Commentary : Fallbrook Shouldn’t Fall for the Often Broken Promise of Cityhood

The controversy in the community of Fallbrook is whether or not cityhood can be used as a tool to preserve our life style, which is definitely non-urban, places high value on privacy, slow-growth, and, yes, less complication--the antithesis to urban living. The mainstream wishes to be more of a bedroom community.

The cityhood promoters argue the theoretical aspects, while those in opposition cite the practical realities of cityhood.

I have, at different times, been on both sides of the issue. Several years ago, I helped to incorporate a community in Orange County. I am now sorry I helped. I was enamored with the theory and allure of “home rule” and “local control.”

The theory surely sounds good, and, before long, one can extend it into a fantasy that is nothing short of a “promised land.” But it is not based on reality and doesn’t take into account the practical world of strong developer interests, voter apathy--particularly in Southern California where turnover is high--and the incredible financial difficulty of a bedroom community to support a city bureaucracy. It simply doesn’t have the tax base.

In our Orange County town, the first City Council was pretty good, but soon the slow-growthers became tired and a developer-backed council emerged. After that, high density was the order of the day. Home rule became home-developer rule and local control became local bureaucrat control. To complete the story, cityhood did not live up to its promise--it did not preserve the low-density bedroom community. Is this an isolated example? No, just look around at the cities neighboring Fallbrook and the same pattern exists.

Indeed, North County cities lead the state in growth. In many cities, their councils are at odds with the people. Initiatives, sponsored by the people, are openly fought by the politicians. What happened to the theory of home rule? Communities that incorporated to mature as bedroom communities must now promote commercial and industrial growth and are setting aside their rural life style. The lesson? Experience shows cityhood is a misfit for a low-density, rural community. I no longer believe in the promised-land theory of cityhood. It is small wonder the promoters of Fallbrook’s cityhood talk only of this promised-land theory. They cannot find a North County city that has preserved its rural life style.

In the Fallbrook proposal, there are additional problems. City promoters have excluded sewers in our rural areas from City Council control. They have even fought an appeal by slow-growthers of the Local Agency Formation Commission for such control.

Sewer extension control is very important in rural areas because urban sprawl with high-density housing follow the sewers. By excluding sewer control, the incorporation coalition is pushing a developer-oriented plan. But it doesn’t stop there. Financial feasibility has been linked to Fallbrook’s growing by more than 12,000 people in just eight years--almost a 50% increase. That is hardly slow-growth. Indeed, you don’t see any real estate interests or big developers fighting this incorporation plan. To the contrary, we have seen full-page ads by developers urging that “changes be made.” And the chief verbal promoters are a developer and a city manager bureaucrat. Finding out who is on which side is important in this contest--the developers want cityhood and the slow-growthers don’t.

Finally, I must comment on the L.A. Times’ recent editorial on Fallbrook. The Times hinged its argument on $2 million that can be saved by incorporating in 1989. What The Times overlooked was that incorporation would cause a loss of more than $10 million in road improvement projects in the early 1990s--that leaves us $8 million in the hole.

Almost all of the money to be lost is for traffic flow improvements on South Mission Road where it is now squeezed down to two lanes. Even now, this road is a string of cars during rush hour. Three years from now it will be gridlock. These improvements are essential and, if we incorporate, the full cost will be shifted to Fallbrook taxpayers.

Oh, sure, as a city, we will still get some sales-tax return--but for years to come less than half as much than if we stay unincorporated. The proposed city’s road maintenance fund is so short that all of the sales tax return money will be needed just for road maintenance. Clearly, the proposed city will need to borrow the $10 million for the construction on South Mission--and that just adds extra millions in interest payments. One could not imagine a worse time to propose incorporation in Fallbrook. Even the most ardent die-hard supporter of cityhood would be unwise to vote anyway but NO because of the wrong timing. It simply makes no sense to save $2 million in 1989, only to lose $10 million in the 1990s.

Whether one looks at the practical realities of cityhood, which is a far more accurate picture than any theory, or the dismal timing of the Fallbrook proposal with its attendant loss of millions for roads, or the proposed developer-oriented city plan--incorporation is a misfit for Fallbrook. In our bedroom community, the city bureaucracy will become the problem rather than the solution.