“You’ll regret it. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow. But soon and for the rest of your life.”

Napa County’s 90-page analysis of the Responsible Growth Initiative could be summarized with Humphrey Bogart’s famous cinematic lines.

The so-called 9111 report has nothing positive to say about the initiative, tentatively slated for the June ballot, that would set in stone the county’s 1 percent growth ordinance, taking power from the Board of Supervisors and placing in jeopardy the proposal for 3,200 townhomes at the former Napa Pipe site.

The report says the initiative would likely be found to be unenforceable if challenged in court, opining that the measure would violate state housing law and the terms of an existing legal settlement regarding the county’s housing policies. The report also said the proponents of the measure failed to circulate the “full text of the plans and ordinances that the initiative purports to amend.”

As for impact on the ground, the 9111 report says the Responsible Growth Initiative would have little short-term effect — except in a few locations, where would-be residential developers would be encouraged to get their properties annexed into cities. But of the long term, the report paints a darker picture.

If the initiative were to take effect, the report states:

• The county would be hamstrung from making changes to the growth rate, perhaps falling out of compliance with state housing requirements and exposing the county to lawsuits.

• It could create a climate in which even Measure J could go back to the courts, the report said. Shortly after Measure J passed in 1990, giving county voters the right to decide whether any land designated for agricultural use could be rezoned for other purposes, it faced a legal challenge that it finally beat in 1995.

• The county would have to enter into housing agreements with the cities to meet future housing demands from the state, increasing the likelihood of cities annexing county land.

• It could “hinder” the building or preservation of affordable housing by hindering developments of so-called mixed-income, multi-family housing.

“If the initiative is placed on the ballot and passes, it could subject the county to various penalties of state affordable housing laws,” the report said, specifying court-ordered injunctions barring the county from distributing building permits, approving subdivision maps, zone changes, use permits and other planning actions.

A ‘scare tactic’

Reacting to the report, proponents of the initiative said the county had an agenda of undermining the measure when it hired the consultants to perform the study. Vic Ajlouny, a political strategist hired by the proponents of the measure, said the 9111 report amounts to a biased county campaign to sink the initiative.

“They are spending taxpayer dollars for a fair and balanced report and yet the report never addresses the positive impact on maintaining agricultural land, saving water resources or taxpayer money.” The report, he said, is “focused strictly on the negative. It’s inappropriate to spend taxpayer dollars on a report such as this and the company that did it ought to be ashamed of themselves.”

Ajlouny said restrictions on “unregulated” growth would keep traffic-choked roads from getting worse, water supply issues from becoming more dire, schools from becoming overcrowded and pollution from increasing.

In a written response, the Napa Coalition for Responsible Growth said the 9111 report “employs a scare tactic, claiming that the initiative will result in the annexation of (agricultural) land.”

Proponents said since Measure A’s adoption in 1980, very little of the county’s agricultural land has been transformed into housing.

And what about cities taking in the county’s state-mandated housing through joint planning agreements?

“What the initiative will do is to promote changes to state law being proposed by (Assemblywoman) Noreen Evans so far rejected by the cities and facilitate the dialogue between the cities and the county to develop a regional plan for growth,” the supporters stated. “The 9111 report promotes business as usual.”

The Napa County Board of Supervisors is expected to take up the Responsible Growth Initiative today. The board can decide to place the initiative on the ballot, enact it directly as a county ordinance or — if the supervisors determine that in their view the proponents violated state election code in gathering signatures or drafting the proposal — reject it.