If you want to know how little controversy a proposed overhaul of the city's general plan has generated, consider this: The plan's most vocal critic
isn't even sure he'll vote against it.

"It doesn't really do anything, so it's not like there's negative damage being done," said Keith Bagwell, co-chairman of a group called Citizens for a Livable Tucson. "They're just missing an opportunity to do something meaningful."

Bagwell's group wanted to give city voters a chance to endorse a detailed map of future urban growth and a specific plan for recovering infrastructure costs from real estate developers. Instead, the City Council has asked voters to approve a plan that settles for setting broad outlines for Tucson's growth and development.

That plan is now known as Proposition 401, one of three propositions on the city's Nov. 6 general election ballot.

Tucson has long had a general plan, but this is the first chance city residents will have to vote it up or down. That change was required by so-called Growing Smarter legislation passed by state lawmakers in 1998.

The most noteworthy change is new language that obliges the City Council to come up with some way to recover the costs of growth from real estate developers. Many cities and counties use impact fees for this purpose, but the general plan gives the council leeway to look for other potential revenue sources.

Proposition 401 also embraces the concept of "desert villages," a development pattern that intermingles residential and commercial uses, respects washes and other natural borders and encourages walking and the use of mass transit.

"I see it changing ultimately the way that portions of the city look, the way they grow and develop," said Arlan Colton, chairman of Citizens for Tucson's Future, a group mounting a low-key campaign for the new plan. "It's going to look different than the traditional model that we've used."

The plan sets broad directions for the city in 14 areas ranging from transportation to environmental planning. It sets goals for the construction of affordable housing, calls for a balance between cultural heritage and economic growth and makes plans for satisfying the water needs of city residents.

In response to complaints the plan wasn't specific enough, the council set timelines for city staffers to begin taking steps toward its goals. For example, Proposition 401 would require staffers to begin work on a cost of growth study next summer and calls for a public hearing on that topic six months after they've finished, most likely in 2003.

Those changes didn't quite satisfy Bagwell and other critics, but they did dissuade the group from mounting an active campaign against Proposition 401. If voters reject the measure, the same group of city officials would be obliged to try again with a new plan that probably wouldn't look much different, Bagwell said.

"Why spend the money and energy on something that doesn't really make much of a difference?" he said.

* Contact Joe Salkowski at 573-4243 or at joes@azstarnet.com.