Essentially it would take the power to approve major developments out of the hands of a majority of the Napa County Board of Supervisors and place it in the hands of the voters. It also would strictly enforce limits on building heights in the county, a move that would place in jeopardy the 3,200 townhomes, some in seven-story buildings, proposed at the former Napa Pipe site.

The initiative is controversial in part because a recent Napa County report said it would likely clash with state law and would handcuff the county when it comes to creating affordable housing.

The measure is sponsored by a new group called the Napa Coalition for Responsible Growth, and is strongly opposed by another new group called Keep Napa Napa.

Keep Napa Napa is funded by Napa Redevelopment Partners, the investment group behind the 3,200-home Napa Pipe proposal.

Keep Napa Napa submitted campaign finance reports showing that it had raised $250,000, spent $233,618 and ended up with $161,331 in cash as of Jan. 1, 2008. The reports also showed a debt load of $144,950. All campaign contributions came from Napa Redevelopment Partners, and the majority of its expenditures for 2007 were spent on campaign consultants and polling.

Campaign finance reports also show Napa attorney James Marshall is nearly the only financial supporter behind the Napa Coalition for Responsible Growth.

Campaign contribution statements filed with the county show Marshall loaned $20,855 of the $30,210 in campaign cash collected in 2007 by the Napa Coalition for Responsible Growth. A handful of other residents contributed about $280, all except one with donations of less than $30. Marshall donated $9,000 of his money to the campaign.

According to reports filed by Marshall, the campaign spent $29,982 in 2007, leaving a balance of $227 in campaign coffers as of Jan. 1.

Accusations of falsifying the numbers

After the filing deadline, Keep Napa Napa wasted no time accusing Marshall of submitting false data.

In a public statement and in a letter to Marshall, Keep Napa Napa campaign manager Nick Caston said the public is being kept in the dark about the Napa Coalition for Responsible Growth’s money sources.

“Significant, though not fully reported, money has been spent on polls, political operatives, election lawyers and signature gathering firms,” Caston wrote, later calling the campaign finance documents Marshall submitted “a carefully crafted lie.”

The finance report does show $1,500 for polling services, $19,775 for signature gathering, $5,000 in legal fees and $3,000 paid to Victor Ajlouny, the Responsible Growth coalition’s political strategist. Charles Bell, the coalition’s lawyer, said campaign expenditures prior to the submission of the initiative for ballot title and summary are not required to be reportable under the law.

“What Mr. Caston is saying is actually accusing the preparer of the report of violating the law,” Ajlouny said. “Mr. Caston needs to grow up and understand that this is an issue of land use and Napa not about character assassination. I have no reason to believe it is false report.”

Caston also slammed Ajlouny in the Keep Napa Napa letter and public statement.

“We know from public reports that Mr. Ajlouny has been accused of going ‘beyond normal dirty campaigning’ (see San Jose Mercury News, 11/19/95), ‘works hard to embrace the worst elements of politics’ (see San Jose Mercury News, 10/5/03) and served as the political consultant in a California campaign that was fined for failing to make proper campaign finance disclosures (see San Jose Mercury News, 12/28/97).”

But the letter is misleading, in that the quotes do not reflect the view of the Mercury-News or a neutral party.

The first two comments, according to the articles in which they appeared, were made by political opponents of Ajlouny in other San Jose-area campaigns. One involved a mayoral race in Palo Alto and the other involved a school board race in San Jose.

Ajlouny said he was not treasurer for the campaign that was fined for making improper disclosures, and that the fine occurred over confusion in then-recently changed rules for disclosure from the Fair Political Practices Commission.