Hours before the Election Day polls opened this morning, Cary Anderson, one of nine City Council candidates, looked over his shoulder and accused three of his rivals of committing — or flirting with — a conflict of interest.
Gathering steam from his own campaign’s proclamation — “Cary will not take contributions from developers and will not use paid consultants” — Mr. Anderson rebuked Andy Weissman, Mehaul O’Leary and Dr. Luther Henderson “for doing just that.”
As the lone blue-collar candidate in the field, Mr. Anderson criticized each of his rivals for separate reasons.
He asserted that it was “wrong” of Mr. Weissman to stage a fundraiser five weeks ago on a property he said was owned by a developer, Bomel Co., and to accept a $1,500 “in-kind” contribution from the developer.
Talking Back to Critic
Mr. Weissman, by far the best known and most popular candidate in the field, strongly rejected the assertions.
“If Mr. Anderson will consult my list of campaign supporters,” Mr. Weissman said, “he will see the names of residents, friends, developers, business owners. I don’t understand the nature of his criticism. I don’t accept his suggestion. Unless there is going to be public financing, you will always have potential conflicts. You can stretch this to absurd levels.”
A longshot in the race for three seats on the City Council, Mr. Anderson has run a grassroots campaign, which has left him at the bottom of the fundraising derby.
He is ahead of only Randy Scott Leslie and Gary Russell, who have not reported any fundraising.
Disagreement with Neighbors
In Mr. Weissman’s case, Mr. Anderson sought to link the supposedly problematic developer with a scenario in the Hollywood area.
“Bomel, the same company that bought the property of the old Albertson Chevrolet dealership, at Washington and Sepulveda,” said Mr. Anderson, “also bought the old KCOP, Channel 13, at La Brea and Willoughby. Bomel is fighting there with the neighbors.
“That area in La Brea is zoned light industrial, and Bomel wants to change it to mixed commercial. Bomel wants to build 240 rental units on top of 40,000 feet of retail space — against the neighbors’ wishes. It’s a one-story and two-story neighborhood.
Citing Another Donation
“My ethics is, I don’t take money from developers.
“But the lawyer, whose number is listed on the Bomel sign at Washington and Sepulveda, gave money to the Weissman campaign (on March 2) the day after the fundraiser.
“The thing is, Bomel let Andy Weissman have his fundraiser, with 150 people, on Bomel’s property.
“Now Bomel’s non-monetary contribution was appraised to be worth $1,500, this from a company that is disregarding the neighborhood at La Brea and Willoughby. Over 500 people signed a petition against Bomel wanting to build a seven-story building.”
Sooner and Later
Mr. Anderson believes “this is a huge conflict of interest. You are taking money from a developer , and later as a member of the City Council, you are going to have to vote on what the developer wants to do with the old Albertson Chevrolet property. I guess you can recuse yourself. But it looks like a conflict of interest.
“Andy made money because the developer let him use his property.
“It’s like the Steve Rose-Carol Gross thing,” Mr. Anderson said, referring to two members of the present City Council. “They took campaign contributions from (the developer) Frederick Smith in the Hayden Tract. Then (as voting members of the City Council) they turned around and sold land to the developer for below market value.
“Luther Henderson also took (campaign) money ($250) from Frederick Smith. He especially should not have taken money from Frederick Smith because of Smith’s past history with Rose and Gross.
Reason for Objecting
“In my opinion, you should not be taking money from developers because, as a member of the City Council, you may later have to vote on the developer. You can always recuse yourself. But you shouldn’t do it in the first place.
“You should take money from citizens or from people who are not going to come up for redevelopment.”
Finally, there is the matter of Mr. O’Leary.
At campaign’s end, Mr. Anderson said it was wrong of the Irishman to retain Freeman Public Affairs of Torrance as consultant for his bid for office when Free also represents the Police Union.
His Notion of a Conflict
Mr. Anderson conceded that Mr. O’Leary may not have known of Freeman’s relationship with the police officers.
Further, said Mr. Anderson, “the D. A. raided Freeman’s offices with a search warrant in 2003 when they were on South Catalina.
“Let me put it out straight,” said the accuser.
“Mehaul may or may not be aware that Freeman represents the Police Union. But it reeks of conflict of interest to have your P.R. people for your campaign, the consultant for your campaign, be the same as the Police Officers Assn., who endorsed Mehaul for City Council. It kind of swings the pendulum. It reeks of conflict.”
[Editor’s Note: It should be noted that Councilman Steve Rose did not vote in favor of the land sale to Mr. Smith. In a 4 to 1 decision, Mr. Rose cast the lone dissenting vote.]