Money, Planning Issues Are on Lawndale Ballot

Lawndale voters on Tuesday will decide four ballot measures that focus on major city financial and planning issues.

One measure deals with the use of federal or other outside funds to build public facilities in Lawndale. The other three address a controversy over the city’s General Plan and ask whether it should be subjected to voter approval.

Measure K would allow the City Council to spend federal or other outside funding for public facilities costing more than $1 million without a popular vote. Under a 1988 initiative, the council cannot do so without submitting the plan to the voters.

Because of an oversight, the City Council missed the deadline for filing ballot arguments on all four measures, which they had placed on the ballot in August. An impartial analysis of each measure, written by City Atty. David J. Aleshire, will be presented on the ballot, as well as arguments opposing the measures.

The spending measure was proposed by Councilwoman Carol Norman, who said it is needed so the city can meet the typically short deadlines required to apply for federal funds. If a popular vote is required, it would take so long that the city would miss out, she said.

Councilman Harold E. Hofmann and city activists Nancy J. Marthens, Steve Mino, Virginia Rhodes and Herman Weinstein oppose Measure K because they want voter control over all spending in excess of $1 million.

The three other measures, H, J and G, are intended to resolve confusion over Ordinance 82, which the City Council adopted in 1963 in response to a citywide petition drive. The law required the city to seek voter approval for the General Plan, which governs all zoning and development in Lawndale.

A 1974 state attorney general’s opinion said Ordinance 82 was unconstitutional, so the council adopted the current General Plan in 1976 without a citywide vote. However, in a second opinion last December, the attorney general’s office reviewed the 1974 opinion and found it erroneous.

The reversal raised the question of whether Lawndale has a valid General Plan, because it was not adopted by the electorate as required in Ordinance 82.

To resolve the quagmire, Aleshire drafted three measures for the November ballot:

* Measure H would ask voters whether they want to repeal Ordinance 82. If they approve Measure H, the power to approve the General Plan would rest with the City Council and the current General Plan would remain in effect. If the voters reject Measure H, the existing General Plan, and future ones, would have to be submitted to a citywide vote.

* Measure J would revise Ordinance 82--which requires voter approval of major amendments to the General Plan--by defining “major amendments.” It would permit the council to adopt “minor” amendments.

* Measure G would ask voters to approve the 1976 General Plan to forestall any possible legal challenges based on the fact that it had not been submitted to the voters. If voters reject Measure H, Measure G would become the referendum on the General Plan called for in Ordinance 82.

The City Council placed G, H and J on the ballot. City Manager Jim Arnold said the council should have control of the General Plan, because it is too difficult for the public to vote on such an involved and lengthy document.

Marthens, one of the city activists who seeks the defeat of all three General Plan issues, said the measures are meant to confuse voters, nullify Ordinance 82 and take away the voters’ control over the General Plan. She favors revising the 1976 General Plan, which is out of date, and says the changes should be subjected to voter approval.

The activist said she has also unsuccessfully urged the council to include on the ballot measure a deadline for updating the 1976 plan to ensure that the city would proceed speedily with its revision.

The city is preparing an update of the General Plan, which could run 300 to 800 pages. Arnold said the process could take between nine and 15 months to complete.