Opponent of Gas Tax Prop. 72 Calls It a ‘Developer’s Initiative’

Opponents of a California ballot proposition that would require gasoline tax money to be spent on roads Thursday accused county developers of backing the measure with hundreds of thousands of dollars because they see it as a mechanism for growth.

Lenny Goldberg, director of the state campaign against Proposition 72, labeled the measure a “developer’s initiative” at a Santa Ana press conference.

He was joined by Irvine Mayor Larry Agran and state and local education officials, who said moving the money collected from the sales tax on gasoline out of the state’s general fund to a highway account would be detrimental to schools.

“Some developers are apparently willing to do anything to subsidize growth,” Agran said. “A few months ago we thought this was a local issue; now it’s clear Orange County developers are ready to go statewide, even to the point of raiding public education, at great cost to our kids.”

“To fix roads at the expense of young people is unthinkable,” Goldberg added. “Proposition 72 hurts all other state programs to provide a quick fix for the problems of Orange County developers.”

The gasoline sales tax generates more than $600 million a year for the state’s general fund, where it is distributed to many state programs, including schools.

Proposition 72, which is being pushed by California tax crusader Paul Gann, would transfer the money to a highway construction account and exempt it from the state’s constitutional spending limit.

The spending limit was overwhelmingly approved by the voters as Proposition 4, which Gann successfully steered through a statewide election in 1979.

Under Proposition 72, the fund for state roads would be phased in over three years, with the full $600 million a year going to it by 1990. About 10% of that amount could go to Orange County.

Financial disclosure statements filed by the measure’s proponents show that county developers contributed almost $400,000 of about $1.2 million that Proposition 72 supporters have raised so far. The two largest county contributors were the Irvine Co. and Rancho Santa Margarita, which donated $50,000 each.

Joel Fox, a co-author of the proposition, said there is also strong grass-roots support for the measure, as illustrated by the $470,000 that has been raised from about 58,000 contributors.

But he said he was also happy to have the money from developers: “To my mind, it’s surely not enough--I’d like more. I wonder if the people who think ‘developer’ is a dirty word would think the same thing if this worked and the roads were better.”

Irvine Co. spokeswoman Judy Frutig said: “It’s just patently false to describe this as a developer’s initiative. This is as close to a grass-roots initiative as anything I’ve ever seen.”

Diane Gaynor, spokeswoman for the Santa Margarita Co., said: “We feel Proposition 72 helps provide real solutions to Orange County’s transportation problems. This is important because . . . traffic is the No. 1 problem facing Orange County today.”

John Erskine, president of the Orange County Building Industry Assn., said: “The easiest way to kill things these days is to connect the development industry with a proposal. I think the California and Orange County motorist wants his gas tax dollars to go to his ability to be mobile.”

The opponents of Proposition 72 complained that the measure unfairly addresses the state’s traffic problems, even though other needs--such as education--are equally serious.

California Schools Supt. Bill Honig is the chief sponsor of a rival ballot measure, Proposition 71, which would raise the Gann spending limit for all programs paid for by the state, instead of transportation only.

Goldberg said his group, the California Tax Reform Assn., is also supporting Prop. 71. He said that the campaign had just started but that the largest contributor so far is the California Teachers Assn.

Times staff writer Daniel M. Weintraub contributed to this article from Sacramento.