The measure, which will appear on the November ballot, seeks voter approval of the proposed Lilac Hills Ranch development. Accretive Investments placed the measure on the ballot after it appeared that the Board of Supervisors wouldn’t be able to approve of the measure after the California Fair Political Practices Commission advised Supervisor Bill Horn that he faced a conflict of interest if he voted on the the project.
Attorneys from Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, LLP and the Coast Law Group submitted what the No on B campaign describe as “an exhaustive brief” to the court on behalf of the No on B campaign that provides evidence supporting their view that the No on B ballot statements should remain essentially unchanged.
Spokesman Nina Erlich-Williams wrote: “The brief does identify three minor wordsmithing points on which the No on B campaign would be willing to compromise with the proponent of Measure B.”
James Gordon of the No on B campaign issued the following statement in conjunction with Friday’s filing of court documents:
“Our legal team has compiled a rigorous analysis of the No on B ballot arguments, providing clear evidence that our campaign’s ballot statements are factually accurate and appropriate political speech. The materials submitted to the court today include exhaustive citations to documents created by County staff as well as to previous statements made by representatives of Accretive Investments that support the No on B ballot arguments.
“The No on B ballot statements lay out serious concerns about the proposed development’s threat to public safety and potential to increase taxpayer burden. Tellingly, the County’s own impact report of Measure B substantiates these concerns. From our perspective, the information provided to the court by the proponents of Measure B about why our ballot arguments should be gutted simply do not hold up.
“The No on B campaign maintains that Accretive Investments has used deceptive practices to hide the truth about the proposed Lilac Hills Ranch development from San Diegans. San Diego voters are rightly concerned about public safety, taxpayer burden and protecting good planning principles. Measure B puts all of these important principles at risk.”