Expensive Victory for Business : Propositions: About $57 million was spent by companies and agricultural interests on Tuesday’s initiatives.
California’s business community claimed a decisive victory Wednesday as almost every ballot proposition on its hit list was defeated and Republican Sen. Pete Wilson headed for the governor’s mansion.
But there was anger--at the initiative process, over the estimated $57 million spent on it and the time devoted to it.
Despite business wins over the “Big Green” and “Forests Forever” environmental initiatives and a move to boost alcohol taxes, doubts remained about voters’ views of industry.
Although business escaped this time--through luck, voter irritation with new taxes and fears about recession or businesses’ skill in using the initiative process--many fear that the issues confronted Tuesday will return.
And although there was talk Wednesday of changing the initiative process, many businesses said they must focus on solving problems raised in Tuesday’s elections or risk having solutions thrust upon them by others.
Any celebrating was tempered.
“I almost drank champagne for breakfast this morning--champagne without sulfites, by the way,” said Jeffrey L. Hilgert, president of Chico-based Duckback Industries, which makes spas and redwood gazebos,
Kirk West, president of the California Chamber of Commerce, which was active in the fight to defeat Proposition 128, the “Big Green” initiative aimed at cleaning up the environment, said: “We’re, of course, very pleased. This election was a difficult situation for the business community.”
William Campbell, a former state senator who now heads the California Manufacturers Assn., observed: “From the business standpoint, I think the election turned out very well. There was a great fear in the business community that some of the movement toward massive environmental invasion into the private sector would somehow put us into the position of moving business out of California.”
Although California Farm Bureau President Bob Vice declared on election night that he was jubilant about the defeat of Proposition 128, there was little celebrating Wednesday in Fresno, the nation’s richest farm county.
Because the Big Green initiative, and Proposition 135, its agriculture-sponsored counterpart, failed, the election had no immediate economic impact on the state’s $17.5-billion farm industry.
But the agriculture industry spent more than $5 million in its abortive effort to pass Proposition 135, which many farmers consider a steep price for a partial victory. The Proposition 128 opposition raised an estimated $10 million, largely from chemical companies, in a sister effort.
Thomas L. Thomsen, a cotton, tomato and wheat grower from western Fresno County, saw no reason to gloat the day after Big Green died on the vine: “I don’t say it was a win really (for agriculture). I think people were just scared of Big Green. . . . There are no signs of agriculture being safe by any means.”
Gill-net fishermen were glum Wednesday in the wake of passage of Proposition 132, which bans use of monofilament gill nets, starting in 1994, within three miles of the Southern California coast.
“Fishermen are kind of despondent now,” said Joe Cracchiolo, president of the Los Angeles Commercial Fishermens Assn. He estimated that as many as half of the 100 boats affected could be put out of business.
Rob Ross, director of the California Fisheries & Seafood Institute, said the trade group will try to challenge Proposition 132 in court.
Some political observers warned the business community not to be too quick to pat itself on the back for its victories.
Business, historically, has done well in the political arena when the economy is slipping, as it is now, said David Vogel, a UC Berkeley business professor who is an expert on business and politics.
“My general sense,” he said, “is that the public’s enthusiasm for placing restrictions on business . . . was limited by their lack of confidence in the economy.”
The message sent to business Tuesday was “get your act together,” said Larry L. Berg, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC.
“My biggest concern,” he said, “is that the business community not misread” Tuesday’s vote, wrongly assuming that the public is unconcerned about improving the environment or controlling pesticides. “They shouldn’t take any comfort from this. It’s a warning shot across the bow.”
Some business people and industry groups already talked of preemptive strikes to protect themselves by reforming the initiative process or dealing with the issues raised by the ballot propositions.
“I think there’s a growing feeling that the initiatives have gotten out of control,” said Ray Remy, president of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. The business community would be interested in supporting a plan to “make initiatives more responsive and accountable,” he said.
“Businesses and politicians don’t have the backbone to deal with the initiative process, and voters have already told them how they’re going to deal with it” by rejecting most of the 29 propositions Tuesday, political analyst Berg said.
The timber initiatives, indeed, may force companies to be more responsive, said David Galitz, a spokesman for Pacific Lumber, a logging company that has served as a lightning rod for environmentalists because of its plans to cut old-growth redwoods. “The small, the large, all of the timberland owners in California have to respond to the concerns of the public,” he said.
Ken Gibson, state Department of Commerce director, expects to see more discussion of a proposal--suggested during the campaign by gubernatorial candidate Wilson--to create a state version of the federal Environmental Protection Agency. It would encompass all concerns about the state’s environmental rules.
“It isn’t that business says it doesn’t want to be regulated,” he said, adding, “it wants to regulated in a more coherent fashion.”
Agriculture interests have expressed dislike for the state EPA plan. Still, there is opportunity in the proposal, especially if agriculture helps to shape it, said Robert Shuler, an agricultural lawyer, lobbyist and an author of Proposition 135.
Many business people said they believe that they haven’t seen the last of these issues. As John Noland, crop finance manager at Buttonwillow Ginning Co., said: “We’ve slowed (environmentalists) down. They’re coming back.”
Times staff writers Maria L. La Ganga and Michael Parrish contributed to this story. La Ganga reported from Fresno, Parrish from Los Angeles.
THE ELECTION TALLY FOR BUSINESS
DEFEATED: 126 ALCOHOL TAXES (industry-supported) & 134 ALCOHOL SURTAX
The alcoholic beverage industry collected almost $23 million-$1.6 million to pass Proposition 126 and $21.3 million to defeat Proposition 134.
DEFEATED: 130 FOREST ACQUISITION TIMBER HARVESTING & 138 TIMBER HARVESTING
The timber industry contributed almost $10 million to oppose Proposition 130 and to promote Proposition 138. Louisiana-Pacific alone gave about $1.6 million to the campaigns. Other major contributors included Sierra Pacific, Simpson Paper., Pacific Lumber Co. and Georgia-Pacific Corp.
DEFEATED: 128 ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC HEALTH & 135 PESTICIDE REGULATION
The chemical, oil and agriculture industries collected between $11 million and $12 million to defeat Proposition 128, with many of the same firms contributing $5.5 million more to support their countermeasure, Proposition 135. Arco gave the most to oppose Proposition 128, donating $825,000, according to the measure’s proponents. Other opponents included Chevron ($818,000), Shell ($605,000), Dow Chemical ($593,000), Monsanto ($428,000) and Philip Morris also gave $2.6 million to support Proposition 136.
PASSED: 132 MARINE RESOURCES
The measure which prohibits fishermen from using gill nets in a 3-mile limit in Southern California waters, was opposed by the commercial fishing industry. the industry spent only about $50,000, compared with about $500,000 by pro-132 forces, a California Fisheries & Seafood institute spokesman said.
PASSED: 139 PRISON INMATE LABOR
This measure encountered opposition from organized labor, which argued that prisoners would displace workers and aggravate high unemployment rates among minority youth. Businesses will receive tax breaks for participating in the program.
Compiled by Times Researcher MELANIE PICKETT
