Responsible growth has long been the goal of Napa County residents. Yet Measure N on the June ballot — named the Responsible Growth Initiative — and the campaign behind it have serious flaws.

The measure seeks to give voters the power to reject developments in the unincorporated part of the county that exceed a 1 percent per year residential growth cap or that include buildings 35 feet high or taller. The measure would have no influence on projects within any city limits, and there is already a stronger law controlling the 40,000-plus rural acres in Napa County’s Agricultural Preserve.

According to the proponents, Measure N is aimed at the proposal for seven-story buildings and 3,200 townhomes at the former Napa Pipe industrial site.

Here are the flaws:

• After 40 years of vigorous citizen activism on land use, not one of Napa Valley’s battle-hardened slow-growth advocates was consulted on this measure until after it qualified for the ballot. At a recent Register editorial board meeting, Measure N campaign manager Victor Ajlouny and initiative sponsor Jim Marshall said they didn’t have time to talk to ag or environmental leaders before getting going.

And yet, now that the campaign has approached others, groups like the Napa Valley Vintners and Napa Chamber of Commerce are opposed, while the Napa County Farm Bureau and Sierra Club are neutral. (Get a Grip on Growth alone has endorsed it.)

• Ajlouny and Marshall refuse to reveal who paid for the drafting of Measure N or a private poll. Ajlouny said they cannot break their word to supporters who requested anonymity. That they would respect the anonymity of their backers more than the public whose votes they seek is misguided.

• Unlike Measure J, which has passed legal muster and gives voters the exclusive right to allow changes in the Agricultural Preserve, Measure N has no sunset clause.

• The drafters used an out-of-date version of county housing law as Measure N’s template, a sloppy piece of work even if their source was an official county Web page.

• A county analysis of Measure N asserts courts may reject the initiative because only the state, and not counties, may regulate housing policy. The report also says under Measure N, the county may run afoul of state housing mandates.

In response, the attorney for Measure N stated that courts generally give voter initiatives “the presumption of validity.” In other words, the will of the voters should be done even if a measure is flawed. Ajlouny also pointed to a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court, addressing Washington state’s law allowing primary voters to cross party lines, said one cannot seek to overturn a law based on speculative or hypothetical injury.

Yet at the same meeting, Ajlouny made a startling proposal: The voters should pass Measure N in June. Then, in November, Napa County should sponsor a measure to clean up legal or technical problems. With weeks to go before election day, the proponents of Measure N say we need two measures, one to stop irresponsible growth and another to clean up their mess. This does not sound like smart policy-making.

(This is the third of four editorials on Measure N and the Napa Pipe project. Thursday: Napans faced with a bad choice. Friday: The trouble with Napa Pipe. Sunday: The Register endorsement.)