Slow-Growth Leader’s Secret Talks Anger Some in Orange County

Orange County’s burgeoning slow-growth movement was rattled Friday by disclosures that one of its leaders had staged secret negotiations aimed at foregoing a ballot initiative to place tight constraints on future development.

It was disclosed Friday that Tom Rogers, chairman of an effort to qualify the sweeping initiative for the June ballot, had met with Orange County supervisors and discussed canceling the measure in exchange for creation of a new agency to oversee growth issues.

Rogers’ allies, rankled that he had not consulted them before the talks, expressed fear that confusion about the negotiations could jeopardize the collection of signatures needed to place the so-called Citizens Sensible Growth and Traffic Control Initiative before voters. Initiative supporters must file 66,000 signatures by Feb. 9 with the county registrar of voters.

‘Temporary Insanity’

“Tom was suffering from temporary insanity yesterday,” said Russ Burkett, a sponsor of the measure. “As far as I’m concerned, we’re going full speed ahead with filing the signatures.”

The initiative would link future development to the availability of adequate roads and public services, require additional park land dedication by developers and set specific performance standards for police and fire protection. It has been described as one of the most sweeping measures of its kind ever proposed in the United States.

The question of how and whether Orange County should grow has moved into the forefront of political debate in the last decade, as the one-time sprawl of Los Angeles bedroom communities and rolling ranchland has exploded into an independent metropolitan center of about 2.2 million residents.

Rogers’ meetings with the county’s five supervisors occurred on Thursday and were disclosed Friday in the Orange County Edition of The Times.

They were arranged by former county Supervisor Bruce Nestande who, with the support of several major developers, has developed as an alternative to the initiative a proposal to create a powerful new county agency to coordinate development and transportation.

Defended Decision

Rogers, a San Juan Capistrano rancher, defended his decision to discuss what he called Nestande’s “talking paper” as an exercise in political leverage.

“We hold all the cards,” Rogers said. “We’re not giving up anything at this point. But we’re willing to see if some accommodations can be accomplished at the county level that would avoid an expensive campaign that we would surely win, but which could lead to subsequent lawsuits.

“We only have a proposal and no agreement. We’ll just see how serious the county is in solving the congestion problem and go from there.”

Other members of the broad coalition promoting the measure were less convinced of the wisdom of Rogers’ action, and some attacked the proposal to create a county super-agency to watch growth.

Bill Speros, a coordinator of signature-gathering in Irvine and other cities, said he doubted that the new agency would enjoy public credibility.

‘Stick to Their Guns’

“This smacks of another good old boy network,” he said, “something we’ve got too much of already in this county.”

Stephen Goldberg, a controlled-growth activist from Costa Mesa, said initiative leaders should “stick to their guns” and not abandon their mission.

Others were supportive of Rogers’ attempt, if not of his decision not to consult with them beforehand.

“I’m not opposed to talking,” said Norm Grossman, a member of Laguna Greenbelt Inc., a leading proponent of the initiative. “But we’re in a strong position, and I don’t really think the supervisors want to give us what we want.”