Penny Wise, Pound Foolish and Proud : ‘I don’t like to use the word <i> pessimistic</i> . But . . . I don’t see this sense of family, of community, of helping one another. And I’m worried.’

The terms bleeding-heart liberal and Republican are thought to be mutually exclusive. So let the record show that Elena Hubbell, board president of the Burbank Unified School District, is not a bleeding-heart liberal. “I tend to be very, very conservative,” she says.

I called Hubbell in search of perspective on the voters’ rejection last Tuesday of the state’s $2-billion earthquake-relief bond measure. Instead of applying bandages to Los Angeles’ wounds, the voters looked the other way. Hubbell knows something about disappointment. She campaigned hard for a $100-million school bond in April that managed to win only 53% of the vote, falling far short of the two-thirds required for passage.

Hubbell says she likes to think of herself as an optimist. However . . .

“I’m very worried. I don’t like to use the word pessimistic . But I’m very worried about the trend. . . . I don’t see this sense of family, of community, of helping one another. And I’m worried.”

You weren’t expecting anything upbeat, were you?

*

“Eureka!” is, at least officially, California’s motto. It means: “I have found it!” My dictionary reports that this exclamation was “supposedly uttered by Archimedes when he discovered a way to determine the purity of gold by applying the principle of specific gravity.” It seemed an apt motto for the Golden State, the promised land coveted by so many generations of newcomers.

Having already agreed on an unofficial state bird (the angry motorist’s middle finger), it seems appropriate, after Tuesday’s electoral aftershock, that Californians now come up with an unofficial but more honest state motto. “I Don’t Like to Use the Word Pessimistic , but I’m Very Worried” may be a bit unwieldy. So here are a few other possibilities for your consideration:

--”If It’s Broke, Don’t Fix It!”

--”It’s Not My Problem!”

--”We’ve Lost It!”

On second thought, let’s make that “We’re Losing It!” because I also try to avoid pessimism.

Still, it’s hard to be optimistic, especially after a conversation with Gary Squier, general manager of the city’s Housing Department.

Like Gov. Wilson, Squier expected that Californians were concerned enough about Los Angeles’ latest catastrophe to back the quake-relief program to address problems that the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Small Business Administration won’t cover. But instead of accepting loan applications this week, Squier is trying to figure out how to avoid the perpetuation or creation of neighborhoods that might be considered quake slums, because of the inability to repair condemned or damaged buildings.

The loan program would have helped reconstruct nearly 20,000 apartment units damaged in the quake, as well as another 18,000 apartment units and thousands of houses at risk of abandonment because owners can’t afford quake repairs. Some people think the private market, and not government, should settle the fate of these buildings. But the time it takes for banks and builders to react, Squier explains, allows blight to fester, attracting looters and gangs. What once were homes become venues for drug dealing and prostitution.

“So you end up with housing stock which is next to worthless, and is a real blight on the community,” he says. “The blight is scattered throughout the Valley, and Hollywood, and other parts of L.A.”

Why didn’t the bond succeed? Squier suspects that most Californians, perhaps even most Angelenos, are unaware of the problem. “I think it failed because the damages are hidden. If I could have taken the voters on a tour of our ghost towns, it might be different. But of course that’s not feasible.”

There are other theories. With the freeways up and running and billions of dollars in aid coming from the feds, voters may have figured that enough has already been done. The historic rural-versus-urban split is probably exacerbated by antipathy toward big, bad Los Angeles. And Squier wonders whether people aren’t just a bit inured to catastrophe, given America’s recent bouts with quakes, fire, floods, hurricane.

And, of course, nobody likes government and taxes. A possible exception would be for the construction of more prisons.

*

These are all reasons for worry. Hubbell, the anti-pessimist, clings to the notion that if we invest in quality education we may not have to invest so much in prisons. Squier, the housing official, makes the reasonable suggestion that slum prevention is also in the public interest.

As Hubbell reflects on Tuesday’s election, she can’t help but think of the comments she heard last April, when Burbank voted down its school bond measure.

“You know what I see?” she asks. “I see a lot of, ‘If it doesn’t affect me, I can’t be too concerned about it.’ . . . I heard a lot of comments like, ‘Well, I’ve already raised my kids.’ Or, ‘My kids go to private school--what do I care?’ ”

All of this has been said before and will be said again. In the meantime, state officials may try to push through another sales tax increase to help with quake recovery. In Burbank, meanwhile, a new community coalition is studying the school’s financial crisis.

Everything should work out fine, Hubbell the optimist says, “if they find a tree that’s growing $100 bills.”

Scott Harris’ column appears Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays. Readers may write to Harris at the Times Valley Edition, 20000 Prairie St., Chatsworth, Calif. 91311.