradley vote,” Pines said. “I think Tom Bradley remains a popular mayor.”

Little doubt remains, however, that the Bradley run for governor and the lukewarm results in the mayor’s own city will lead to staff shake-ups.

Tom Houston, chief of staff and deputy mayor, originally hired to aid Bradley’s chances of becoming governor, is at the top of the speculation list.

Post-Election Sniping

Reflecting some of the post-election staff sniping at Houston, a column in the Sentinel, a black-owned weekly, said that Houston had promoted himself more than he had the mayor, and had become “much too prominent. . . . He actually overshadowed the mayor in media stories. . . .”

Some staffers were galled when, on Bradley’s losing election night, they saw Houston on television news celebrating the victory of a statewide anti-toxics measure he had helped draft and promote. Houston minimizes the importance of the in-house criticism, which has died down in recent weeks, and said he has “no immediate, no future plans of leaving” his chief of staff job, although other insiders predict that he will move on within the next six months.

Several suggest that Kindel also is expected to quit the Board of Public Works. Kindel said recently that “changes in staffing should be expected. It’s important for some of us in the Administration to move on,” before adding: “I’m always thinking of leaving and I never do.”

A LOSS OF SUPPORT FOR BRADLEY

Mayor Tom Bradley’s loss in his second try for the governorship also meant a loss of support in Los Angeles among usually strong supporters. Here are two examples from an analysis of voting patterns:

BLACK NEIGHBORHOODS Bradley’s problem was that voter turnout in 1986 trailed that of 1982 :

82 turnout 86 turnout Baldwin Hills 76% 64% South Central 67% 53% Crenshaw/Washington 64% 49% Watts 62% 45%

JEWISH NEIGHBORHOODS Fewer voted for Bradley last November than in 1982, and both an initiative to slow growth in Los Angeles and Sen. Alan Cranston got more votes than Bradley did.

1982 Vote 1986 Vote 1986 Vote Yes Vote Area for Bradley for Bradley for Cranston on Prop. U Pico Fairfax 79% 65% 85% 80% Beverlywood 57% 73% 82% 75% Encino 61% 49% 67% 75%

Source: Census tract information provided by Caltech Prof. Bruce E. Cain.