Advertisement

Accusations Fly as 3 Measures to Limit Growth Fail : Burbank: Supporters say the public was misled by their opponents’ campaign. But foes say adequate controls are already in place.

Share via
TIMES STAFF WRITER

The buzz around Burbank City Hall on Wednesday in the aftermath of the municipal election wasn’t so much about who won, but about what lost.

Voters decisively rejected three growth-control measures that had been sponsored by residents and homeowners who contended that rampant development was threatening the city’s neighborhoods.

Supporters of the measures blamed the defeat on an expensive, high-profile campaign by opponents, who, supporters say, released deceptive information about the effects of the proposals. They said the efforts of developers, major film and television studios, and business people misled the public.

“It was a campaign that was run on fear,” said homeowner group leader Carolyn Berlin, one of the sponsors for Measure B, which called for height limits on new commercial buildings. “They frightened people by saying that services would be taken away if the measures passed. Nothing they said was true.”

Advertisement

Leaders of the campaign against the measures denied the accusations and said the resounding defeat showed that voters believe adequate restrictions on development are already in place. They said most residents agreed with the council’s objectives of balancing neighborhood concerns with increased development opportunities.

“The people who were behind those measures put forth a misrepresentation of how the majority of Burbank really feel,” said Mayor Tom Flavin, one of the measures’ major opponents. “Most residents want the city to move forward, not backwards. It’s very clear what the will of the people is.”

The measures rejected by voters were:

* Measure A, which would have put severe restrictions on commercial and residential development.

Advertisement

* Measure B, which was less restrictive than Measure A, but would have put height limits on commercial buildings. It called for development that is compatible with residential areas.

* Measure C, which would have prohibited the sale or lease of surplus school property to private developers.

The Burbank Board of Education, the City Council and other agencies campaigned against Measure C, which they said would have robbed the board of flexibility in dealing with surplus property.

Advertisement

Board member William Abbey, who was forced into a runoff for one of two seats on the board, said the defeat of Measure C helped take the sting out of his disappointing showing.

“This is one big hurdle that I’m glad was defeated,” he said. “It really would have been devastating if that had been approved. It’s one less hurdle to worry about.”

Abbey will compete in the runoff against three other candidates: real estate agent Elena Hubbell, Measure C author S. Michael Stravopoulos and businessman Joe Hooven. With 53% of the vote, former high school football coach Bob Dunivant was elected outright.

At City Hall, political observers were conferring on the disappointing showing of veteran City Council member Mary Lou Howard, who was forced into an April 9 runoff after placing third in a field of 12 candidates vying for two council seats.

Howard received 30% of the vote--behind fellow council member Robert R. Bowne’s 44%, and city Planning Board Chairman George Battey’s 32%. Thomas A. McCauley, an engineering consultant who received 18% of the vote, will also be in the runoff.

Political observers thought that Howard, a 12-year council veteran, would place higher in the final tally. Supporters blamed her low tally on a series of scathing mailers linked to developers unhappy with her growth-control stance.

Advertisement

Battey said Howard’s showing reflected a recent movement by voters who do not want incumbents staying in office too long.

“A lot of voters feel eight years is enough, and if eight years is enough, then 16 years is much too much,” he said.

Howard could not be reached for comment.

Bowne and Battey both say that there are enough restrictions on development. Howard and McCauley say more safeguards are needed to protect neighborhoods.

Advertisement