Local Elections : City Growth Issues Add to Importance of County Measures

With Election Day approaching, one side accused the other of being more concerned about open space than about whether San Diegans had jobs. Parks and flowers are not so picturesque, they sneered, to the unemployed.

In response, the other side argued that their opponents would, given the chance, pave over San Diego’s natural beauty. Growth and the environment, they argued, need not be mutually exclusive.

The year was 1917, and the debate in the so-called “Geraniums vs. Smokestacks” mayoral race drew battle lines that have been a staple of San Diego politics ever since.

Age-Old Problem

Next week, San Diego voters will once again grapple with the now-familiar question of how to create jobs and absorb growth in an environmentally sensitive manner when they cast ballots on slow-growth propositions on the city and county ballots.

Propositions B and D, the county measures, have been largely overshadowed by the campaign over their counterparts on the city of San Diego ballot, Propositions H and J. In part, that is because Propositions B and D--the former crafted by the Board of Supervisors, the latter proposed by a citizens’ group--would affect only unincorporated regions of the county, whereas H and J would be felt in the more populous city.

Although they agree on little else, all sides in the debate over Propositions B and D concede that the subordination of their race obscures a critical fact--namely, that, if new development restrictions are imposed within the city, there will be additional pressures for growth in the unincorporated areas. That increases the importance of growth policies in unincorporated regions, they agree.

“If the brakes are put on in the city, that’s where the land rush would be,” said Tom Mullaney, co-chairman of Citizens for Limited Growth, the group that collected tens of thousands of signatures to qualify Propositions D and J.

Reflecting the growth issue’s political volatility, the Propositions B and D campaign has seen proponents and opponents offering up horrific scenarios of the consequences of either the adoption or failure of the measures.

Supporters hail the propositions as perhaps San Diego’s last chance to solve problems associated with runaway growth, and thereby avoid the “Los Angelization” of the region. From their perspective, defeat of the measures would open the door to gradual urbanization of largely undeveloped regions in North and East counties, destroying their bucolic appeal.

Building industry representatives and other opponents, however, warn that the county measures, in conjunction with those in the city, would seriously damage the economy, dramatically escalate housing prices and cost 50,000 jobs.

Both county measures would restrict development and protect environmentally sensitive lands, such as steep slopes, wetlands and plant and animal habitats, but Proposition D, the citizens’ version, is the more stringent of the two.

That difference in scope has produced splits among supporters as environmentalists and others debate which of the two proposals would better control growth in ways that are least economically disruptive.

Backers of Proposition D attack Proposition B, which appears on the ballot as the “Sensitive Lands and Growth Control Ordinance,” as a “hollow shell” that would have no meaningful effect on controlling growth. Specific provisions are vague and the measure would leave most land-use authority in the hands of the supervisors, they argue, thereby largely preserving what they consider to be an unsatisfactory status quo.

“Proposition B is basically nothing more than a promise by the Board of Supervisors that it’s going to do something it hasn’t done so far,” Mullaney said. “It requires a real leap of faith--one that I’m not sure the board is entitled to, given its record.”

Conversely, B supporters say that, although they sympathize with the objectives of Proposition D, the Rural Preservation and Traffic Control Initiative, the measure is too extreme and would devastate the economy while actually worsening some of the growth-related problems it seeks to address.

“It’s a case where we both diagnosed the same illness . . . but their medication is too strong and actually might make the patient sicker,” explained Bob Trettin, an aide to county Supervisor Susan Golding, one of the chief architects of Proposition B.

Builders’ Stand

Builders, meanwhile, regard Proposition D and its city ballot equivalent, Proposition J, as the most onerous of the four growth measures and, therefore, have made the defeat of those two measures the primary goal in their campaign. However, they also oppose Propositions B and H and hope to persuade voters to adopt their “Four-No” strategy in order to, as one of their TV ads puts it, “Send ‘em back to the drawing boards!”

The builders’ euphemistically named campaign committee, San Diegans for Regional Traffic Solutions, had spent nearly $1.3 million as of Oct. 22 in its efforts to defeat the four proposals. Citizens for Limited Growth has raised about $200,000, three-quarters of which was spent before the campaign in order to qualify Propositions D and J for the ballot.

A fifth growth proposal, calling for an advisory vote on the creation of a Regional Planning and Growth Management Review Board to promote a regional approach to growth issues, also will appear on the countywide ballot as Proposition C. Supervisor Brian Bilbray, the measure’s author, argues that, with cities and the county now independently handling growth matters within their own boundaries, actions taken in one jurisdiction often cancel out those taken in adjoining areas.

Debate Over Building Caps

Throughout the protracted and often acrimonious campaign, much of the discussion has focused on how building caps included in Propositions B and D would affect housing prices and San Diego’s economy.

Proposition B would establish a five-year housing cap of 20,225 units, or 4,045 per year--about 1,000 fewer than the average number of units now being built annually in the unincorporated regions. Under the plan, new development would be tied to the achievement of “quality of life” standards relating to factors such as air and water quality and sewage disposal.

In contrast, Proposition D would impose severe limits on new home construction in the unincorporated areas for the next 22 years, starting at about 2,800 units the first year and gradually scaling down to 1,500 homes by 1991, a figure that would remain in place until the year 2010. That plan also links commercial and industrial development to new housing, with the same percentages of growth being applied to both housing and commercial-industrial construction.

To the building industry, housing caps are about as welcome as an IRS auditor.

“Building caps are not a solution . . . and could even worsen the problem,” said Kim Kilkenny, a spokesman for the Construction Industry Federation. Builders argue that caps not only increase housing costs, but also could exacerbate traffic problems by forcing people to go farther from where they work to find affordable housing.

Escondido City Councilman Jerry Harmon dismisses such predictions as “pure poppycock,” arguing that opponents’ doomsday projections grossly exaggerate the likely effect of even Proposition D’s more severe restriction. The elimination of the housing caps, supporters add, would render both B and D ineffectual.

Duration of Limits

In addition to the debate over the housing limitations--as well as whether the respective caps are either too high or too low--another key point of contention is the difference in the measures’ duration. In particular, Proposition D’s 22-year effective period has been heavily criticized as excessive. Skeptics warn that it would lock the county into growth-control formulas that could prove too rigid to meet unanticipated long-range problems.

“I’m not sure any of us really know what our housing needs are going to be in the 21st Century,” Golding said. “When you’re looking 22 years in the future, I think we have to be concerned that we don’t tie our hands and lose our flexibility.”

Both plans would give community residents a stronger voice in influencing the board’s decisions affecting development in their particular areas. However, as with virtually every major issue in either proposition, there again is widespread disagreement over the precise methods and cost of achieving that goal.

Under Proposition B, neighborhood residents could cast an advisory vote on proposed density increases in an attempt to guide the supervisors’ actions, while Proposition D calls for a binding vote. Backed by a county counsel’s opinion, Golding and other Proposition B supporters contend that any binding land-use vote must be conducted countywide.

If upheld, that legal interpretation would mean that voters throughout the would cast ballots on land-use questions in rural areas such as Crest or Fallbrook--a potentially costly process that also would make it possible for development decisions in one area to be dictated by residents of another.

When Golding reiterated that argument during a television debate last week, Escondido Councilman Harmon rejected it as a “red herring,” contending that binding votes could be conducted within an individual community without the need for a countywide election.

Arguably the hottest point in the debate is the two measures’ costs.

A report prepared for the supervisors last month by a Phoenix-based real estate consulting firm concluded that “implementation of growth controls under either of the two measures would exacerbate the budget pressures already projected . . . for the county.”

“Growth controls would lead to higher land, labor and housing prices as the effects of the measures begin to constrain the development of new housing,” the report by Mountain West said. That, in turn, could damage the county’s attempts to attract business and industrial job-creating developments by making it less competitive with other regions, the report added.

According to the report, the growth measures also would reduce direct county revenues by, among other things, lowering property-tax receipts because of reduced construction and less frequent property turnover, as higher prices would curtail existing homeowners’ mobility. The resulting reductions in population growth would curtail sales taxes, automobile license fees and other revenues allocated by the state, the report said.

Proposition B would cost the county about $2.2 million in 1992, increasing to more than $6.4 million by 1998, the report projected. But Proposition D’s more stringent provisions would, the report said, increase that shortfall geometrically to a projected $138 million by 1992 and nearly $224 million by 1998.

Besides challenging the study’s methodology, Proposition D supporters also have sought to undermine the credibility of the Mountain West findings by noting that the report was commissioned by the county. From their perspective, it is little more self-serving.

Another cost-related question is whether Proposition D would, as opponents claim, require expensive environmental impact statements to be prepared even for minor single-family house projects such as room additions or fence constructions. Proposition D’s supporters characterize that charge as distortion.

Trial by Fire

Amid the flurry of charges and countercharges, perhaps the most candid assessment of the confusing choices facing voters came from Golding aide Trettin. If either or both of the measures pass, he said, “the real facts and answers to a lot of these questions” will become clear only after the supervisors attempt to implement the voters’ decision.

“It’s so complex that, until you actually start implementing things, you have to rely on estimates and projections,” Trettin said. “Even those of us who have spent months looking at this don’t have all the answers now.”

How then can voters, most of whom assuredly have not spent months studying the issue, be expected to make informed, intelligent choices Nov. 8?

The explanations and pro and con arguments of Propositions B and D cover 34 pages of small type in voters’ sample ballot books, much of it written in legalese that even land-use lawyers might find perplexing. No one on either side of the two measures expects many voters to wade through those mind-numbing descriptions.

Mullaney, however, suggested a shortcut that he believes many voters will take to address not only the growth proposals, but also the dizzying array of other local and state propositions on the ballot.

“The average citizen can’t afford to spend a week or day or maybe even an hour trying to understand an issue like this,” Mullaney said. “I think what a lot of people are going to do is just look at who’s sponsoring what. If you think the supervisors have done a good job controlling growth and trust them to continue, you’ll do one thing. If you don’t, you’ll vote another. And, if that happens, I think we’ll be in good shape.”

An unresolved legal question that could extend the debate beyond next week’s election involves what would happen if both Propositions B and D are approved.

Seeking to clarify that situation, Proposition B includes a so-called “killer clause” specifying that, if both it and the Rural Preservation Initiative are passed, the one that receives the most votes would take precedence. Proposition D, however, provides that, if both measures are approved, both will take effect--setting the stage for a court test.

Adding to the confusion is that, while Propositions B and D would apply only to the unincorporated areas, voters throughout the county--including those in the city of San Diego and other incorporated cities--will vote on them because of a quirk in election laws.

That unusual situation, several county supervisors argue, appears to create the potential for an unorthodox form of disenfranchisement, whereby voters in the areas most directly affected by the ballot propositions could have their will overwhelmed by people who live elsewhere.

“Well, so much else is confusing, why shouldn’t that be, too?” Trettin said. “At least it keeps things consistent. Consistently confusing.”