Reform Urged in Local Ballot Initiatives : Burbank: Report cites the $31 per vote spent to defeat Measures A and B.

For some longtime activists and residents in Burbank, a new report on financing ballot measures confirms what they have suspected all along--that city campaigns are dominated, if not controlled, by big-spending entertainment and aerospace industries.

But the industries and their supporters question the report’s methodology and attribute their success in past campaigns to the political and economic climate of the city--not the money of big business.

The report, to be released today by the California Commission on Campaign Financing, says Burbank’s entertainment and aerospace industries spent more than $657,000--nearly $31 per vote--to defeat two slow-growth initiatives on the 1991 ballot, nearly twice the amount spent on the most costly statewide initiative campaign in California history.

The report cites the defeat of Measures A and B as an example of the huge contributions made by businesses in local initiative campaigns in Los Angeles County, and of the need to reform the initiative process.

Although the report examines 40 ballot measures in 20 cities, it cites the Burbank case as one of the more dramatic examples of large contributions made by businesses.

“Local initiative campaigns spend hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to influence voters,” said commission Co-Chairman Rocco C. Siciliano. “Yet in many cases, the voters do not know who is funding the slick television ads or mailers which flood our mailboxes.”

According to the report, the National Broadcasting Co., Warner Bros., and Walt Disney Co. each contributed more than $170,000 to defeat Measures A and B. Lockheed Corp. contributed about $107,000. To defeat Measure A alone, the industry-backed opposition outspent the measure’s supporters 130 to 1.

The disparity in spending was well known in the aftermath of the Burbank election, but the new report, for the first time, compares the spending in those races with ballot measures in other cities and statewide.

“It substantiates what we knew but were helpless to fight against,” said Ted McConkey, a longtime community activist who backed Measure B.

While Burbank’s leading business interests spent $31 per vote, only $16 per vote was spent in 1988 by proponents of the statewide Proposition 104, the no-fault insurance initiative.

Robert M. Stern, co-director of the group that produced the report, conceded that comparing Burbank’s electorate, less than 46,000 registered voters in 1991, with the entire state’s voting population is a “little bit of apples and oranges.” Nonetheless, the comparison is instructive, he said.

For the $31 per head that opponents spent on campaign mailers and other activities, Stern said, they could have taken most of the city’s voters out to dinner at “a very nice restaurant” and explained their objections face-to-face.

The report’s findings seemed to evoke little more than a knowing nod from some activists and residents in Burbank who have long suspected that the industries played a major role in the 1991 campaign and previous local campaigns.

“It’s not surprising,” said Carolyn Berlin, a homeowner activist who co-wrote Measure B. “They ran a masterful campaign and defeated both measures, there’s no question about it. But it took a lot of money.”

McConkey said supporters of the initiative were “overwhelmed by money that we could not compete against.”

“They had mailer after mailer,” he said. “They used every trick in the book to beat us.”

McConkey called the pattern of contribution an “egregious situation,” one that should cause alarm among those who understand the real intent of the initiative process.

For Dave Golonski, who wrote Measure A, the problem was not that a large amount of money was spent to oppose the measures but that the money was used to present misinformation and “create a climate of fear.”

Golonski, Berlin and McConkey argued that the groups opposed to the measures launched a well-financed campaign that cast both measures as no-growth versus slow-growth, and misstated the effect the measures would have on the city. The measures’ supporters lacked the resources to successfully counter the attacks.

But Thomas Flavin, a Burbank city councilman who was mayor in 1991 and opposed the measures, said they were defeated because residents realized they would drive studios away and threaten the city’s economy.

Still reeling from the announcement that Lockheed would soon close its doors--taking 15,000 jobs with it--residents were worried about the future of the city’s economy. Not only did they vote against the measures, but they voted against the council candidates who supported them, Flavin said.

“That Lockheed announcement was the single . . . reason those measures were defeated,” he said.

Although the campaigns were financed by business, “there were a lot of everyday people in the community who live there, who have no affiliation to the studios who were organized in opposition to these measures.”

Councilman Michael Hastings said the money spent by the media companies during the campaign helped to educate voters about the relationship between the city’s services and revenues generated by business.

“The voters needed to understand the depth and the importance of revenues generated by businesses in Burbank,” Hastings said. “Had we shut the door on them we would have lost not only our existing base of industry, but our opportunity to use them as an enhancement to bring other businesses to Burbank.”

Alan Epstein, vice president of Disney Development Co., said his firm spent heavily against the two measures because the company was concerned that they would derail a planned $600-million expansion of the studio.

“There was a tremendous amount at stake--our ability to continue to grow in our hometown,” Epstein said.

Most of those interviewed said they did not expect the report alone to bring any real change in local campaign financing, but at least one sees the study as a grim indicator of the current state of politics in Burbank.

“When the opposition has deep pockets in an election, unless the issue is so supercharged that you can overcome that kind of financing, you might as well save yourself the trouble because you’re going to be frustrated and you’re going to lose,” McConkey said.

“And that is the tragedy, because the initiative process is designed to do just the opposite.”

BACKGROUND

Burbank business interests spent about $31 per vote when they successfully campaigned against two city slow-growth measures in 1991. Measure A, rejected by 77% of the voters, would have placed specific annual limits on major commercial development and the construction of multiple-unit residential buildings. Measure B, rejected by 66% of the voters, would have placed height limits on commercial buildings and called for development compatible with residential areas.

Campaign Spending Opponents of two slow-growth initiatives in Burbank, Measures A and B, outspent supporters by a huge margin. Critics say the disparity reflects the influence of business over the city’s affairs. Top Opponents of Measures A and B (Donations of $1,000 or more, combined spending against both measures) National Broadcasting Co. (NBC): $177,059 Warner Bros.: $173,701 Walt Disney Co.: $171,877 Lockheed Corp.: $107,228 Affiliated Property: $6,277 Others: $20,962 Total: $657,104 Top Supporters of Measure B (Donations of $1,000 or more) Carolyn Berlin: $13,013 Burbank Rancho Homeowners: $3,675 Michael L. Scandiffio: $3,351 Michael Staviopolis, M.D.: $1,440 Others: $5,551 Total: $27,030 Source: California Commission on Campaign Financing *No individual donated more than $1,000 to support Measure A.