LOCAL ELECTIONS : Growth Measures Give Rise to Perplexing Campaigns

Growth management, a staple of San Diego politics that, under the best of circumstances, is a thorny, complex subject, will be before voters again next month in an election that seems destined to raise the normal confusion surrounding it to new levels.

In a scenario dubbed the “stealth campaign” by one slow-growth advocate, the building industry spent several hundred thousand dollars qualifying two growth initiatives for the city and county ballots, then backed away from the measures.

Adding to the murkiness, while no one is actively campaigning for Propositions D and M, many builders decline to say whether they support or oppose the measures. Typifying most developers’ attitude, one construction industry spokesman said simply: “It would be nice if they just dropped off the ballot.”

Skeptical opponents, meanwhile, have accused developers of cleverly trying to pass the initiatives by distancing themselves from the two propositions, known as the Traffic Control and Comprehensive Growth Management Initiatives. Moreover, with the campaign attracting little public attention, opponents worry that the measures may pass on Nov. 6 simply because of their appealing titles.

“Our biggest fear is that a lot of voters who know nothing about (the propositions) will be swayed just by their nice-sounding names,” said Peter Navarro, chairman of the slow-growth group Prevent Los Angelization Now, or PLAN. “The builders’ best chance for passing these things is to become invisible. They realize they’re the kiss of death for any proposition they publicly support.”

Although overshadowed by Proposition M and its companion measure dealing with county lands, Proposition D, two other growth and open space measures also appear on the city’s ballot. Proposition E asks voters to authorize a $100-million bond for the acquisition or improvement of parks and open space, while Proposition L would amend San Diego’s charter to require public approval of the sale of 80 acres or more of city-owned land.

In the absence of strong opposition to the open-space bond measure and with Proposition L seen as having limited application, the low-profile campaign on Propositions D and M has become this year’s version of San Diego’s almost annual electoral debate over growth management.

Originally envisioned by developers as a safeguard against potentially tougher growth restrictions, the two measures left the construction industry in a peculiar position when those more stringent possibilities failed to materialize either on the ballot or at City Hall.

Indeed, after PLAN decided not to place an initiative on the ballot and the City Council diluted its own growth plan this fall, many developers were chagrined to realize that the two propositions created to protect their interests conceivably could raise, not lower, development expenses.

In particular, builders strongly oppose the propositions’ major component: a so-called transportation impact fee designed to make new development help pay for new major roads, freeways and expansion of the San Diego Trolley. Over the next two decades, the fee--which would be levied on developments both in the city of San Diego and the county’s unincorporated areas--would raise an estimated $643 million.

Under the propositions, those fees would be capped at $200 per “average daily trip” produced by new development, or $2,000 per single-family home. In a paradox that neatly underlines the polarity of San Diego’s growth-management battles, slow-growth advocates dismiss those limits as unrealistically low even as builders lament that they are too high.

The proposed fees, critics complain, would raise only about one-third of the money needed to pay the public costs associated with growth. Builders, though, hasten to note that the fees are almost twice as high as the $1,100-per-home first-year ceiling tentatively approved by the City Council--a cost that could be reduced or even postponed when the city’s growth plan returns to the council for further action next month.

“There’s no doubt the industry could be hurt if D and M pass, because they establish fees that would not be in place otherwise,” said Mike Madigan, senior vice president of Pardee Construction Co., who helped draft the measures that he now opposes.

To Gary London, a spokesman for the San Diego 2000 Committee, the group that sponsored the two ballot measures, that too low-too high dichotomy is proof that the propositions represent more of a compromise than a one-sided, pro-development plan.

“When neither side is entirely happy, maybe that means you’ve found a pretty good middle ground,” said London, an economist who jokingly bills himself as the “one-man campaign” behind the propositions, whose ranks of public supporters have thinned almost weekly.

The measures’ major attributes, London argues, are that they approach growth-management on a regional basis, establish comprehensive planning guidelines in areas ranging from air and water quality to recycling and day-care centers, and require annual reports from public agencies on their progress in meeting those goals.

But opponents, who include environmentalists, the entire county Board of Supervisors and most San Diego City Council members, complain that the propositions do little to strengthen--and could even weaken--the city’s and county’s existing growth-management programs.

Furthermore, critics note that, in most cases, the propositions do not mandate stricter air, water reclamation, recycling or traffic-reduction standards, but rather simply establish goals.

“Basically, this just calls for reports, not implementation, on a lot of apple pie and motherhood issues like air and water quality,” said Supervisor Susan Golding. “The last thing we need is more reports gathering dust. Besides, the initiatives call for less than we’re doing now.”

While conceding that the propositions partly overlap existing programs, supporters argue that their passage could expedite the regional approach to growth management called for in an advisory 1988 ballot proposition. Despite professing support for that concept, local lawmakers have been reluctant to give up their autonomy over development within their individual jurisdictions.

“This would give a good kick in the pants to the city and county, which have done a lot of talking about that but not much else,” said San Marcos Mayor Lee Thibadeau.

Beyond imposing the transportation impact fee, the propositions also would require that public facilities such as fire stations, parks and libraries be in place as new development occurs. But those provisions, too, are riddled with loopholes, thanks to the calculated vagueness of phrases such as “timely construction” and “where feasible” that appear in the propositions’ ballot language.

PLAN’s Navarro, who derisively refers to the propositions’ letter designations as standing for “Deceit” and “Manipulation,” argues that more than 80% of development already proposed would be exempt from the initiatives.

“This is not even an inch forward, but two giant steps backward,” Navarro said. “To call this growth management is one of the bigger frauds we’ve ever seen foisted on the public.”

Reiterating a theme from past growth-management campaigns, opponents also argue that ballot initiatives are a poor mechanism for establishing major growth policy. The defects of one initiative can only be corrected by public approval of another initiative--a costly and time-consuming procedure that severely limits legislative bodies’ flexibility.

“We should place the responsibility for resolving these issues where it belongs--squarely in the laps of those we have elected to represent us,” said University City activist Harry Mathis, another original supporter of the two propositions who now urges their rejection.

Backers of the propositions, however, emphasize that the Board of Supervisors or City Council could modify the measures by a two-thirds vote. “It doesn’t take away legislative latitude,” Thibadeau explained.

In the growth-control plan that it adopted earlier this month, the San Diego City Council scaled back some tougher proposals by, among other things, rejecting a controversial plan to limit future development by linking building permits to strict standards for traffic congestion. The council also agreed to phase in the new citywide impact fees, with the estimated cost per single-family home rising from $1,100 this year to $4,400 by late 1993.

That action was interpreted by some builders as evidence of the council’s heightened sensitivity to how the nationwide economic downturn already is acting as a brake on development. Combined with the fact that the propositions’ fees ultimately could exceed those set by the council, that helps explain why many developers have backed away from the measures.

“It’s a case where time and circumstance have overrun the original intent of the propositions,” said Frank Panarisi, president of the Construction Industry Federation, whose organization has remained officially neutral in the campaign.

Still suspicious of developers’ motives, Navarro argues that builders’ “now-we-support-it, now-we-don’t” stance is ample reason for rejecting Propositions D and M.

“There was no reason to trust them when they put these things on the ballot, and there’s no reason to believe them now when they say they’ve changed their minds,” Navarro said.

There is considerably less disagreement over Proposition E, the proposed $100-million bond issue that, if passed, would enable the city to purchase and improve parks and open space.

Called “an investment in San Diego’s future” by City Councilman Ron Roberts, Proposition E is intended to replenish a $65-million open-space fund that the city’s voters approved in 1978. That now-depleted fund, used to acquire hundreds of acres of open space throughout the city over the past decade, was repaid through franchise fees paid by San Diego Gas & Electric Co. customers.

In contrast, Proposition E, whose supporters have adopted the slogan “Leave Something Green,” would impose a surcharge of $16 per $100,000 of assessed valuation on property taxes for up to 30 years, with the fee gradually declining as the city’s tax base expands.

Of the $100 million raised by the tax, $15 million would be used to acquire land in the San Dieguito River Valley for a planned regional park, and another $15 million would be earmarked for land purchases in the Otay and Tijuana river valleys.

The remaining $70 million would finance park projects throughout the city, particularly in older neighborhoods with limited recreational facilities. A 14-page list of recommendations specifying how the money might be spent includes projects in virtually every community, including property purchases, funds for playground equipment, restrooms and game rooms, and plans to turf over asphalt school fields in communities where open space is lacking.

“It’s a pretty modest request for a pretty important priority,” Roberts said. “If we delay, all that will happen is that costs will rise and more open space will disappear.”

A diverse cross-section of business and interest groups has endorsed Proposition E, including the Sierra Club, various community councils, the San Diego Assn. of Realtors, the Greater San Diego Chamber of Commerce and the San Diego County Taxpayers’ Assn.

The limited criticism of the measure has come largely from members of the San Diego Libertarian Party, who argue that the city should not be assuming a new debt for parks at a time when it cannot afford to hire enough police or meet other higher priorities.

Critics also view the proposed creation of a citywide park assessment district as a means of circumventing Proposition 13’s requirement of a two-thirds public vote for approval of new taxes. In addition, they dismiss the “Santa Claus” list of recommendations as a disingenuous strategic gambit intended simply to attract votes, arguing that it would cost nearly $3 billion to complete all of the projects mentioned.

“It’s the same old story of elected officials coming up with new schemes to get around Prop. 13,” said Libertarian Dick Rider. “Our only hope is that voters don’t get snookered by this phony shopping list.”

The major concern of Proposition E’s proponents, meanwhile, is that the more than dozen state tax proposals and bond measures on the ballot will leave voters in no mood for even a modest local tax increase, particularly in light of the uncertain state of the economy.

“Our biggest worry is that voters might be so angry that they say ‘no’ to everything,” Roberts said.

The remaining growth-related matter on the ballot, Proposition L, would require public approval of any City Council plan to sell or exchange 80-acres-plus parcels of city property. One exception would be the sale of city land to another governmental agency for public use.

Because such sales occur infrequently, the proposal has generated little debate and no organized opposition. Even council members, who often view such proposals as an infringement of their legislative prerogatives, support the proposition, viewing it as protection against ill-advised sales of scarce city property.

“It’s a good check against poor short-range decisions,” Roberts said. “If a sale is such a good thing, voters will approve it. Sometimes it helps to have someone looking over your shoulder.”