Prop. A Foes Are Big Spenders

Opponents of Proposition A--their campaign bankrolled largely by two developers with major land holdings in San Diego’s urban reserve--have outspent backers of the growth management initiative by more than 13 to 1 in the weeks before the Nov. 5 city election, according to newly released campaign finance statements.

Citizens for Community Planning, the anti-A campaign committee, said it had collected $307,000 in contributions and spent about $258,000 in its high-profile opposition to the initiative, designed to curb development in a 20,000-acre swath of the city between North City West and Rancho Bernardo.

San Diegans for Managed Growth, the committee that gathered more than 75,000 signatures to place the initiative on the ballot, said it had collected about $42,000 and spent more than $35,000 on behalf of Proposition A.

The proponents were outspent even more dramatically in the seven weeks ending Oct. 19, the crucial buildup to each side’s last-ditch campaign. The opponents spent $171,000 to the $10,400 expended by Yes-on-A forces, according to the committees’ reports filed with the city clerk.

In the city’s two hardest-fought City Council races, candidate resources were running neck-and-neck as the campaign approached its final weeks.

In District 1, Councilman Bill Mitchell reported contributions totaling more than $128,000, and challenger Abbe Wolfsheimer had collected more than $126,000. But Wolfsheimer, a law professor at Western State University College of Law, had pumped nearly $121,000 of her own money into that figure.

Though her campaign was deeply in debt, Wolfsheimer outspent Mitchell about 2 to 1 in the spending period ending Oct. 19. She spent more than $79,000 to Mitchell’s more than $39,000.

In District 7, where Judy McCarty and Jeanette Roche are battling to fill the seat vacated by Municipal Judge Dick Murphy, the two conservative Republicans each had collected nearly $90,000 for their campaigns.

McCarty outspent Roche by nearly $9,000 in the latest spending period, about $49,500 to Roche’s $40,600. Roche’s campaign showed an Oct. 19 deficit of about $2,500, while McCarty’s was running a surplus of about $2,800.

The opposition to Proposition A was bolstered by substantial contributions from two development companies. Pardee Construction Co., which owns land in the urban reserve, and University Development Inc., a subsidiary of the Campus Crusade for Christ, each has pumped about $75,000 into the No-on-A campaign, according to the disclosure statements.

University Development--which wants to build a Christian university, industrial park and residential community in La Jolla Valley--contributed $60,000 in cash and more than $17,000 in in-kind services during the period ending Oct. 19. Pardee donated $70,000 in cash, bringing its total contributions to $75,000.

Proposition A would require voter approval of any development of land in the urban reserve.

David Kreitzer, chairman of San Diegans for Managed Growth, said Friday that the opposition’s far greater resources and a campaign he termed misleading were losing votes for the anti-A forces.

“I really think most people see through the campaign they’ve conducted so far,” Kreitzer said. He compared the anti-A campaign to the 1982 congressional race of Johnnie R. Crean, the Republican from Orange County who spent more than $800,000 of his own money but lost to Ron Packard, a write-in candidate.

David Lewis, campaign manager for Citizens for Community Planning, said the wide spending advantage of the anti-A forces reflected the public’s distaste for Proposition A.

“Our opponents would take every dollar they could if anyone was willing to support them,” Lewis said. “The real question is why do they have no support? Why don’t they have a bunch of small contributors? Obviously, they’re lacking in support.”

In the month ending Oct. 19, the pro-A committee reported 42 cash contributions totaling about $16,000. Since the campaign began, the Sierra Club has contributed more than $9,000 of the committee’s $42,000 total.

During the latest month, the anti-A committee gathered 186 cash contributions, including a $5,000 donation from developer Ernest Hahn and $5,000 contributions from a real estate political action committee, the Fieldstone Co. and the Koll Co.

Meanwhile, incumbents maintained their decisive spending and contribution advantages in two less-heated City Council campaigns.

In District 3, Councilwoman Gloria McColl reported contributions of nearly $135,000 and expenditures of nearly $112,000, including more than $46,000 in the latest spending period.

Her opponent, doctoral candidate Arthur Salzburg, reported contributions and expenditures of less than $500.

In District 5, Councilman Ed Struiksma reported contributions of more than $103,000 and expenditures of more than $126,000, including nearly $72,000 in the latest period.

His challenger, Robert Switzer, vice president of a computer software firm, reported contributions and spending of $1,500.