PLAN’s Political Clout: Real or Imagined? : Politics: The jury is still out on what influence Peter Navarro and his managed-growth group really have. The upcoming council runoff and growth initiative should help to provide an answer.

Buoyed by City Councilman-elect George Stevens’ upset victory last week, the organization Prevent Los Angelization Now is touting its potency as a grass-roots political force and the accuracy of its theme that unmanaged growth is at the root of shortages of critical public services.

The group’s chairman, Peter Navarro, claims that his organization’s campaign support helped counteract Councilman Wes Pratt’s large financial advantage, and that Stevens’ supporters were persuaded, in part, by the message that growth in the city’s northern reaches is sapping funds for police, street-sweeping and other services that inner-city neighborhoods deserve.

“The victory in the 4th District indicates that PLAN has successfully broadened its appeal to include everybody in the city,” Navarro said Monday.

“It’s the right message. Why are there no cops on the street? It’s because all the money’s being sucked out of the general fund to pay for cookie-cutter subdivisions on the I-15 corridor,” he added.

Foes of the organization, many of whom believe that PLAN’s influence is greatly exaggerated, concede that the results of last week’s council elections have made them even more wary of the organization’s ability to attract media attention and public support for the Planned Growth and Taxpayer Relief Initiative on next June’s ballot.

“Any time you have a political organization that has shown the ability to promote ideas the way (Navarro’s) has--however erroneous those ideas may be--you have to be concerned,” said Mac Strobl, a consultant for TCS Governmental Consulting and a plaintiff in a lawsuit aimed at forcing the Planned Growth and Taxpayer Relief Initiative off the ballot.

PLAN’s initiative seeks to force builders to pay what it sees as their share of the services required to accompany new development. It also would prohibit new development if it would reduce the number of police officers per capita or increase the likelihood of water shortages, water rationing or increased water rates.

But PLAN critics dismiss the notion that growth-management issues were a major factor in either Stevens’ 4th District victory or the near victory of previously unknown cancer researcher Valerie Stallings over incumbent Councilman Bruce Henderson in the 6th District. Because a write-in candidate narrowly prevented Stallings from garnering 50% of the vote, a November runoff will determine the representative from that district.

And many doubt that PLAN’s clout, which may have been a factor in a district election in which fewer than 13,000 people voted, can be projected citywide, where a campaign will attempt to reach 200,000 voters or more.

“I think Peter’s stock has risen in his own mind, certainly,” said political consultant Tom Shepard, who ran Stallings’ primary victory over incumbent Henderson. “But whether that translates into any broader support in the community, I doubt it.”

“PLAN is a more potent political force,” said Steve Frates, executive director of the San Diego County Taxpayers’ Assn. “To the extent that they are perceived as influencing those (council) races, sure, they have more influence. I’m not sure that you can translate that success into support for the PLAN initiative.”

Despite media references to Navarro’s increased political clout, there is disagreement over exactly how influential the organization was last week. Even Navarro, who is widely expected to run for mayor alongside his initiative next June, attributes some of the attention to pro-development political consultants sounding warning signals in the hope of landing contracts to fight PLAN’s ballot initiative.

“The people voted for George Stevens,” said Renee Watson, Stevens’ campaign manager. “The people didn’t vote for Peter Navarro or PLAN or anything else.”

For an undisclosed price, PLAN furnished lists of voters divided by various criteria to the Stevens campaign, candidate Rich Grosch’s losing campaign against Councilman Ron Roberts and an independent committee attempting to oust Henderson. The information was used in door-to-door campaigning and telephone banks, said Becky Mann, a PLAN official.

PLAN volunteers helped coordinate Stevens’ Election Day get-out-the-vote effort and helped target and produce Stevens’ mailings, Navarro said. Navarro walked precincts in Oak Park for Stevens. PLAN was one of two paid consultants in the Stevens race, Watson said.

Some PLAN members were part of the 6th District organization “Ban the Bruce,” which was independently aiding Stallings. Navarro said he helped raise money for a last-minute mailer sent to nearly 10,000 homes by Ban the Bruce.

PLAN also endorsed Stevens, Stallings and Grosch, and published a report on the incumbents’ record on growth management.

“I think we leveled the playing field (in Stevens’ race) by providing modern technology for his campaign,” Navarro said. Stevens “let us provide the kind of perspective and expertise that essentially allowed him to run a campaign that was every bit as effective as one that was run with big money.”

Pratt’s campaign had more than four times as much money as Stevens’, according to campaign finance reports.

Does that mean that PLAN is a growing force in city politics, as some have suggested?

“If people want to give us credit, that’s fine,” Navarro said. “If they don’t, that’s fine too. I think we were players, in terms of providing additional information and elevating the debate, and I personally worked very hard on one race.”

Navarro called the 6th District race a referendum on Henderson. But he added that “more people signed the PLAN initiative than voted in these last council races. And more people contributed to the the PLAN initiative than contributed to all the candidates in these council races.”

But a large chunk of PLAN’s funds come from labor unions and Navarro’s mother.

Analysts, including PLAN foes who are in the early stages of mobilizing what they hope will be a broad coalition of builders and business interests against the initiative, say the election had little to do with growth management. In Stevens’ district, violent crime and an unpopular reapportionment of some neighborhoods made the difference, they said.

“I don’t think PLAN made a big difference because PLAN’s issues are not a big deal in this district,” said Jennifer Adams-Brooks, Pratt’s aide and campaign manager. “Any pollster will will tell you that.”

“Voters were responding to disaffection with their representation,” said Michael Shames, chairman of the Sierra Club’s political committee, which threw volunteer support behind Stallings. “They felt that the City Council was becoming a laughing stock of sorts, and the politicians that caused it needed to be removed.”

Regardless of who is correct, all sides acknowledge that PLAN’s potential impact is vast because its message that growth is the root of the city’s difficulties is sexy, simple and faces a yes-or-no test in June, if legal action does not force it off the ballot.

“Perception is 90% of reality,” Strobl said. “He wants to foster the belief that his issue, the PLAN initiative, is the predominant issue on the minds of the people of San Diego.”

“If the City Council continues to fail to act on growth management between now and June . . . the building industry has plenty to worry about,” Shepard said.

The Henderson-Stallings runoff, which some believe will be a bitter face-off between development and business interests on Henderson’s side, and environmental and managed growth forces on Stallings’ behalf, may provide a glimpse at the future. PLAN is expected to work harder for Ban the Bruce.

The ultimate test will wait until June. “We’ll get a better read on PLAN’s political potency if the PLAN initiative comes up before the public for a vote, and if Peter Navarro runs for mayor,” Frates said. “If PLAN can pull that off, I’ll say they’re a major political power in this town.”