‘What’s Good for Me Is Not for Thee’: Clash Erupts at West Hollywood Council Meeting

It started with a crash.  A deadly one.

Last summer, a motorcyclist was killed at San Vicente and Ashcroft, a stretch already known for risky left turns and impatient drivers. The tragedy led the city to study possible fixes — new markings, signage, and bollards to block those turns.

When the San Vicente Boulevard Study came before Council this week, most saw it for what it was, a routine safety item.  But Councilmember John Erickson had what some are calling “a meltdown” at what he saw as a lack of community outreach, even though this was a fairly limited staff report.  His frustration seemed tied less to San Vicente and more to the pushback he’s been getting over his own recent proposal — the “Removing Infrastructure Roadblocks” item — which aims to streamline how West Hollywood handles public projects.  That one drew heavy criticism from a lot of residents who called it an attempted power grab aimed to shut down community voices and influence. 

So, when the San Vicente study showed up on the agenda, Erickson appeared to take the moment personally, arguing that the city was doing the same thing he was accused of: moving too fast, without talking to enough people.  He even compared it to the ongoing Eastside fight over the Fountain Avenue bike-lane project, saying it showed a double standard.  Fair point or not, the comparison fell flat.  The San Vicente item came out of a fatal crash study — not a citywide redesign. The exchange landed less like a policy debate and more like a public venting session, the kind that reminds everyone how personal City Hall politics can get.

Directing his first question to Traffic Engineer, John Gilmour, Erickson asked if mailers had gone out to residents. Gilmour said notices had been posted through the city’s communication channels, social media, and neighborhood groups, but not mailed to every home.

“Great,” Erickson said. “Does the West Hollywood West Neighborhood Group know every member of West Hollywood West?” Gilmour responded, no.

Erickson continued, “So, you did not send a mailer to every resident in the adjoining area who could be impacted by such an important change to a major thoroughfare or speedway, as one of the members of the public said?”

Gilmour replied no.  Erickson pressed further: “Did you go door to door or talk to residents and homeowners?”

Gilmour answered, “We did not.”

Erickson persisted, building toward what was really his larger point. “Did you find or do a statistically valid survey about how many people actually supported this change versus those that don’t?”

“The only things we did were those that I just mentioned,” Gilmour said.

“Exactly,” Erickson said, “but, I’m saying it for a point. The answer is no.  Correct?”

That’s when Erickson pivoted from questions to a speech laced with frustration.  “I am gravely concerned that there are gonna be members that come to the city council and are astonished that we would do such a thing over such an incredible thoroughfare and an entry point to our city.  Oh, my goodness.  We sent a mailer, we did door hangers, we held five separate council votes.  We’ve invested millions of dollars. We’ve done multiple rounds of community engagements — and you haven’t done any of that?”

He went on, attempting to connect the issue to class and geography. “It is insane that we would treat things differently because people who can afford to have homes in the city… But the people that rent and on the Eastside are consistently… No I’m not done yet.  Bombarded by the sheer fact of accident over accident on a speedway in the same way is hypocrisy… As an Eastsider I am offended.”

Councilmember John Heilman wasn’t having it.  He cut through the comparison quickly, pointing out that the San Vicente item was about traffic safety and accident prevention, not a sweeping redesign like Fountain.  Heilman called it what it was: two completely different situations.
Pushing back, he began by saying “he didn’t know how to follow that.” Adding, “We approved an improvement to the La Brea intersection without an extensive process, without doing door hangers,” he said. “There are differences between these projects. What we’re talking about here is putting up some no left turn signs. We’re not talking about a major reconfiguration of the road, removing parking, or changing the roadway.”

Heilman also rejected the suggestion of bias. “The notion that this is some reflection of economic bias is not accurate.  There are expensive condos on Fountain, and renters in this neighborhood. This has nothing to do with economics.  It has to do with a tragic accident and whether we can restrict turns to improve safety.”

Later, Erickson turned to Councilmember Lauren Meister, who had asked for mailers announcing a pilot project. “And you include the citywide mailer to all the residents included?” he asked.  Meister began, “Citywide, I don’t think—”

Erickson interrupted. “I mean, it’s impacting everyone in the city.  I take San Vicente more times than I care to admit.  All I’m saying is what’s good for me is not for thee.  You can’t have one argument for one street and another for the other,” he said, eventually adding, “I deserve a veto vote on this project.”

The exchange finally ended with Traffic Engineer, John Gilmour doing what many in the room were thinking — trying to get things back on track. “Just want to make sure we walk away knowing exactly the direction,” he said, confirming the Council’s decision to move forward with a pilot project that will prohibit certain left turns while adjusting hours so residents can still access their homes.

It passed unanimously, 5–0.

You can catch the entire exchange beginning with the one public comment from longtime resident Anita Goswami at approximately 4:14:00.