Hedgecock, Stirling Square Off on Prop. A.

Championing a controversial cause for what could be his last time as mayor of San Diego, Roger Hedgecock went to bat Sunday evening for Proposition A--and the swing was vintage Hedgecock.

In a half-hour debate on the managed growth initiative, Hedgecock castigated the City Council for caving in to developers, accused special interests of spending $750,000 to mislead the public and called for a return of power to the people.

“I don’t think we ought to be fooled by the distortions of the opponents on this,” he wound up briskly. “If you want to stop Los Angelization and put the voters in the driver’s seat and stick to our growth management plan, you’ve got to vote ‘yes’ on Proposition A.”

The debate, televised live from the studio of Channel 39, pitted Hedgecock against Assemblyman Larry Stirling (R-San Diego) on the subject of the hotly contested initiative, which will be on the ballot in San Diego on Tuesday.

Proposition A would require a public vote of approval before the City Council could grant an exception to that part of San Diego’s growth management plan that bars development on 52,000 acres of “urban reserve” at least until 1995.

Environmentalists say they initiated the proposition because the council has repeatedly violated the plan. But critics of the measure say the general plan allows for exceptions, without which central San Diego would become excessively dense.

Estimates of the amount spent to defeat the initiative range from $534,711 to $750,000--either way, a record for any San Diego proposition campaign. Proposition A supporters report having spent $44,000.

Stirling, representing the opponents, put a spin on Hedgecock’s arguments.

He contended that instead of giving the people power over growth, the measure would channel growth right into their neighborhoods. He traced the initiative to “paid professional signature gatherers” and “out-of-town money,” and accused its supporters of elitism.

“The only thing you’ll get to vote on is protecting open space for the people of north city,” Stirling said. “What they want is a depersonalized zone. They want a Camp Pendleton to keep you away from them.

“If you want this growth jammed into your neighborhoods, vote yes on A. But if you’d like to keep the quality of your neighborhood and have a chance to protect your neighborhood, give the City Council the option of reviewing and updating this general plan.”

The debate centered on the initiative’s effort to steer growth into San Diego’s already developed areas--one of the aims of the growth management plan passed in 1979.

Stirling argued that the city’s own projections show that growth would be excessive--an additional 10,000 residential units in Mira Mesa, 3,400 in Mission Hills, 3,000 in Mission Valley and more than 7,000 in Rancho Bernardo.

“If you think you’ve got adequate facilities in those communities to accommodate that growth, vote yes on A,” Stirling said. “Otherwise, vote no.”

But Hedgecock said those projections are absolute maximums--levels he said are theoretical and would never be met. He said the city was expected to need 125,000 new units by 1995; the growth management plan could accommodate 170,000 without invading the urban reserve.

“If Prop A does not pass, a signal will be sent to the City Council that it’s open season on the open space in San Diego, and the urban reserve that was set aside for the future needs of this city will be opened up in a land rush the likes of which we haven’t seen before,” Hedgecock said.

Hedgecock, who was convicted last month of conspiracy and perjury charges, is scheduled to be sentenced this week, at which time he would be required by law to forfeit his office.

However, the schedule has been thrown into doubt by Hedgecock’s efforts to overturn the verdict on grounds of jury-tampering, and by the state Supreme Court’s intervention into the case late last week.

The high court postponed a Superior Court hearing set for today on Hedgecock’s motion for a new trial. The justices ordered Judge William L. Todd to put off the hearing until they decide whether to review Hedgecock’s motion to remove Todd from the case.