Measure A Foes Call for Cost Study : Santa Clarita: USC researchers asked to predict the economic effect of slow-growth measure.

The debate over a Santa Clarita growth-control measure has been a war of words so far, albeit harsh ones.

But opponents of the measure are about to unsheathe what they hope will be an even more potent weapon: statistics.

The Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of Commerce has commissioned a USC research team to do a $20,000 study of the economic effects of the initiative. Called Measure A, it would restrict to 475 the number of new housing units approved each year in the city for the next 10 years.

The business group plans to use the results of the study next month in its campaign against the measure, which will appear on the April 14 ballot, in hopes that numbers will make a stronger statement than words.

But slow-growth proponents and some academicians are already criticizing the methodology of the study, saying it fails to weigh the benefits of the growth cap against the costs.

The USC study, scheduled to be completed March 8, is being conducted by the same research team that predicted severe economic consequences in a study of Pasadena’s 1989 growth-control measure. Unlike Measure A, the Pasadena ordinance established caps on both residential and commercial development for 10 years.

Chamber members said they chose the USC Planning Institute because of its reputation for impartiality, but acknowledged that they are hoping the results will bolster their viewpoint.

“We’re looking for information that verifies our belief that the measure would have an extremely detrimental impact,” said Marlee Lauffer, a spokeswoman for Newhall Land & Farming Co. and a member of the chamber committee that selected USC to conduct the study.

Judging from the Pasadena study, the Santa Clarita study is likely to more than fulfill opponents’ hopes.

The Pasadena ordinance, passed by voters in 1989, allows only 250 housing units each year and 250,000 square feet of non-residential floor space, with some exceptions. Using a computer-generated forecasting model to analyze the effects of the measure, the USC team predicted growth control-related losses by 1999 of nearly $2 billion to the regional economy and up to 47,480 jobs in Pasadena.

The cap on commercial development would have a much more severe effect than the limits on housing construction, according to the study. But at least $37 million would be lost in property taxes, mortgage payments and other items, it said.

The Pasadena study helped opponents win a settlement in a lawsuit they filed against the city challenging the legality of the measure, said Caroline H. Carlburg, the attorney representing the local Chamber of Commerce, a branch of the Los Angeles Urban League and the other plaintiffs.

Under terms of the settlement, the city of Pasadena agreed last year to put the measure to a second vote in November and to adopt a new blueprint for development, known as a general plan.

“Measures like the one in Pasadena appeal to a sense of nostalgia, fear and insecurity,” Carlburg said. “It’s very seductive to think you can pull up the drawbridge. That’s why we needed proof” of the economic costs.

But slow-growth proponents and some academicians say such studies are not fair assessments because they do not evaluate the benefits of growth caps as well as the costs.

“We’d be happy to see a credible study,” but it would have to evaluate the measure’s role in reducing school crowding, for instance, said John Drew, a political science professor at College of the Canyons and a co-author of the Santa Clarita measure.

“It’s a narrow, partial perspective, strictly an economic analysis,” said David Dowall, chairman of UC Berkeley’s department of city and regional planning. “There are social criteria as well, but of course, it’s much harder to put a dollar figure on the things like a possible reduction in traffic.”

The head of the USC team concedes that the Santa Clarita study will be somewhat limited, partly because of the short period of time researchers have to prepare it.

Peter Gordon, a USC professor of economics and urban planning, also acknowledged that like many economists, he generally believes in government incentives, not mandates.

But Gordon defended his methodology, saying that while “there is no pretense that what we have is the final answer . . . knowing what the tab is will help voters make an informed decision.”

Marc Aronson, a member of the chamber that commissioned the study, said the group is primarily interested in the measure’s effect on business so that it can rally support among local shop owners, real estate agents and factory owners.

“A lot of business owners don’t even know what the initiative is,” he said. “But they will after this study.”