John Mirisch: Representing the forgotten voice of the residents
BEVERLY HILLS - Before he decided to run in the March 3 Beverly Hills City Council election, John Mirisch was best known locally for his musings on the city in his blog, blogbeverlyhills.com. Since throwing his hat into the ring for office, Mirisch confesses that he hasn’t had time to keep up the blog. Rather he’s been letting everyone know that he’s putting the residents first and that’s why he should be elected to the City Council.
A fourth-generation Beverly Hills resident, and film distributor by profession, Mirisch actually left the country for 13 years before returning to his hometown. Nonetheless, it’s that international experience, he says, that makes him a worthy candidate. “I have a lot of executive experience, I’ve run companies in different countries, and different languages and had to adapt to different circumstances,” he reveals over lunch in a busy diner. “And I think I bring an international perspective to the table that is firmly rooted in Beverly Hills.”
Most importantly, Mirisch says he’s here to represent the residents. “I think the residents have been the forgotten voice at the City Council for the past few years. The council has listened more to developers and the special interests and lobbyists than the residents,” he notes. “I think the City has lost its way. I grew up here. I love this city and I’ve been very active in the city, [most recently] on the No on H Campaign, because I felt it was something that was very bad for the city. And having someone who takes a stand on issues is very important if you want to be on the council.”
You’ve said you’re in favor of controlled, sensible residential and commercial development. How would you go about creating this?
Growth and development doesn’t always mean bigger and higher. Sensible development means respecting the community character and that is low-rise human scale, and it is contrasted by some of the projects that have been approved by recent council majorities. There are parts of Beverly Hills where there can be a lot of wonderful development within the existing General Plan or the future General Plan where there can be the same height and density limits. In southeast Beverly Hills along Robertson Blvd for example, that can be developed along the lines of Los Angeles on Robertson Blvd., where the Ivy is and it’s hip and trendy and it’s a cool place to walk. Parts of east Wilshire could be like that too. Bigger is not always better and certainly not for Beverly Hills. Maybe for Manhattan or Chicago.
So you don’t want to change the current height and density limits of the General Plan?
Absolutely not. As Los Angeles irresponsibly densifies around us, the difference makes Beverly Hills even that much more unique and we want to keep Beverly Hills unique. We shouldn’t emulate LA or Century City.
One of the things you said you would like to do with your background in the entertainment industry is to bring more entertainment companies into Beverly Hills. How would you go about doing that seeing that Beverly Hills has already lost CAA and ICM to Century City and they have cited lack of space as part of their reasons for moving?
Well, that’s not why ICM left. I think they would like to be back in Beverly Hills. And if you look where CAA is at, they’re in a huge complex, but there’s no reason that they could not have been accommodated in Beverly Hills. We’re actually talking about talent agencies, not studios. They can be accommodated within three stories and 45 feet. And if the City could work it out with William Morris, they could have worked it out with other companies.
But you’ve also said you weren’t happy with the deal the City made to keep William Morris here when they were also thinking of leaving.
I wasn’t necessarily against the City giving them a variance. I was against the deal structure that was made. In fact, one of the covenants that the City wanted to impose was to give additional density and height, but they wanted to make sure that at some point in the future if William Morris moves out, the building stays available for entertainment-based companies. Seventy percent of that building was supposed to be in perpetuity an entertainment overlay zone. And at the last minute that was negotiated away, because it was an encumbrance on the developer and the City allowed that to be negotiated away.
You’ve spoken of a traffic management plan. How do you envisage that?
We have to start by asking the right questions and having a goal. The way traffic has been managed is looking at individual projects and doing EIR’s (Environmental Impact Reports) on an individual basis. The Hilton, for example, according to their EIR, was going to reduce traffic. It defies common sense. The truth is most of these projects say they don’t cause additional traffic or that they can be mitigated, whereas the cumulative effect, as we can all see, is that it gets worse and worse. I know some people sometimes say part of it is pass-through traffic and throw up their hands and say ‘What can you do because it starts in Los Angeles and if we don’t build these higher buildings then LA will and they’ll get the revenue and we won’t.’ And that is a defeatist attitude in my opinion. If the problems are being caused by LA and I do think LA is building irresponsibly in Century City without an infrastructure, and it contributes to traffic, we have to look at solutions that alleviate the problems for Beverly Hills, including intrusion of traffic on residential streets and cut through traffic. And if those solutions mean putting the problem back in the lap of Los Angeles, so be it.
How would you put the problem back in Los Angeles’ lap?
There are ways, I would talk to experts that would know of specific ways to do it but I certainly know there are ways to divert and move traffic and encourage moving flows along. I lived in Europe for many years and I’m not suggesting this would be the solution, but for example Europe has congestion fees. Maybe we could have a through-congestion fee. We need to look at all possible solutions. Right now everything is a piecemeal approach and it’s not working.
Long-term, part of the solution is the Subway to the Sea. Are you in favor of that?
I’m definitely in favor of it but it’s just a drop in the bucket. So they’ll have one subway line that goes down Wilshire in 30 years. Anybody who has lived in Sydney or London knows you can get from point A to point B in a relatively convenient fashion. Unless you want to get from Point A to Point B on Wilshire Blvd, the Subway to the Sea doesn’t really solve the problems unless you have the ability to move laterally as well. I’m afraid a future subway may be used as an alibi for additional irresponsible development in Los Angeles. Until we have a defined infrastructure that is able to meet the needs of the additional density and people, the potential exists for it to be the municipal version of a heart attack.
You’ve also spoken about your concerns over “wasteful spending and costs that are spiraling out of control” on the part of the City. Can you give any specific examples?
I don’t know that the City needed to spend $5 million to renovate the bottom floor of City Hall and I’m sure that when you go in there and look at a line item version of a budget that’s over $400 million, there’s room for belt-tightening.
Such as?
I know that the City budget written in June [2008], predicated the increasing costs on the basis of needing to compete for the best staff and the employment market is competitive. Well it seems today the market is less competitive so you’d be able to hire good people without having to overpay.
You’re an opponent of Measure P – the increase in business taxes. How do you respond to the City’s argument that it’s essential to do this to maintain City services?
The question isn’t where the money is coming from; it’s where it’s going. This is money we don’t have now. It also defies common sense to raise taxes in the middle of a recession.
If you feel the City needs to raise revenue though, what do you think needs to be done in a way you feel is responsible?
The City Manager’s office is always saying we have three choices: We can cut city services – which are not an option, we can raise taxes or we can try and expand the economic base. They’ve tried number two and three together which I also find irresponsible, because they’ve used over development to justify some of these projects, and yet here they are raising taxes. But there’s also option number 4: cut the budget without impacting city services and that’s what we should be focusing on right now. I do think that the City needs to be much more vigilant when it comes to the development deals it makes with their development partners. The City has left tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars on the table because of bad development deals.
If your campaign had a bumper sticker or a slogan what would it say?
Putting Residents First Because Beverly Hills Matters
For more information on John Mirisch's campaign, visit www.beverlyhillsmatters.com
The Beverly Hills Community News Project will be interviewing all 11 candidates running for the three open seats over the coming weeks. Please check back for more in-depth profile interviews
Barry Brucker Interview
Linda Briskman Interview
Willie Brien Interview
Virginia Maas Interview
Nili Nathan Interview
Michael Hakim Interview
Fran Cohen Interview
Richard Stone Interview
A fourth-generation Beverly Hills resident, and film distributor by profession, Mirisch actually left the country for 13 years before returning to his hometown. Nonetheless, it’s that international experience, he says, that makes him a worthy candidate. “I have a lot of executive experience, I’ve run companies in different countries, and different languages and had to adapt to different circumstances,” he reveals over lunch in a busy diner. “And I think I bring an international perspective to the table that is firmly rooted in Beverly Hills.”
Most importantly, Mirisch says he’s here to represent the residents. “I think the residents have been the forgotten voice at the City Council for the past few years. The council has listened more to developers and the special interests and lobbyists than the residents,” he notes. “I think the City has lost its way. I grew up here. I love this city and I’ve been very active in the city, [most recently] on the No on H Campaign, because I felt it was something that was very bad for the city. And having someone who takes a stand on issues is very important if you want to be on the council.”
You’ve said you’re in favor of controlled, sensible residential and commercial development. How would you go about creating this?
Growth and development doesn’t always mean bigger and higher. Sensible development means respecting the community character and that is low-rise human scale, and it is contrasted by some of the projects that have been approved by recent council majorities. There are parts of Beverly Hills where there can be a lot of wonderful development within the existing General Plan or the future General Plan where there can be the same height and density limits. In southeast Beverly Hills along Robertson Blvd for example, that can be developed along the lines of Los Angeles on Robertson Blvd., where the Ivy is and it’s hip and trendy and it’s a cool place to walk. Parts of east Wilshire could be like that too. Bigger is not always better and certainly not for Beverly Hills. Maybe for Manhattan or Chicago.
So you don’t want to change the current height and density limits of the General Plan?
Absolutely not. As Los Angeles irresponsibly densifies around us, the difference makes Beverly Hills even that much more unique and we want to keep Beverly Hills unique. We shouldn’t emulate LA or Century City.
One of the things you said you would like to do with your background in the entertainment industry is to bring more entertainment companies into Beverly Hills. How would you go about doing that seeing that Beverly Hills has already lost CAA and ICM to Century City and they have cited lack of space as part of their reasons for moving?
Well, that’s not why ICM left. I think they would like to be back in Beverly Hills. And if you look where CAA is at, they’re in a huge complex, but there’s no reason that they could not have been accommodated in Beverly Hills. We’re actually talking about talent agencies, not studios. They can be accommodated within three stories and 45 feet. And if the City could work it out with William Morris, they could have worked it out with other companies.
But you’ve also said you weren’t happy with the deal the City made to keep William Morris here when they were also thinking of leaving.
I wasn’t necessarily against the City giving them a variance. I was against the deal structure that was made. In fact, one of the covenants that the City wanted to impose was to give additional density and height, but they wanted to make sure that at some point in the future if William Morris moves out, the building stays available for entertainment-based companies. Seventy percent of that building was supposed to be in perpetuity an entertainment overlay zone. And at the last minute that was negotiated away, because it was an encumbrance on the developer and the City allowed that to be negotiated away.
You’ve spoken of a traffic management plan. How do you envisage that?
We have to start by asking the right questions and having a goal. The way traffic has been managed is looking at individual projects and doing EIR’s (Environmental Impact Reports) on an individual basis. The Hilton, for example, according to their EIR, was going to reduce traffic. It defies common sense. The truth is most of these projects say they don’t cause additional traffic or that they can be mitigated, whereas the cumulative effect, as we can all see, is that it gets worse and worse. I know some people sometimes say part of it is pass-through traffic and throw up their hands and say ‘What can you do because it starts in Los Angeles and if we don’t build these higher buildings then LA will and they’ll get the revenue and we won’t.’ And that is a defeatist attitude in my opinion. If the problems are being caused by LA and I do think LA is building irresponsibly in Century City without an infrastructure, and it contributes to traffic, we have to look at solutions that alleviate the problems for Beverly Hills, including intrusion of traffic on residential streets and cut through traffic. And if those solutions mean putting the problem back in the lap of Los Angeles, so be it.
How would you put the problem back in Los Angeles’ lap?
There are ways, I would talk to experts that would know of specific ways to do it but I certainly know there are ways to divert and move traffic and encourage moving flows along. I lived in Europe for many years and I’m not suggesting this would be the solution, but for example Europe has congestion fees. Maybe we could have a through-congestion fee. We need to look at all possible solutions. Right now everything is a piecemeal approach and it’s not working.
Long-term, part of the solution is the Subway to the Sea. Are you in favor of that?
I’m definitely in favor of it but it’s just a drop in the bucket. So they’ll have one subway line that goes down Wilshire in 30 years. Anybody who has lived in Sydney or London knows you can get from point A to point B in a relatively convenient fashion. Unless you want to get from Point A to Point B on Wilshire Blvd, the Subway to the Sea doesn’t really solve the problems unless you have the ability to move laterally as well. I’m afraid a future subway may be used as an alibi for additional irresponsible development in Los Angeles. Until we have a defined infrastructure that is able to meet the needs of the additional density and people, the potential exists for it to be the municipal version of a heart attack.
You’ve also spoken about your concerns over “wasteful spending and costs that are spiraling out of control” on the part of the City. Can you give any specific examples?
I don’t know that the City needed to spend $5 million to renovate the bottom floor of City Hall and I’m sure that when you go in there and look at a line item version of a budget that’s over $400 million, there’s room for belt-tightening.
Such as?
I know that the City budget written in June [2008], predicated the increasing costs on the basis of needing to compete for the best staff and the employment market is competitive. Well it seems today the market is less competitive so you’d be able to hire good people without having to overpay.
You’re an opponent of Measure P – the increase in business taxes. How do you respond to the City’s argument that it’s essential to do this to maintain City services?
The question isn’t where the money is coming from; it’s where it’s going. This is money we don’t have now. It also defies common sense to raise taxes in the middle of a recession.
If you feel the City needs to raise revenue though, what do you think needs to be done in a way you feel is responsible?
The City Manager’s office is always saying we have three choices: We can cut city services – which are not an option, we can raise taxes or we can try and expand the economic base. They’ve tried number two and three together which I also find irresponsible, because they’ve used over development to justify some of these projects, and yet here they are raising taxes. But there’s also option number 4: cut the budget without impacting city services and that’s what we should be focusing on right now. I do think that the City needs to be much more vigilant when it comes to the development deals it makes with their development partners. The City has left tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars on the table because of bad development deals.
If your campaign had a bumper sticker or a slogan what would it say?
Putting Residents First Because Beverly Hills Matters
For more information on John Mirisch's campaign, visit www.beverlyhillsmatters.com
The Beverly Hills Community News Project will be interviewing all 11 candidates running for the three open seats over the coming weeks. Please check back for more in-depth profile interviews
Barry Brucker Interview
Linda Briskman Interview
Willie Brien Interview
Virginia Maas Interview
Nili Nathan Interview
Michael Hakim Interview
Fran Cohen Interview
Richard Stone Interview
Putting residents first. John Mirisch believes his love of Beverly Hills and international experience are the right combination to garner him a seat on the City Council
Comments:
