Bias Puts Voter Flyer on Hold in Carlsbad

The San Diego County district attorney has advised Carlsbad city officials that a voter-education pamphlet outlining two competing growth-control initiatives probably violates the law by using language favorable to the council-backed measure.

In a two-page letter released Friday, Deputy Dist. Atty. James Hamilton said the pamphlet could be viewed as biased because it fails to sufficiently detail arguments of a citizens’ coalition sponsoring a second initiative on the ballot.

After receiving the letter, City Atty. Vincent Biondo ordered distribution of the pamphlet--scheduled for Friday--delayed until the City Council can meet to discuss the matter, probably during its regularly scheduled meeting next Tuesday.

The pamphlet, which was to be mailed to nearly 16,000 households in Carlsbad, had become the focus of intense controversy in recent weeks. Leaders of the grass-roots movement supporting a slow-growth initiative--Proposition G on the Nov. 4 ballot--complained that the four-page pamphlet favored a competing measure sponsored by the City Council, Proposition E.

“This was a propaganda effort by the city to manipulate the voters,” said Nelson Aldridge, co-chairman of Concerned Citizens, one of two citizen groups backing Proposition G. “It was biased and inaccurate.”

The brochure, which also includes information on two other measures on the November ballot in Carlsbad, is presented in a question-and-answer format. The pamphlet was produced as part of a $14,800 public-education program the council approved for the upcoming election.

Earlier this week, Biondo forwarded a letter detailing the group’s concerns to the district attorney and asked for an opinion. On Friday, Hamilton’s letter arrived at City Hall.

Noting that he was able to give the matter only “a quick analysis,” Hamilton said the pamphlet “clearly violated the spirit and probably violates the letter of the principles” set down in a key state Supreme Court decision on city-sponsored public-education programs.

“As we understand those principles, they require that ‘informational’ material provided by a public agency regarding a ballot measure constitute a ‘fair presentation of facts’ concerning the ballot measure or measures in question,” Hamilton said.

“In our opinion, with no prior knowledge of the contents of either Proposition E or Proposition G, the pamphlet, viewed as a whole and considering its tenor and timing, clearly suggests a ‘yes’ vote on Proposition E and a ‘no’ vote on Proposition G, even though it does not expressly advocate either.”

As an example, Hamilton pointed to the last question and answer for each of the growth propositions. In each case, the question attempts to address the legality of the propositions. While both opponents and supporters are quoted in Proposition E, only opponents’ arguments are cited in the answer for Proposition G.

With that sort of unequal treatment, Hamilton said, “it is difficult to see how the pamphlet in and of itself could possibly pass judicial approval as an impartial analysis.”

Hamilton concludes by suggesting that the problem could be rectified by including the counter-arguments of Proposition G proponents on a printed insert in the taxpayer-financed mailing.

City officials were reluctant to speculate on what steps they will take or if the pamphlet will be withheld permanently.

Mayor Mary Casler said she had not made up her mind on the matter, but stressed that she feels it is vital that the pamphlet be distributed in some form, either rewritten and reprinted or with an extra sheet detailing opponents’ concerns.

“Obviously, since the district attorney made his comment we’ll have to do something,” Casler said. “Whether it will be reprinted, I don’t know.”

Proposition G supporters, however, stressed that they feel the best move by the council would be to drop the pamphlet altogether.

“The ball’s in their court right now,” said Tom Smith, an attorney and co-chairman of Concerned Citizens. “If they issue that thing, we’re going to keep on them. This all amounts to a conspiracy by city officials to take the election away from us.”

The brouhaha over the pamphlet is the latest in the long-running feud over the two growth measures.

Proposition G would enact a cap on the number of homes that could be built in Carlsbad each year. It proposes that 1,000 residential dwelling units be built in the city during 1987, 750 units in 1988 and 500 each year thereafter through 1996. At that time, the measure would appear again on the ballot, giving voters the option of extending it for five years.

As an alternative, a majority of the City Council has pushed Proposition E. Instead of controlling the rate of growth, the measure would help keep city services apace with future development, backers claim. In addition, Proposition E mandates a limit of 54,599 housing units in the city, meaning Carlsbad’s population would top out at about 135,000 people. Finally, the council-backed measure stipulates that, if both propositions pass, the one receiving the highest number of votes will become law.