LOCAL ELECTIONS : SAN DIEGO BALLOT MEASURES : Four Propositions Could Change Face of the City

Unlike several high-profile statewide propositions, the highly visible governor’s race and several unusually tough local races, San Diego voters have been hearing relatively little about four city ballot propositions that will be decided Tuesday.

But, despite the low-key campaigns, three of the ballot propositions, if approved, would have a dramatic effect on San Diego.

* Proposition B would amend the City Charter by increasing the number of seats on the City Council to 10, up from the current 8. The proposition was placed on the ballot as part of an agreement that settled a lawsuit brought by the Chicano Federation.

* Proposition C would create a one-time waiver of the four-year minimum between reapportionments. If approved, it would provide a one-time waiver to the City Charter.

* Proposition D would extend a Gann spending-limit waiver passed four years ago. Most observers believe the proposition, which would not raise taxes, is the most important ballot issue facing San Diegans because, without it, the city would be forced to slash spending.

* Proposition E would allow the city to use $25 million in bonds to replace outdated and overloaded communications systems used by the police and fire departments. Most opponents tend to agree that the system is needed, but they argue that the system should have been funded in the upcoming council budget, not through bonds.

Gann Limit Waiver

In theory, voters should have relatively little reason to oppose Proposition D, the Gann spending limit waiver. But, if history is any indication, theory alone won’t help win its battle.

The city’s first attempt at winning a Gann spending limit waiver squeaked by four years ago with just a 510-vote margin, giving the proposition 50.2% of the vote.

“It won very, very narrowly then, and it’s by no means a shoo-in this time,” said Alice B. McCauly, president of the League of Women Voters of San Diego. “It’s most important, given the budget shortfall, that the city be allowed to spend what it’s (legally) allowed to collect.”

McCauly and others have suggested that the low-key local campaign might in part be related to the fact that state Proposition 111 would amend the state constitution to make the waiver formula more responsive to growth and inflation. But “Prop. 111 doesn’t do everything,” McCauly said. “The league still believes you need to (pass) Prop. D.”

San Diego isn’t the only California city bumping up against the Gann barrier. Since the hurdle went up in 1979, 213 cities, counties, school districts and other government agencies have sought waivers, according to statistics collected by the Sacramento-based California Taxpayers Assn. A strong majority of those waiver campaigns were successful, according to the group.

Supporters are quick to argue that the so-called Gann Waiver would not increase taxes. Rather, it would adjust the Gann limit, which, since its inception in 1979, placed a “ceiling” on the amount of tax revenue that the city can spend each fiscal year.

As proposed, the waiver would increase the city’s appropriations ceiling by $273 million beginning July 1, 1992, up from the $592-million limit now in place.

The waiver is needed, proponents argue, because San Diego’s revenue sources, including property taxes, sales taxes and hotel room taxes, are growing faster than the Gann limit, which is determined by a formula based upon the national Consumer Price Index.

Without the waiver, the city will lose an estimated $36 million in general fund revenue during the fiscal year beginning July 1 and $46 million during the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1993, according to Jack D. Farris, a city economist. Estimated losses would jump to $57 million in 1994 and $70 million during the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1995.

That much lost revenue would dramatically harm the city’s already strained general fund, which finances many services, including fire and police, recreation, the library and social services.

No organized opposition to the Gann waiver has surfaced, mainly, proponents said, because the waiver will not increase taxes. For example, no one even bothered to write an argument against the proposition in the registrar of voters’ sample ballot.

The San Diego County Taxpayers Assn., which remained neutral on the Gann waiver vote four years ago, is supporting the proposition, even though “council did what we feared last time, which was take ‘one-time’ money and build it into operations,” said Taxpayers Assn. Executive Director Jim Ryan.

The Taxpayers Assn. would be more comfortable with the waiver if the council were to “specifically earmark (Gann-related funds) for capital projects,” Ryan said.

What has surprised some observers is the low-key campaign being waged to ensure passage of Proposition D.

Supporters of the waiver have created San Diegans for the Gann Waiver, which is being directed by Chris Crotty, most recently a staff member of Councilwoman Linda Bernhardt. But the pro-waiver organization’s campaign chest is woefully low. A fund-raising effort by developer Mike Madigan, a chairman of the Chamber of Commerce’s local government division, has reportedly raised only $2,000 or $3,000.

Although the waiver has won support from all members of the San Diego City Council, individual council members and Mayor Maureen O’Connor have remained “unusually silent” on the issue, according to F.P. Crowell, chairman of the Greater San Diego Chamber of Commerce.

That silence might be golden, according to Wayne Raffesberger, executive director of San Diegans Inc., because too many San Diegans might vote against the limit waiver rather than turn more funds over to a council that “looks silly . . . (because of) flipping and flopping” on recent attempts at raising revenue through ballot measures.

That image “might prompt an anti-council vote rather than a pro-Gann vote,” Raffesberger said. “You could get the opposite vote than you’re trying for.”

Other observers suggested that the council has remained low-key about the Gann waiver because the city will have other chances to win passage if it fails on June 5. The council could decide to place a new proposition on the November ballot, and, if needed, on next June’s ballot.

Bigger City Council

Proposition D isn’t the only low-key campaign.

Proposition B would expand the size of the City Council to 10, up from the current eight which was adopted in 1965, when the total was increased from six.

The Chicano Federation, which won a place for Proposition B on the ballet, has limited funds to conduct a campaign, according to its chairman Jess Haro, a former San Diego councilman.

Consequently, the campaign for Proposition B has been largely limited to mailings and media coverage of the court fight that led to Proposition B being placed on the ballot.

Opponents, including City Councilman Bruce Henderson and the Chamber’s Crowell, are focusing on the simple argument that an increased number of council members will raise the cost of government. “It simply isn’t needed,” Crowell said. “The Chamber is strongly opposed to an expansion.”

Estimates vary on how much it would cost to implement Proposition B. Opponents cite a city manager’s report setting the cost at $2 million a year. But Haro argues that existing council staffs could be cut back to provide funds for the new staff members.

The lure of opponents’ arguments will be powerful, Haro acknowledged. “Any time people say something is going to cost more money, it catches people’s attention. Coupled with that is the fact that the public generally holds public officials in low esteem.”

Haro described Proposition B as a logical step for San Diego, which recently went to district elections for City Council seats and is drawing up new maps for those districts. “It’s not diluting power,” Haro said. “It’s giving more direct representation” to residents who are not well-served by the existing eight council members, he said.

Simple arithmetic, Haro argued, underscores the need for more council members. San Diego’s council members now represent at least 110,000 citizens, Haro said, far more than the 20,000 to 60,000 citizens represented by council members in other cities in the county.

“We’re the exception to rule,” Haro said. “Santee, Encinitas, Poway, National City, they all have not less representation but more representation.”

Proposition B is supported by the League of Women Voters, because “the vast increase in population (since 1965) calls out for better representation,” McCauly said. “The population is getting more and more diverse, and the council should represent that diversity.”

Raffesberger said the council increase might appeal to San Diegans who “see it as an anti-incumbent vote . . . it could be people saying, ‘I’m going to dilute the power of council members,’ ” Raffesberger said. “They could be saying let’s water down what the hell’s going on down there” on council.

Communications

Even opponents tend to agree that Proposition E, which would finance most of a new police and fire communications system, is sorely needed. “We don’t say it isn’t needed,” Ryan said. “But we’re opposed to having pet projects like (a proposed Housing Trust Fund) included in the budget.”

Ryan argued that the police-fire system should be part of the budget and not on the ballot.

“We’re talking about some of the most antiquated equipment you’ve seen,” said Jeff Frazier, a member of the San Diego City Fire Fighters Union’s board of directors, who spent two years working in the existing communications center. “I’ve worked in operations, and I’ve been at some pretty challenging fire incidents, but I’ve never (experienced) as much stress as with the (communications system).”

“The communications system was originally proposed to last through 1983, and then it was updated to last through 1987,” said Proposition E supporter Murray Galinson, chairman of San Diego National Bank. “The question in my mind is just when it’s going to be so antiquated that we’ll have a life-threatening situation and will not be able to respond.”

Reapportionment

Proposition C is perhaps the least understood of the four citywide propositions. It would allow for reapportionment to occur before 1993, if 1990 census figures turn out to be faulty. The proposition calls for a one-time waiver to the City Charter, which calls for the next reapportionment to occur in 1993.

The San Diego County Taxpayers Assn., which is opposing the other city propositions has elected to support C because “it’s not going to increase taxes and it’s not setting anything in motion,” Ryan said.

Haro described Proposition C as a “companion” measure to Proposition B. Although the two are not necessarily tied together, “if the 10-member council is approved, it would have an impact” on how the reapportionment occurs, Haro said.