Transit Planners Misled by Light Rail Foes, 2 Charge

By BOB POOL

May 13, 1988 12 AM PT

<i> Times Staff Writer </i>

Two new surveys show that leaders of two homeowner groups “defrauded” transportation planners by falsely claiming that residents are adamantly opposed to a San Fernando Valley light rail line, trolley supporters charged Thursday.

Homeowner opposition to a Valley light rail system was cited as the primary reason by the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission when it voted Nov. 18 to cease consideration of Valley trolley routes.

The 8-1 vote halted a $1.6-million study of five potential cross-Valley light-rail routes and cleared the way for transit planners to allocate Valley trolley funding to other projects in the county.

But informal surveys of members of the Woodland Hills Homeowners Organization and Homeowners of Encino show that most support light rail--despite what presidents of both groups say, former directors of both associations charged.

November’s light-rail opposition was organized by a loose coalition of homeowner groups headed by Gordon Murley, president of Woodland Hills Homeowners Organization, and Gerald Silver, president of Homeowners of Encino.

Told Truth, Leaders Say

Murley and Silver have contended that their anti-trolley coalition accurately reflected the views of their homeowner associations.

But a postcard poll of the Woodland Hills group suggested that more than 80% of the members support light rail, said former association secretary Roger Stanard.

Stanard--who was ousted from the board last month after being accused of misusing an association membership list for his survey--said 183 of 440 cards had been returned by Thursday. Of them, 148 favored light rail, 27 opposed it and 8 were undecided.

“My survey shows that Woodland Hills homeowners are most supportive of light rail,” Stanard said Thursday. “The proof is now in that the transportation commission was defrauded.”

In Encino, a telephone survey of 40 of Homeowner of Encino’s 121 member families showed that “98% recognized the need for light rail,” said Lyn Hayes, former transportation committee chairman for the group.

Hayes said she resigned from the Encino association’s board after Silver rejected the survey results. She said the association had commissioned her to conduct the survey last fall and approved the wording of questions in advance.

Hayes said her survey proves that agencies and politicians should view stated positions of homeowner associations with skepticism. They should “absolutely demand” proof that a group’s position accurately reflects the views of its members, she said.

Murley and Silver disputed the contentions, however. Both questioned the validity of the membership polls.

“Her telephone survey was obviously biased and did not reflect the findings that we have found,” Silver said Thursday. “It didn’t prove anything.”

Silver said his group believes “light rail is not the answer” to the Valley’s transportation problems. “It may be part of the answer . . . those who have taken time to analyze it see that light rail is only one of the solutions and must be geared to growth control.”

Murley said his group did not support any of the five suggested light rail routes because of concerns about commuter parking and the potential ridership of the cross-Valley route.

“Uninformed people will send cards back,” Murley said of Stanard’s poll. “You can make any survey say what you want if you write the survey correctly.”

Stanard “misused the membership mailing list without permission, “ Murley said. “There may be litigation pending.”