Surprising Support : Poll Shows City Voters Do Favor Growth Limits

San Diego voters strongly support managed growth but may have been hesitant to approve slow-growth ballot propositions Nov. 8 because they were confused about the measures’ terms and unsure of their repercussions, according to poll results released Monday by San Diego City Manager John Lockwood.

The 603 voters sampled by CIC Research Inc. of San Diego overwhelmingly endorsed protections for environmentally sensitive lands and single-family neighborhoods, and they expressed surprising support for some form of home building cap, the poll showed.

Those provisions were key components of Proposition H, the slow-growth ballot measure sponsored by the San Diego City Council, and Proposition J, which was placed on the ballot by Citizens for Limited Growth. Both measures were soundly defeated in the Nov. 8 election, the apparent victims of a $2.4-million campaign waged against them by the building industry.

Two other measures, Propositions B and D, which would have applied to the county’s unincorporated areas, were also defeated by large margins. Only Proposition C, an advisory measure which calls for a regional approach to growth planning, was approved.

‘Need Something Clear Cut’

“I think there’s a strong indication that there were elements within the (city-backed) proposition that were very agreeable to the people,” said Michael Casinelli, vice president of CIC Research.

“At the same time, I think what voters need is something clear cut as to how that (growth control) is going to be accomplished--not only how it’s going to be accomplished, but something that spells out the repercussions down the road,” Casinelli said.

Casinelli noted that 40% of the voters surveyed admitted that they did not fully understand Proposition H, and 64% relied on direct mail ads--the majority of which came from the building industry--to provide them with information. Of those voters, 41% said that the mailers helped them decide how to vote.

The council members requested the poll Nov. 9 to help them determine whether to enact elements of defeated Proposition H through ordinances. CIC compiled the answers in a telephone poll of city residents who voted on Proposition H, which was conducted between Nov. 18 and Nov. 20. Many of the results carry a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

Still Analyzing Data

With only raw data available Monday, Casinelli had no answer to the most important question on council members’ minds: how many people voted for or against both propositions. He said that he hopes to complete his analysis and provide some recommendations when the council meets in a specially scheduled workshop on growth control Wednesday.

The data was open to wide interpretation Monday by those involved in the bitter battle over growth control.

The poll “confirmed for me the gut feeling from the election that the public has certain things it wants done, but it doesn’t want to deal with this electorally,” said Mac Strobl, who served as a political consultant for the Coalition for a Balanced Environment, which supported Propositions B and H. “They want it done legislatively.”

Richard Carson, an economic adviser to Citizens for Limited Growth, said that “what you can see is the (building industry) successfully sold a pack of lies.”

“Our feeling is that (the poll) is really too inconclusive to comment upon,” said Ben Dillingham, aide to Mayor Maureen O’Connor, who led the council’s effort to place Proposition H on the ballot.

Three building industry representatives could not be reached Monday.

Although the survey results were almost identical to the election results for Propositions H and J, they differed dramatically from the results for Proposition C. That measure passed with 60% of the vote countywide, but CIC’s sample of city voters showed just 40% in favor of it. Casinelli said he had no explanation for the difference.

Worries About Growth

But the survey showed what all recent polls on growth control have revealed: that San Diegans are alarmed by traffic congestion and the disappearance of open space, and want someone to do something about it.

In the CIC poll, 64% supported protections for single-family neighborhoods; 83% would limit building on flood plains, hillsides and wetlands; 82% agreed that new development’s impact on traffic should be the deciding factor in whether it is approved; 90% said that schools, parks, fire stations and other public facilities should be available when housing is built; and 97% supported regional goals on air quality, water supply, sewage treatment, solid waste disposal and transportation.

Perhaps most surprising was the support for home building caps, which many council members said they would abandon after the defeat of Proposition H. In the poll, 46% backed the Proposition H construction limit of about 7,600 homes annually.

More than a fifth of those who did not support that cap said it was too high, which means that 57% of those surveyed backed an annual cap of 7,600 homes or fewer.

Only 23% of those polled said they wanted no housing limits and 14% said the 7,600-home cap was too low.

Clues About Failure

Why then did the measures fail? The poll provides some clues. It showed that 38% believed Proposition H would have restricted their ability to improve or remodel their homes, and 42% said that belief influenced their vote.

In a widely distributed mailer and in television ads, the building industry claimed that Propositions D and J would prevent remodeling, but never made the same claim about Proposition H. However, some of those interviewed Monday speculated that voters did not grasp the distinction between the different measures.

An additional 67% of those polled believed that Proposition H would have caused a loss of jobs, primarily in the construction industry; 72% thought it would have raised home prices, and 65% said it would have raised rents.

In contrast, only 29% believed it would have reduced traffic congestion, and 59% said that home building, housing prices and rents should be determined by market forces, not regulation.