ELECTIONS LAWNDALE : Politicking Turns Personal as Campaign Nears an End : The candidates' charges have distracted voters from the city's key issues--redevelopment and the proposed General Plan.

By KIM KOWSKY

April 5, 1992 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

Lawndale Councilman William Johnson is convinced that whoever left 30 pounds of dog feces on his front porch last month was trying to send him a message: Drop out of the race for mayor.

The culprit may never be found, but Johnson’s suspicion is just one more example of the siege mentality that afflicts candidates for public office in Lawndale around election time.

In addition to the mayor’s post, two seats on the City Council are up for grabs in the April 14 election. Voters will also be asked to approve a new General Plan, a state-required blueprint for future development in the city.

For a humble town of 27,000, Lawndale’s elections tend to be unusually contentious affairs. And with so much at stake in the upcoming contest, this year is no exception.

In the past several weeks, candidates have alleged that their rivals’ political ambitions were behind a recall attempt, a $17-million libel lawsuit, a fire of suspicious origin and the disclosure that a mayoral candidate bounced a check to a youth group.

Mayor Harold E. Hofmann is being challenged by Johnson and office manager Virginia Rhodes; council incumbents Norm Lagerquist and Carol Norman are facing administrative assistant Nancy Marthens, Planning Commissioner Bruce McKee and retired carpet store owner Steve Mino.

The campaign took its first turn toward the ugly in late February when Lawndale residents Jim Moesinger and Paul Cothran filed a recall petition against Johnson, who has two years remaining on his council term if he loses his mayoral bid. The petition listed 15 grievances, including allegations that Johnson participated in illegal council meetings and that he benefited financially from a council vote.

In response, Johnson sued Moesinger and Cothran for libel. He said the allegations were a political ploy by Hofmann to try to undermine his candidacy. Hofmann, however, denies that he had anything to do with the recall effort.

The races heated up this week when Lagerquist and Norman suggested that a Lawndale family’s car was burned because the family had agreed to put election signs on its front lawn.

And at a debate Tuesday night, one of Johnson’s former political rivals disclosed that Johnson bounced a $40 check to the city’s Little League in January and didn’t make good on it until last week. Johnson said he asked Little League officials to redeposit the check several times but that they refused to clear up the problem in an attempt to hurt his campaign.

Although such disputes have made for colorful politicking, they mostly have served to distract voters from the issues they are most concerned about: redevelopment and the proposed General Plan.

To be sure, there are other issues in the campaign. For instance, Mino, Marthens and Rhodes all contend that they are the only candidates who would be independent voices on the City Council. Mino, who rails against the “dictatorial policies” at City Hall, has also pledged to work to remove time limits on public comments at council meetings.

Hofmann is also campaigning on a platform opposed to the time limits, while McKee says he would work to make city staffers “more responsive to the needs of our citizens.”

Johnson, Lagerquist and Norman, all endorsed by Assemblyman Richard E. Floyd (D-Carson), are running on their records: Lagerquist for starting a 24-hour graffiti removal hot line; Norman for helping to win an $8-million state urban development grant for the city, and Johnson for initiating street improvements.

The one thing all the candidates agree on is that Lawndale needs to be revitalized, particularly in commercial areas, because the financially strapped city depends so heavily on sales tax revenue.

But two of the three mayoral candidates, Hofmann and Rhodes, and all of the council challengers disagree with the vision for the city that is outlined in the proposed General Plan and are urging voters to reject it.

In November, 1989, voters turned down the old General Plan, forcing the city to stop issuing building permits. The new General Plan, which a citizens committee spent two years helping to write, was approved by a 3-2 City Council vote in December. An unusual city law, however, requires voters to also approve the plan.

Many city officials are worried that if opponents prevail, development in the city could once again grind to a halt.

“The downside for the city is that probably development, and potentially very positive projects, would be driven out of the city . . . (because) any project will be subject to being challenged on the basis that we do not have a valid General Plan,” City Atty. David J. Aleshire said. “The city would also have to bear additional legal expenses.”

The candidates lobbying against the plan have all taken issue with a proposal to create an urban village in the heart of Lawndale that would include sit-down restaurants, retail shops and condominiums.

They say the urban village, which would cost an estimated $90 million, is an expensive “yuppie” idea that would increase density. They also oppose the General Plan because it does not completely prohibit the use of eminent domain for redevelopment.

“Eminent domain for private redevelopment totally violates the free enterprise system,” said Marthens, who co-authored ballot arguments against the plan. “I would support our current commercial area being established as a redevelopment area . . . but I am not for taking people’s homes to expand the commercial district and using eminent domain to accomplish that.”

But Johnson, Lagerquist and Norman, who comprise the council majority that approved the General Plan last year, say such arguments are misleading and self-serving.

In their ballot argument in favor of the plan, they note that it already includes language that prohibits the use of eminent domain in residential areas. They also seek to discredit their opponents by pointing out that Hofmann was one of two council members who “have been sued for racketeering in federal court and now want taxpayers to foot the bill for their personal legal expenses.”

In the lawsuit, which was filed in September, Lawndale developer Jonathan Stein alleged that Hofmann and McKee are among top city officials who conspired to force developers to pay money to ensure that their projects would be approved. Both candidates deny the charges.

“The General Plan represents a broad-based consensus for the future of our community and has many positive elements,” Lagerquist said. “The urban village, mixed-use concept, offers an innovative way to invigorate places like Hawthorne Boulevard.”

Apart from the rhetoric, controversy over the General Plan has piqued the interest of some voters who otherwise might not have made it to the polls.

“I don’t get into politics, but this redevelopment jazz really upset me,” resident Ardythe Herrington, 75, said at the candidate’s forum Tuesday night. “They shouldn’t be allowed to take away property for the benefit of a developer. . . . I’m definitely going to get involved.”

Lawndale Candidates

In Lawndale, three candidates are contending for a two-year term for mayor; five are competing for two four-year council seats.

Mayor

Harold E. Hofmann

Age: 59

Occupation: contractor, incumbent

Opposes proposed General Plan

William Johnson

Age: 32

Occupation: supermarket operations manager, councilman

Supports proposed General Plan

Virginia Rhodes