Court Order to Be Sought on Carlsbad Growth Vote

Firing another salvo in the raging battle over growth in North County, a Carlsbad citizens group announced plans Thursday to seek a court order enacting a growth-control initiative that won a majority of the vote in November but was declared a loser.

Leaders of Concerned Citizens, the organization that sponsored the initiative, said they plan to file their legal action in Vista Superior Court either today or Monday to force the city to implement the slow-growth measure.

The group’s measure, Proposition G, got 51.5% of the vote in the Nov. 4 election, but the City Council refused to enact it because a rival measure, Proposition E, got more votes.

Proposition E, which was backed by the council, included a stipulation that, if both propositions passed, the one receiving the highest number of votes would become law. Under that so-called “killer clause,” Proposition E was the victor with 57.9% of the vote.

But backers of Proposition G maintain that such a killer clause can only be used if the two measures conflict.

They say Proposition G, which would put an annual cap on housing construction, in no way contradicts Proposition E, a measure designed to help insure that city services keep pace with future development.

Thomas Smith, co-chairman of Concerned Citizens and one of two attorneys handling the group’s legal fight, said the two ballot measures “are complementary.” The council’s use of the killer clause to defeat Proposition G has “defrauded the voters of their rights under the initiative process,” Smith said.

“Without judicial authority, the council cannot impede the initiative process,” Smith said. “And without Proposition G being enacted, that’s exactly what they’re doing.”

Carlsbad city officials, however, contend that the two measures are in conflict and that the killer clause is perfectly legitimate.

“I understand they feel deeply about this matter, but the issues were fully understood by citizens in the election,” City Atty. Vincent Biondo said. “Generally, what we do in America after an election is accept the results and get on with business. They don’t seem to want to do that.”

Biondo said city officials spent months before the election drawing up a list of reasons why the two measures conflict. Chief among them, he said, is that Proposition G would slow growth so severely that the public facilities called for under Proposition E could not be built.

“Prop. G would make it impossible to finance any improvements,” Biondo said. “The only way to guarantee facilities is to have reasonable levels of development. You can’t build a million-dollar road if the development through which the road passes can only construct 10 houses a year.”

Slow-growth advocates, however, disagree that Proposition G would curtail housing development enough to stall public improvements. In fact, they have argued that, as growth slows, fewer improvements will be needed.

According to Smith, the killer clause is a “little legal mumbo jumbo by Biondo to knock out” the group’s initiative.

“Our city is in the stranglehold of the building industry,” Smith said, “and come hell or high water, they’re going to try to knock out an initiative that jeopardizes that.”

Moreover, he said, the legal battle with the city could have statewide implications. If the council’s use of the clause is upheld, it could mean city leaders in California could defeat initiatives by expanding the use of such killer clauses, Smith maintained.

Two North County cities, Vista and Oceanside, have slow-growth measures on the ballot in April.

Smith said the city will have 10 days to respond after he files his legal motion for a writ of mandate in court. The attorney said Concerned Citizens decided to seek a court order instead of suing the city because the group hoped it would expedite the effort.

However, Smith said that, if the legal battle drags on too long, he would seek a court order blocking the city from allowing construction of more than the 1,000 dwelling units called for in 1987 under Proposition G.

Proposition G 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.