W. Hollywood May Put 2 Civic Center Measures on Ballot

In a new twist to the long, bitter dispute over whether to build a civic center in West Hollywood Park, the City Council is considering placing competing initiatives on the November ballot to give voters a say in the center’s fate.

As part of an arrangement favored by a majority of council members, the ballot would contain an initiative, sponsored by the Save Our Parks Alliance, prohibiting construction of the civic center in the park. Competing would be a measure drafted by Mayor Abbe Land and Councilman John Heilman to allow the center to be built in the park while ensuring that park space is not reduced.

Question of Legality

The council is scheduled to consider the proposals June 19.

If approved, the arrangement could give voters the chance to weigh in on an issue that has been politically divisive since the civic center was proposed three years ago. By law, if both measures pass in November, the one with the most votes would prevail.

Although most council members say they favor the arrangement, the city attorney has determined that, as drafted, the measure sponsored by the park group violates state law and, if enacted, would be invalid.

City Atty. Michael Jenkins’ opinion has already prompted Heilman and Councilwoman Helen Albert to say they do not intend to be bound by the park group’s initiative, even if it wins.

“It’s an invalid and illegal initiative as far as I’m concerned, and it will carry no weight one way or the other,” said Heilman, who, along with Land and Albert, supports the center’s placement in the park.

Councilman Steve Schulte has long been the only member of the council to actively oppose the center in the park, and Councilman Paul Koretz has taken somewhat of a middle position.

Although he says he is leaning toward the park site, Koretz has for several months favored giving voters a voice and has sided with Schulte in voting against incremental steps in developing the project.

$1.5 Million Budgeted

About $1.5 million was budgeted for civic center planning in the current fiscal year, which ends June 30. In addition to the architects, a project engineer has been on the job for several months, and preliminary design work and site surveying continues.

Plans are also under way for a $2.7-million, five-level parking garage in the park as part of the civic center’s first phase, with work scheduled to begin early next year.

The 5-year-old city has never had its own city hall. It spends more than $850,000 a year on rented quarters.

The park group, headed by community activist Tom Larkin, collected 2,459 valid signatures earlier this year to qualify its measure for the April, 1990, ballot.

Until the proposal to give voters a choice of initiatives began to emerge in discussions between council members in the last few weeks, city officials had hinted that they might challenge the legality of the Larkin measure.

‘Binds Hands’

In a 12-page opinion made public last week, Jenkins concluded that the measure illegally “binds the hands” of present and future city officials to “exercise their inherent right” under state law to govern public property.

As drafted, the measure strictly prohibits present and future city officials from approving construction of a civic center and other government buildings in the city’s parks, except those directly related to the management of the parks.

“No city council can prevent a future city council from exercising its inherent powers, and the people can’t do that either by way of an initiative,” Jenkins said.

Larkin dismissed the finding as “simply an opinion,” saying that “a judge may very well have a different opinion.”

He said the prospect of the council’s placing competing initiatives on the ballot “is a tactic that on the surface may appear to be democratic, but it’s plain to me a majority of the council is going to try to challenge us even if we win.”

Heilman was the only one of the five council members interviewed last week who said he will oppose placing the Larkin measure on the ballot.

Educational Campaign

“My view is that regardless of the political consequences of it, if (Jenkins) says it’s invalid and says it shouldn’t be put on, then we shouldn’t put it on the ballot. If people who support (the initiative) get upset, then so be it.”

Albert, a supporter of the measure prepared by Land and Heilman, said there “will need to be a tremendous educational campaign to let the voters know that the other initiative is legally flawed.”

She said that if the initiative sponsored by Land and Heilman is approved by voters, it will “send a message for us to go ahead with the civic center in the park.”

Asked what the message might be if the measure sponsored by Larkin’s group won, Albert said: “The point is, we need a civic center. There’s no other place to put it, and it will not decrease the park space, so I see no other way. I would vote to have it built in the park even if (the Larkin group’s) initiative did win.”

Land said the measure she and Heilman have prepared “addresses the concerns many people have about protecting the park. It gives people a guarantee that the civic center’s being built will not decrease the amount of park space that we have.”

And although the mayor said she believes Larkin’s measure is illegal, she supports placing it on the ballot “because people have signed it in good faith. . . . I’m not thrilled about it, but as a community activist I have no choice but to (vote to) put it on the ballot.”

‘Wait and See’

However, she declined to say whether she would favor challenging the Larkin initiative on legal grounds if it were to win. “I would rather wait and see, and not comment on that at this time,” she said.

Schulte and Koretz, who were out of town last week, said in phone interviews that they were pleased with the prospect that residents will get the chance to vote on the matter.

“If (the park group’s) initiative goes to a vote and wins, I think political reality dictates that people’s wishes will have to be recognized by the council as a whole,” Schulte said. “Our job is not to act as attorneys, but to act as policy-makers who respect the wishes of the people who elected us.”

Koretz said it “makes good sense to provide voters with a choice.”

“Even though at this point I’m leaning in favor of placing the civic center in the park, if (the Larkin group’s) initiative passes, then I think we should accept that and look elsewhere for a civic center site.”

THE CIVIC CENTER: A 3-YEAR BATTLE July, 1986--City hires firm to develop preliminary plans for civic center.

April, 1987--City Council votes 5 to 0 to locate center in West Hollywood Park.

October, 1987--Boston architects Roger Sherman and Edmund Chang are chosen to design center after national competition.

January, 1988--Public Facilities Board unanimously recommends against building center in park. Council’s 4-1 vote reaffirms park site, with Councilman Steve Schulte now opposed.

April, 1989--Opponents claim victory when voters reject $8-million bond issue to build new library and fire station, both originally part of center’s design.

April, 1989--On second try, Save Our Parks Alliance obtains enough valid signatures to qualify initiative for April, 1990, ballot. City officials hint at challenge to measure’s legality.

June, 1989--City attorney says alliance’s measure is improperly drafted and violates state law. Mayor Abbe Land and Councilman John Heilman prepare own initiative to allow center to be built while protecting existing park space. Council considers placing each measure on ballot.