Downturn for Growth Initiative : Support Is at 54% as Orange County Fears for Its Future

Support for Orange County’s slow-growth initiative has plunged sharply over the past four months, casting doubt about its chances for approval in the June 7 election, according to a poll conducted for The Times’ Orange County Edition.

The poll found that support for the initiative plummeted from 73% last February to 54% today, with almost a quarter of the voters undecided. Many voters apparently no longer see the slow-growth measure as the answer to traffic congestion and smog and are worried that it could adversely affect the local economy.

The poll results seem to reflect the effectiveness of the anti-initiative forces, who have launched an extensive campaign to defeat the measure through strategically placed highway billboards, pamphlets mailed to homeowners and personal phone calls to voters.

Worse Traffic

The campaign carries the message, disputed by measure proponents, that instead of helping matters, the slow-growth initiative actually would make traffic worse by jeopardizing the completion of three new planned transportation corridors.

The measure, known as the Citizens’ Sensible Growth and Traffic Control Initiative, would condition growth in the county on the ability of local roads and public services to keep pace with a growing population. It will appear as Measure A on the ballot.

The Orange County Poll, conducted for The Times by Mark Baldassare & Associates, provides a detailed look at voter attitudes in the days before the June 7 vote.

Since the last Orange County poll conducted for The Times in February, awareness of the slow-growth initiative has risen 26 points, to 76%.

Losing Upper Hand

But as awareness rose, support for the measure declined, dropping around 20 percentage points over the past four months. Twenty-two percent of those surveyed now oppose the measure, with 24% undecided, up from 14% in February.

Baldassare said the poll seems to indicate that the slow-growth forces were losing the upper hand they held just four months ago when a similar poll found that almost three out of four people supported the initiative. At that time, Baldassare said it would take a “monumental change of opinion” for the measure to fail at the ballot box.

Yet perhaps because of the effective campaign waged by opponents, that monumental change of opinion may be taking place. Support for the measure has dwindled to about half the voters, and even their support appears soft as they are plagued by doubts over whether the slow-growth measure will perform as advertised.

“I don’t know if the initiative will pass,” Baldassare said last week. “Supporters outnumber opponents 2 to 1, but there are just too many undecideds. The closer you get to a vote, people start asking more questions. At that point it is up to the messengers to say this is how it’s going to help or how it’s going to hurt. The initiative forces are going to have to explain how they can make traffic better.”

Margin of Error

Baldassare added that even among those who support the initiative, many would change their votes if they were convinced traffic would get worse, not better.

“Traffic congestion again shows up as the measure’s Achilles’ heel,” he said. “The measure’s support appears vulnerable, and especially in the realm of traffic congestion.”

As a reflection of this, 58% of the voters who said they planned to vote for the initiative said they would change their minds and vote no if they believed traffic would get worse.

The same was true with the crucial undecided voters.

“Again we see how receptive the undecided voters are to campaign messages,” Baldassare said.

The survey of 600 registered voters was conducted May 11 through 14 during weekday evening hours and weekend days, using a random sample of listed and unlisted telephone numbers. An equal number of men and women were interviewed.

The margin of error in the current poll is plus or minus 4% at the 95% confidence level. That means it is 95% certain that the results are within four percentage points of what they would be if every Orange County registered voter were interviewed.

As shown previously, the survey reveals that the initiative continues to draw support from all segments of society, reflecting frustration with traffic at all income levels.

“I am a native Californian and I can remember Orange County when we had orange groves and clear skies,” said Sisley Morris, an Anaheim retiree who plans to vote yes on Measure A. “Now there are people, cars, industry and houses everywhere. Every time I go down the street there is a new apartment house going up. My feeling is: Just slow it down.”

Stagnant Economy

“I have lived here 25 years, and you just can’t believe how rapidly this place has changed,” added Cindy Dorrance, a Santa Ana resident. “Traffic is so bad now that I can’t imagine it getting any worse. I have a friend in Mission Viejo and I hardly see her anymore because neither of us wants to fight the traffic. We stay in touch on the phone.”

The erosion of support for the initiative also appears to be linked to a significant rise in the number of people who believe that its passage will harm the county’s economy. Today, while 40% of the people think the measure will have a good effect on jobs and the economy, 32%--twice the percentage in the February poll--think the impact will be negative.

Suzy Atanasova, a 27-year-old entrepreneur from Tustin, is one of those who worries that the measure could cause the local economy to stagnate.

“I think that there won’t be enough jobs for everyone,” she said. “And I am not convinced it’s really going to help traffic. What if the developers refuse to help in building more roads? Who’s going to pay for them?”

Another who doubts that the slow-growth initiative is the solution is Marilyn Sullivan, a retiree from San Juan Capistrano.

“I’m just not sure this is the answer,” she said. “There is this attitude of ‘Stop! Stop! Stop!’ without thinking first. I think that would be bad for jobs and the economy. The movement of people is necessary for jobs. Sometimes you have to cross county lines in the commute. What I think we need is some compromise.”

Quality of Life

Reflecting this kind of thinking, the poll found that the percentage of people believing that the measure will have a good effect on the quality of life is down since February, from 69% to 60%.

Yet even more significant is the number believing that the initiative will adversely affect traffic congestion, a message opponents have been vigorously promoting. While 60% think the measure’s passage will improve traffic, nearly one in three now expects it to have a bad effect or no effect at all.

Baldassare said this was significant in that it represented a sizable number of voters who suspect that the measure may actually backfire and make traffic worse, not better.

“You get an idea of how shaky this support is,” he said. “The most damaging thing you can do to hurt the initiative is to say that traffic will get worse. And they appear to be getting that message across.”

Success Jeopardized

These negative expectations about the measure’s impact can clearly jeopardize its success, the pollster added. For example, while more than three out of four of those who think it will have a good effect on jobs and the economy plan to vote for the measure, only 31% of those who expect a bad effect will vote yes.

At this point, Baldassare said, the undecided group “is especially crucial.” Those not sure about the measure’s effect appear receptive to campaign messages, he said, “making them capable of deciding the final outcome of this contest.”

To measure the potential power of negative messages in the campaign, voters were asked how they would vote if they heard the initiative would make traffic worse. Not surprisingly, 65% answered that they would vote no on the measure, while only 23% said they would vote for it. A negative message about jobs and the economy, meanwhile, would leave 57% opposed and only a third in favor.

Concern about higher housing prices--Orange County housing prices are already among the highest in the nation--ranked behind traffic and jobs and the economy as a reason to vote against the measure.

The ballot measure “is least vulnerable to claims that it would raise housing prices,” Baldassare said. “Fewer than half who heard such a message said they would vote against the measure, and 41% would still vote yes.”

THE TIMES ORANGE COUNTY POLL

The Citizens’ Sensible Growth and Traffic Control Initiative has lost its comfortable lead, as Orange County voters try to sort out the measure’s promises from its possible effects.

AWARENESS

Awareness of the slow-growth initiative has jumped 26 percentage points, from 50% to 76%, in the past four months.

FEB. 1988 50%

MAY 1988 76%

SUPPORT FOR INITIATIVE

While awareness of the initiative has increased dramatically, support has plummeted from 73% to 54%.

*SEPT. 1987

Yes 75%

No 20%

Don’t Know 5%

FEB. 1988

Yes 73%

No 13%

Don’t Know 14%

MAY 1988

Yes 54%

No 22%

Don’t Know 24%

*Sept. 1987 Orange County Annual Survey.

PERCEIVED EFFECTS

On jobs and economy

The number believing passage of the initiative would harm the county’s economy has doubled.

FEB. 1988

Good 46%

Bad 16%

MAY 1988

Good 40%

Bad 32%

On quality of life

The number fearing bad consequences from the passage of the initiative has virtually doubled.

FEB. 1988

Good 69%

Bad 8%

No Effect 7%

MAY 1988

Good 60%

Bad 16%

No Effect 13%

TRAFFIC: SUPPORT IS SOFT

Although 54% of all voters surveyed in May indicated they would support the initiative (top), that support would erode markedly if those same people “heard that traffic would get worse if the initiative passes.” (bottom)

Yes: 54%

No: 24%

Don’t Know: 24%

“If you heard that traffic would get worse if the initiative passes, would you vote yes or no?”

Of the 54% who said they would vote for the initiative, more than half (58%) would vote AGAINST it.

Of the 24% who said they didn’t know which way to vote, more than half (63%) would vote AGAINST the initiative.

THREE WHAT IFs . . .

All polled were asked how they would vote if they heard passage of the initiative meant 1) “traffic would get worse,” 2) “it would cost jobs and hurt the economy,” or 3) “housing prices would increase.” A majority would vote AGAINST the initiative if they believed it would adversely affect traffic or the economy. Virtually half would vote AGAINST the initiative if they believed housing prices would rise.

TRAFFIC

No: 65%

FEWER JOBS, HURT ECONOMY

No: 57%

INCREASED HOME PRICES

No: 49%

Source: The Times Orange County Poll by Mark Baldassare & Associates.