Skip to content
Sign up free
News

Lilac Hills Ranch is Bad for San Diego

Lilac Hills Ranch is Bad for San Diego

By Pam Slater-Price

2-minute read

Opponents:

San Diego League of Women Voters

The San Diego Union-Tribune

The San Diego County Democratic Party

San Diego County Middle Class Taxpayers’ Association

There are many good reasons to oppose San Diego County’s Measure B – the Lilac Hills sprawl development project -- on the November 2016 ballot. All of them can be summed up like this: ballot-box planning allows developers to sidestep important public oversight that protects taxpayers and ensures orderly, responsible housing development.

Updated after more than a decade of public input and expert review, today’s general land-use plan for San Diego County allows 110 homes and no commercial uses on 608 rural acres that Measure B’s sponsor owns in northern San Diego County. If approved, Measure B would ALLOW the developer to build 1,746 new homes – a 15-fold increase over what the County has already approved -- and 90,000 sq. ft. of commercial uses on the property.

This development will place its 5,200 future residents – more people than live in the City of Del Mar -- in a rural agricultural area with very little existing urban infrastructure (roads, schools, urban fire and emergency medical services, sewer, and other utility services).

Measure B fails to include most of the San Diego County Planning Commission’s September 11, 2015 conditions for approval: paying for extensive improvement to area roads, 5-minute fire service and EMS, and other required improvements.

The Board of Supervisors ordered an independent impact report on Measure B that was completed August 2, 2016. Here’s what that report demonstrates:

  1. San Diego County needs affordable housing. However, Measure B makes zero commitments to building affordable housing at ANY price level. (The claim by Measure B’s backers that the homes would sell for just $300,000 is not contained in the actual language of the measure and is therefore unenforceable.)
  2. Measure B will significantly contribute to traffic gridlock on I-15. The County has calculated that alleviating the I-15 gridlock will cost $1 billion. Measure B pays nothing toward I-15 improvements. Taxpayers must shoulder the cost to reduce the additional congestion if Measure B is approved.
  3. The homes would be located in Calfire’s Very High and High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. The County requires a 5-minute response for fire service and other EMS. However, Measure B promises only 10-minute response times.

The Union-Tribune and Voice of San Diego have independently “fact checked” Measure B. Both have concluded that Measure B is a bad deal for San Diego County.

The Union-Tribune has come out against Measure B and summarized its reasoning for opposing this “flawed and misleading” project in this way: “It’s a bad proposal – and an awful precedent.”

Vote “no” on Measure B.  The facts prove it's BAD for San Diego County.

Pam Slater-Price

San Diego County Supervisor, District 3 1992-2013

Mark Jackson

No on Measure B Committee

Related Articles:

Union Tribune

Voice of San Diego

County Impact Report

Tags: News

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Get IVN’s Free Weekly Newsletter:Get IVN’s Free Newsletter

Get IVN’s Free Weekly Newsletter:Get IVN’s Free Newsletter

Nonpartisan Issues. Diverse Perspectives.

Check your inbox and click the link to confirm.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Set the canonical URL of your copy to the original IVN article (the HTML we give you includes the tag).
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Lilac Hills Ranch is Bad for San Diego

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us