Slow-Growth Proposition Is a Winner in San Diego

In a stunning victory for local environmentalists, San Diegans on Tuesday passed a drastic growth-control initiative that would change the nature of city government and limit development in the city’s northern tier.

With votes from more than 95% of the precincts tabulated, Proposition A held a substantial lead, according to returns posted by the city clerk’s office.

The totals cheered environmentalists and slow-growth advocates who fought for passage of the growth-control initiative--considered the most far-reaching among local communities in California and possibly the country--against a well-orchestrated and well-heeled campaign bankrolled by more than $600,000 in development industry money.

“Everybody said we couldn’t even qualify for the ballot,” said Bob Hartman, treasurer of San Diegans for Managed Growth, the group that sponsored Proposition A. “It’s been a long 14 months, but I think we’re going to win.”

The vote to approve Proposition A affirms the kind of environmental concerns that have been a key element in local politics since 1971,when Pete Wilson won the city’s highest office on a managed-growth platform. The same sentiment carried Mayor Roger Hedgecock to victory in 1983 and appeared to prevail Tuesday, despite a campaign that saw environmentalists outclassed and outspent by more than 10-1.

Proposition A backers smelled victory early Tuesday when they spent the last hours of the election using telephones at the Democratic Party headquarters in Mid-City to call prospective voters.

“We’ve gotten pretty favorable response,” said Jay Powell, coordinator for the local Sierra Club and proponent of the initiative.

After they closed down the phone bank at 8 p.m., pro-A forces gathered at the Fountain Bistro, a small restaurant on the Community Concourse just outside Golden Hall, where election results were announced. When absentee ballots came in showing them slightly ahead, they started a victory celebration with drinking and hugging.

One block away at the sumptuous Westgate Hotel, developers and other Proposition A opponents met at a private party. They waited to see if their radio commercials and direct-mail pieces had been enough to overcome polls that this summer showed Proposition A sentiment was running as high as 81% for and 14% against, according to Lewis.

Opponents had said before Election Day that they expected an immediate legal challenge to the constitutionality of Proposition A if it passed.

Born out of environmentalists’ frustration and anger, Proposition A was placed on the ballot after a successful petition campaign that was a direct response to the City Council’s September, 1984, approval of the La Jolla Valley project. The council voted, 5-4, to permit immediate development of a 1,000-acre Christian university and 750-acre industrial park in the urban reserve, 52,000 acres in the city’s northern tier that, according to the 1979 Growth Management Plan, were to remain undeveloped until 1995.

Environmentalists and other slow-growth advocates said the council vote demonstrated the kind of undue political influence developers have over local elected officials, who depend on the building industry as a major source of campaign contributions. They also warned that the La Jolla Valley vote would hasten the so-called “Los Angelization” of San Diego, a slogan made popular by Mayor Roger Hedgecock that has become a symbol for urban sprawl, smog and congested freeways.

The solution, they said, was an initiative that would not only reverse the La Jolla Valley decision but also would give a new, significant twist to the way San Diegans govern themselves. Instead of leaving individual development decisions concerning the urban reserve up to council members, the measure would submit each of them to a citywide vote, part of a trend of planning by the ballot box that has become popular in smaller Northern California cities over the last 10 years or so.

Proposition A appeared to strike a chord with conservative San Diegans, who have seen burgeoning growth encroach on pristine inner-city canyons and send overflow crowds to beaches on holidays. Proponents of the far-reaching initiative collected 75,000 signatures--20,000 more than they needed--by June 24 to qualify the measure for the November ballot. And polls showed that 70% of the voters at that time were in favor of the change.

But the initiative also aroused opposition from developers, who began planning a well-financed campaign to whittle away at the environmentalists’ popular support. While pro-Proposition A forces raised about $45,000 by Election Day for their grass-roots campaign, developers contributed $607,000--an amount that is unprecedented for a city ballot proposition.

Leading contributors for anti-A forces were those with the most to lose. Campus Crusade for Christ, co-developer of La Jolla Valley, gave $217,000 and Pardee Construction Company, which owns 2,000 acres in the urban reserve, gave $195,000, according to records filed with the city clerk’s office.

The money fueled an anti-A drive that injected as much confusion as information into the campaign. For instance, while proponents of Proposition A said the measure would halt Los Angelization, opponents said voting against the measure would halt Los Angelization. Proponents had ended their ballot statement by saying: “No LA; Vote Yes on A”; opponents put up billboards that said: “No LA; No on A.”

Opponents also claimed that voting for the measure and effectively closing off the urban reserve would “cram” inevitable growth into existing neighborhoods--an argument that was designed to appeal to San Diegans’ concern about growth and was hotly disputed by pro-A forces.

Meanwhile, pro-A forces saw part of their campaign defanged by circumstances out of their control. They were banking on Mayor Hedgecock to take the lead for Proposition A because he was considered the most articulate, assertive spokesman, said Jay Powell, coordinator of the local Sierra Club.

Hedgecock, however, was swamped with troubles of his own. His second felony trial, a conviction on 13 conspiracy and perjury charges, allegations of jury tampering, and his bid to have the verdict thrown out consumed his time and distracted the city and Proposition A supporters.

Without the mayor, the Proposition A campaign seemed to stumble badly. Its fund-raising efforts were hampered early in the campaign when it had difficulty finding a professional fund-raiser; the campaign’s first choice, Hedgecock’s political fund-raiser, Nancy McHutchin, first agreed to help, then waited a couple of weeks, and ultimately changed her mind, saying she was not comfortable with such a bold proposal.

During the crucial closing weeks of the campaign, the outmanned Proposition A proponents resorted to media stunts and news conferences to bolster their campaign.

Apparently, something worked, even though in the final week before the vote, several of the proposition’s leading advocates were privately bracing themselves for defeat. As returns rolled in, however, the early buoyancy returned.

“Never underestimate people who have nothing to lose,” said Kathy Nadler, a member of the Pro-Prop A steering committee.

Times staff writer Kathleen H. Cooley contributed to this article.