Slow-Growth Foes Had 20-1 Spending Edge Over Backers

The campaign that came from behind to defeat Orange County’s slow-growth initiative reported Monday that it spent about $2.2 million in its effort, a record for a county ballot measure campaign and more than 20 times as much as the measure’s proponents spent.

John R. Simon, chairman of the Citizens for Traffic Solutions, which opposed Measure A on the June 7 ballot, said only about $150,000 of that total came from outside the development industry.

The three largest contributors to the campaign to defeat Measure A were the Irvine Co., which gave $150,000; the Santa Margarita Co., $130,000, and the Mission Viejo Co., $105,000.

There is no limit on the amount a contributor can give in an initiative campaign.

The campaign’s mandatory financial statement, which was to be filed late Monday night, also confirmed that the opponents mounted a heavy barrage at the very end of the race, said Dana Reed, treasurer for the campaign against the measure. In the last 17 days before the election, they spent more than $1.5 million, about $1 million of which went to hire people for door-to-door canvassing or telephone solicitations.

In stark contrast, proponents of the measure said they spent about $35,000 during the same period.

The financial report from the Citizens for Sensible Growth and Traffic Control, the group behind the initiative effort, will be filed Wednesday, said Gregory A. Hile, one of the group’s leaders.

Hile said he was pressed for time and had not yet completed the report, but he added that it will show the proponents spent only about $100,000 during their entire campaign.

These overall totals mean the campaign against the initiative spent about $8.23 for every “no” vote cast in the election, while the measure’s proponents laid out about 46 cents for every “yes” vote.

Measure Had a Healthy Early Lead

The voters rejected Measure A, by a vote of 266,549 to 212,962. The measure, which had a healthy lead in polls taken early in the spring, would have made new development contingent upon adequate roads and the availability of other public services.

“You can’t communicate with people without spending money,” Simon said Monday. “I’ve said before, voters are entitled to exercise knowledgeable judgment, and they can’t get knowledgeable unless somebody tells them about it.”

Simon said he wished that the development community did not have to bear such an overwhelming portion of the campaign cost, because he said the county’s economy overall would have suffered under the measure.

And Simon said he did not believe that the developers’ large role in the campaign hurt his group’s efforts. He said the developers’ role was well publicized during the campaign and did not seem to deter voters from opposing Measure A.

Hile, however, said flatly Monday that the campaign was one-sided and unfair.

“It’s just another example of developer excess,” he said. “They bought a landslide.”

Hile said, as slow-growth leaders have before, that much of the information disseminated by the campaign against the measure was inaccurate and misleading.

“But we were unable to mount a counterattack,” he said. “They could send any message they wanted . . . and in this case it was just an out-and-out lie.”

Hile said the campaign against the measure was most effective at pitting the north of Orange County against the south.

Since the initiative applied only to unincorporated areas of the county, where most new development is scheduled, opponents argued that those who live in northern cities might be paying for improvements from which they would not benefit.

Another strong pitch from the opponents was the contention that the measure would increase traffic problems rather than relieve them.

To get its messages out, the anti-Measure A campaign tapped four separate temporary personnel agencies for more than $100,000 in the last two weeks, treasurer Reed said.

1,273 People on Payroll

In addition, his campaign had 1,273 people on its own payroll, all of whom were doing door-to-door campaigning and telephone soliciting, he said.

Also, the campaign spent about $400,000 on mail in the last two weeks, although officials said they did not know how many pieces of material that represented.

The financial report also showed that the group opposing Measure A ended its campaign with a debt of about $179,000--$75,000 of which is in loans to the campaign by the William Lyon Co., the Presley Cos. and the Santa Margarita Co.

In 1984, when a countywide 1-cent sales tax for transportation projects was on the ballot, opponents and proponents set the record broken this year when they spent a combined $2 million. That measure was also defeated.

TOP MEASURE A FOES

Listed are some of the biggest contributors to the campaign against Measure A, the slow-growth initiative on the June 7 county ballot:

Company Amount Irvine Co. $150,000 Santa Margarita Co. 130,000 Mission Viejo Co. 105,000 Standard Pacific 65,000 of Orange County Taylor Woodrow Homes 65,000 Shea Homes 52,000 Fieldstone Co. 42,150 Building Industry Assn. 35,000 Presley Cos. 32,000 Warmington Homes 25,000

Source: Citizens for Traffic Solutions