Goldberg and Mayor Square Off Over Permit

All politics are local and--sometimes--they’re personal.

Thus the latest land use case to preoccupy the Los Angeles City Council is becoming a bruising battle between City Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg and Mayor Richard Riordan.

Again.

She supports it. He opposes it.

Again.

Caught in the middle: 11 City Council members who are being lobbied intensely by both sides.

There’s Goldberg one minute sidling up to a colleague, gesturing, waving papers, forcefully trying to make her point. There’s Deputy Mayor Stephanie Bradfield doggedly working the chamber, waving her own documents, attempting to make her boss’ point.

Both are counting votes. Both know they don’t have them.

Yet.

Pity the nightclub owner who almost had a conditional-use permit that would allow dancing in his bar.

“It doesn’t make sense,” said Hollywood Moguls owner Phil Duff, shaking his shaggy head, a little dumbfounded by politics that are much bigger and more complicated than whether he should allow dancing in his club. “To have this kind of show of coordinated force for a dance permit?”

If all this sounds rather familiar, it is. Just last fall, the City Council went through similar angst over a Hollywood sex club whose zoning variance was supported by Goldberg and vetoed by Riordan.

This time, she’s not giving up. On Wednesday, she was all set to try to coerce--or, depending on your viewpoint, encourage--11 colleagues to override the mayoral veto. But with three lawmakers absent, she didn’t have the votes. No problem--she’ll try again next week.

The delay didn’t stop the maneuvering and machinations in council. Allegations fly from one side to the other--and back.

Again.

At one point, a rumor circulated that the elementary school principal in the Hollywood neighborhood had been disinvited by the councilwoman to attend the meeting. (For the record, Doris Dent, principal at Selma Elementary, said: “I made my own decision not to come.”)

Then, there was the one about “selective enforcement” against the club by the Los Angeles Police Department. Proponents of that theory say that the Hollywood vice officers swooped in on the club three nights in a row--but only after the conditional-use permit was granted.

“The real question is whether this was selective enforcement,” said Councilman Hal Bernson. “But there are stories on both sides.”

Theories--some concerning conspiracies--abound as to why Goldberg and Riordan care so much about the Schrader Avenue nightclub. (He even spoke personally to at least a couple council members about the issue.)

Some City Hall observers see it as entirely personal.

“It’s a f--- you, Jackie, veto,” said one council member who spoke on condition of anonymity. “Of course it’s personal.”

Another said: “It’s a really puzzling example of major meddling by the mayor. And it really puts us in a very awkward position.”

And, from a third: “Sure it is [personal]. Why else would the mayor get so involved in a little land use issue?”

Which brings up another theory being floated: Is it because the mayor himself wants to take credit for the revitalization of Hollywood? Just a day before, he held a news conference there and when Goldberg showed up, he quipped that she only attended so he couldn’t take all the credit.

Not the case, mayoral aides say. Nor is it a personal attack, they add.

Since the council approved the dance permit, the mayor has learned of new allegations against the club by the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. They include allowing live entertainment to continue past midnight and allowing an entertainer to perform simulated sex acts. That’s the reason for the veto, Riordan’s aides say. Pure and simple.

“This has absolutely nothing to do with whose council district this is in,” Bradfield said.

Labeling it a personal issue between the mayor and Goldberg, Bradfield said, “is an unfortunate political tactic.”

Then there’s the theory that council members will line up with Goldberg as a way to show the mayor that he can’t push them around.

Councilwoman Laura Chick said she believes that Goldberg is working hard to improve her district and that she wouldn’t be so adamant about the club if she didn’t think it was appropriate.

“It’s Jackie Goldberg’s job to fight for her constituents,” Chick said. “I see her fighting very hard in a caring way to improve the quality of life in her community.”

Goldberg declined to speak publicly about the issue until it is resolved next week. So did the elementary school principal, the police and several others, including some council members.

Dennis Zine, a police union director, was pulled into the fray Wednesday when Goldberg asked him to review the ABC report.

“I didn’t see anything outrageous,” Zine said later. “But there’s got to be another side of this story. There’s got to be more for all of this.”

Councilman Richard Alarcon said he was waiting for the council debate to get a better handle on the Police Department’s allegations against the club.

“I think it’s fair to say whenever there are concerns by the Police Department contrary to those of the local council member, it puts the other council members in an awkward position,” Alarcon said.

Mayoral aides say that there’s more all right. A history, they say, of violations of the nightclub’s permit.

Duff, the nightclub owner, denies the allegations against him, saying that he has corrected any and all violations and that he is being unfairly picked upon.

“Any time I’ve been told I had a problem I corrected it,” Duff said, armed himself with a file full of documents, including petitions from neighbors who support the club.

In the case of the Barracks sex club in Hollywood, Goldberg succeeded in winning over her colleagues to grant a zoning variance. Riordan vetoed that action.

The similarities were not lost on many council observers Wednesday.

As one council aide said: “I sure hope this doesn’t become the Barracks 2.”

Stay tuned.