2 Pasadena Issues Put Slow-Growth Drive on Defensive

Ever since members of the Northeast Pasadena Residents Assn. began circulating petitions to place a slow-growth initiative on the June 7 ballot, they have maintained a steady offensive that belied their lack of campaign experience.

Their grass-roots campaign, in which supporters blanketed the city with petitions and letters to local newspapers, kept developers and business people scrambling for ways to combat the group’s slow-growth movement.

But in recent weeks, the Committee for Common Sense in Pasadena, a group of developers and business people fighting the initiative, has managed to put supporters of the initiative on the defensive.

The latest skirmish occurred Monday, when the Board of Directors refused to act on a proposal that the slow-growthers had hoped would quash attacks from the opposition.

That opposition has focused on two issues.

Scope Called Too Broad

The first is the scope of the initiative, which opponents say is so broad that it would kill all major projects in the city, even those that have wide public support.

The initiative calls for a moratorium on construction of projects larger than 25,000 square feet or 25 housing units and for new development fees to ensure that the city does not pay for street and utility improvements that benefit businesses. The moratorium, which would end when the city finishes rewriting its general plan, could be shorter or longer than the two years specified in the initiative.

The second issue is a requirement for major developments to receive unanimous approval by the Board of Directors. Opponents say this would give each board member unprecedented veto power.

Amos Hoagland, a leader of the Northeast Pasadena Residents Assn., said both issues are “dishonest” and are being used as a “scare tactic” to frighten residents into voting against the initiative.

Small Percentage

He said the initiative would stop only a small percentage of projects--large ones that would burden the city with traffic, noise and pollution, which residents end up paying for.

Hoagland said requiring a unanimous vote would ensure that only projects that would benefit the entire city would be approved.

But he conceded that the association has continued to stumble in its efforts to defuse these issues.

“We’re on the defensive now,” Hoagland said. “We let our guard down, and they snuck up on us.”

Both issues have been raised before, but they crystallized at Monday’s board meeting during a discussion of the future of three projects--renovation of the Huntington Hotel, expansion of the YMCA and YWCA, and construction of an addition to Huntington Memorial Hospital.

Exemptions Sought

Supporters of the initiative asked the board to exempt the three projects from the restrictions of the initiative.

Their purpose was to counter the opposition’s claim that all projects would be stopped, said Donald Zimbler, another leader of the residents association.

“The opposition has gone out there with the most extreme scenarios and blown them up to look like major problems,” Zimbler said. “We’ve said the three projects are exempted; we just wanted the board to agree.”

Zimbler said that as the association interprets the initiative, those three projects, as well the vast majority of others in the city, would not be affected because they either are too small or have already been approved by the board.

Opponents, however, are using the three projects as examples of how widely supported developments could be in jeopardy.

The Committee for Common Sense in Pasadena, which includes Mayor John Crowley, school board President Noel Hatch and Vice Mayor William Thomson, has called the initiative “misguided,” “poorly planned” and “selfish.”

The moratorium would bring financial disaster to the city, the opponents claim, and could lead to fewer police, fewer jobs and even a loss of tourist dollars because of the potential loss of tax revenue.

Representatives from the committee, the Huntington Hotel and the YMCA and YWCA attended the board meeting to oppose exemptions for their own projects.

Scott Jenkins, an attorney representing the YMCA and YWCA, said the attempt to exempt the projects was made only because the association realized that it had drafted an overly broad initiative that will receive little support.

“They just did that to get votes,” Jenkins said. “They shot themselves in their collective feet.”

Crowley and Thomson spoke against the exemptions, saying it would be improper for the board to act on them during the initiative campaign.

Director William Paparian was the only board member to speak in favor of exempting the projects.

“If the issue is being clouded by misconceptions and untrue comments, and if there is anything we can do, we ought to do it to ensure the debate is a fair one,” he said.

Hoagland said the board’s refusal to act was expected but still hurt the campaign because it left the future of the three projects unresolved.

“If we had to do it over again, we wouldn’t do it,” he said, referring to taking the proposal before the board.

Zimbler said the group plans to start a door-to-door campaign to inform residents about the initiative.

But he said it has become an increasingly uphill battle.

“Basically, they’re going to blame us for the next earthquake,” he said. “But we’re not going to roll over and play dead and let them walk over us.”