Backers of Slow Growth Challenge Building Assn. Suit to Kill Initiative

Backers of the countywide slow-growth initiative filed court papers Thursday claiming that the Building Industry Assn.’s lawsuit that seeks to keep the measure off the June 7 ballot is based on challengeable assumptions and evidence.

Challengeable materials, the papers assert, include a recent Chapman College study that predicts less job growth and sharply higher housing prices if the initiative should pass.

BIA members may disagree with the initiative, the court filing says, but they must present their views in the proper forum--”the political arena of the June election, rather than the courtroom.”

The slow-growth activists’ response, filed in part by the city of Irvine, includes a scathing attack on the recent Chapman College study.

The written declaration by Berkeley-based urban economics consultant Walter F. Kieser states that the Chapman College study failed to document many key assumptions that went into its economic forecasting model and failed to consider cost savings the initiative might provide through reduced travel times, needed infrastructure and improved public services.

“From an economic, as well as a public policy basis,” Kieser wrote, “it can be argued that that development which cannot meet reasonable infrastructure financing and public service objectives should not occur in any case until such time as reasonable standards can be achieved.

“While the (Chapman) report assumes that any lost development is an adverse economic impact,” Kieser added, “this premise is certainly questionable.”

Among his professional credits, Kieser listed work he has done on general plans for Contra Costa and Santa Cruz counties and several other Northern California counties and cities, as well as Honolulu.

The BIA lawsuit, filed two weeks ago, argues that the initiative is “unconstitutional on its face” because it preempts the lawful decision-making of future boards of supervisors, collides with decision-making powers reserved for the state and, in effect, takes land away from developers without compensation.

Based on such arguments, the lawsuit seeks a court order removing the initiative from the June 7 ballot. County supervisors, after a petition drive netted more than 96,000 signatures in support of the initiative, voted last month to place the initiative on the ballot.

The Board of Supervisors and County Registrar of Voters Donald Tanney, who were named as co-defendants in the lawsuit, filed responses Thursday arguing that they have only done as state law commands whenever an initiative has met the necessary signature requirements for inclusion on an election ballot.

In addition to the city of Irvine, attorneys Belinda Blacketer and Gregory A. Hile filed responses on behalf of Citizens for Sensible Growth and Traffic Control, sponsors of the initiative.

“The key issue is whether the initiative has anything in it that can lawfully be subjected to a vote by the people through an initiative, and we believe we have easily done that. The initiative amends the county’s general plan, and the Supreme Court long ago ruled that such initiatives are proper.”

Blacketer said that the BIA lawsuit is based on arguments about implementation, details of which must be worked out after an election and which cannot be used to deny the public’s right to vote.

James Erickson, an attorney representing the BIA, said he had not read the court papers filed Thursday and could not comment. However, after a cursory glance at the city of Irvine’s arguments, Erickson characterized them as material fit for “Alice in Wonderland.”

Erickson is scheduled to file formal replies with the court by noon Monday.

Superior Court Judge John C. Woolley has scheduled a March 23 hearing on the BIA’s request for a court order barring the registrar from placing the initiative on the ballot.