Ferguson Will Push Bill to Nullify Local Controls on Growth

Republican Assemblyman Gil Ferguson of Newport Beach, a self-styled “expert on urban economics,” said last week that he plans to intensify his crusade in the Legislature against local controls on growth.

Even though last Tuesday’s resounding rejection of the Irvine Co.’s Newport Center expansion plans came from an electorate that lives entirely within his Assembly district, Ferguson said he continues to oppose local restrictions on development. In fact, Ferguson said, his philosophical opposition to local government- or voter-imposed growth controls was strengthened by the outcome of the special election on Measure A.

“I think the state needs to have laws on the books to make sure that communities accept their fair share of growth and allow, within reason, that the direction of growth be determined by market forces,” said Ferguson, a former Irvine Co. vice president.

“Local governments cannot use their charters to thwart the forces of the economy. . . . When the government controls the direction of the housing market and directs (growth) to Timbuktu, that’s socialism.”

By blocking housing construction along the Orange County coast, Ferguson said, anti-development forces are depriving new residents of a standard of living to which they are entitled.

“We all want to live here (on the Orange County coast) and have a good life style,” said Ferguson, a Balboa Island resident who describes himself as a “property rights” advocate. “But what we are doing is condemning our children to a life style that is inferior to what we have had an opportunity to enjoy. . . . We are pushing all the kids to Riverside.”

Earlier this year, Ferguson introduced a measure in the Legislature that would have nullified any local growth-control ordinance unless it was shown to be “necessary to achieve a vital and pressing governmental interest.”

In effect, Ferguson said, the legislation would mean that a local government could not block a specific development proposal unless it could prove, if challenged to do so in court, that it would be unable to provide public services to the area of development. The same restriction would apply to a growth-control ordinance enacted by the voters through the initiative process, Ferguson said.

Ferguson said he got the idea for his bill from the 1980 White House Commission on Housing. He said he is still studying various approaches but intends to introduce a similar bill early next year.

Local government and business officials reacted cautiously to Ferguson’s plans to seek legislative controls on slow-growth efforts.

Irvine Co. Vice Chairman Ray Watson, when told of Ferguson’s intentions, said, “The only comment I could really make without knowing the specifics is that I think we need to have a balance between local autonomy and some sort of regional control. You just can’t leave growth to every little local community, or they are liable to shut off growth everywhere.

“I have no idea whether his bill would reinstate that balance, but I think the balance has gotten out of control.”

Watson added that local governments “need to accept the responsibility of accepting their fair share of regional growth and solving traffic and other problems. They can’t say no and do nothing about it. Collectively, if they do that, then we are all in trouble. How you solve that complicated problem, I don’t know.”

Newport Beach City Councilman Donald A. Strauss, who opposed the Newport Center expansion under Measure A and generally favors slower paced development, said: “I don’t know what in depth (Ferguson) is trying to do. Essentially, I think one of the remaining responsibilities of local and county government is to be able to help determine the direction and the amount of growth. So if that responsibility is real, then I wouldn’t think his proposal would make good sense.”

Newport Beach Mayor John C. Cox, who espouses a pro-growth philosophy and supported Measure A, advised caution. “Government has to be real careful in terms of how it approaches the growth issue so it doesn’t create a no-growth condition,” Cox said. “At the same time, I don’t believe in taking away control from local government. We feel strongly as a city that we should be in charge of our own area.”

Since the defeat of the bill he introduced last year, Ferguson said, his chances for success in the future have been buoyed by a state Supreme Court decision in May invalidating a 1981 initiative limiting condominium development in Camarillo.

That ruling, Ferguson said, restricted the authority of local governments to impose growth controls and used language very similar to some of the provisions of his bill.

Ferguson said he already has begun efforts to steer his new bill away from the Local Government Committee, which usually is hostile to measures stripping away local control. He said he will seek a referral instead to the traditionally pro-development Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development.

The conservative Ferguson said his biggest problem will be convincing liberal Democrats that they should be his allies. The people who would benefit the most from the measure, he said, are those who are priced out of expensive housing markets like those found along the Orange County coast.

He said members of the next generation will be the first in American history to be forced by high housing costs into a lower standard of living than their parents. Many of those who opposed the Irvine Co. in the recent election, he said, live in houses they could not afford to buy today.

Drives Up Cost of Housing

Ferguson said impediments to development arising out of growth limitations and environmental concerns drive the costs of housing out of the reach of the lower and middle classes.

“The environmentalists have convinced the lower- and middle-class people that what they are doing is a good thing for them,” Ferguson said. “But it’s not. . . . You know there used to be minorities and lower-income people living on the coast. But there are no minority groups on the coast anymore.”

He acknowledged that opponents of his bill last year viewed it as a favor to builders and developers. But Ferguson, who maintains that he never had a single discussion with a building industry lobbyist before introducing the measure, said his motives were wholly philosophical.

“I couldn’t care less whether builders sink or swim,” Ferguson said. “I’m just interested in justice.”

Ferguson said he voted for Measure A, which would have allowed the Irvine Co. to move ahead with its $300-million expansion plan for Newport Center. But he said he is convinced that the company and its campaign consultants took the wrong approach in trying to sell the measure to the voters.

He said the company’s campaign strategy was “heavy-handed” and failed to defuse anti-development backlash.

Public’s Perception

He said voter opposition is to be expected as long as the public views such measures as moneymaking schemes for large firms like the Irvine Co.

Ferguson, who said he would have advised an entirely different approach had Measure A backers hired his Newport Beach-based public relations firm, said voter hostility was natural but misguided.

“We all glory in freedom on the Fourth of July, but when we hear some guy is going to make a big amount of money, we all . . . get envious,” he said.

Ferguson, however, refused to say how he would have approached the campaign.

“I don’t want to tell you my methodology, my SOP (standard operating procedure) or my modus operandi ,” he said. “I don’t give that away. I sell that information.”