Pro-Growth Group Pulls Back Campaign for Initiatives

In a surprise announcement greeted with skepticism by political opponents, a group backing two building-industry initiatives on next month’s San Diego ballot revealed that it no longer intends to campaign actively for the growth measures.

Friday’s disclosure by the San Diego 2000 Committee that it will not mount a campaign for Propositions D and M was immediately attacked by leaders of a competing slow-growth group as a possible strategic gambit intended to obscure the development industry’s true motives.

“The builders may have realized that this is the best way for them to win,” said Peter Navarro, chairman of Prevent Los Angelization Now. “Every time an issue is linked to them, they attract negative attention. Their optimal strategy is to keep their involvement as quiet as possible. My concern is that this whole thing is a trick.”

However, Gary London, a spokesman for San Diego 2000, disputed Navarro’s theory, saying that his group’s decision simply reflected its inability to wage an active campaign, not a change in heart as to the propositions’ merits.

“We still urge voters to vote yes, but with economic conditions being what they are in the building industry, we realized we couldn’t raise enough money to wage a vigorous campaign,” London said.

Propositions D and M, which will appear on the county and city ballots, respectively, would assess developers new fees to help finance the roads, libraries, parks and other public facilities needed because of their projects.

Less stringent than a growth-management program adopted this week by the San Diego City Council, the citywide proposition has been criticized by environmentalists as an inadequate method of controlling growth, as well as one that would fall far short of raising the funds needed for public facilities linked to future growth.

Even so, many builders regard the proposition’s proposed fees as an ill-advised move that would exacerbate the already severe problems posed by the nationwide economic downturn. And, while builders have strong reservations about the council’s program--in particular, the so-called “citywide impact fees” it establishes to make development “pay its own way”--many prefer it to the ballot measures.

A major reason behind that preference, explained Building Industry Assn. President Julie Dillon, is that the council’s program can be easily amended, while ballot initiatives can only be altered by future propositions--a more cumbersome, costly and lengthy process.

“If the council makes a mistake, as I think it did (this week), you can go back and try to modify that immediately,” Dillon said. “You don’t have that flexibility with an initiative.”