County Human Relations Board Opposes Slow-Growth Initiative

In the first such action by a county agency, the Orange County Human Relations Commission has voted to oppose the slow-growth initiative on the June 7 ballot, declaring that the measure will have “exclusionary effects” on low-income people in need of “decent, affordable housing.”

Such effects, the panel reasoned in a unanimous vote Thursday night, could increase “prejudice, intolerance and discrimination,” commission Executive Director Rusty Kennedy said.

Commission member Jean Forbath said Friday that commission members “basically felt that the initiative is elitist.”

‘Nothing to Do With Housing’

But initiative proponents disagreed with the commission’s conclusion and questioned whether the commission can legally take a position on a countywide measure.

“The initiative has nothing to do with housing,” said Russ Burkett of San Juan Capistrano, a key supporter of the Citizens’ Sensible Growth and Traffic Control Initiative. “The measure doesn’t talk about fair housing or unfair housing. It’s housing neutral and community neutral, so that each community can adjust to the measure’s requirements in its own way.”

Burkett complained that the commission took its action even though state law prohibits county officials from spending money for or against a countywide ballot measure.

Used County Facilities

The commission used county facilities and county stationery to distribute press releases about its decision.

Although county supervisors have criticized the initiative individually, they have cited the state prohibition in refraining from officially taking a position.

Forbath said that the panel has previously taken positions on ballot issues and that the question of whether it could do so on a countywide initiative never came up.

“We’d better look at what the commission did,” Chief Assistant County Counsel William J. McCourt said Friday. “I don’t know what the answer is, but generally the prohibition applies to spending any public funds.”

In a prepared statement issued by the commission Friday, Dr. Daniel H. Ninburg, the panel’s chairman, declared:

“While sympathetic to the frustrations over local traffic congestion noted by backers of the initiative, the commission must point to the unintended effect this initiative could have on low-income persons who currently suffer a severe lack of affordable housing in the county.”

No Low-Cost Housing Clause

The commission complained that the initiative, unlike other slow-growth measures adopted in cities such as Petaluma in Northern California and Ramapo, N.Y., does not contain exceptions for low-cost housing.

“The commission has a long history of supporting decent housing and a suitable living environment for low-income persons and cannot support an initiative which ignores the critical need for balanced housing,” Ninburg said.

Commission member Irma Rodriguez complained that the initiative would actually worsen traffic congestion because, she said, a shortage of low-cost housing near major employment centers in the county would force workers to commute longer distances to find such housing elsewhere.

Initiative proponents argue, however, that an exemption for low-income housing would have jeopardized the ability of the initiative to withstand some types of court challenges, including claims that the measure deals with more than one subject.

Instead, its framers stuck to tying future growth to the ability of roads and public services to handle more traffic and heavier workloads.

Some initiative backers took a political approach and argued during the drafting that an exemption for low-income housing would cost the measure too many votes in June.

Kennedy said Friday there was little testimony taken for or against the commission’s action at its meeting.

Burkett complained that he arrived during the meeting but was told it was too late for him to talk because the commission had already voted on the agenda item involving the initiative.