SAN MARCOS: Initiative's opponents already putting serious money into campaign

Those against slow-growth measure have also hired professional help

By ANDREA MOSS - Staff Writer | Monday, August 4, 2008 6:46 PM PDT ∞

SAN MARCOS ---- A political action committee formed to fight a controversial slow-growth initiative that will be on the November ballot has already spent more than $35,000 and hired professionals with political campaign experience to help with the effort.

Supporters of the San Marcos Growth Management and Neighborhood Protection Act 2007 have yet to launch their own campaign to persuade voters to approve the measure. If it passes, the measure would require any development project that would change the city's general plan to be approved by voters.

One of the two women who led the effort to get the initiative on the ballot said Monday she was not surprised to learn opponents were spending serious money to fight it.

"We know we're going to be competing against deep pockets," said San Marcos resident and chiropractor Cynthia Skovgard, who helped gather signatures to get the measure on the ballot. "We don't have the funds to match that. So we're going to have to depend on people going door-to-door."

Skovgard and other supporters have said the initiative is needed to prevent city officials from overriding the general plan to accommodate projects that residents don't necessarily want. Adopted more than 30 years ago, the plan serves as a guide for future growth and development in San Marcos.

The measure's opponents contend that the plan is outdated and that the proposed initiative would cripple growth and the city's economy by bringing new development to a halt.

The San Marcos Association of Residents and Taxpayers is the first committee to actively campaign for or against the initiative.

Steve Kildoo, a longtime San Marcos resident who currently is chairman of the city's Planning Commission, helped organize the San Marcos Association of Residents and Taxpayers, said Monday the committee is composed of "a really good cross-section" of community members who believe the initiative would be harmful to the city's future.

"They also recognize that controlled, planned and smart growth is all in the community's best interest," said Kildoo, who also is involved in other community activities. "And an initiative that does what Prop. S has done to Escondido creates unintended consequences that are far-reaching and often are hard to discern at the surface."

Kildoo said the group held its first meeting in late July and plans to meet for the second time later this week. At the initial meeting, the group passed out envelopes in hopes of getting donations of varying sizes from a wide variety of sources, he said.

Financial disclosure statements that the group filed last week with the city clerk's office show, however, that a large amount of the group's donations have come from one source: $10,000 from Urban Villages San Marcos. The company is a subsidiary of the development company that has proposed a mix of commercial, retail and residential development called "Heart of the City" near Cal State San Marcos University.

The financial reports also show the committee has spent $13,000 on research polls and surveys and paid $12,076 to longtime San Diego-based political consultant Tom Shepard. Encinitas-based certified public accounting firm Scott & Cronin is overseeing the campaign's finances, though the financial statements do not list any payments to the company, which has also handled finance reporting services for the campaigns of San Diego mayor Jerry Sanders, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other heavy hitters.

When Urban Village San Marcos' contribution is subtracted from the reported expenses, the committee is left with a $26,598 debt, the financial statements show.

Political action committee member Carrie Cleavers, a 56-year San Marcos resident whose father and brother owned and operated their own small development company, said attempts to rein in development can hurt a community.

"There are enough rules, regulations and hoops to jump through, fees to pay, already that will keep away the negative development," she said. "And if you were a developer who was going to invest the time and the money to get through the city's process and then be told, 'Well now you've got to ... see if voters agree with the (city) staff's opinion,' the developer's not going to bother. And we're going to lose the good developments."

Skovgard said she believes the San Marcos Residents and Taxpayers is "a phony group" backed by developers afraid of having to seek voter approval for their projects.

The slow-growth initiative's supporters hope to raise $20,000 to cover the cost of fliers and other materials but have yet to launch their campaign and expect to rely primarily on "people support" to get their own message out, she said.

Skovgard said she believes association members are intimidated by the initiative.

"Otherwise they wouldn't be dumping so much big money into it to defeat us," she said.

Contact staff writer Andrea Moss at (760) 739-6654 or amoss@nctimes.com.

More Stories

Tags: Top NCT News Local San Marcos

Bookmark and Share

Ads by Yahoo!

Advertisement

Pre-Registration Comments[-]Go to Top

Vote NO wrote on Aug 4, 2008 10:53 PM:on the NO Growth initiative this November! Vote NO to those who want SM to be the next Escondido!

--SM

Heavy hitters hired guns... wrote on Aug 5, 2008 6:54 AM:It is not surprising that the developers/consultants/realtors would start something like this. It is similar to when the Unions wanted to stop Wal-Mart and mounted a powerful, well-financed campaign against it. It CERTAINLY is like the SDG & E $300,000 fund for the initiative to stop the Discovery Valley Utility. There were huge amounts of money spent on both campaigns and the same people worked on them. Professionals. We really need to wonder WHY ? This initiative is for the people of San Marcos, to insure that their city doesn't grow haphazardly. It is for us.

Gringo wrote on Aug 5, 2008 7:15 AM:If you like what Jerry Harmon, the anti-progress crowd and Prop S have done for barrio Escondido, you'll love what they'll do to San Marcos.

Resounding YES on Initiative wrote on Aug 5, 2008 7:31 AM:Well, strap yourself in for an ugly albeit transparent professional smear campaign out to vilify the honorable people that put so much effort into getting this worthy Initiative in place on behalf of the Little Guy in San Marcos... I for one think that the Little Guy voter in San Marcos isn't the Fool they're being played for here. I think they'll see full out that the Initiative does not halt development at all. It merely allows the Little Guy to vote on the gross General Plan violations such as SEVEN STORY buildings. If that, for example, is what we're collectively prepared to buy into and live with for the Creek Project. I think the voter will appreciate the real intent....to have a say in how their neighborhoods are going to look when the favorite developer amigos are preparing to pull a fast one on Our General Plan. I'm voting whole hearted YES in November for the Initiative and whole heartedly NO on the reelection of Hal Martin and the (first time) election of Rebecca Jones and I hope you will too.

San Marcos Citizen wrote on Aug 5, 2008 7:48 AM:Of course San Marcos Residents and Taxpayers is a font for developers. Most people moved here not to have it grow into what San Diego has turned into.

At least.. wrote on Aug 5, 2008 8:07 AM:Escondido has a nice downtown, Daley Ranch, many parks and trails. San Marcos makes no sense. Traffic is terrible and there is no downtown. They've cut into the "little"hills that you do have and it's actually a pretty ugly city. I don't live in either city but Escondido has some very beautiful areas on the outskirts of town. San Marcos has zero character and is just full of strip shopping centers and cracker box homes.

RE HH Hired Gun... wrote on Aug 5, 2008 8:35 AM:You say "It is not surprising that the developers/consultants/realtors would start something like this."

Hmm? May we remind you that it WAS the developers/
consultants/ realtors whom forced that
Wal-Mart abomination onto the citizens? Not to mention a(unbelievably)well-financed campaign against the citizens, headed by the Wal-Mart developer, the then council majority and a certain spouse...

We will be supporting this slow growth initiative, for no other reason other than to keep the citizens from having to go through another needless & bloody war, with an out of control city council and the developers whom bought and paid for the council members souls...

Develope This Vote YES wrote on Aug 5, 2008 8:46 AM:IF you like the traffic and all the crap that the " Develpers " have brought to you over the last 25 yrs, let them keep going. In the nest 25yrs you too can be L.A.
Tell me again why Bigger is better? more polution, in air and water? Oh, the water we DON'T have? The resources we don't have?

Develope This Vote YES wrote on Aug 5, 2008 9:06 AM:IF you like the traffic and all the crap that the " Develpers " have brought to you over the last 25 yrs, let them keep going. In the nest 25yrs you too can be L.A.
Tell me again why Bigger is better? more polution, in air and water? Oh, the water we DON'T have? The resources we don't have?
Prop S didn't do anything harmful to Escondido..That city just needs to start tearing down the slums that the developers " developed and dumped" 25 yrs ago and RE-develope.
You can not even drive through San Marcos Now!! SM Blvd Jams up the 78 every day.
lovely , just lovely.

PRETTY TELLING EH wrote on Aug 5, 2008 9:23 AM:I watched with disgust and dismay as the San Marcos Council majority sluffed off any credible explanation for voting in the 333 Palomar Station condos into an industrially zoned area located smack dab next door to a multiple cited EPA violating chemical factory! "Just force them to sign a health waiver at closing and let the buyer beware." What the *+#* kind of government is that?
Any San Marcan that believes for one millisecond that the safety and protection of the citizens or our collective best interest is what these Big Money anti-Initiative backers have first and foremost as their motive only needs to go back to the City website and watch that shameful Palomar Station vote for yourself.
To leave the fate of your neighborhood to the transparent motives of these folks would be to miss an opportunity that you'll always regret.
Heck, in trying to vilify this effort, they've already spent near equal money to what they would of have spent in order to finance a special election for a General Plan variance. Pretty telling eh?
I'm voting "YES" and I hope you will too.

little guy should vote NO wrote on Aug 5, 2008 9:29 AM:Your compairing San Marcos to San Diego and L.A.? What planet do you live on? The City Council, past and present have done a great job for this City and for the people who live here. We can not count on the State for money, we have to make sure the, " little guy ", has money to pay for the great services SM has to offer. This initiative will severly hinder that ability.

Vote NO wrote on Aug 5, 2008 9:59 AM:Supporters think they have the "little guy's best interest" at heart. Well, I am not convinced and am an independent thinker. I have read the initiative and find many flaws, some fatal to solving problems, present and future, for San Marcos.

Am voting no against high and hidden cost of expensive elections and more bureaucratic process. That is not the way to solve problems or do long range planning.

Developers play a role in any community but so does the voter. Let's have a debate on the merits for and against. If supporter and opposing points have merit then the voters will hear.

What doesn't get heard by the voters is the noise of vitrolic attacks, fear campaigns and swearing legitimate businesses and companies? Don't you have something better to offer to San Marcos voters than loud noise? IF SO let's see it.

Not a developer consultant realtor wrote on Aug 5, 2008 10:05 AM:Just a parent/homeowner who wants to see San Marcos develop into a college town like Boulder Co or Athens GA and this initiative will kill that hope.

Sounds like a Yes to me wrote on Aug 5, 2008 11:16 AM:I'm sure the NC Times will be all over supporting this pro-developer proposition. Seems like the supporters have money and resources to work on defeating it. Gee, can't imagine where all that money is coming from! Hope to see the residents win one over the developers this time, but it's a David and Goliath situation, unfortunately.

Silly People wrote on Aug 5, 2008 11:56 AM:When I read this article, I almost fell out of my chair laughing. The issue future growth is serious issue, but The saying, 'two wrongs don't make a right' comes to mind when I see this measure. Using the ballot box to control the city's growth gaurantees San Marcos will stay much the same as it is now. Leaving planning decisions to thousands of uninformed voters who know nothing about the planning process will be a disaster for your city. Remember, the developers are only applying for the permits to build, it is the city staff and council that decide to grant the permit. There are already hundreds of local and state laws that regulate development & zoning in the city. Keep in mind, much of the traffic is due to the thousands of commuters who travel daily through San Marcos streets going east/west & north/south. Some of posters in here cite Escondido as an example for 'responsible' slow growth. I suggest all San Marcos residents study more into Prop S. and see how it really impacted Escondido. Does San Marcos planning require reform? Honestly, I don't know... But I suggest San Marcos residents rely on a different process to check growth in their city rather using than the ballot box.

little guy wrote on Aug 5, 2008 12:26 PM:Not a developer or realtor either...just a citizen who is concerned about the future of San Marcos. I feel I already have a vote...a very powerful vote...on development projects in the city. I vote for the city council...and if I don't like their performance, I'll vote them out of office in the next election. I don't have time or interest in reviewing all the environmental impact studies and other beaurocratic paperwork that's generated by any proposal. And I certainly don't have the background to evaluate all of that on my own. What I do have is a good sense of what is good for the city. And this initiative is not good for the city.
I'm not a developer. I'm not a phony. I'm not voting for the initiative. It's a sham.

All I can say is.... wrote on Aug 5, 2008 2:28 PM:without a Slow Growth Initiative small groups of active San Marcos citizens have had a voice in shaping proposed projects liked Palomar Station, the Los Posas Road Extention and most recently the Ridgeline Initiative. We didn't need a whole city vote requirement to stop the process on these projects, get folks to take a second look and/ or make needed changes. Vote NO on Slow Growth.....it's just one more piece of legal ease proposed by folks who are having a hard time getting over the fact that no one wants them on our City Council.

Welcome Paid Spin Bloggers wrote on Aug 5, 2008 2:53 PM:As you can plainly read here the paid professional bloggers have begun to rear their ugly little "anything for money" heads.
As we roll toward the November 4th election we're going to be inundated with these slogans like "ballot box planning","college town utopia","I'm not a developer," "leave up to the elected officials" (ha!) ....you get my drift.
It's called obfuscation....calculated obfuscation. Confuse them (the voter) to the point where they are so peppered with out and out distortions of the real facts that they vote no out of not knowing what the right thing to do is.
The facts are that the Initiative is VERY GOOD for San Marcos. It is the same Managed Growth Initiative that "utopia" college towns like Boulder, Co. and Athens, Ga. have already in place.
The Initiative does something that our elected officials blatantly failed to do in recent
votes...protect the hardworking citizen from having their established legal planning blueprint....the General Plan....shanghaied a by cabal of "personal friend" developers. A preponderance of evidence indicates that that is in fact our current state. The Initiative lets any development proceed unimpeeded if it follows the General Plan. Therefore, it is not ballot box planning. Rather, it is a prudent check and balance that developers will know that they have to abide by going in. VOTE YES on the Managed Growth Initiative.

Billy wrote on Aug 5, 2008 5:30 PM:To "Silly People:" So you think the people of San Marcos are silly people. Wait until election day and see who is silly. The person who is silly is the person that is paying you to write that citizens of San Marcos are silly. You should give the money back to Rod.
I like San Marcos the way it is - and it is under good control and growing properly. And it will continue to grow under a will planned program that the people will approve.
It is like this - we the citizens of San Marcos have on our side Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison Jr., and all the other founding fathers that signed the Constitution of the United States of America. So go home "silly People" you have wasted enough of your employers money. When I first moved to the area San Marcos had approximately 1400 people, and today it is around 70,000. Does that sound like it is standing still and that planned growth does not work? The people have spoken - go home. I taught the birds to sing, "San Marcos is a pretty little place."

The Fat Cats are at it Again wrote on Aug 12, 2008 8:44 PM:I watched with disgust as the Jim Desmond crowd, a small group of elitist know-it-alls like Desmond himself performed their pre-choreographed lame speeches about how wonderful everything the Desmond administration is doing in San Marcos is and how damaging it would be if the voters approved this initiative that simply requires this radical administration to follow our General Plan as required by State law instead of selling out to every developer who gets special development favors from the Desmond/Martin crowd then pays them off with campaign contributions. There's NO DOWNSIDE for the people of San Marcos to give themselves back a little control over the hideous, outrageously costly (to the San Marcos taxpayer) high traffic, high density developments this council plans to inflict on our neighborhoods. Just remember, the Desmond council says you aren't smart enough to understand the "complicated issues" involved in their screwing up the city. Then there's Hal Martin, who in the face of several thousand registered voters signing the initiative petition to put it on the ballot, bald-facedly brags that he doesn't know ONE PERSON who likes the initiative! Why not just wear a sign on your forehead Hal that says "I only associate with developers and special interests".

Tom wrote on Aug 25, 2008 8:34 AM:The simply realty: Any changes to the General Plan would have to come up to vote this includes “The San Marcos Creek District and the University Heights District” the problem as I see it comes down to investment opportunity. If you were looking to invest large sums of capital in a community, would you look to San Marcos if you knew you would be going through the time, expense of planning, environmental studies, city planning, city engineering, city council, and then leave it up to a ballet at the next election? That to me is the biggest problem, the proponents of the initiative want us to vote on any of these changes. I do not think we will have much to vote on as developers will simply look other places, rather than go through all this time and expense and the “chance “ that it will fly next election. We simply will not know what opportunities we missed. San Marcos Resident.

Registered Comments[-]Go to Top

Advertisement

Videos

Advertisement