A Look at the Voting

Californians may be frustrated with growth and traffic congestion, but they sent no clear signals in Tuesday’s election on how to cope with such problems. They almost indicated a willingness to relax some of the fiscal strictures imposed on state and local government during the past decade. That would have helped deal with these problems. But the voters narrowly rejected the most sensible statewide ballot initiative to do so, Proposition 71.

The major local anti-growth measure, in Orange County, was soundly defeated. Orange County voters properly decided that the way to deal with rapid development is not through vague and confusing voter-imposed controls. But the slow-growth movement in Orange County and elsewhere in California will continue to shadow city, county and state officials as they struggle to find a balance between needed economic development and the maintenance of the amenities known as the California quality of life.

A majority of transportation-spending measures failed to win on Tuesday, apparently including Gov. George Deukmejian’s pet $1-billion bond issue to supplement spending for local streets and roads, freeways and rail-transit projects. The strong vote against Deukmejian’s Proposition 74 cannot be considered a mandate for static transportation spending, however, since the major issue involved was the bonding method of financing. The Legislature can legitimately interpret the outcome as support for the traditional pay-as-you-go form of highway-construction fund-raising, primarily through the gasoline tax.

The transportation tax measures that did pass were linked to specific projects. In San Mateo County it was the plan to extend the Bay Area’s rail-transit system to San Francisco International Airport. In San Benito County it was a highway bypass around traffic bottlenecks in the city of Hollister.

By defeating Proposition 71, the voters seemed to reject the idea of giving legislators and local officials more general latitude in spending tax funds for schools, transportation and various other needs. On the other hand, they easily approved an $800-million state bond issue for school construction and renovation. Given a choice, the voters appeared to be inclined to vote yes if they could envision their vote as directly resulting in bricks and mortar.

And Californians emphatically voiced again their support for the environment by passing a park and wildlands bond issue of $776 million. Proposition 70, which had been rejected by the Legislature but was placed on the ballot by environmental groups, won with a margin of more than 1.5 million votes.

In sum, however, there is no resounding general message from Tuesday’s balloting. Voters can express themselves only by choosing yes or no from among the specific and detailed measures put before them. The responsibility for determining total state needs and providing for them still rests with the governor and the Legislature.

There is no time to be lost. California has grown by 4 million residents during the 1980s. The governor and the Legislature must forge the aggressive, creative and cooperative leadership required to accommodate the population growth and development that is inevitable. If they do that well, and fairly, the people will follow.