SAN DIEGO COUNTY ELECTIONS : Carlsbad’s 2 Anti-Growth Votes Leave Dilemma

CARLSBAD —  Saying enough is enough, a majority of voters here have thrown their support behind two competing growth-related ballot measures that sprouted from discontent over the city’s development boom.

Nonetheless, after the final votes were tallied early Wednesday, it remained unclear exactly what changes were in store for Carlsbad.

Both of the initiatives, Propositions E and G, got more than 50% of the vote Tuesday. Under the wording of Proposition E, however, the measure receiving the greatest number of votes prevails. That means E, which garnered 57.9% of the vote to 51.5% for Proposition G, is the winner.

But hold everything.

Backers of Proposition G, a tougher slow-growth measure supported by two citizens groups, insist that both initiatives should become law since each won a majority vote. If necessary, pro-G forces say, they will file a lawsuit challenging the so-called “killer clause” in Proposition E.

“Many citizens voted for both propositions, therefore they wanted both,” said Anthony Skotnicki, a Proposition G booster. “And I think they should have both.”

Under state law, if two ballot initiatives are in conflict with one another, the one with the most votes wins. But as Skotnicki and his allies see it, their slow-growth measure is perfectly compatible with Proposition E, a council-backed option that seeks to keep public services apace with future development. Proposition G puts a tough cap on the number of dwelling units that could be built in Carlsbad.

“If they want to go ahead and file a lawsuit, well, OK,” said Mayor Mary Casler, a staunch Proposition E advocate. “And of course we will accept the court’s opinion. But we feel (the killer clause) is legal.”

Despite the threat of a lawsuit, Casler and other backers of Proposition E were basking in victory Wednesday. As they see it, the vote was affirmation that Carlsbad residents feel that the council is moving in the right direction on the growth issue.

Even members of the development industry, which poured more than $100,000 into the fight against both initiatives, seemed relieved that Proposition E had prevailed.

Larry Clemens, a vice president with HPI development company, said most builders saw Proposition E as “the lesser of two evils” primarily because it would not limit the number of building permits issued each year. Doug Avis, president of the Carlsbad Community Builders Assn., agreed.

“I think the electorate recognized that the solution to the existing problem is with facilities planning, not with simply slowing down growth,” Avis said.

Backers of G, however, said voters were befuddled by the two competing initiatives. They charged that supporters of the council-backed ballot measure--as well as the development community--spread misinformation about Proposition G that tended to confuse rather than inform the populace.

“I think there was a tremendous amount of confusion generated by the blitz of publicity in the last few weeks of the campaign,” said Councilman Mark Pettine, a Proposition G backer.

“I think there were $100,000 worth of lies, distortions and disinformation, all of it calculated and purposeful,” said Anne Mauch, a backer of the slow-growth measure.

Casler countered that “there could be accusations made on both sides” of the growth debate about distortions and mistruths.

Besides giving both initiatives a majority vote, residents overwhelmingly elected longtime Councilman Claude (Bud) Lewis, for years a voice of moderation on a pro-growth council, to replace the retiring Casler as mayor. Lewis got 62% of the vote against his lone rival, former Councilman Bob Prescott.

In addition, slow-growth Councilman Mark Pettine was returned to office for a second term, garnering a hefty 29% of the vote in a crowded field of 11 candidates.

John Mamaux, a former school board member, took the second council seat with nearly 18% of the vote, besting slow-growth candidates Albert Mendoza and Lois Humphreys, who got 11.3% and 10.3%, respectively.

Two other propositions on the ballot failed. Proposition F, which recommended spending about $6 million to purchase a eucalyptus forest endangered by development, got more than 64% of the vote, but failed to reach the required two-thirds threshold. Proposition H, a measure advocating construction of a $3.5-million sports complex, got 46% of the vote.