SOAR BACKERS GET LEGAL WIN; JUDGE RULES BALLOT LANGUAGE NOT FALSE OR MISLEADING.

Byline: Sylvia L. Oliande Daily News Staff Writer

As their chances of getting the Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources measure on the November ballot deteriorated to none, supporters of the initiative were handed a victory Friday.

A Superior Court judge denied the city of Moorpark's lawsuit that claimed the SOAR ballot arguments against Measure F, the city's growth boundary control measure, were false and misleading.

In his ruling, Judge Thomas J. Hutchins said ballot arguments are generally known by voters to be the opinion of the writer, and therefore are given to hyperbole. But, he added, they fall within the definition of fair comment.

``Statements of ballot arguments should be opinions, and I think the general voting public knows that,'' Hutchins said.

SOAR supporters said they were pleased with the decision and decried the city's challenge as an attempt to squelch their right to public comment.

``The people of the community know what's going on, and it's good to have the judge reaffirm that,'' said Roseann Mikos, a SOAR leader. ``The people of Moorpark have spoken again and again, and our City Council, at least some of them, are not listening to them. They're not going to succeed in silencing the people of Moorpark.''

John Nowak, assistant to the city manager, said he was disappointed with the ruling, but that he respected the judge's opinion.

``I believe we raised some valid points,'' he said.

The city sued the authors of the ballot argument against Measure F, claiming some of their comments would confuse and prejudice voters.

At issue were comparisons made between the city's measure and ``The People's Moorpark SOAR'' - a reference to the SOAR initiative taken off the ballot last month. The argument also states that the ``politician's alternative'' is ``pushed by pro-growth council members, some with potential conflicts of interest, and is backed by out-of-town real estate speculators.''

City officials said mention of the Moorpark SOAR initiative might confuse voters, that none of the council members has been found in violation of conflict-of-interest laws, and that no developer has financially supported the measure.

The city argued that those statements should have been stricken, but Hutchins disagreed.

``It seems to me like this is a very interesting election going on in Moorpark . . . (and) people are taking sides,'' he said. ``I don't think people of Moorpark are going to be misled by the assertion that down the road there will be an initiative they can vote on.''

It was just that highly charged atmosphere that city officials were concerned with when they read the opposing argument.

``These terms . . . may have a different meaning to the voters in Moorpark because of what has occurred in this city as the process has been going on,'' Nowak said. ``Some of the voters may take it in a different context than the judge is taking it in.''

Moorpark SOAR supporters had a glimmer of hope earlier this month of getting the initiative on the ballot. When the city of Camarillo asked for a delay in filing ballot measures, supporters took the more than 3,000 new signatures they had collected and rushed them to the city clerk.

But by the county registrar of voters' final deadline Friday, the city clerk had not yet forwarded the signatures to the county to be counted. That eliminated any chance of making it on the ballot this year, though SOAR supporters will work to put it before the voters at a special election.