Ward Seen as Wild Card in Effort to Oust Antonovich

By BILL BOYARSKY

April 17, 1988 12 AM PT

Times City-County Bureau Chief

In January, seven neighborhood rebels maneuvered their vehicles around a sharp Santa Monica Mountains canyon curve, parked near a horse trailer and walked through the chilly air to a simple but substantial frame house, where an intense man waited for them.

The man, Dick Hubbard, a retired San Fernando Valley schoolteacher long involved in mountain growth-control and planning efforts, escorted them to the living room and dining room, where the furnishings clearly marked him and his family as part of the horsy, outdoor-loving group of people who populate the mountains.

This was the beginning of what seemed at the time a quixotic campaign to unseat Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, who is running for a third four-year term in the 5th District, a huge slice of the county reaching from Las Virgenes in the Santa Monicas, through most of the San Fernando Valley and over the San Gabriel Mountains to Pasadena, Alhambra and other parts of the San Gabriel Valley.

For his part, Antonovich said his record justifies another term. He cited creation of an arts high school in the county, increased action against welfare fraud, working toward increasing the size of anti-drug law-enforcement units and efforts to ease congestion by pushing for countywide synchronization of traffic signals.

Chances Look ‘Very Good’

Of his chances in June, Antonovich said, “I think it looks very good,” and of the collective challenge against him, he said he finds it quixotic.

But since their first meeting, the rebels’ goal has become slightly less impractical. Baxter Ward, a Populist, muckraking television news anchorman of the 1960s and the district’s supervisor from 1972 to 1980, announced a comeback. His entrance into the race, along with the presence of several candidates produced by the meeting at Hubbard’s house, has convinced the rebels that Antonovich will be forced into a runoff in the June primary.

Two other factors have combined with Ward’s presence to raise the challengers’ hopes:

- Throughout the district, in places such as Las Virgenes, Lancaster at the edge of the Mojave Desert and the once rural Santa Clarita Valley, slow-growth movements have taken hold. Hubbard said he envisions uniting them against Antonovich, whom they paint as pro-developer. In his defense, Antonovich said: “I believe in responsible growth. We have to protect the environment, but we are limited in many of the decisions we make. Local government cannot be involved in the confiscation of property.”

- The last time Antonovich was on the ballot, when he lost in the 1986 Republican U.S. Senate primary, he was badly beaten throughout the 5th District by fellow conservative Bruce Herschensohn, a Los Angeles radio and television commentator. In some areas, Antonovich finished third behind Herschensohn and the eventual GOP nominee, Ed Zschau, a moderate Republican generally considered to be too liberal for local Republican voters. Historically in politics, a loser in one race does not necessarily lose in another, especially when running as an incumbent. Nevertheless, Antonovich’s foes interpret his poor Senate race showing to mean that the supervisor is not especially popular even with some of the Republicans in his district.

These two factors were far in the background as the rebels began their meeting in Hubbard’s home. Most important was to find a big name to run against Antonovich, someone who could attract instant votes and campaign contributions.

Someone mentioned Steve Garvey, the former Los Angeles Dodgers’ first baseman who once lived in the Las Virgenes area. Don Wallace, a Los Angeles city fire captain who lives up the road from Hubbard, brought up the name of Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Sepulveda), a popular lawmaker who represents part of the San Fernando Valley.

But neither Garvey nor Katz nor any other well-known person was interested in running for county supervisor, Wallace said. The group met at Hubbard’s house a second time.

“We came up with an elephant-and-ants strategy,” Wallace said. “Nibble him to death.”

That meant recruiting candidates from every section of the sprawling district and putting together an informal slate in the hope that each of them could take away enough votes from Antonovich to drop him below the total of 50% plus one vote he needs to win the election in June. If successful, the strategy would force Antonovich into a runoff in November.

Wallace, who had political contacts from his days as president of the Los Angeles city firefighters union, became the Santa Monica Mountains candidate. Last week those political contacts paid off when he was endorsed by Rep. Howard M. Berman (D-Panorama City).

Jose Galvan, a San Fernando Valley Latino political activist who owns a desk-top publishing company, read in the newspapers about the meeting at Hubbard’s house.

He called Hubbard and said, “I’d like to talk to you.” Galvan became a candidate.

Hubbard called Sally Chase Clark, a secretary at the county hospital in Sylmar, who was a slow-growth advocate from the Santa Clarita Valley.

Became a Candidate

“I went to a meeting,” she said. “The strategy of having a group of candidates was discussed and I was excited immediately. I knew this was a method that would work. At the next meeting, they asked me if I would run. I said if they needed more candidates, I would be happy to run.”

Soon, the slate filled out: Clark, Wallace, Galvan and Peter O’Neil, 25, a marketing firm manager from Pasadena; Glenn Bailey, 32, of Encino who coordinates a reading program at Cal State Northridge; Robert R. Benjamin, a Glendale insurance attorney, and Martin A. C. Enriquez-Marquez, 27, of Pasadena.

Benjamin and Enriquez-Marquez are Republicans. The rest are Democrats.

Then Ward, 68 and living in retirement in Tarzana, decided to challenge Antonovich, who had defeated him in 1980. Like those on the slate, Ward accused Antonovich of favoring big developer campaign contributors. “I feel very strongly about the . . . influence of campaign contributions,” Ward said. “They are the greatest single evil in government on any level.”

Ward never accepted campaign contributions of more than $45 and watched helplessly when the well-funded Antonovich beat him. Nevertheless, Ward said he will not accept contributions in the primary.

His decision has left the slate with mixed emotions.

“I’m ambivalent,” Wallace said. “I am sure it will mean it will be a runoff. I am not sure it will be me (in the runoff). I was at a function at the Antelope Valley. There was me and three other candidates working the crowd for two or three hours. Baxter walked in late and received a lot of attention.”

But, Wallace said: “I don’t think Baxter will win it in the general (election). I think I could. . . . His refusal to take campaign contributions is a wonderful, quixotic thing to do, but it dooms him in the general.”

Hubbard, on the other hand, said Ward’s entrance “will bring more publicity to the coalition.”

Galvan’s campaign provides a good look at how the poorly financed coalition is going about trying to beat Antonovich.

A major Galvan issue, as he campaigns in the district’s Latino areas, is Antonovich’s attitude toward immigrants.

Galvan cited a television advertisement made during the Senate campaign in which Antonovich said illegal immigrants cost American taxpayers $35 billion a year and act as a major conduit for drugs entering the country. After the ad was taped on the border, a reporter overheard an Antonovich aide say, “Who has the Smith & Wesson?” as the aide looked down at a canyon where several hundred illegal immigrants had gathered.

Roman Catholic Archbishop Roger M. Mahony called on Antonovich to apologize for what he called a “distasteful” ad and he criticized the campaign aide’s remark. Antonovich defended the ad and said the aide’s remark was “stupid” but “facetious.”

“That was not the kind of leadership I wanted, not the kind of person who should be elected to office,” Galvan said, explaining why he ran.

In a campaign without money, Galvan is using his desk-top publishing and computer skills. He has targeted precincts around his Sylmar home, in Canoga Park, Pacoima and other Valley areas where there are substantial numbers of Latinos, as well as some precincts in the San Gabriel Valley.

In all, there are 25 such precincts, and he intends to hit them with three mailings, as well as to concentrate on door-to-door campaigning. He said he hopes to raise $10,000.

Against these efforts, Antonovich in January reported receiving $745,860 and spending $442,157, $166,823 of it in the last six months of 1987 for political expenses ranging from postage to the salary of consultant Kathleen Crow.

The Times reported last April that developers needing Board of Supervisors’ approval for their projects were major contributors.

Among them were Newhall Land & Farming Co.; Santa Clarita Valley apartment builders Geoff and Dan Palmer; Nathan Shapell, who is partner in a large apartment project in the Calabasas area of Antonovich’s district; Paul E. Griffin Jr., a Calabasas-based builder, and Dale Poe, an Agoura developer.

Opponents are jumping on these contributions as evidence that Antonovich is in the developers’ pockets. But Antonovich replied, “We have had about 30% of our contributions from developers,” which he said is about the same amount as received from such sources by Los Angeles City Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky, who is getting ready to run for mayor on a slow-growth platform.

Antonovich strategists said the opponents’ plans will not succeed.

The supervisor’s weak showing in the Senate campaign, they said, was attributable to the fact that conservative Herschensohn ran so strongly, and that Antonovich had to divide the rest of the conservative vote with former Rep. Bobbi Fiedler and state Sen. Ed Davis, both well-known San Fernando Valley conservatives.

Antonovich said the reason he ran so poorly in the Senate race was that “many people wanted me to (remain) supervisor.”

Most Within Cities

And the Antonovich team said the slow-growth campaign of opponents will not work because most of the territory in the district lies within the boundaries of incorporated cities.

Residents of Encino, for example, blame Los Angeles City Hall, not Antonovich, for too much growth. It would require several weeks, and large amounts of advertising dollars, to make the case that county officials share the responsibility for growth and traffic, one backer said.

Antonovich critic Hubbard said that money remains the insurgents’ big problem. He said that the anti-Antonovich campaign will need plenty of free publicity. “If the papers and television don’t come in and cover it, he will be reelected,” Hubbard said.

MAPPING THE 5TH SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT

The Fifth Supervisorial District is a huge political battleground, extending over two mountain ranges--the Santa Monicas and the San Gabriels; four valleys--the San Fernando, the Antelope, the Santa Clarita the San Gabriel--and reaching the edge of one desert, the Mojave. Incumbent Mike Antonovich is favored to win a third term. But there are political and demographic differences among communities that could be exploited by challengers. A computer-derived system of analyzing social and economic differences in neighborhoods called PRIZM is used here to pinpoint these differences. That information, combined with records of voter registration and past elections, plus interviews with campaigners, provides a look at some of Antonovich’s strong and weak points.

1. SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS

Here in comfortable, rustic homes in the Las Virgenes regions of the mountain range, the anti-Antonovich movement began. With the county making the zoning decisions in this unincorporated area, Antonovich has made enemies among Blue Blood Estates and outdoors-loving God’s Country types who live in relative and sometimes splendid isolation. If the entire district were like this, Antonovich might lose, but it is only a small part of his constituency.

2. CHATSWORTH, NORTHWEST COUNTY

Furs and Station Wagons and Blue Blood Estates are dominant groups in this Republican-leaning, mostly white area, where the largest group of voters are over 40. It should be Antonovich territory. But it might be a potential target area for Antonovich foes. Though not automatically an indicator of weakness as a supervisorial incumbent, Antonovich’s 1986 Senate primary showing was poor here. He ran fourth in many precincts. There is some anti-growth sentiment. Voters in hot growth areas such as the Santa Clarita Valley, Lancaster and Palmdale have turned against incumbent supervisors in the past.

3. RESEDA

This largely Democratic working class San Fernando Valley community, dominated by the technical and white collar workers of the New Beginnings class and Blue Chip Blues blue collar workers who generally are white , provides three major obstacles for anti-Antonovich forces: It is within Los Angeles city limits, where attention is on City Hall, not the county Hall of Administration; efforts to build up the Democratic vote to beat Republican Antonovich will be hampered by large numbers of traditionally low voting renters and young, childless adults; a strong 1984 vote for President Reagan shows a conservative tendency.

4. ENCINO

Gray Power, the affluent elderly, make up 13.1% of the residents in the Encino area, which is Democratic with a substantial Jewish population. This is the largest concentration of well-heeled seniors in the San Fernando Valley and both sides will be targeting the high voting group. Encino was an early stronghold of the city of Los Angeles slow growth movement. Seniors there have cast votes against growth, as have members of another strong Encino types,Blue Blood Estates. Antonovich foes, however, must convince them that the county is also to blame for too much growth and traffic. And he may be helped on election day by the fact that another large group are the mobile young New Beginnings adults, renters unininvolved in homeowner based slow growth movements.

5. CANOGA PARK

High earning Furs and Station Wagons and prosperous Young Suburbia types outnumber the more humble New Beginnings. Particular targets for the anti-Antonovich forces might be upwardly mobile Latinos who may resent the sharp attacks Antonovich made on illegal immigrants during the 1986 campaign.

6. PACOIMA

Hispanic Mix, along with a substantial number of Emergent Minority types, dominate Democratic, liberal Pacoima. Unlike in more prosperous places such as Canoga Park, here, low citizenship, registration and voting rates weaken the political influence of young, low-income Latinos who might vote for an Antonovich opponent. Poorer blacks, however, spurred by two Jesse Jackson presidential campaigns, have shown more political interest and are likely to vote against the supervisor.

7. GLENDALE

Antonovich’s political heartland begins where the San Fernando Valley abruptly ends and the San Gabriel Mountains begin. His political strength is solid. In the communities encompassed by the 41st Assembly District, which reaches from Glendale over the mountains to La Canada Flintridge and Altadena, Antonovich made his best showing in the Republican Senate primary in 1986. Those communities are all in his supervisorial district. He appears strong despite demographic changes that, for example, has changed once solidly white middle class Glendale into a multi ethnic city with New Melting Pot and Hispanic Mix types outnumbering Pools & Patios.

8. PASADENA

Multi-ethnic Pasadena is another changing city, but has a solid base of upscale, high voting, potentially conservative voting types--Blue Blood Estates and Pools & Patios--making it most helpful to Antonovich.

9. ALTADENA

This is could be a prime target area for anti-Antonovich forces. The largest socioeconomic group is Black Enterprise and these upper middle class voters are overwhelmingly Democratic. Add to them Pools & Patios and Money & Brains drawn to Alatadena’s integrated neighborhoods and you have a potential of upscale, high turnout liberal voters.

10. SOUTH PASADENA

Upscale Young Influentials and Pools & Patios dominate this Antonovich stronghold where the supervisor serves as a reserve police officer.

A Glossary of PRIZM Categories

The Times Marketing Research Department uses the PRIZM system of population analysis. It is called geo-demographic analysis and is based on a “birds-of-a-feather” theory that people of generally the same socioeconomic background tend to live in the same sort of neighborhoods. Claritas, a marketing research company, designed a computer program which processed information from the U.S. Census and from various surveys of buying habits and other life style indicators. From this, computers sorted out 40 neighborhood classifications, called “clusters,” and marketers gave them descriptive names. These are the clusters used to describe areas shown on the accompanying map:

BLACK ENTERPRISE

Largely black, family oriented, upper middle class.

BLUE BLOOD ESTATES

Wealthiest, with corporate CEOS and old money.

BLUE CHIP BLUES

Generally white married couples with children, blue collar, high school education.

EMERGENT MINORITIES

Mostly black with some Latino, on the lower part of the economic ladder, many single parents. Tend to be young, with some high school education, employed in blue collar or service occupations.

FURS & STATION WAGONS

New money, well educated, professional managers with teenage children.

GOD’S COUNTRY

Well educated young, mobile families with children living outside metropolitan areas.

GRAY POWER

Upscale seniors.

HISPANIC MIX

Bilingual, heavily Latino, poor single and family urban apartment dwellerswith many unskilled workers.

NEW BEGINNINGS

High tech and lower echelon white collar workers, both singles and married, between 18-34, highly mobile, renters.

NEW MELTING POT

Urban mixture of Latino, Asian and Middle Eastern immigrants, with high school educations, working in blue collar or service occupations.

YOUNG INFLUENTIALS

Young, urban, sophisticated high tech or white collar employed singles or childless couples, with white collar jobs and double incomes.

THE CANDIDATES FOR DISTRICT 5

Rematch of old supervisorial rivals:

MIKE ANTONOVICH, 48

Occupation: Los Angeles County supervisor since 1980

Residence: Glendale

Background: Teacher. Member Los Angeles Community College Board of Trustees, 1969-1973; assemblyman, 1972-1978. Unsuccessful candidate for Republican nomination for lieutenant governor, 1978, and for Republican nomination for U.S. Senate, 1986

BAXTER WARD, 68

Occupation: Retired

Residence: Tarzana

Background: Former television news anchor, Los Angeles county supervisor, 1972-1980

Other candidates:

GLENN BAILEY, 32

Occupation: Administrator and program assistant

Residence: Encino

Background: Former board member, Northwestern Los Angeles Resource Conservation District, losing candidate Los Angeles City Council, 1979

ROBERT BENJAMIN, 41

Occupation: Attorney

Residence: Glendale