Slow, Pro Growth Forces Debate Traffic and Housing

Backers of the slow-growth initiative argued Monday that their measure is the last chance to retain Orange County’s quality of life, while opponents complained that it would force young families to live elsewhere.

“I believe that this is the last chance to save Orange County,” said attorney Belinda Blacketer, who was one of the drafters of the Citizens Sensible Growth and Traffic Control initiative that will appear on the June 7 countywide ballot. “If we don’t tell our decision-makers how we feel about it (unbridled growth), they will never listen again.”

But Crystal Sims, a Legal Aid attorney and housing advocate for low-income residents, countered that “a smaller and smaller segment of the labor force will be able to live in Orange County.” Sims said the initiative would drive housing prices higher, causing more people to seek homes and apartments outside Orange County.

Can Also Be Seen Sunday

Blacketer and Sims were among six panelists who debated the pros and cons of the slow-growth measure, listed as Measure A on the ballot, before a live television audience at Golden West College. The debate was sponsored by The Times, and broadcast by KOCE-TV, Channel 50. It will be aired again Sunday at 6 p.m.

At one point, anti-initiative campaign leader John Simon argued that the ballot measure has too many conditions to be met by developers, including achievement of protection against a flood that would occur once in 100 years, before a building or grading permit can be issued.

“That’s a flat lie,” said Norm Grossman, an aerospace engineer and member of Citizens for Sensible Growth and Traffic Control.

“That’s garbage,” echoed Blacketer, saying that the initiative allows developers three to five years to make improvements and requires only new projects to retain any extra water runoff that they cause.

The slow-growth initiative was placed on the ballot last March after more than 96,000 registered voters signed petitions to qualify it.

The measure would tie future growth to the ability of local roads and public services to handle additional traffic and higher workloads that such growth would bring.

There are efforts under way to get similar measures on the books in some cities. Voters in San Clemente and Seal Beach will find citywide slow-growth measures on their June 7 ballots. Voters in San Juan Capistrano, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach and Laguna Beach will consider similar measures in November.

Most of Monday night’s hourlong debate, moderated by Channel 50’s Jim Cooper, focused primarily on traffic and housing issues. Sims insisted that the initiative would make housing prices soar because of increased demand for a reduced supply.

Sims said 150,000 people a year already commute from San Bernardino and Riverside counties because jobs are more plentiful here, but housing is scarce. However, Irvine Councilman Ray Catalano, an initiative supporter, said the ballot would not influence the cost of housing.

Sims said: “The cost of meeting the initiative’s requirements would be passed on to the consumer. As of today, only 24% can afford to buy a home. The initiative would mean an even smaller percent could afford it.”

Catalano replied: “The only way to get affordable housing is to tell them (developers) they have to provide it. Developers will sell houses for whatever price the market will bear and that will continue unless you tell them they can’t.”

Under Measure A, a developer with a project affecting nearby traffic patterns would have three to five years to make road improvements to smooth the traffic flow or decrease average delays of more than 40 seconds at intersections.

Improvements are required if a new commercial or residential project would cause at least a 1% increase in average daily traffic volume on any road, or an additional half-second delay per vehicle at any intersection during rush hour.

Ride-sharing and flexible work shift programs could be used as substitutes for road improvements.

The measure also would require that new development result in public safety agencies being able to respond to emergencies within five minutes, at least on 85% of all emergency calls.

Although the measure still is favored in recent polls by a 2-1 margin, recent surveys show that support has declined sharply from February levels, when the margin was nearly 3 to 1.