#janperry

Over four hundred Angelenos gathered in the conference center of the Cathedral Plaza located in downtown Los Angeles on Friday to hear the three mayoral front-runners state their case for why each one was the man or woman that could turn LA into a city full of affordable housing.  Sponsored by Housing for a Stronger Los Angeles, the event gave the LA community another good look at our political hopefuls—Eric Garcetti, Wendy Gruel, and Jan Perry, and from this event there are two main takeaways:  1) all three candidates are alarmingly similar in terms of experience and plan specifics but  2) distinctly different in terms of their style of leadership.  This forum on affordable housing, therefore, gave us a glimpse of what to expect from each candidate in the looming months.

 Garcetti began and ended the forum that with a phrase that frames his approach to the campaign:  “Get off defense, get on offense.” In almost a ceremonial way, Garcetti, like the other candidates began his answer to each question by touting his previous legislative accomplishments pertaining to each query—mainly his work to develop a trust fund for of about $100,000,000.  What Mr. Garcetti displayed that separated him from his competitors is this ability to discuss housing as an issue with multiple layers, as a vital piece to an extremely interconnected system.  While you can look at his statement, “ I will not manage homelessness…I will end it” as the mark of a naive idealist, his knowledge of the true depth of social policy coupled with a passion for coalition-building gives you something you want to believe in. 

 Jan Perry, while appearing the least charismatic of the three, established herself as the candidate most passionate about, and in touch with, the people who are hurting the most.  Appearing as a seasoned technocrat, Mrs. Perry emphasized the central role that economic development would play in her mayoral agenda.  Of all the candidates, she mostly openly addressed the need for this development in the black and brown communities.  She even displayed the brashness needed to mention one of the most racially-primed areas in LA: skid row.  While her plans lacked any sort of true innovation and excitement, you can find solace in her shown attachment to communities most in need of aid and support. 

 Wendy Gruel brought to the forum the “crack-down” mentality of a fierce auditor.  Her plans, like Perry’s, appeared very technical and, perhaps to avoid the robotic tone Perry at times exuded, were buttressed by a charisma that seemed forced.  Nonetheless, Gruel exhibited a keen detail to funding appropriation that set her apart from the other candidates.  She showed tremendous strength through her willingness to take on banks with bad lending practices as well as advocate for resources for veterans, but in her attempt to project herself as a strong mayor for “all of LA” she, at times, appeared aloof to suffering communities.  Although she could lull you with to sleep with her accountant-esque approach to policy, she could easily fire you up with arguably the best one-liners at the end of each response—statements that in some way all managed to say one thing: “I know what I’m doing.”

 During the reception after the event, I spoke with a middle-aged African-American man wearing an Obama football jersey, and, when asked of his feelings about the candidates, he replied, “I wish I could combine all three.”  This hard-hat wearing giant, perhaps, had the most salient analysis of the forum.   With all three candidates we would probably get a mayor who will: push to bring in more state and federal funding, look to enlarge trust funds to support housing, and work with civic groups in order to get things down in City Hall.  However, in terms of what we will get as a leader, we have a very difficult choice on our hands: who will lead us not only to a better housing market but a better Los Angeles? Only time will tell.