Ballot Pros and Cons Filed on Slow Growth

On their June 7 election ballots, Orange County voters will read that a slow-growth initiative would make the county’s traffic mess “worse, not better.”

A few paragraphs away, they also will read that the initiative would provide “an incentive for balanced growth.”

These arguments from opponents and supporters of the measure were filed Monday with the county registrar of voters, who approved them for inclusion on the primary election ballot should the initiative survive a legal challenge set for Wednesday.

Under state election law, opponents and supporters of initiatives get a last chance to make their case on the ballot itself in less than 300 words apiece.

No Surprises

There were no surprises in the filings. The arguments were quick summaries of points made many times previously in debates and speeches.

Arguments for the initiative were filed by Tom Rogers, Belinda Blacketer and Norman Grossman, all members of Citizens for Sensible Growth and leaders of the movement.

Opposition arguments were drafted by lawyer John R. Simon, treasurer of Citizens for Traffic Solutions, a group formed recently in the business community to fight the initiative. The filings also were signed by the presidents of the Orange County Chamber of Commerce, the Industrial League of Orange County and union leader Robert Balgenorth, executive secretary of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Orange County.

County supervisors have the first right to file arguments, Simon said, but they declined and the business group stepped in.

Supporters wrote in their filing that the initiative is needed because “bumper-to-bumper traffic has reached intolerable levels.” Adding to the problem, “already approved and projected development will create further imbalance between the circulation system and development.”

The initiative requires “simply that new development pay for itself,” supporters said. New development would be permitted when developers expand the street system in unincorporated areas “so that traffic gets no worse, and, in some cases, actually improves.”

Supporters sum up their arguments by saying that the measure “returns control of the county to the citizens. The measure protects and maintains your qualify of life without jeopardizing the county’s economic vitality. . . . This is our last chance.”

Opponents, however, said in their filing that the initiative would aggravate traffic problems and “jeopardize” up to $416 million in road funds.

Under the initiative, “there will be no new money to fix the traffic mess,” the group wrote, resulting in tax increases for county residents.

The measure would “damage our Orange County economy,” they said, and would “drive up rents and curtail the housing supply.”

In summary, the group wrote that the initiative “fails to meet its advertised goals. It will make traffic worse. And it will damage the quality of life for all of us.”

Rogers, one of the leading supporters of the initiative, said the business group’s arguments were “asinine” and the group was “deliberately trying to deceive the public.”

But Simon, who drafted the arguments, said the initiative was legally flawed and couldn’t live up to the claims supporters made for it.

“They’ve never told the truth about the proposition,” he contended.