On the other hand, Russell Valone, president of MarketPointe Realty Advisors and an expert on area housing, recently released a report that concludes the San Diego County General Plan approved in 2012 has failed to provide for the construction of smaller homes on smaller lots that would be affordable to middle-class San Diegans. In the report, Valone said, “While regulatory restrictions on the entitlement process have been a major factor in limiting housing production in many of the county's municipalities, restrictions within unincorporated San Diego County have been even more damaging. Since 2011, less than 8% of the new homes sold countywide were built in the unincorporated county. Nearly 60% of those were developed on high-priced estate-sized lots.”

Valone continued, “San Diego County is experiencing a dramatic housing shortfall, which is driving housing prices up and forcing tens of thousands of households to commute into Riverside County to find a home they can afford.”

He added, “The Lilac Hills Ranch project, on the November ballot as Measure B, will have an average lot size of 4,737 square feet and an estimated average home size of 2,160 square feet, which is 43% smaller than the average size of homes built on estate lots in the county since the general plan was approved in 2012.” Valone continued, “Just this difference in the average size of homes on estates in the county versus LHR homes represents more than a $421,000 increase in price for estate homes.”

Interestingly, the California Fair Political Practices Commission is investigating the source of funds for groups associated with the No on Measure B campaign for not appropriately disclosing their campaign contributions. In a report by inewsource, several of the committees that are funding the opposition campaign are being investigated for refusing to disclose the original contributor.

According to the report, the Pardee family owns hundreds of acres of land in the immediate area and more than 120 acres adjoining the Measure B Project and has contributed at least $40,000 directly to the No on B committee. In addition to the Pardee's direct involvement, two nonprofits, Save our Forests and Ranchlands and California Local Energy—Advancing Renewables, have become actively involved in the opposition campaign after receiving contributions they refuse to disclose as required by law. The inewsource investigation points to $110,000 in dark money (campaign contributions that are not disclosed as required by law).

Measure B San Diego would move forward plans for a pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use village north of Escondido designed to provide apartments, condos, townhomes and smaller homes that are affordable to middle-income families. This new village would be surrounded by vineyards and agriculture, with all amenities built and paid for by the developer, all within a 10-minute walk so residents can live, work, learn and play without relying on cars.

The report goes on to say that as for the Pardees, among their many property holdings in San Diego County, the family currently owns property bordering Lilac Hills Ranch. It is a project before the County of San Diego requesting a general-plan amendment and upzone. The Pardees are seeking the same type of approvals they oppose for Lilac Hills Ranch—the only difference is they want to keep building large estates for the wealthy rather than smaller homes for middle income families.

As to the FPPC investigation, Jim Pardee was quoted, “that while I'm 'certainly not an expert' on FPPC disclosure requirements, I made sure all reports were filed appropriately,” but campaign experts disagreed. Gavin Baker, manager at the advocacy group California Common Cause out of Sacramento, said, “If you have a filing obligation—which they would, having qualified as a major donor—then you have to file (a major donor report) when you make the contribution of (at least) $1,000 within 90 days of an election to a political committee.” The major donor report would be required to disclose all other contributions for political purposes including “in-kind” contributions for paid professionals working on behalf of the campaign, as has been the case with the Pardee's lawyer.

Meanwhile, Measures C and D, which are also on the ballot could negatively impact the hospitality industry and don't take into account this sector's vital contribution to the San Diego economy, RAR Hospitality's founder and CEO Robert Rauch tells GlobeSt.com. Measure C is the proposal to raise hotel taxes to pay for a dual building with a new football stadium and convention center in Downtown San Diego—raising hotel tax in the city from 10.5% to 16.5%; the tax increase will also apply to tourism marketing and will affect the project finance, design, construction, use and management. Measure D is a tourism and tax initiative to increase San Diego's hotel occupancy tax to 5%. The San Diego Union-Tribune recently ran an opinion column on these measures and others on the San Diego ballot.

GlobeSt.com spoke exclusively with Rauch about his take on Measures C and D.

GlobeSt.com: What is your conclusion about both Measure C and Measure D, and why?

Rauch: I strongly recommend a “no” vote on C and D. Measure C is the Chargers ballot proposition, submitted without any dialogue with the hospitality industry, the mayor's office or any land owner in the subject area. Measure D was submitted by obstructionist Cory Briggs, who decided where a convention center expansion should occur and how much the hotel industry should pay for it. We would like a contiguous center expansion, like most centers in the U.S.

GlobeSt.com: What do you suggest as a better way to raise revenues for a stadium and promote tourism?

Rauch: Revenues should be raised from all beneficiaries: hotels, rental cars, attractions, City of San Diego, County of San Diego, Port of San Diego and San Diego Chargers/NFL. The 2% funding for the Tourism Marketing District should stay in place to allow San Diego to compete with Los Angeles, Orange County/Anaheim/Disney and the San Francisco Bay Area.

GlobeSt.com: What are you recommending to voters concerned about these issues?

Rauch: Voters should vote “no” on both measures and send the Chargers back to the negotiating table.

GlobeSt.com: What else should our readers know about this election and the San Diego CRE industry?

Rauch: A “yes” vote will make San Diego's transient occupancy tax rate among the highest in the US and will not allow tourism to thrive, nor will it guarantee a stream of dollars for promotion. Further, there is no cap on spending for the stadium, so additional costs like interest-rate increases, land purchases and construction costs will be paid by all the San Diego taxpayers.

SAN DIEGO—Whether Measure B truly helps middle-income families afford homes and Measures C and D's true impact on the hospitality industry are being brought into question on Nov. 8, sources tell GlobeSt.com.

Measure B San Diego will be brought before San Diego County voters on Tuesday to approve a general-plan amendment in Northern San Diego County to provide more housing affordable to middle-income families. Supporters argue that it would help alleviate the region's severe housing crisis. The finding of a report prepared by Scott Barnett, president of the San Diego Taxpayers Advocate, is that Measure B will be good for taxpayers. According to the report, the Lilac Hills Ranch project includes: a legally binding commitment to build a much-needed K-8 school; a commitment to make all necessary community road and infrastructure upgrades to the tune of $16 million—$2 million more than the County of San Diego estimated is needed; $2 million net in new tax revenues for county taxpayers annually; a commitment to fund a water-recycling plant so the project will use less water than is currently consumed on the site.

As it relates to the turnkey K-8 school, Lou Riddle, the Bonsall School Board president, says, “Measure B will have a great positive impact in our community; it will give the children of the community a continuous learning path.”

In addition to Barnett, area housing and economic experts including Alan Nevin and Gary London have also urged support of Measure B, saying it's a win for the region that desperately needs to focus on solving our housing crisis. For more information on Yes on B, click here.

On the other hand, Russell Valone, president of MarketPointe Realty Advisors and an expert on area housing, recently released a report that concludes the San Diego County General Plan approved in 2012 has failed to provide for the construction of smaller homes on smaller lots that would be affordable to middle-class San Diegans. In the report, Valone said, “While regulatory restrictions on the entitlement process have been a major factor in limiting housing production in many of the county's municipalities, restrictions within unincorporated San Diego County have been even more damaging. Since 2011, less than 8% of the new homes sold countywide were built in the unincorporated county. Nearly 60% of those were developed on high-priced estate-sized lots.”

Valone continued, “San Diego County is experiencing a dramatic housing shortfall, which is driving housing prices up and forcing tens of thousands of households to commute into Riverside County to find a home they can afford.”

He added, “The Lilac Hills Ranch project, on the November ballot as Measure B, will have an average lot size of 4,737 square feet and an estimated average home size of 2,160 square feet, which is 43% smaller than the average size of homes built on estate lots in the county since the general plan was approved in 2012.” Valone continued, “Just this difference in the average size of homes on estates in the county versus LHR homes represents more than a $421,000 increase in price for estate homes.”

Interestingly, the California Fair Political Practices Commission is investigating the source of funds for groups associated with the No on Measure B campaign for not appropriately disclosing their campaign contributions. In a report by inewsource, several of the committees that are funding the opposition campaign are being investigated for refusing to disclose the original contributor.

According to the report, the Pardee family owns hundreds of acres of land in the immediate area and more than 120 acres adjoining the Measure B Project and has contributed at least $40,000 directly to the No on B committee. In addition to the Pardee's direct involvement, two nonprofits, Save our Forests and Ranchlands and California Local Energy—Advancing Renewables, have become actively involved in the opposition campaign after receiving contributions they refuse to disclose as required by law. The inewsource investigation points to $110,000 in dark money (campaign contributions that are not disclosed as required by law).

Measure B San Diego would move forward plans for a pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use village north of Escondido designed to provide apartments, condos, townhomes and smaller homes that are affordable to middle-income families. This new village would be surrounded by vineyards and agriculture, with all amenities built and paid for by the developer, all within a 10-minute walk so residents can live, work, learn and play without relying on cars.

The report goes on to say that as for the Pardees, among their many property holdings in San Diego County, the family currently owns property bordering Lilac Hills Ranch. It is a project before the County of San Diego requesting a general-plan amendment and upzone. The Pardees are seeking the same type of approvals they oppose for Lilac Hills Ranch—the only difference is they want to keep building large estates for the wealthy rather than smaller homes for middle income families.

As to the FPPC investigation, Jim Pardee was quoted, “that while I'm 'certainly not an expert' on FPPC disclosure requirements, I made sure all reports were filed appropriately,” but campaign experts disagreed. Gavin Baker, manager at the advocacy group California Common Cause out of Sacramento, said, “If you have a filing obligation—which they would, having qualified as a major donor—then you have to file (a major donor report) when you make the contribution of (at least) $1,000 within 90 days of an election to a political committee.” The major donor report would be required to disclose all other contributions for political purposes including “in-kind” contributions for paid professionals working on behalf of the campaign, as has been the case with the Pardee's lawyer.

Meanwhile, Measures C and D, which are also on the ballot could negatively impact the hospitality industry and don't take into account this sector's vital contribution to the San Diego economy, RAR Hospitality's founder and CEO Robert Rauch tells GlobeSt.com. Measure C is the proposal to raise hotel taxes to pay for a dual building with a new football stadium and convention center in Downtown San Diego—raising hotel tax in the city from 10.5% to 16.5%; the tax increase will also apply to tourism marketing and will affect the project finance, design, construction, use and management. Measure D is a tourism and tax initiative to increase San Diego's hotel occupancy tax to 5%. The San Diego Union-Tribune recently ran an opinion column on these measures and others on the San Diego ballot.

GlobeSt.com spoke exclusively with Rauch about his take on Measures C and D.

GlobeSt.com: What is your conclusion about both Measure C and Measure D, and why?

Rauch: I strongly recommend a “no” vote on C and D. Measure C is the Chargers ballot proposition, submitted without any dialogue with the hospitality industry, the mayor's office or any land owner in the subject area. Measure D was submitted by obstructionist Cory Briggs, who decided where a convention center expansion should occur and how much the hotel industry should pay for it. We would like a contiguous center expansion, like most centers in the U.S.

GlobeSt.com: What do you suggest as a better way to raise revenues for a stadium and promote tourism?

Rauch: Revenues should be raised from all beneficiaries: hotels, rental cars, attractions, City of San Diego, County of San Diego, Port of San Diego and San Diego Chargers/NFL. The 2% funding for the Tourism Marketing District should stay in place to allow San Diego to compete with Los Angeles, Orange County/Anaheim/Disney and the San Francisco Bay Area.

GlobeSt.com: What are you recommending to voters concerned about these issues?

Rauch: Voters should vote “no” on both measures and send the Chargers back to the negotiating table.

GlobeSt.com: What else should our readers know about this election and the San Diego CRE industry?

Rauch: A “yes” vote will make San Diego's transient occupancy tax rate among the highest in the US and will not allow tourism to thrive, nor will it guarantee a stream of dollars for promotion. Further, there is no cap on spending for the stadium, so additional costs like interest-rate increases, land purchases and construction costs will be paid by all the San Diego taxpayers.