Commentary : Slow Growth: Is There a Chance?

Orange County looks like it will be in for the most heated political battle of its young life, as citizen groups gear up to secure the “Quality of Life” or slow-growth initiative a spot on the June, 1988, ballot. Already, local politicians, business leaders, political activists and developers are nervously jockeying for the public’s favor, announcing that growth controls are alternatively the cure-all or the end-all for Orange County’s future.

The measure, which would severely curtail growth within Orange County by limiting development to areas that are free from traffic congestion, already has riveted public attention. As pollsters, taking the pulse of county sentiments, we are constantly being asked about the initiative’s chances for success. From our five years of surveys, we can see that the measure certainly does stand a chance of winning, which would radically alter the county’s course. But whether it will succeed or not may actually depend on issues quite different from those now being discussed.

First, we must point out that it is too early to “call” this election. The precise wording of the ballot initiative is not settled, and the current talk is only reaction to a first draft of the proposal. The initiative probably will go through several reincarnations before it reaches its final state. But the main idea is clear: asking voters on a city-by-city basis to limit growth in their immediate area.

We think this localism is the key to assessing the measure’s viability. We first noticed the concept’s importance several years ago, when a poll revealed a curious pattern in residents’ attitudes concerning the environment. The trait, which we named “backyard environmentalism,” has three important qualities. First, residents’ show an overall lack of interest in environmental topics. Their concern over such problems as air pollution, overpopulation, toxics and preservation pales when contrasted with their focus on their jobs, the traffic and paying the bills.

Next, the little attention residents do pay to environmental issues stops at the borders of their own local surroundings. The air pollution that worries La Habra residents is of no concern in Huntington Beach. Coastal residents instead focus on ocean pollution, which means nothing to those living inland. Overall, residents only show interest in problems that threaten their backyards and ignore the more global issues, such as endangered wildlife and water conservation.

Last, local residents only back environmental policies that seem to most favor their self-interests. So Orange County’s beach residents give the highest opposition to offshore oil drilling, while inlanders holler loudest for regulations on toxic waste disposal.

Our polls find that attitudes toward growth in Orange County parallel this backyard environmentalism philosophy. The “environmental” problem of growth concerns the average resident far less than the often-heard gripes over traffic. Residents are nearly twice as likely to rate “transportation and traffic congestion” as the top county problem as they are to name “growth and development.” In fact, only one in five mentions growth as the most serious issue. And residents don’t think of growth as the source of their traffic problems. They cite bad roads as the problem and more roads as the solution.

Just as with other environmental concerns, growth poses the greatest threat to people when it is mentioned in a local or immediate context. That is why all our polls show about 2-to-1 support for “limiting” growth in the city or local area of residence. The reasons they give for this preference are simple: They want to avoid having more people and traffic congestion around them.

But public opinion toward local “no-growth” ordinances runs into across-the-board opposition, showing the importance of self-interest in the public’s policy preferences. Homeowners say they would support severe restrictions against the construction of industrial parks and apartment complexes in their city. But when it comes to nearby amenities they might use, such as theaters, stores and restaurants, the same people would like restrictions eased.

Feelings toward countywide growth policies follow this same logic of amplified self-interest. Only one in three residents supports severe growth restrictions for the entire county. Residents connect their improving job opportunities and consumer choices with the county’s future growth and development, so faced with countywide restrictions, residents put their “backyard” interests first. Moreover, people are divided on the long-term outcome of rapid growth in the county. The benefits of better jobs and amenities, residents think, balance out the negatives of overpopulation and traffic.

The public’s ideal growth policy emerges from their philosophy of backyard environmentalism. The typical Orange County residents want undesirable development severely curtailed in their local area. But they still want some forms of local development to continue. And though they don’t want their neighborhoods built up, they want the county as a whole to keep growing.

There is a problem with this ideal. It is impossible to have both strict local policies in each city and continued countywide growth. Nonetheless, the “not-in-my-backyard” philosophy has an ardent following. And since most residents live in one city while working and shopping in others, the goal seems attainable despite its illogic.

Will Orange County residents approve the slow-growth initiative? The key is in how they perceive it. If voters see the measure as slowing growth in their localities while permitting it countywide, city after city could see the initiative pass. But faced with a choice between the environmental issue of regulating growth countywide and the backyard issues of amenities and prosperity, Orange County’s environmentalists likely will put their backyards first.