Planning for the Future

San Diego is about to witness a campaign the likes of which it has never seen. The building industry is gearing up to mount massive opposition to a referendum on who will control growth in the city’s “urban reserve”--the City Council or the voters. And while proponents of the measure probably will be significantly outspent, there’s little doubt that they will aggressively articulate their positions as the campaign moves toward a November vote.

As a knock-down, drag-out contest, it’s likely to be the local equivalent of the statewide bottle deposit and anti-smoking initiatives.

At issue is how decisions are to be made concerning development in the 20,000-acre “future urbanizing zone” that runs across the northern part of the city. If a majority of voters vote yes in the referendum, which is on the ballot because a grass-roots organization succeeded in getting more than 75,000 signatures on an initiative petition, any proposed development in the zone before 1995 would have to win approval of a majority of city voters. The City Council’s hands would be tied concerning growth in that area.

It’s not hard to relate to the sense of frustration that has led to this showdown. In the last decade, the City Council has acceded to developers’ requests and removed nearly 7,000 acres from the urban reserve. Most recently, on a 5-4 vote in September, the council approved a 1,000-acre Christian university and a 750-acre industrial park in La Jolla Valley.

Just as the perception that state government was on an uncontrollable, years-long spending spree led to the Proposition 13 tax revolt in 1978, the view that council members can’t say no to powerful developers has spawned the movement to take the control of the issue out of their hands.

In Del Mar, voters will decide next April whether they should have the final say on large developments in that small city’s downtown area. It may work there, where 1,000 votes can carry the day, and educating voters in small groups is a manageable chore.

But San Diego has grown beyond its town meeting days. It is the responsibility of the City Council to carry out comprehensive planning, weighing the various needs and resources of different areas.

If council members don’t do their jobs well enough, or if their decisions don’t reflect the will of the majority, they can be and should be defeated. The efforts of those who support the growth initiative would be better spent trying to accomplish the broader objective of changing the majority of the City Council.

We have never approved of San Diego’s system of at-large voting in council general elections, but one thing it does do is give voters influence over who sits in every council seat. If, for example, residents in the northern part of the city are angry over the pro-development votes of several council members, they can work, contribute their money, and vote to elect representatives who will be more in tune with their desires.

Planning for growth is the biggest challenge the San Diego City Council faces. What city government needs is a council majority that is more sensitive to all land-use and environmental issues, not a cumbersome charter amendment that requires a referendum on every proposed development in the future urbanizing zone. Then the city could carry out better planning across the board.