Both Sides in Growth Issue Refining Their Campaigns

On one side of the fight is growth-hating Jerry Silver in his quiet suburban home in Encino. His fingers race across the keyboard of his personal computer, his phone rings with calls from movement collaborators and his wife and colleague, Myrna, is worried that he won’t have time for the fish dinner waiting in the oven before driving off to a 7 p.m. meeting.

On the other side is development-loving Lynn Wessell in the economically furnished office of the Wessell Co. in the noisy heart of urban Los Angeles’ North Vermont Avenue. There is none of the homey ambiance of the Silvers’ place. Wessell, a college political philosophy professor-turned-campaign manager, is the cool professional, with well-organized phone banks, targeted mailings, public opinion polls and big budgets.

These men, so different, have something in common. They represent a turning point in one of the nation’s most complicated and important political battles--the fight over how much government should control development of commercial enterprises, power plants and new housing in residential and rural areas.

Initially, citizen activists such as Silver succeeded in limiting growth by either seizing control of local governing bodies or persuading their fellow voters to approve growth-limiting initiatives. Now, business interests are hiring skilled political campaigners like Wessell as they learn to fight back in the courts, in the Legislature and in one of the most difficult arenas, elections.

The activists, in turn, are becoming more sophisticated, consulting with law firms specializing in preparing slow-growth initiatives, paying more attention to the Legislature and using the computer to prepare mailings and communicate with scattered followers.

The battle is occurring in a state that has always been ambivalent about its conflicting attributes as a magnet for immigrants from around the world and repository for some of America’s greatest natural beauty. From the earliest days, when hydraulic mining despoiled parts of the Northern California river landscape, there has been conflict between growth and preservation.

In the current conflict over growth, a recent Los Angeles Times Poll showed differences in attitudes among ethnic and income groups. More whites than blacks or Latinos favor efforts to slow growth. And residents of declining neighborhoods, which tend to have larger black and Latino populations, oppose slow-growth actions.

One aspect of the political conflict is in the Legislature.

In the past, the building industry put most of its political muscle into city councils and boards of supervisors, the bodies that make the decisions on how land is used. But now, developer lobbyists such as Don Collin, general counsel of the California Building Industry Assn., have been quietly pushing legislation in Sacramento that has made it easier to attack slow-growth initiatives in court before the election is held.

‘Wall of Legal Thickets’

“They are attempting to build a wall of legal thickets,” said Marc B. Mihaly of the San Francisco legal firm of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, which advises slow-growth groups. “It is almost impossible to draw a land-use initiative without a lawyer and planner. That is what developers want because many (slow-growth) groups do not have access to that.”

Just as important, and drawing much more public attention, is the electoral strategy. Wessell provided an example of that with the way he used $1.8 million in contributions, almost half from six major developers, in a sophisticated political campaign that defeated an Orange County slow-growth initiative, Measure A, in the June primary.

He created a computer file of the names of the 500,000 Orange County residents who voted in the last election, deciding these were the most likely to vote in the June contest. He separated the file geographically into the northern and southern parts of the county; public opinion surveys and his political instincts had indicated that residents in the northern part of the county were more likely to oppose Measure A, which would have tied future development in unincorporated areas--mainly in the south--to improved roads and other services.

Workers--some paid, some volunteers--used 120 telephones to call all of the potential voters three or four times. Mailings were sent to them, and commercials were broadcast on the radio, all hitting at the theme that Measure A would increase costs in the economy-minded county: “If You Loved Proposition 13, You’ll Hate Measure A.” Trailing 70% to 14% in his own poll six weeks before the election, Wessell ended up defeating the initiative.

“There is increasing resolve,” Wessell said. “We are becoming more aggressive in terms of trying to communicate.”

Growing Sophistication

Silver’s second-floor home office illustrates the growing sophistication of the slow-growthers. During a recent interview, Silver pecked out a “browse” command on his Wordstar 4.0 program and called up a list of the names, addresses and key leaders of 455 slow-growth organizations around the state.

When mobilizing protesters for the Homeowners of Encino, of which he is president, Silver can call up the names and addresses of people on a street threatened by a mini-mall and fire off letters urging them down to City Hall to protest. Or call them off if the meeting is canceled.

“Many of the people involved in the slow-growth movement are new to politics,” said Linda Martin of San Diego, who is helping put together a statewide organization of those wanting to restrict growth. “We have to work harder and raise more money and use some of the tried-and-true mechanisms for getting our message out. That was one lesson we learned from the Orange County election. . . . We have to use sophisticated techniques; we have to use mail. But we have to do it both ways. We have to stay grass-roots. We have to keep our purity. . . .”

A major reason that the development fight is moving into a new stage is the size of the economic stakes involved. The building industry fears a loss of profits. Builders and some public officials also express concern that economic growth will be slowed by anti-development measures.

“We could see a gradual slowing of the regional economy,” said Chairwoman Marian Bergeson (R-Newport Beach) of the Senate Local Government Committee. “If you are a classic capitalist, as I am, this ebbing of economic viability is a bad thing. Fewer housing starts, a slower rate of job creation, a constriction of economic opportunity and a poor business climate will result.”

A second reason for the increased sophistication in the battle is tactical: Campaigners on both sides are learning that the public’s feelings toward growth is ambivalent, complex and hard to predict. The Orange County defeat showed them that a skillful, well-financed attack can defeat limitation initiatives that previously had been considered as sacrosanct as motherhood.

“The ‘yes’ people did not mount a campaign,” said William Fulton, editor and publisher of the California Planning & Development Report, a newsletter on development issues. “They showed considerable naivete in thinking they could win no matter what.”

The complexities of public sentiment was clearly shown by the Times Poll of 2,202 people taken May 11 to 16 under the direction of I. A. Lewis.

The statewide survey, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, showed that the more extreme elements of the slow-growth movement, those advocating a halt to building, were far out of the political mainstream.

Only 9% of those polled favored a moratorium on all economic development. But clearly there was strong sentiment for some control of growth. Fifty percent said they favored a temporary moratorium on all economic development or a slowdown of economic growth, and 24% backed removing some regulations that limit economic development.

The survey supported the suspicions of campaigners that attitudes on some growth issues vary among ethnic groups, mirroring economic differences, with Anglos tending to support a growth slowdown more than blacks and Latinos. A total of 53% of the Anglos favored slowdown in growth, compared to 35% of the blacks and 46% of the Latinos. But few in each ethnic group favored a moratorium--10% of the Latinos, 9% of the Anglos and 5% of the blacks.

For a political campaigner, that means that a slow-growth measure cannot be too tough--or be perceived as being too extreme. The diminished support among blacks and Latinos for a development moratorium or a slowdown in economic growth is an indication that opponents of anti-growth measures would do well in targeting some of their campaigning toward these groups.

The survey also showed that opposition to growth is strongest in areas where there has been intense development.

That confirms the view of pro- and anti-development campaigners, who say slow-growth political campaigns are successful when there is a particular building or housing development that makes residents angry.

‘Negative Impact’

“The place where they are successful is where you have a particular negative impact in the community that can be focused,” Wessell said.

Los Angeles City Councilwoman Ruth Galanter said she was helped to an upset victory over incumbent Pat Russell last year when the tall Wang building went up near the San Diego Freeway, in clear and daily view of homeowners in Westchester. Or as Dan Shapiro, a veteran San Fernando Valley growth-limit advocate, said, political success comes “when the building is there, people can see it, they can touch it, they can kick it.”

To test the relationship between development in a neighborhood and sentiment toward development controls, the Times Poll asked people whether they thought their community had developed economically during the last year, stayed about the same or declined.

Those who said their community had grown a great deal were more aware of the slow-growth movement than those in a declining--and presumably less affluent--community by 50% to 42%.

A total of 64% of those in high-development neighborhoods favored a slowing down of economic development, compared to 50% in declining areas. A total of 11% of those in high-development neighborhoods favored a moratorium, compared to 5% in declining-development communities. Just 5% of the high-development-area residents said local growth regulations were too strict, while 20% of those in declining areas thought so.

Another difference between high and declining areas was found in their residents’ perception of important growth problems.

Apparently reflecting a concern over bad housing in poor areas, 34% of those in declining areas said overcrowding was the most important growth problem. Pollution was ranked most important by 32%, and traffic and commercial development by 27%. In developed areas, traffic was the top concern, with 34% choosing that category. Twenty-eight percent chose crowding, and 26% pollution.

That finding points up an aspect of the growth controversy troubling to all sides. Poorer Californians, in declining neighborhoods, are concerned about overcrowding. But the slow-growth movement, wanting to limit development, has been accused of backing measures that would limit new housing and economic growth.

Affordable Housing

Galanter, who was elected as a slow-growth candidate but who also represents the underdeveloped Crenshaw area of Los Angeles, said she wants more affordable housing.

“My biggest worry is that (affordable housing) will get lost in some kind of environmental consciousness and neighborhood consciousness,” she said.

Politically, the building industry is moving to take advantage of such fears, linking up in the Legislature with liberal housing advocate groups that it once bitterly fought on the rent control issue.

So far, the coalition is fragile, breaking apart whenever militant builders insist on anti-rent control legislation. But moderates on both sides are working together under the sponsorship of such legislative leaders as Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles) in long-range legislative plans.

For the immediate future, the two sides are preparing for battles in November over slow-growth initiatives in San Diego and Riverside counties where lessons of the Orange County election will be put to use.

In addition, the two forces will clash in Los Angeles County, where Supervisor Mike Antonovich, under attack for being pro-development in his suburban 5th District, faces a runoff against former Supervisor Baxter Ward. Ward, however, stayed away from the growth issue in his eight years on the Board of Supervisors and slow-growth advocates such as the San Fernando Valley’s Dan Shapiro are undecided about backing him.

In the long range, the political fight will be over whether the state should take a stronger role in land-use planning, traditionally the job of local government.

Despite some losses in the Legislature this year, building industry lobbyist Collin and his colleagues, along with industry lawyers who have won in court, have had some success in making it easier to challenge slow-growth initiatives.

“The slow-growth movement is beginning to see that a lot of the things they regard as trouble are the result of Don Collin’s fine work,” said publisher Fulton of the California Planning & Development Report.

Loss for Building Industry

Last month, the building industry was beaten by a coalition of environmentalists, rent control backers and the League of California Cities in an attempt to push through a measure to restrict state housing funds to cities that had slow-growth and rent control ordinances.

But Sierra Club lobbyist Paula Carrell, a leader of the environmentalist forces, had to move back into action a few days later when developers offered new legislation designed to protect local projects from slow-growth initiatives. That measure awaits a vote.

On the slow-growth side, activists, beginning to realize the difficulty of persuading local government to restrict growth or to mount successful initiative campaigns in the face of the new obstacles imposed by the Legislature and the courts, are discussing putting a slow-growth initiative on the statewide ballot.

“We are probably going to have to look for statewide solutions,” Martin of San Diego said. “We simply don’t have the funds to defend our measures against the multimillion-dollar campaigns developers are willing to wage. We may have to do something where we get more bang for the buck, and that would be a statewide initiative.”

Slow-growth advocates point to the success in 1972 of the last statewide slow-growth initiative, which created the California Coastal Commission to limit development along the beach.

But pro-growth political manager Wessell, as he studied the results of his Orange County triumph, said he does not see a repeat of the Coastal Commission election.

Preservation of the beach, he said, was a cause dear to all Californians. “The beach means something; it connotes something,” he said.

Fulton agreed that statewide voter approval of a slow-growth measure would be difficult. “The basic lesson of Orange County is that it is much tougher to win an anti-growth campaign on a larger level in an electoral campaign. The higher up they go, the harder it is to construct an initiative and harder to win it.”

ATTITUDES ABOUT SLOW-GROWTH

These Los Angeles Times Poll results reflect responses from 2,202 adults from California from May 11 to May 16, 1988. Callers were asked:

Do you think regulations aimed at slowing growth are

“Developed” Latino Anglo Black Other Area* Too Strict 12 10 5 12 9 About Right 41 37 45 44 39 Not Strict Enough 29 39 41 29 42 Don’t Know 18 14 9 15 10

“Declining” Area* Too Strict 20 About Right 33 Not Strict Enough 35 Don’t Know 12

What are the most important growth problems?

(Callers were allowed two answers. Figures do not necessarily total 100%.)

“Developed” Latino Anglo Black Other Area* None 1 1 0 1 1 Commercial Exploitation 12 21 15 12 20 Overcrowding 30 26 45 31 28 Danger to the Environment 15 24 13 11 21 Pollution 23 30 26 33 26 Threat to City Services 9 15 17 15 15 Traffic Congestion 34 35 21 40 34 Development Changed the Way It Was 10 5 8 7 6

“Declining” Area* None 2 Commercial Exploitation 27 Overcrowding 34 Danger to the Environment 9 Pollution 32 Threat to City Services 10 Traffic Congestion 27 Development Changed the Way It Was 8

* Callers were asked to describe their area as having developed or declined economically during the last year. ATTITUDES TOWARD SOLUTIONS TO GROWTH PROBLEMS

These Los Angeles Times Poll results reflect responses from 2,202 adults from California from May 11 to May 16, 1988. Callers were asked whether they would favor these optional solutions.

“Developed” Latino Anglo Black Other Area* A Temporary Moratorium on All Economic Development 10 9 5 2 10 A Slowdown of Economic Development 46 53 35 38 53 Removing Some Regulations Limiting Development 22 22 42 40 23 Don’t Know 22 16 18 20 14

“Declining” Area* A Temporary Moratorium on All Economic Development 5 A Slowdown of Economic Development 39 Removing Some Regulations Limiting Development 38 Don’t Know 18

* Callers were asked to describe their area as having developed or declined economically during the last year.

No Plan Hope Plan Own to Buy to Buy to Buy Under $20,000- Home Home Home Home $20,000 $40,000 A Temporary Moratorium on All Economic Development 8 12 7 8 7 10 A Slowdown of Economic Development 54 53 51 54 49 54 Removing Some Regulations Limiting Development 24 18 31 32 26 26 Don’t Know 14 17 11 6 18 10

Over $40,000 A Temporary Moratorium on All Economic Development 8 A Slowdown of Economic Development 56 Removing Some Regulations Limiting Development 24 Don’t Know 12

** Asked only of 1,485 registered voters.