Sales Tax Hike’s Backers to Stress Benefits to Drivers

Anaheim residents can expect letters in the next few weeks--signed by some of their neighbors or civic leaders--describing plans to widen Katella Avenue and Harbor Boulevard, repair Brookhurst Street and build a grade crossing where Ball Road passes the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks.

In San Clemente, letters signed by that community’s activists may highlight plans to resurface Avenida Calafia, widen Avenida Pico and improve a freeway on-ramp.

And in other communities throughout Orange County, voters will begin to receive mailers this week describing how their neighborhoods may benefit if on Nov. 7 they approve Measure M, which would increase the county’s sales tax from 6 to 6.5 cents in order to raise $3.1 billion specifically for transportation improvements.

The mailers will mark the emergence of the million-dollar campaign for Measure M. And the goal of what is expected to be a low-key campaign is to deliver a personalized message, conveyed in a sort of neighbor-to-neighbor chitchat: how the trip from your driveway to your job or grocery store can be made a little easier. And how your everyday life might be different if this sales tax is passed.

“The whole campaign is tied to three words: benefits, benefits and benefits, “ said Alan Hoffenblum, campaign manager for Measure M, which has been projected to cost the average county consumer an extra $50 to $75 a year. “It is our belief that people will not vote for a tax increase unless they can see what they will get for themselves.”

The strategy to pass a tax increase in fiscally conservative Orange County is a lesson in the soft sell. It is tiptoeing to Election Day, hoping not to stir the forces that overwhelmingly defeated the last attempt to raise the sales tax in Orange County in 1984.

Campaign officials say that in the three weeks left before the election, they do not plan to use any radio, television or billboard advertising. Rather, they will concentrate on a sophisticated, state-of-the-art direct mail pitch.

Meanwhile, the opponents of Measure M, who are expected to be vastly outspent, are hoping to defeat the sales-tax increase with claims that developers will be the beneficiaries, and citing as evidence the million-dollar-plus campaign financed largely by developer contributions.

Many of the opponents--still a small and relatively unorganized group--are slow-growth activists and environmentalists who were part of a coalition behind last year’s countywide slow-growth measure, which was defeated. They include slow-growth activist Russ Burkett of San Juan Capistrano and council members from Laguna Beach and Newport Beach.

But the slow-growth coalition is split on Measure M. Some of its leaders--most notably Tom Rogers--have endorsed Measure M, and some were even involved in writing its language.

Measure M now includes a requirement that every city adopt a growth-management plan to make future development contingent on adequate roads. And it would create a citizens oversight committee that would monitor how the sales tax revenue is spent.

As a result, the compromise measure has drawn a list of supporters that is most unusual in Orange County politics.

It includes such slow-growth advocates as Rogers and Norm Grossman; development company executives, such as the Irvine Co.’s Jack Flannagan; Bob Balgenorth, a labor leader with the Building Trades Council; the Democratic Foundation, chaired by Audrey Redfern, which is helping with a get-out-the-vote effort; Bruce Nestande, a member of the state Transportation Commission, and John Simon, chairman of Citizens for Traffic Solutions, which helped defeat the slow-growth measure in June, 1988.

“I have not joined the other side,” Rogers said recently of his support for Measure M. “But I have to say, we got more than we thought (in growth-management language in the measure). Every city would have to adopt a growth-management plan. And we could never have done that by initiative.”

Nestande, chairman of the Measure M campaign, added: “I think the fact the plan has the support it has speaks for itself. If this plan had a flaw, a major deficiency, you would not see this support. These are very independent people.”

The campaign is largely underwritten by developers. The last finance disclosure statement on Sept. 30 showed that the proponents had raised and spent almost $800,000. That included individual contributions of more than $25,000 from such development firms as Buie Corp., Fieldstone Co., J.M. Peters Co., Koll Co., Santa Margarita Co., Shea Homes, the William Lyon Co. and Woodcrest Development Inc.

In 1984, the unsuccessful campaign for a 1-cent sales-tax increase--which was also intended for transportation improvements--raised about $1.8 million, largely from developers.

Proponents say the biggest mistake they made in 1984 was asking for a tax increase without showing how it would be spent. This time, the $3.1 billion that the tax is expected to generate over the next 20 years is detailed in an inch-thick spending plan that includes road maintenance and the construction of new roads, widening major roads as well as freeways, and planning for future commuter trains.

With that in mind, the campaign’s pitch will include the personalized message about improvements in each voter’s neighborhood as well as the protections built into the measure for those who distrust government--the citizen oversight committee and the growth-management requirement.

Dislike for Politicians

Part of the campaign’s strategy, in fact, is to exploit the public’s basic dislike for politicians by emphasizing in literature that the measure was “written by Orange County citizens . . . not politicians.”

Actually, the measure originally was drafted by the Orange County Transportation Commission, negotiated with the county’s League of Cities, then modified by a citizens commission.

But elected officials who support the measure--including all five Orange County supervisors--are keeping a relatively low profile in the campaign.

“They’re not being played down, but they’re not being played up,” said campaign manager Hoffenblum. “This is not a political plan; it is a citizens plan.”

But some of the supervisors do not like the anti-politician pitch.

“I don’t see why that has to be part of the issue,” Board of Supervisors Chairman Thomas F. Riley said. “If you keep telling a story long enough, it becomes believable.”

In addition to the campaign message, the key to the race may be how many voters will turn out for an off-year election in which Measure M will be the only entry on the ballot in many areas of the county. Turnout is expected to be low--30% of the registered voters or less, which Measure M proponents fear worsens their chances.

Polls done by the campaign for Measure M have shown that voters favor the tax, 62% to 29%. However, a Times Orange County Poll released in early July showed that Measure M was favored by 48% of those surveyed and opposed by 46%, down from 54% favorable rating in a 1988 poll. With a margin of error of 4%, pollster Mark Baldassare, who conducted both polls for the Times Orange County Edition, indicated that the measure’s chance of passage was far from certain.

Measure M campaign officials are more optimistic--provided the turnout is good.

“If everybody turned out, we get 62% of the vote,” Hoffenblum said. “My own personal opinion is that if we get a very low turnout, we could do very poorly.”

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that only 900 polling places will be open in this election, contrasted with 2,200 for a normal election-year ballot. It means that many people will have to go farther out of their way if they want to vote.

For that reason, Hoffenblum said, the campaign plans to emphasize absentee voting so that voters can cast ballots by mail.

The prospect of a low turnout has given even greater significance to the planned direct-mail campaign targeting those most likely to vote.

“If only 30% of the voters are going to participate, you don’t want to waste money talking to all of the voters,” said Paul Ambrosino, a direct-mail consultant in San Francisco. “It’s better to communicate repeatedly with the 30%.”

Ambrosino said computer lists can identify those most likely to vote by searching the public records of an individual’s voting pattern--how often they vote; do they vote only in a presidential year; a normal election year or do they vote every time.

“It isn’t difficult at all,” he said. “Voter files available from different vendors have all of this information, and it’s simply a matter of researching, then targeting and tailoring.”

They can also tailor that direct mail to address the specific area concerns of local voters.

Said Hoffenblum: “People want to know what specific benefit they are going to receive, and you can’t do that on a 60-second radio spot or on TV. We’re trying to do a neighbor-to-neighbor campaign. People will get letters from someone they know, someone they trust.”

WHAT MEASURE M WOULD PAY FOR

Measure M, the proposed half-cent sales tax for transportation projects, would raise $3.1 billion over 20 years. Measure M designates which projects would be undertaken with passage, including:

* Ten-year-earlier completion of Santa Ana Freeway widening from the San Diego Freeway interchange in Irvine to the San Gabriel River Freeway in Los Angeles County.

* Rebuilding the interchange of the Santa Ana and San Diego freeways, known as the El Toro “Y.”

* Adding lanes to Interstate 5 in South County, the Riverside Freeway throughout the Orange County, the Orange Freeway from Diamond Bar to the Santa Ana Freeway, and adding lanes to the Costa Mesa Freeway between the Riverside and Santa Ana freeways.

* Building a 220-mile network of “super streets,” using Orange County’s 21 busiest streets.

* Expanding Los Angeles-to-San Diego rail service, planning commuter train service between Riverside and Irvine and studying additional train service elsewhere.

* Coordinating traffic signals throughout the county.

* Requiring every city and the county to adopt comprehensive growth management plans to link traffic relief with future development.

* Creating a citizens’ oversight committee to monitor agencies’ compliance with the ballot measure.

Most of the added freeway lanes would be reserved for buses and car pools. Freeway projects would total $1.325 billion; street and road improvements would be $650 million; transit projects--including rail--$775 million, and regional projects such as “super streets” and signal coordination would get $350 million. If Measure M passes with more than 50% of the vote, county officials intend to use bonds to finance an early start of many projects.