STEVE MARTIN: The complicated legacy of John D’Amico

As we install a newly elected City Council, we have heard a lot of talk about the “legacy” of our departing Council members.

Legacy is rather tricky. Legacy, which is based upon accomplishments, is often eclipsed by reputation, which is how you are remembered, and is not exactly the same thing.

It is not that Council members are not remembered, but often it is not in ways they would envision. John Duran is not remembered for his civic accomplishments as much as for the scandalous headlines he generated while in office. We have had three Council members who have gone on to higher office, Lindsey Horvath to the Board of Supervisors, Jeff Prang to County Assessor and Paul Koretz to the State Assembly, and their promotions seem to be the legacy by which they are remembered. John Heilman seems to want to be remembered as the guy who served forty years on the City Council, but that longevity in many ways detracts from his long list of accomplishments. And longevity itself is a two-edged sword; you can’t take all the credit without taking some of the blame. But no one doubts he has a legacy.

John D’Amico has a very interesting history as a Council member. His bid for City Council was provoked by the City Council’s decision to appoint Lindsey Horvath upon the death of Council member Sal Guarriello rather than hold a special election. Initially the Council’s vote was deadlocked two to two, with Abbe Land and John Heilman supporting Horvath, who had only recently moved to West Hollywood, and John Duran and Jeff Prang supporting a candidate being pushed by lobbyist Steve Afriat. Prang was the swing vote; he changed his vote leaving Duran isolated.

But Duran avenged the vote by encouraging John D’Amico to challenge Horvath in 2011.

D’Amico was a good choice, a Planning Commissioner who ran in opposition to what he described as “go-go development,” opposing the “bigger, larger, faster” attitude of the Council regarding land use decisions. He was a bridge builder who created a coalition of neighborhood activists and gay men. In a jab at John Heilman, he fatefully promised only to serve two terms. He won decisively, coming in first and pushing Horvath to a distant fifth place.

But one of the planks of D’Amico’s platform was his embrace of the “fur ban” which was being pushed by Ed Buck. Banning the sale of fur played to the City’s humane impulses and love of animals, and eventually it became a signature issue for D’Amico. He often mentioned it in his mantra that “West Hollywood is the City that manufactures culture that others consume.”

The Ed Buck connection aside, there were opponents to the fur ban based upon the notion of “choice.” D’Amico and his allies were essentially echoing the Pro-Life lobby in mandating rather than persuading. We can’t legislate our personal values without expecting the other side to do the same thing. That position earned me threats from Ed Buck. Tragically, D’Amico’s connection with Buck came back to haunt him, albeit rather unfairly.

D’Amico loved anything new. Emojis, the gig economy, he was always first to embrace the trends or gimmicks of the moment. He also had a sense of humor; Go-Go Boy Appreciation Day was not fully appreciated by every West Hollywood resident, but it was meant to poke fun at the City’s pretense. Unfortunately, many people began to think of him as frivolous, a notion which was reinforced when he joined John Duran in giving Stormy Daniels and her sleazy attorney the keys to the City. He was quite proud of his quote “What did the Councilman say to the porn star? Congratulations!”

But in 2013 D’Amico redeemed himself by endorsing the grassroots Term Limits Initiative. His Council colleagues did not mask their ire at his endorsement. He did not consider his stand to be particularly courageous, but I understood the types of vindictive pushback he was getting at City Hall.

While D’Amico was consistently a thoughtful, pro-resident Council member during his first term, often challenging the status quo and questioning how things were done at City Hall, during his second term, he seemed to lose his focus. It appeared he was shedding his image as an outsider who challenged the status quo, morphing into someone anxious to be considered an accepted insider.

Many speculated that D’Amico lost his focus when he voted to eliminate the Council deputies and lost his deputy, Michelle Rex, who was dedicated, smart and protective. However, eyebrows had been raised when D’Amico hired Rex, his campaign manager, and she seemed to bring the Council campaign into City Hall. Her presence was a challenge to Fran Solomon, John Heilman’s deputy. When John Duran brought in Ian Owens as his deputy, Owens aligned himself with Rex and dysfunction among the deputies escalated. That said, D’Amico alienated a number of his core neighborhood supporters by voting to eliminate Rex’s job, since she was the one who had built community relationships. Once she was gone, he seemed unanchored.

In 2018 D’Amico surprised many of his supporters by announcing he was running for a third term, his campaign promise to only serve two terms notwithstanding. Coupled with a perception that he did not seem to have consistent policy beliefs, he only barely skirted defeat. An almost unknown, Sepi Shyne, came within 130 votes of defeating him.

In his third term, D’Amico’s votes became more difficult to predict. He did take an early and firm stand that John Duran should resign. But after Duran and Heilman were defeated in 2020, D’Amico surprised and outraged many of his supporters by his unexpected votes, particularly when he voted to “de-fund” the Sheriff.

D’Amico’s history on the City Council is a mixed bag.

But he undoubtedly raised the level of debate when he first joined the City Council, and while he may have been less predictable as time went on, he was often thought provoking and willing to challenge conventional wisdom. Perhaps consistency is not necessarily a virtue when public policy debates often need a dose of outside the box thinking.

D’Amico was also funny, and his unappreciated dry wit, often poking fun of himself, his colleagues and City Hall, will be missed in a Council that takes itself way too seriously. John will be remembered as someone who was basically a nice guy who really tried to make City Hall work for everyone.

As I related to him, legacy is something past Council members have tried to engineer, without a lot of success. All you can really do is assure yourself that you gave the job your best shot and leave the future to determine how you are remembered. As everyone who has served on the City Council will eventually be forgotten, your legacy is your own belief that you left the City a better place than you found it.