Slow-Growth Foes Accused of Trying to Trick Voters

Campaign ads charging that the slow-growth initiative will cost billions, raise taxes and make traffic worse are part of a massive effort to “defraud voters,” backers of the measure said Tuesday.

Stung by a $1.6-million campaign against the initiative funded mostly by developers and builders, Citizens for Sensible Growth and Traffic Control on Tuesday unveiled what they hope will be an effective counterpunch.

They rounded up city council members from San Clemente, Tustin, Irvine, Santa Ana, Garden Grove, Placentia and Mission Viejo who publicly endorsed the slow-growth initiative, listed as Measure A on the June 7 countywide ballot, and strongly criticized what they said were false claims made against it.

Both Sides to File

But while initiative backers said they would file complaints with the district attorney and postal authorities alleging deceptive or false advertising, their opponents were also preparing a complaint to be filed with authorities, claiming that a pro-initiative mailing was false and was not reported properly as an expenditure on behalf of the slow-growth campaign.

John Gregory, spokesman for Citizens for Traffic Solutions, an anti-initiative group, said Tuesday that the organization stands by the figures in its campaign brochures because they came from the only two studies made available so far--one by Chapman College and another by County Administrative Officer Larry Parrish. If other studies contain other information, Gregory said, then the anti-initiative campaign would consider the data and respond.

At a press conference Tuesday in Santa Ana, initiative backers complained that:

- Brochures distributed by Citizens for Traffic Solutions, the prime anti-initiative group, allege that Measure A’s costs could reach $1.4 billion. Actually, Parrish has said that the initiative does not require such public expenditures.

- Anti-initiative brochures also state that people who live in cities (mostly in the north county) could pay 83% of the $1.4 billion, while those who live in the unincorporated area (mostly in the south county) might pay only 17%. Parrish has said there are no mandatory expenditures in the initiative. County officials and city council members at the press conference denied that the cities would be forced to pay for improvements in the south.

- The ads by Citizens for Traffic Solutions report that a Chapman College study shows that the initiative will cost the county 98,792 jobs but fails to mention that the study also says employment levels will continue to grow, only at a slower rate.

- The brochures allege that the initiative proposes that employers restrict hiring of those who live outside the county to 50% of total employment. Actually, backers say, the initiative lists ride-sharing, flexible work schedules and residency among several examples of programs or tools that employers may want to consider in order to meet some of the initiative’s goals.

- The brochures state that large south county landowners will benefit most from the initiative. Actually, initiative backers say, three major south county landowners--the Santa Margarita Co., Irvine Co. and Mission Viejo Co.--have contributed more than $300,000 to Citizens for Traffic Solutions’ anti-initiative campaign.

- An anti-initiative brochure implies that Measure A undermines Proposition 13, the 1978 property tax-reform measure. Initiative supporters say the measure has nothing to do with Proposition 13 but guarantees that the initiative cannot raise property taxes, as opponents claim.

- In its ads, Citizens for Traffic Solutions complains that the initiative will not remove one car from the highways. Initiative supporters say that this is a “straw man” set up by the anti-initiative campaign. Initiative supporters never said the measure would remove cars from existing roads. They say the measure is intended to help prevent traffic from getting worse.

San Clemente Councilman Thomas Lorch said his own city’s experience with a 2-year-old growth-control ordinance containing language similar to that in the countywide initiative proves that the standards contained in Measure A can be achieved.

Irvine Mayor Larry Agran contended that the cost figures in the opposition’s ads are “patently false. There’s no mechanism whatsoever for the county to saddle the cities with the costs of its own neglect. . . . The people who are going to have to clean up this mess are the people who caused it in the first place, namely the greedy development community, acting in concert with a Board of Supervisors that behaves more like lap dogs than like county leaders.”

Agran called the developers “thugs” and said “they have to be held accountable for an out-and-out lie” in claiming that Measure A works to the advantage of large south county landowners.

Slow-growth leader Tom Rogers said he hoped to have 1,000 people going door-to-door distributing pro-Measure A literature by this weekend.

Anti-initiative spokesman Gregory also complained that a pro-Measure A mailing by 42nd Congressional District candidate Andrew Littlefair was deceptive and was not reported properly as an expenditure on behalf of initiative proponents.

Gregory said his group would file a complaint with the district attorney’s office today about the mailing, which he said characterizes Littlefair as one of the 96,000 Orange County residents who signed petitions to get the slow-growth initiative on the ballot.

Gregory said Littlefair is registered to vote in Torrance and thus could not have helped qualify an initiative for a ballot in Orange County, nor can he vote for the measure.

Bob Wolfe, Littlefair’s campaign manager, said that Gregory was “reaching” and that the bills for the mailer have not all come in yet, so the expense has not been reported to the registrar of voters.

Meanwhile, slow-growth advocates accused the Santa Margarita Co. Tuesday of failing to file campaign reports showing the cost of its “Corridors of Commerce” ads as a campaign expenditure.

The ads, which advertise the Rancho Santa Margarita Business Park and three planned transportation corridors, were recently amended to carry a “Vote No on A” message.

Company spokeswoman Diane Gaynor said the firm had received legal advice indicating that it did not have to report the ad costs as a political expenditure.

Assistant Dist. Atty. Michael R. Capizzi said he would not comment on the issue without researching it further.