Q&A; : Yaroslavsky Wants to Break Cycle of Violence

Zev Yaroslavsky, 44, Los Angeles City Councilman, 5th District.

Claim to Fame: As chairman of the council’s Budget and Finance Committee, Yaroslavsky is widely considered to wield more power than any of his City Council colleagues after council president John Ferraro. An 18-year incumbent, he seeks reelection against Laura Lake, an environmentalist and slow-growth advocate making her second bid in four years to unseat him. (Mike Rosenberg, a city building inspector, is the third candidate in the race.) Yaroslavsky won 63% of the vote in 1989, after having considered making a run for mayor. He co-authored Proposition U, the city’s slow-growth initiative, and Proposition O, a measure prohibiting coastal oil drilling. He was the main author of the city’s Hillside Protection ordinance, the Mulholland Scenic Parkway ordinance and the Ventura Boulevard Specific Plan.

Background: Yaroslavsky has a bachelor’s degree in history and economics and a master’s degree in history from UCLA. While a student at UCLA, he founded California Students for Soviet Jews, a support group for emigres. He later served for two years as executive director of the Southern California Council for Soviet Jews. He was first elected to the City Council in 1975. He and his wife, Barbara, have two children, Mina, 15, and David, 10.

Interviewer: Times staff writer Ron Russell

*

Q What do you see as the most important issue facing voters of the 5th District in this election?

A We have to get some semblance of control over the level of crime and violence in this city. It is plaguing every neighborhood. People’s lives now revolve around their safety more than ever before; the way they go home; the way they enter their home; the amount of money they spend on personal security. A lot of kids don’t go to school because they’re afraid of violence. So crime is definitely the No. 1 issue.

Q As a councilman, what do you do about it?

A There are two things: In the short term, we have to provide as much law enforcement as we can, and that means more police on the streets. It means taking police officers from desk jobs and putting them into the field, which (Police Chief) Willie Williams is doing. It means hiring more police officers who will go into the streets. It means passing Proposition 1, which gets more police in the streets.

In the long term, we’ve got to give young people an alternative to gangs and violence. We’re always telling kids to say no to things--they get too few opportunities to say yes. So urban impact parks, recreational programs, quasi-educational programs, the (city’s) after-school program for kids need to be expanded and enhanced.

Q Your chief rival, Laura Lake, opposes Prop, 1, saying that it will not result in 1,000 new police officers. Why do you support it?

A Because it’s going to put 1,000 more police officers on the streets, and that’s not a matter of interpretation. If it passes, the only way we will be able to implement that tax is to hire 1,000 more police officers. We cannot use that money for any other purpose.

I cannot imagine anybody who understands the financial condition of the city and who wants more police who would oppose Prop 1. The mythology that we can have something for nothing is what has gotten us into the (current) mess.

Q Beyond Prop. 1, how do you get more police on the streets?

A There are three ways to get more police on the streets. One is to raise revenues, the other is to cut spending in lesser-priority areas and the third is a combination of the two. And that’s what we’ve done. That’s why we raised taxes last December. That’s why we raised the (7 1/2%) surcharge on the business tax. That’s why we raised the sanitation equipment charge. It was to keep the police (force) at 7,800 (officers) and to enable us to get to 7,900 in anticipation of the passage of Prop 1. We have a chance at passing it and it’s the only way, under our fiscal condition, that we’re going to get an infusion of 1,000 more police.

We don’t have enough police. And we will continue not to have enough as long as we keep funding redevelopment projects that are worthless, or as long as we keep funding the Academy Awards for their parking patrol, or (provide) traffic control for Dodgers’ games.

We put $3 million a year into paying for traffic control for private events when (that money) could put 60 police officers on the streets full time. I could go down a list of things that we could do differently (that would enable us) to put more cops on the street.

Q On a per capita basis, do we have more cops on the street today than we did 10 years ago?

A Oh, I think we do, but I don’t think that’s the way to look at it. The way to look at it is in terms of the number of calls we get. Given what’s happened to this city in the last 11 months, the anecdotal evidence of an increase in violent crime is substantial.

Q The point you make is also made by your opponents, namely, that given population growth and increased crime, police resources are shrinking at a time when they are most needed. Isn’t that true?

A I won’t argue that, but our revenues are down too. We’ve had three years of declining revenue base for the city. We haven’t experienced these kinds of problems since the Great Depression. We’ve had three consecutive years of diminishing sales tax revenues, three years of diminishing business tax revenues, three years of diminishing real estate transfer tax revenues.

So yeah, we’re having trouble meeting our obligations, just like everybody else is right now. But if the mayor had his way there would be 7,000 police officers, not 7,800 as there are today. And if we hadn’t raised taxes in December, as Mrs. Lake says she would not have done, we’d be on our way to 7,300 police officers at the end of the fiscal year three months from now.

Laura can’t have it both ways. She can’t go to a business group in the Valley and attack me for raising the business tax and then go to you in an interview and say we don’t have enough police.

Q Ms. Lake has placed a high priority on fighting graffiti, including making graffiti-painting a felony regardless of age and publishing in newspapers the names of parents whose children are convicted. Do you favor such measures?

A Well, I have a proposal on graffiti. I can’t get a vote for it on the council although we’re getting close. The proposal is that we require property owners to remove graffiti that appears on their property within a 72-hour period of its appearance. (It) is very analogous to the (city’s) weed abatement program. While it’s not the property owner’s fault that the weeds grow high (and) it’s not the property owner’s fault that graffiti appears on their property, it becomes the property owner’s fault if it remains there. And if you believe that graffiti, like brush in the hillsides, creates a tinderbox environment and is a blight on the community, then we ought to require people to keep their properties safe just like we require you to fix a leaky roof if you (are) a landlord.

Q Doesn’t that penalize the victim?

A That’s one way to look at it. Another way is that the property owner is being required to shoulder a fair share of the responsibility of keeping graffiti-clean. It’s a matter of responsibility, not a matter of who’s at fault. We give away paint. I wish Laura had taken advantage of it as a community activist--we could have given her a lot of paint. We give away paint to a lot of community groups and property owners who want to do graffiti paint-outs, and the city will go to some lengths to help groups and individuals do it.

We don’t want to make it punitive on anybody. We want to educate people as to what a blight (graffiti) is. In many cases, we’re talking about absentee property owners. They live in Bel-Air, Brentwood or Westwood and they own property in Van Nuys, Pacoima or other parts of the city where graffiti is a plague. It’s a plague everywhere but it’s really intense in some of the lower-income areas, and (absentee landlords) don’t want to pay for it.

Q And your views on graffiti-painting as a felony and publishing parents’ names?

A Without responding to the felony aspect of it--because I don’t know what she’s talking about--I don’t think that holding parents responsible is a bad idea. I don’t know about publishing their names in the newspapers. I think there are privacy issues. But I do believe that parents should take responsibility for their kids.

Q Should we be diverting law enforcement resources to the graffiti problem?

A In today’s economic environment, it’s not going to happen because the Police Department is busy with rape and murder and armed robbery. They don’t have time to go look for people painting graffiti.

The last thing I want is to have a squadron of police officers staking out a wall while people are getting robbed (elsewhere). So the way you deal with it is to turn to the citizenry and say, we want you to help us. We want you to clean up your graffiti before we have to do it for you, and my proposal is that if you don’t do it within (a) certain time that you get cited, then we’ll come in and do it for you like we do on our brush clearance program.

Q Another difference between you and Lake involves the Community Redevelopment Agency. She wants to dismantle it. I take it you are less eager to do so?

A I believe in getting the CRA into the business of helping the city fund its principal obligations. I’d rather see the CRA’s revenues under our total control because that means we control the bigger pot of money. The CRA operates from property tax increment money. If those monies were not in the CRA’s pot, 30% of it would come to (the city), (about) 45% would go to the county, and the rest would go to the school district and a small amount to special tax jurisdictions.

The city now controls 100% of that increment. If we can keep that 100%, but spend it on the things that are most critical to the citizens of the city, that’s better from my parochial city point of view than restoring that money to the taxing agencies and only having 30% of it.

(I’m for moving) CRA money into things like police. Let the CRA undertake the obligations of financing of the downtown library or the Convention Center, and that would free up $55 million to $60 million a year of general fund money to hire more police and do other things.

Q Are there no circumstances in which dismantling the CRA makes sense in your view?

A Shutting down the redevelopment agency in and of itself is not an objective. Laura, as I’ve said many times, is a candidate looking for an issue and I think she’ll say virtually anything to try to create an issue.

If the agency’s resources can’t be used for the things that are now the most important to the city--law enforcement, emergency services, housing, social services--if they won’t do that, then shut (it) down because we’re not getting any value out of (it).

I’d rather control 100% of the pot rather than give up 70% and have only 30% to deal with what our needs are. But if we can’t get the agency, the mayor and the council in sync on how to spend that 100%, then what do we have to lose?

Q You seek reelection at a time of unprecedented problems for the city. Are you worried that voters may hold you responsible?

A I don’t think so. I think the people of my district know me very well and know the fight that I carry (at City Hall).

I’d like to hope that my constituents see me as one of the brighter lights around here, one of the saner voices, one of the people who fights the good fight and tries to do a good job to protect the public’s tax dollar.

Q Coming off an election year in which change was a dominant theme, isn’t there an inherent danger in being an incumbent who has been in office for 18 years?

A I don’t think there’s much debate about whether I’ve been an advocate for change. I certainly have. I have written more laws and measures in this city that have changed the city for the better than most of my colleagues combined.

I wrote the (CRA) reform legislation which now allows us to redirect some of their funds to more pressing social and economic issues. I wrote Proposition U (the slow-growth initiative) with Marvin Braude. I wrote Proposition O (prohibiting coastal oil drilling) with Marvin Braude. I’ve gotten the Police Department on a growth program over the last eight or nine years that did not occur in the prior 25 years.

As chairman of the (Budget and Finance) committee, I’ve helped keep the city’s fiscal ship afloat in the most turbulent seas it has seen since the Great Depression. Our bond ratings have not been dropped one notch by Wall Street, while almost every other level of government in this state has had its ratings decreased.

Q In some of your campaign material, there’s a picture of you standing beside Police Chief Williams in front of a patrol car. Did he consent to his picture being used in that way?

A No, but he’s not endorsing me, and we’re not suggesting that he does. All we’ve said is that I’ve worked closely with Willie Williams, and I do work closely with (him) and if I didn’t use his picture, I’d still say I work closely with (him).

I think the world of him and I think he’s done a great job. I would not ask for his endorsement. I never asked for Ed Davis’ endorsement when he was chief (or) for (former Chief) Daryl Gates’ endorsement, and I’ve used pictures of them both in the past.

Q Are you concerned about the gender issue, and the fact that your main opponent is a woman at a time of increased opportunity for women candidates?

A I think the fact that I have the (National Organization for Women) endorsement is incredibly significant. The fact that I have (state Treasurer) Kathleen Brown’s endorsement, (Sen.) Diane Feinstein’s endorsement, (Supervisor) Gloria Molina’s endorsement, (Supervisor) Yvonne Burke’s endorsement when I am running against a woman tells you something.

My God, when was the last time NOW endorsed a man over a woman? They know what an advocate I’ve been for women’s issues. I probably have been a more ardent advocate for women’s rights in City Hall than any of the women who are on the City Council.

Q Laura Lake has criticized you for not doing enough to improve the business climate in the city and of being too quick to raise taxes. How do you respond?

A Laura Lake is a person in search of an issue and a candidate in search of a philosophy. She has no philosophy. She is philosophically bankrupt. She doesn’t know what she believes. To a business group she talks about how she’s pro-business and to environmental groups she talks about how business is destroying our environment.

I’d like to know how it is encouraging business to be opposed to the Fox (studio expansion) project, as she is, at a time when thousands of jobs in the city’s signature industry--the motion picture and television industry--are at stake. That’s a funny way to improve the business climate.

Q What accounts for the intense personal rivalry between you and Laura Lake?

A I don’t know. Look, this is a campaign, and campaigns do tend to get personal. I believe her public record is fair game just like she believes my public record is fair game. Obviously, we know each other pretty well and we’re not drinking buddies and it’s not likely that we ever will be.

Q Earlier in the campaign you said she was “obsessed” with you. Her reply is that such talk is sexist; that you wouldn’t say those things about a man. How do you respond?

A The hell I wouldn’t! There are men in politics who are obsessed with me too. The point I’m making is, Why is she running? What is it in the last four or eight years that differentiates the two of us so much on policy grounds that causes her to move her family--that’s what she’s done--to an apartment (inside the district)? I mean is she pro-choice and I’m anti-choice? No. Is she a Democrat and I’m an American Independent? No. We’re both Democrats. Is she slow-growth and I’m pro-growth? No. So what is it that differentiates us on policy matters? There really isn’t a hell of a lot.