Suit Filed Over Ballot Summaries

The leaders of a citizens group sponsoring a slow-growth initiative on the November ballot filed suit Friday in Superior Court seeking changes in the ballot summaries of their own measure and a rival City Council-backed initiative.

In the suit, leaders of Citizens for Limited Growth say the current summaries, drafted by the city attorney’s staff, fail to clearly distinguish between the two initiatives, each of which would set annual building caps for the city.

The vague wording, according to the slow-growth advocates, will confuse voters on Nov. 8 when they try to choose between the two initiatives. And, although some elements are alike, Peter Navarro, an economic adviser to the citizens group, said there are major differences between the proposed measures. He described the city’s Growth Management Element, designated Proposition H, as loosely structured and laden with loopholes.

The petition filed by the group’s attorney, Leo Wilson, calls for a hearing next week in Superior Court to have the two ballot summaries redrafted by the city attorney.

‘Deeply Concerned’

“We’re asking for changes because we’re deeply concerned about the fairness of the ballot,” Navarro said. “We do not want it confused with the weak, loophole-laden city measure. We think we have a better growth-management plan, and we want the voters to know which is which.”

But City Atty. John Witt says the summaries, as written, are legitimate and he sees no need for changes.

“We’re convinced that there is nothing misleading about anything we’ll be putting on the ballot,” Witt said Friday.

The Quality of Life Initiative, sponsored by the citizens group and known as Proposition J, would limit home building in the city to as few as 4,000 homes annually by

1991. The city measure would cap housing starts at 7,590 annually for the next three years.

Both initiatives contain restrictions on home building on hillsides, canyons, wetlands and flood plains.

New Versions Rejected

After the citizens group complained last month about how the original summaries were written, which it said included factual errors, the city attorney’s staff redrafted the summaries and included item-by-item comparisons between the rival measures.

However, when the newly written summaries were presented Monday, the City Council rejected the changes.

Uphold Recommendation

“Basically, what’s going on is that we’re asking the judge to uphold the city attorney’s recommendation to the City Council (changing the description of the city measure), which in the political wisdom of their ways (they) rejected,” said Navarro.

Witt said the new wording was submitted to the council “in an attempt to accommodate” the citizens group. “I’m not saying our new drafts were better than the old ones,” he said. “They were just changes. But, once we submit to the council, it is purely within their discretion to do what they want.”

In the suit filed Friday, however, the group also objects to having the council approve the summaries. The suit questions how council members can approve initiative summaries when the city itself is sponsoring one of the measures.