SEAL BEACH : Mola-Backed Group Outspent Foes, 20-1

A committee sponsored by the Mola Development Corp. outspent its opponent by about 20 to 1 in a bitterly fought election concerning the future of the Hellman Ranch property, according to finance statements filed this week.

Seal Beach Citizens for Parks, Open Space and Responsible Government spent $278,832 in an unsuccessful effort to persuade residents to vote June 4 for a 329-unit housing development.

Seal Beach Citizens United spent $13,892 in its campaign against the project and for an alternative plan featuring open space, parks, a golf course and commercial development on a narrow strip of the 149-acre property.

Voters rejected both proposals--the Mola plan by a 25% margin and its rival by 17%.

The financial information about the two groups is contained in state-mandated campaign finance reports filed with the city clerk’s office.

The Mola-backed group received $228,681 in contributions and ended up $85,618 in debt, the reports said.

Most of the contributions, $187,000, came from Mola, which has fought for the project for years and has sued the city for the right to build it.

Most of the contributions to Seal Beach Citizens United were $100 or less, with $300 the largest gift in the reporting from May 19 through June 30. Total contributions were $14,112, and the foes ended up with $359 in debts.

The Mola-backed group’s campaign was more expensive and elaborate than that of its opponents and featured a professional consultant, videos left at doorsteps, neighborhood teas and myriad campaign mailers.

Mola was criticized by residents who said the company was trying to “buy an election” with its money, but Eileen Padberg, consultant for the Mola-sponsored group, said the outcome of the election had nothing to do with money.

“It has to do with the attitude in Seal Beach,” she said. “This is a no-growth city, indicated by the defeat of both measures, one calling for houses and the other calling for commercial development.”

Some said Mola’s plan was rejected because voters were confused by the rival measures. But others declared the outcome a victory for open space, noting that the alternate measure was also defeated.