The Mayoral Race: L.A. Gets to Choose

The race for mayor has not yet taken its full shape. Several dozen candidates of differing persuasions and plausibilities are trying to catch the city’s eye. Their first rendezvous with destiny is the citywide election April 20, after which, experts believe, two candidates will then fight it out for victory in the June 8 runoff. It is then that Los Angeles will know who is to succeed the man who has been mayor since 1973, Tom Bradley. Finally, the city gets to say what it wants by choosing whom it wants.

This election could not occur at a more crucial time. Economically the region is in a deep slowdown, and politically the city is at a crossroads. Last year’s riots still reverberate around town, as the criminal justice system seeks to process the Rodney King and Reginald Denny trials. City government itself is wrestling with both a financial and credibility crisis: It doesn’t have enough money to balance its budget and it doesn’t get much credit from citizens. Public schools are struggling; a teachers strike was barely averted. Worst of all, a poisonous gun epidemic threatens basic law and order.

But there are reasons for hope. Recall that just last year the city overwhelmingly passed a major charter reform to improve policing, and successfully reached out to recruit Philadelphia’s Willie L. Williams, who has proved to be just what Los Angeles needed as chief of police. The city’s Ethics Commission is working hard to fight the dirt in politics. And just last week the L.A. Board of Education approved the ambitious and necessary LEARN reform.

These successes should not be undervalued. Ignoring creditable achievements only adds to despair by contributing to the sense of powerlessness.

Los Angeles is not without the ability to redirect itself; it still has the power to influence its destiny. That, of course, is what the mayor’s race is all about.

On the plus side of the race, so far, is that virtually all of the leading candidates seem to be offering sensible, if oft-obvious, proposals. They do differ on specifics. Some risk whipping up immigration resentment; others propose apocalyptic reorganizations of the public schools, an issue over which the mayor has no power. But generally voters can be thankful that none of the top contenders is truly beyond the pale and some of them are intelligent, hard-working and sensible.

On the minus side is that the flood of candidates has had the effect of yielding a rather fuzzy group picture. There are so many of them that it’s difficult for any one to stand out. The early polls place City Councilman Mike Woo in the lead, but he would be the first to admit that this is a very early snapshot at best and the full picture could develop quite differently. Many other major candidates are still to be fully heard from, and some of the longer-shot candidates also deserve a complete hearing.

This is a field that is not as bad as some have suggested. What’s uncertain is whether one candidate strong enough and capable enough to meet the challenges of this decade will emerge from the crowd. As the first phase of this historic race enters its final month, this is the question: Who is the real leader, what is the nature of the proposed leadership, what is Los Angeles’ proper direction?