New Mayor, Term Limits: Powerful Force for Change : City Council, too, is rocked by voters’ decisions in Tuesday’s L.A. election

Los Angeles’ municipal election Tuesday brought before the voters choices that now have begot more choices for the June runoff. The murky options of a mayor’s race with 24 candidates have now been clarified. Richard Riordan, 62, and Michael Woo, 41, each stand in marked contrast to the other; whatever else the public may think of them, the voters will have no problem distinguishing between the two runoff candidates. City term limits are a reality, guaranteeing over time the biggest change endorsed Tuesday. There will be no more City Council members in office so long that they receive unofficial titles like “emperor,” as did the late Gilbert Lindsay, in power for 27 years. As if this city has not seen enough change in the last year, it’s now going to see a lot more.

THE BLAME GAME: Of course in politics some things never change. Like negative campaigning. We saw some of it in the primary. Woo went after Riordan as a “Reagan conservative” and associate of “convicted junk bond king Michael Milken” (who) “raided Mattel . . . you know, the people who make Barbie.” Riordan was not to be outdone. He sent out a mailer with a leering derelict on its cover, which proclaimed, “Welcome to Mike Woo’s Los Angeles.” It proceeded to blame Woo personally for everything from Los Angeles’ economic decline to the increase in crime.

Now we know that no idealistic pleas are going to rid this campaign of attack tactics. But we do suggest that both Riordan and Woo keep in mind that this is a city weary of negativity and the tension that it breeds. We suggest that the candidates take a long look at the Los Angeles Times exit poll of city voters that showed why people voted for a candidate. Woo and Riordan have significant strengths. If they play those up, they might find a more interested and engaged electorate. Each might find that voters would like very much to hear what he has to offer Los Angeles, and would not like so much to hear why the other guy is a lout.

Riordan, according to the poll, scores strongest with voters who believed he was “tough enough”; his supporters thought he had the best economic proposals and they liked that he was not currently in city government.

Woo, on the other hand, scored strongest with voters who said he “cares about people like me.” Woo’s supporters considered it important that he could “bring people together” and “understands the new, multicultural L.A.”

POTENTIAL DIVISIVENESS: These contrasts in what their supporters value in Riordan and Woo point out the potential divisiveness of the mayoral runoff race. They have supporters who care about some very different issues, when asked specifically. But voters don’t at all disagree on the “big picture” issues: (1) jobs/economy, (2) crime/gangs, (3) education.

The challenge for Woo and Riordan is for each to make his case for why he should be mayor at this crucial point in Los Angeles’ history. Is there any one person who can lead this city and all of its people away from a beleaguered recent past and toward a future of hope and prosperity? Is that too much to ask of one person? Perhaps. Like the President, the mayor must lead; but the city’s legislature, the council, must do its part too.

That’s why the council runoff races--in the 3rd and 7th districts in the San Fernando Valley, in the 13th in Hollywood and in the South Los Angeles 15th--are important. The outcomes could significantly remake the council and shift power alliances. Given the city’s deficit of $190 million, the council will have to be courageous as never before. With the failure again to get a two-thirds vote to raise property taxes to pay for more police officers--59% of the voters supported it--the city is in dire need of finding a way to pay for essential services. The council and mayor will have to lead, even when voters may seem to be demanding something for nothing. At times one wonders why anyone would want these jobs. Yet in each election there is no shortage of people who do want them. And with term limits, the next mayor and council won’t have a generation to get done what must be done.

Thank goodness for that.