City Council Candidates Face Acid Test on Growth

By riveting public attention on the politically volatile topic of growth management through its recent approval of a tough development limit, the San Diego City Council has injected a major issue into the campaigns that will determine half of the council’s composition this fall.

“I think growth may become the acid test of these council elections,” said Dick Dresner, Mayor Maureen O’Connor’s political adviser and one of the most successful campaign consultants in local races in recent years. “I thought the growth issue had peaked in last year’s mayor’s race. But, if anything, it’s gotten more intense.”

Debate over growth management has been a constant in political campaigns in environmentally sensitive San Diego throughout most of this century, and, under any circumstances, likely would have fulfilled that traditional role in this fall’s four council campaigns.

However, the council’s adoption last month of a controversial Interim Development Ordinance (IDO) that will allow developers to build only 8,000 residential units here next year--a reduction of almost 50% from the 1986 total--raised the issue, in the words of widely respected political consultant Dan Greenblat, to “a new political plateau.”

“The (council’s action) has magnified the issue substantially,” agreed 8th District candidate Bob Filner. “The whole issue of growth is uppermost in everyone’s mind. It’s almost always the

first thing that people ask about these days.”

Indeed, the only disagreement among most candidates, consultants and political activists is a semantical one over whether growth management has been transformed into the issue in Campaign ‘87, or will be simply one of several overriding questions facing the nearly three dozen candidates seeking the four council seats being vacated.

“Growth was something that always was talked about a lot before, but the IDO has raised it to a real fever pitch,” 6th District candidate Jim Ryan said. “I think it’s clearly the dominant issue.”

Though accentuated by the council’s recent action, the growth issue’s impact on this fall’s campaigns ultimately may vary from district to district and candidate to candidate, depending on the districts’ philosophic slant and economic condition, as well as the candidates’ own positions, which will determine whether they try to emphasize or bury the issue.

“Everyone’s going to be preaching growth management, but there will be some subtle shades of difference as candidates try to tap into the issue,” said lawyer Michael Aguirre, a candidate for the 8th District seat being vacated by appointed Councilwoman Celia Ballesteros. “Even the most ardent pro-development advocate has to be sobered by the prevalent mood, so the rhetoric probably won’t be . . . as black and white as it was in the past.”

A few candidates and consultants speculated that the growth issue’s importance may fade by the September primary, largely because the council has already approved the temporary development restriction--leaving, they argue, little to debate.

“Growth will obviously be an issue, but I’m not sure it’s going to be the major issue, because a lot of people already look upon it as a done deal,” said consultant David Lewis, whose firm is running the 4th District campaign of county supervisorial aide Wes Pratt. “You don’t need to talk that much about something that has already happened.”

The consensus among most candidates and other political observers, however, is that the new development limit has raised the growth issue to a much more prominent position in the public consciousness. As a result, they contend, the growth issue will set the tone for this year’s council races--particularly because the council members elected this fall will influence the city’s growth policies after the interim ordinance expires next year.

Hard Decision Ahead

“I’m sure most candidates would like to think, ‘It’s done already, so I don’t have to deal with that as an issue anymore,’ ” 8th District candidate Neil Good said. “But the fact is that the really hard decisions and permanent solutions still lie ahead. That means that growth is going to be an especially important standard for voters this year.”

As with other major issues, the city’s growth policies typically have been of greatest concern to individuals whose interests or livelihood are directly related to those regulations--in this case, groups such as the Building Industry Assn., Sierra Club and community groups in areas facing either proposed new developments or struggling to cope with traffic congestion and other effects of past development.

“It’s very much on the front burner,” said Robert Morris, the BIA’s executive vice president.

Similarly, Linda Michael, chairwoman of the local chapter of the Sierra Club, added that she believes that the growth issue “will continue to be the dominant subject for at least the next 18 months”--the period covered by the council’s interim ordinance.

While such groups arguably remain the most intensely interested in the current debate over the future of the city’s growth policies, virtually all of the candidates say that their door-to-door politicking has convinced them that the issue also has captured the attention of the general public.

“Growth is the first question out of people’s mouths,” noted 8th District candidate Gail MacLeod, a land-use planner. “It’s issue No. 1, as far as I can see.”

Recent polling data compiled by consultant Dresner supports that theory. In a poll conducted last month for 2nd District candidate Ron Roberts, 79% of those surveyed said that they favored limits on development similar to those approved by the council. In response to another open-ended question, most respondents identified overcrowding, traffic and other growth-related problems as the top issues facing the city.

Traffic an Issue

“The average person isn’t certain exactly what the IDO does, but what he is sure about is the anger he feels over sitting in traffic or seeing his neighborhood being destroyed by lots of multi-unit housing,” 6th District candidate Bruce Henderson said. “Growth is the issue, but it means different things to different people.”

In the 2nd District, “growth usually is defined as meaning traffic,” said candidate Kay Davis, president of the San Diego city school board.

“It’s not so much growth itself or even the number of units as it is the time it takes to get from one place to another,” Davis explained.

The mention of the growth issue draws a similar reaction in the 6th District, where dense housing development and the presence of traffic-generating beaches and other tourist attractions produces daily headaches for residents.

“People complained before, . . . but the IDO has raised the issue to a higher level,” said 6th District candidate Bob Ottilie.

However, growth is viewed from a slightly different perspective in the 4th and 8th districts, which include some of the most crowded--and poorest--neighborhoods in the city.

“The main concern people here have about growth is how it relates to jobs,” said the Rev. George Stevens, a candidate for the 4th District seat being vacated by Councilman William Jones.

A secondary concern, explained Marla Marshall, another 4th District candidate, is for “quality construction”--an important catch phrase in a district that many residents feel has suffered from what she characterized as “quick buck, inferior” developments.

The attitude toward and importance attached to growth in the 8th District, meanwhile, is a microcosm of the other districts. Concerns about housing density and traffic dominate Hillcrest, Golden Hill and other northern parts of the district, while discussion of growth among residents of the district’s southern half, which stretches to the Mexican border, produces sentiments similar to those found in the 4th District.

Some Skepticism

“What you hear about growth depends on were you are in the district,” candidate Aguirre said.

Though they may quibble over some specifics, most candidates said they concur in the council’s approval of the temporary development limit. While many wholeheartedly embrace it, others expressed some skepticism but agreed that the measure was necessary as a holding action pending an update of the city’s 1979 Growth-Management Plan, which sought to focus development in existing inner-city neighborhoods while postponing construction in undeveloped areas until later this century.

An unanticipated byproduct of that plan, however, was traffic congestion, overcrowded schools and inadequate public facilities in existing neighborhoods. Growing public discontent over that situation prompted O’Connor to appoint a 27-member citizens’ task force to update the 1979 plan.

Less than two weeks after the council’s action, many candidates already are grasping for ways to capitalize on the issue. Aguirre, for example, proudly notes that he was the first candidate this year to decline to accept campaign contributions from developers, while 2nd District candidate Bryon Wear stresses his decision to limit developer donations to 10% of his overall total.

Roberts, chairman of the mayor’s growth task force, said that that position could give him a slight edge in his 2nd District race by providing him with “a track record on an issue of obvious public interest.” However, he noted ruefully that the group’s work “inevitably is going to make some people happy and others unhappy.”

With slow-growth sentiments clearly dominating the current debate on the subject, most candidates are unwilling to buck the tide. One of the few candidates willing to express opposition to the IDO is 8th District candidate Jesse Macias, who criticized the measure as “an arbitrary cap that isn’t going to solve the problem.”

“It’s unrealistic to think that we can stay on a treadmill and remain at the status quo in San Diego,” said Macias, a former television news reporter. The manner in which the 8,000 units are allocated also could give large development firms advantages over smaller ones, he warned.

Henderson also opposes the development limit, which he argues could “turn San Diego into a city of haves and have-nots” by contributing to higher housing costs that could prevent many people from owning homes.

Such comments are a rarity, however.

‘Who’s Telling the Truth?’

“Everybody’s going to be saying pretty much the same thing about favoring limited growth,” Good said. “The real problem for voters is going to be figuring out who’s telling the truth.”

One further consequence of the council’s recent action concerns the cost of campaigns and the source of contributions. Historically, the local development community has been one of the prime sources for local campaign dollars, providing tens of thousands of dollars in contributions annually.

Ironically, though developers still have much at stake in this fall’s elections, they may be less eager to reach for their checkbooks than they have been in past years, BIA official Morris said.

Disillusioned by watching candidates whom they supported vote contrary to their interests once in office, many builders have decided, Morris said, to not give any money to any candidates this year, opting to withhold their financial support until they see how the new council members “handle the big issues after they’re already in office.”

“They’re not buying a vote but rewarding a vote, maybe,” Morris explained. “Besides, performance in office is a more reliable way to judge candidates than just relying on their campaign promises. That’s a lesson we’ve learned the hard way.”

However, the industry’s influence may be felt in other areas of the campaigns, particularly if some of the dire predictions about the possible unemployment that may result among builders and in related businesses because of the new development restrictions prove true.

“The thing to remember is that, for many people, this is no longer just a political issue--it’s an economic issue that affects their career and livelihood,” said Greenblat, Davis’ consultant. “If you’re an out-of-work plumber or carpenter, you’ll have plenty of time--and incentive--to walk precincts this fall.”