13 Professors Say Voters Misled by Foes of Initiative

Thirteen economics professors who live in Orange County released a letter Saturday that accuses opponents of the countywide slow-growth initiative of manipulating figures to mislead voters.

The economists, six from Cal State Fullerton, six from Cal State Long Beach and one from UC Irvine, stated in their letter that they “object to the misuse of economic statistics in statements made by opponents of Measure A,” the Citizens’ Sensible Growth and Traffic Control Initiative.

“The economic costs of gridlock have never been fully measured,” the letter states, “yet such an assessment is essential to any competent economic evaluation of Measure A. Studies lacking this information and cited by opponents are seriously flawed.”

Criticize Developer Agreements

The letter also criticizes development agreements, in which the county has given developers protection from future changes in county policies. In exchange, the developers must help finance roads and other public facilities.

Development agreements, the economists argued, add to the population, thereby increasing the number of people “who drive on existing roads.”

James Doti, director of the Chapman College Center for Economic Research, helped prepare a study for Orange County officials earlier this year that predicted a range of possible consequences of Measure A, among them a rise in home prices, continued employment growth but at a reduced rate, lost revenue for local governments, and a possible drop in per capita income.

The anti-Measure A campaign, led by a group called Citizens for Traffic Solutions, has cited some of Doti’s figures in its political brochures.

Loss in Costs Cited

Darwin Hall, associate professor at Cal State Long Beach and one of the economists who signed the letter released Saturday, criticized both the Chapman study and others like it, and said the No on A campaign is “misleading voters.”

For example, Hall said, the argument that Measure A would mean lost revenue from property and other taxes ignores the fact that it also would mean a “loss in costs serving the population.”

Doti said Saturday that there is “some validity” to the economists’ claims but that initiative proponents also have misused some economic data and ignore Chapman’s findings that by 1997 per capita income could drop.

“I would urge the voters to look into the analyses of both sides,” Doti said. “I would second these economists’ concern: Be very careful about what you read.”

The letter from the professors, who said they support Measure A, also states:

“Faster economic growth is not an adequate measure of economic well-being. Faster economic growth per person is. All of the available forecasts (including those done for Measure A opponents) conclude that economic growth will continue to be robust in our county if Measure A passes.

“Our economic well-being is not enhanced by simply moving jobs and people to Orange County from elsewhere, resulting in further overcrowding of basic public facilities, including roads.”

Lynn Wessell, campaign manager for Citizens for Traffic Solutions, said Saturday that he finds it suspicious that a group of economists waited until now to say something, considering that the data being used in campaign literature against Measure A has been well-publicized for months. “They simply can’t argue that the initiative will have no harmful economic effects on anyone,” he said. “That’s ludicrous.” Wessell said he stands by the statistics used in his literature because they are quoted from publicly available studies. Officials of Citizens for Traffic Solutions could not be reached for comment.

Besides Darwin Hall, the economists who signed Saturday’s letter are Andrew M. Gill, Jane V. Hall, Vic Brajer, Murray Wolfson, Eric J. Solberg and Stewart Long, all of Cal State Fullerton; I. Lee Skove, Tomotaka Ishimine, Simeon Crowther, Constantine Glezakos and Roy C. Anderson, all of Cal State Long Beach, and Kenneth Small of UC Irvine.