In Contrast “YES ON A” Campaign Relies on Local Sources, Grassroots Support
As of February 7th, the Building Industry Association’s campaign organized to defeat the Measure A citizen’s initiative has brought in more than $1.3 million in contributions. According to data provided by the San Diego County Registrar of Voters, the vast majority of these come from the real estate lobby, developers and building industry trade associations. About $400,000 came from out-of-state groups based in Chicago, Arizona, Texas and New York.
“The source of these contributions is no surprise to our campaign, since a vote of Yes on Measure A is designed to give voters a voice in an attempt to curb the outsized influence of developers over San Diego County’s land use decisions,” said Susan Baldwin, president of San Diegans for Managed Growth and a key volunteer with the Yes on A campaign.
This chart demonstrates the heavy influence of industry groups in the effort to defeat Measure A:
Specifically, contributions to the No on Measure A campaign include:
- $395,070 from local developers, including two that have housing development projects in the pipeline that require changes to the General Plan in order to be built;
- $350,000 from the National Association of Realtors;
- $320,000 from the California Association of Realtors; and
- $145,000 from the Building Industry Association.
In contrast, the Yes on A campaign raised just over $191,000 as of February 7th, with all contributions coming from local sources. Contributions to the Yes on Measure A campaign include:
- $87,076 from individuals;
- $101,200 from conservation organizations; and
- $3,000 from farmers.
“These numbers tell the story better than any campaign ad can – Yes on A is supported by local groups and individuals who care about the future of our region. The same can’t be said of the No on A campaign whose contributors care more about making a profit at taxpayer expense,” concluded Baldwin.
To learn more about Measure A, go to saveoursdcountryside.org.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Excellent, now the people can vote down more suburban housing, while they also complain about force-fed housing initiatives from the state level that rezone their own neighborhood for increased density and building heights.
None of the projects to which Measure A will apply to, once approved by voters, are even remotely “suburban”. They are sprawl development, to be built in rural areas, disconnected by miles from any country town which might be described as urban.
A development of this kind of project will pay only for infrastructure within a project but you and I will get to pay, with taxpayer funds, for all of the connective infrastructure to the project from wherever the closest such facilities already exist – sewer, water, electricity.
It also would be instructive to go to Google Earth & search on ‘I-15 & deer springs road, San Marcos, CA’ . The aerial view of all of the burned areas from the past couple of years is startling. It’s one thing when open space lands burn but planting housing in the midst of an area which is prone to burning is irresponsible (think Lilac Fire, Dec. 2018). One of the main reasons for setting these lands aside for low-density housing and rural uses in the County General Plan was because of the elevated threat of wildfire.
There is plenty of opportunity to build new housing within the boundaries of the County’s country towns and villages as designated in the General Plan. Infrastructure already exists nearby, and building housing within these boundaries will not require amendments to the County General Plan.
I urge readers to Vote Yes on A and No on B.
The infill housing isn’t contributing toward aging infrastructure. It’s all a giveaway.