‘No’ Vote Urged on Propositions D, M : * Builder backpedaling shows hypocrisy behind the ‘growth management’ initiatives

The building industry’s decision to orphan its own supposed growth-management ballot measures had us wondering: Could there be provisions in Propositions D and M that merit voter support of the package?

Nah.

The builders found themselves in a sticky position when the San Diego City Council recently gave tentative approval to citywide impact fees averaging about $1,000 per home for the first year. That’s because Proposition M--the initiative the builders placed on the ballot to ward off a tougher measure then offered by a citizens group--calls for fees as much as twice that amount.

When the industry realized that it could be responsible for locking developers into higher fees, it halted its campaign for Proposition M, and the corresponding measure for county lands, Proposition D.

The builders were gambling that they could persuade the council not to increase the fees in coming years, as planned. The ballot measures would be much harder to amend. The tactic demonstrates the hypocrisy of calling the propositions “comprehensive growth-management” initiatives. If they were even a semblance of that, there would be no reason to shut down the campaign.

Unfortunately, the builders may have already scared the council off. Last week, the council postponed final approval of the fees until Nov. 5.

But, even if the council backs off--and it should not--it would still be a mistake for voters to approve these flawed special interest measures.

In the first place, growth management and traffic mitigation should be the province of the City Council and the county Board of Supervisors. Though we reluctantly supported two slow-growth ballot measures in 1988, we noted that the initiatives were an inflexible, last-ditch method of addressing situations that government had ignored for years.

That is still true today. Despite the home construction bust that the region now finds itself in, we hope that the City Council will find a way to adopt meaningful standards for traffic congestion, air and water quality, mass transit and other critical needs--and institute corresponding controls on growth.

The builders’ plan calls for establishment of facility standards, but then imposes a $2,000 per home cap on the amount of money that could be generated to fund construction of major roads. That would not be enough to build the major arterials needed. And, unlike the tentatively approved city fees, there would be no money for parks, the central library, operations yards or other city and countywide facilities.

More troubling is a provision that apparently exempts almost all development already proposed from the initiatives’ standards.

Proposition D also includes child-care and recycling provisions that are less stringent than already enacted state and city standards, and other elements that are clearly window dressing.

We should all take our cue from the development industry’s decision not to campaign for its initiative.

And the City Council should give final approval to more meaningful citywide impact fees. Even if the slowing economy dictates low fees initially, the council must implement a financial plan that allows the city to start tackling the backlog of unmet needs.

We recommend a No vote on propositions D and M, and a Yes vote by the council on citywide impact fees.