Reality Sets In for Victors in City Primary

Even as they savored their victories in the San Diego City Council primaries, the eight finalists in four council races conceded Wednesday that their elation is tempered by this intimidating thought:

After spending as long as a year running campaigns within the limited confines of their respective districts, the top two vote-getters in each primary now have only seven weeks to finance, organize and wage citywide races.

“It’s like getting to the last half-mile of a marathon, then finding out you have to run eight more marathons and you’ve only got one-third of the time to do it,” 8th District primary runner-up Michael Aguirre said. “It’s very tough and very stressful, but at least you know that you’ve both got to go through it.”

The other finalists also lamented the brevity of the period between Tuesday’s district primaries and the citywide Nov. 3 runoff. However, each also concurred with 2nd District finalist Ron Roberts, who said: “Yes, it’s going to be a real chore. But I’m just delighted to be one of the two candidates with a chance to do it.”

Final, unofficial returns from the county voter registrar’s office produced these lineups for the fall citywide runoffs:

- In the 2nd District, consultant Byron Wear, who finished first in the primary with 4,415 votes (33.2%), will face Roberts, an architect, who received 3,628 votes (27.3%).

- The 4th District race will pit the Rev. George Stevens, who received 3,598 votes (35.4%), against county supervisorial aide Wes Pratt, who received 2,618 votes (25.8%).

- Lawyers Bruce Henderson and Bob Ottilie led the 6th District field with 4,585 votes (29.4%) and 3,851 votes (24.7%), respectively.

- In the 8th District, lawyer Aguirre received 3,049 votes (22.8%), finishing second behind former San Diego school board member Bob Filner, who received 3,300 votes (24.7%).

The primary results also produced a political rarity, because there are no partisan divisions between the candidates in any of the four council contests. Both finalists are Republicans in the 2nd and 6th Districts, while the contenders in the 4th and 6th Districts are Democrats.

With three Democrats and one Republican stepping down from the council, the GOP thus will pick up one seat in November, giving the Republicans a 6-3 edge on the nominally nonpartisan body.

After enduring a tense Election Night in which a swing of only about 550 votes, or less, in three districts would have changed the outcome, the victors spent much of Wednesday searching for good news in Tuesday’s results and drawing preliminary battle lines for the runoff.

For the losing candidates, Wednesday was a day for pondering how bright what-might-have-been possibilities became gloomy what-will-not-be realities.

Praise for Wear’s Effort

Wear drew strong praise in political circles Wednesday after his solid 2nd District victory over two major opponents--Roberts and San Diego school board President Kay Davis--who outspent him more than 2-to-1 in the seven-candidate race.

Half-jokingly describing the primary results as “David beating two Goliaths,” Wear, who waged an aggressive door-to-door campaign, argued that his first-place finish demonstrated that his longtime activity in a wide range of community organizations “shows that I have a message that can play very well citywide.”

Wear also indicated that he hopes to cast the runoff as a choice between his own “grass-roots, community orientation” on growth-management issues and Roberts’ former service as chairman of the city Planning Commission, “where, despite his attempts to masquerade as an environmentalist, he was part of the problem, not the solution.”

Roberts, however, theorized that his superior financial backing--including strong support from development interests--will give him a significant edge in the citywide runoff, in which campaign costs will be much higher than in the primary. To reach the geographically broader audience, the candidates will need to rely on costly radio and television ads.

“I think Byron’s going to find that knocking on doors is easier to do in the district than across the entire city,” Roberts said.

School Site Decision

Davis attributed her defeat to the intense controversy over the vacant Dana Junior High School site, where the school board once considered building high-density housing to raise needed revenue--a plan abandoned in the face of strong community opposition. Her own polls showed that 80% of the voters in the 2nd District were familiar with that issue, Davis said.

“The Dana issue--our inability to get a tenant in the building and fix it up--just turned out to be insurmountable,” said Davis, initially viewed as the front-runner because of her high name identification after two terms on the school board. Davis finished third in the race with 2,044 votes (15.4%).

The defeat of former City Hall aide Marla Marshall in the 4th District prompted euphoria among many community leaders, who persistently criticized her as a “carpetbagger” after she moved into the heavily minority district early this year to satisfy political residency requirements. And, though the campaign may have been over--Marshall finished third behind Stevens and Pratt with 2,062 votes (20.3%)--there still were some sharp words on both sides of that dispute Wednesday.

“I am the happiest person in San Diego,” said the Rev. George Walker Smith, president of the Catfish Club, one of the black community’s most influential forums. “I’m glad that the people of the 4th District weren’t sucked in by the Republican Establishment spending $100,000 in the least affluent district of the city to try to buy their votes. They got an expensive lesson--about a $50-a-vote lesson.”

‘Knows Who Leaders Are’

Noting that Marshall had labeled some ministers and others who criticized her as “self-appointed leaders,” the Rev. Ellis Casson added: “Hopefully, she now knows who the leaders are. Someone obviously was listening to us. If we hadn’t raised the carpetbagger issue, she would have walked right in.”

Marshall, however, blamed her loss more on the surprisingly strong fourth-place finish of long shot Warren Nielsen, who received 1,258 votes (12.4%).

“I know they’d like to see themselves as playing a role in my defeat, but I see Nielsen as the spoiler, not them,” Marshall said. “But one of the problems of the 4th District is these preachers who preach a message of divisiveness. As long as we have the George Walker Smiths and Ellis Cassons, the community will never progress as much as it should.”

Marshall indicated that she may make it to City Hall after all. Her former job as an aide to Councilwoman Gloria McColl “is there if I want it,” Marshall said. But Marshall emphasized that, even if she returns to her former job with the 3rd District councilwoman, she intends to continue living in the 4th District.

With their success partly overshadowed by Marshall’s demise, Stevens and Pratt both were rather restrained in their post-election remarks and predicted an issue-oriented runoff.

“I thank God for (putting) me in the position I’m in,” Stevens said.

Experienced Fighter

In their post-election exuberance, Pratt’s supporters have taken to jokingly calling him Lazarus--a reference to his political resurrection after being initially disqualified from the ballot for failing to secure enough valid signatures on his nominating petitions. As he did in the primary, Pratt said he will continue to tell voters in the runoff that his successful legal battle to be reinstated on the ballot proves that “I’m someone who will fight for the district.”

In the 6th District, the first day of the runoff campaign was characterized by a continuation of the mutual animosity that finalists Henderson and Ottilie exhibited throughout the primary.

In an interview, Henderson described Ottilie, a family-practice lawyer, as “a divorce lawyer who wants to run this city,” “a Neanderthal on women’s issues,” and “a vacuum, a guy totally without substance who I can’t wait to debate one-on-one.” Then, somewhat comically, Henderson paused and added: “But I don’t want to get too personal.”

Ottilie responded: “Those are some of the most mean-spirited comments I’ve ever heard made by a candidate. But it also shows that, in addition to the contrast between the two of us on the issues being greater than in any other race, there’s also a major difference in personality. And I think that’s going to be a factor.”

The 8th District runoff commenced Wednesday with a note of irony, as Filner and Aguirre, who between them spent nearly $200,000 of their own money in the primary--close to the combined total of the six other candidates--both spoke of their desire to limit spending in the general election campaign.

Open to Spending Limit

Filner said that he is “open to the possibility” of establishing a mutually agreeable spending limit. Aguirre, meanwhile, suggested that he is considering adopting a tack similar to that taken by Mayor Maureen O’Connor in last year’s special mayoral race, in which O’Connor unilaterally imposed a ceiling on her campaign spending--gaining considerable public-relations benefits.

Those comments drew a slightly bemused reaction from the 8th District’s third-place finisher, county supervisorial aide Neil Good, who finished only 382 votes behind Aguirre with 2,667 votes (19.9%). Good spent about $80,000, about two-thirds as much as Aguirre and Filner.

“We got financially outgunned--it’s that simple,” Good said. “This is the only race in which personal wealth bought a seat.”

Having run citywide twice before in his successful school board race and narrow 1983 loss to McColl, Filner said he believes that he will have an advantage over Aguirre in terms of the daunting logistics involved in mounting a citywide campaign.

“The maturity and style with which you occupy an office will be a major issue,” Filner said. “With four new members going on the council, there’s a necessity for someone who knows what he’s doing, who doesn’t need on-the-job training, who’s worked with big public budgets and knows how to form coalitions to deliver services to his constituents. There’s only one candidate in this race who can say that.”

Aguirre countered by arguing that he is “better-positioned on issues” ranging from crime to growth-management than Filner, adding that he will strive to persuade voters that Filner’s tenure on the school board “wasn’t all a plus for the city.”

Trying to catch his breath after one race even as he has to prepare for another, Aguirre also expressed a sentiment shared by the seven other finalists:

“It’s hard to believe that, after all this, the hard part is just beginning.”