Court to Hear Appeal to Keep Slow-Growth Issue Off Ballot

The building industry, which appeared to be all but dead in the water this week in its legal battle against the county slow-growth initiative, got another chance Thursday when an appellate court in Santa Ana agreed to hear the builders’ appeal.

In a terse order, the 4th District Court of Appeal scheduled a hearing for Wednesday morning on the high-stakes fight to keep the initiative off the June 7 ballot.

Earlier, a Superior Court judge had rejected arguments by the Building Industry Assn. of Southern California and its allies that the initiative is unconstitutional and conflicts with state law.

Lawyers and officials for the builders group said they were elated Thursday. Some had been privately skeptical of the appeal’s chances. Appellate courts agree to hear just a small percentage of cases and usually limit their considerations to whether the lower court applied the law correctly, according to lawyers in the case.

Statements Filed for Ballot

Meanwhile, the initiative debate continued elsewhere, as supporters, opponents and county officials filed statements Thursday that will be included on sample ballots sent to voters before the election.

County officials are required to file descriptions of the initiative and its impact, but county Auditor Steven E. Lewis concluded that it is impossible to predict precisely the impact of the initiative on county spending and revenues.

“Such analysis is dependent upon the future actions of county government, developers and any court rulings as to the measure’s meaning and intent,” he wrote.

Lewis stated, however, that if passed, the initiative could cause county government additional costs for land-use planning and monitoring, lawsuits, bond financing, police and fire services and flood control projects.

County Counsel Adrian Kuyper was also required to file a legal analysis of the measure. “It is impossible to predict with any certainty the overall effect of this measure on (development) projects,” he wrote. “It can, however, be assumed that unless there are sufficient existing or new facilities or services, there will be a substantial reduction in the amount of development.”

The county’s highest officials, the five supervisors, have criticized the initiative but adopted a neutral official attitude.

“People have been saying that if the initiative passes it will cost billions of dollars,” said Tom Rogers, a prominent backer of the initiative. “These statements show that’s baloney. The auditor has correctly indicated that there are a number of variables extraneous to the initiative that are going to decide what--if any--costs result.”

The sample ballot will also include a brief argument and a rebuttal from both sides. The rebuttals were also filed Thursday.

Sponsors of the initiative said in their rebuttal that opponents “are using scare tactics to attempt to deceive you. They have no facts to support their hysteria.”

“Measure A is a sensible approach to solving the critical problems threatening Orange County,” the rebuttal argued. “The scare stories about economic collapse are based on the absurd idea that Measure A will stop all future development.”

The measure’s foes, members of Citizens for Traffic Solutions, said their original ballot message that the slow-growth proposal would cause more traffic--not less--and that it would increase taxes and hurt the county’s economy.

“There are ways to improve transportation, but Measure A is not it,” their rebuttal said. “Measure A eliminates the source of transportation funding and damages our standard of living.”

The ballot materials with these differing opinions will go to the printer today, but if the appellate court orders them removed from the ballot, that can be done as late as next Friday, two days after the scheduled court hearing, according to the registrar.

If the ballots are printed and the initiative wins, the Building Industry Assn. has asked the appeals court to set aside the election. Polls show that the measure has overwhelming voter support.

The builders group, the county Chamber of Commerce and the Commercial Industrial Development Assn. sued the supervisors when they bowed to public pressure and put the initiative on the ballot.