Election clouds future of growth
Sides ponder lawsuits after the defeat of Measure A

Posted June 7, 2007

By DAWN WITHERS
The Salinas Californian

An election intended to finally chart a new course for land use in unincorporated Monterey County has instead only produced more uncertainty.

While voters clearly rejected Measure A - a slow-growth plan - in Tuesday's special election, a new dispute has opened over whether they endorsed the
20-year general plan that the county Board of Supervisors approved in January.

Both sides in the long battle over development said Wednesday that voters surely didn't intend to simultaneously block repeal of the county plan, by
voting "no" on Measure B, and also fail to approve it, by voting "no" on Measure C.

Measure B asked voters if they wanted to throw out the document, known as General Plan Update 4 - or GPU4. Measure C asked them if they wanted to enact it. "Yes" and "No" votes had opposite outcomes for the two measures because of how they were phrased.

"I think this whole issue goes under the heading of confusion," said county Supervisor Dave Potter, the only supervisor to publicly endorse Measure A. "When people are confused on an issue, they say 'no.' "

The special election was meant to end a nearly eight-year battle to complete a new general plan. So far, efforts to create a plan have cost the county
about $7 million.

A general plan dictates where and what type of growth should occur in unincorporated areas of the county - those outside city limits. The current plan dates back to 1982.

But the complicated ballot featuring four measures -including Measure D, which asked voters if they wanted the controversial mixed-use Butterfly Village project north of Salinas - will lead to lawsuits over how to interpret the results, both sides said.

'People were confused'

Lee Blankenship, Monterey County assistant counsel, said he considers GPU4 to be the adopted general plan, because voters failed to repeal it.

"I am not trying to get the board into a bad position," Blankenship said Wednesday. "I am trying to give straightforward legal advice, and the board can then weigh that with other issues."

Opponents of GPU4 said the results mean neither growth plan received approval, and they may take legal action to have a judge decide the matter.

"I am very happy that 'No on A' was triumphant," said Supervisor Jerry Smith. "Unfortunately, I think our opponents are going to take us to court, and we are
going to waste millions in taxpayer money on an issue the voters have already decided."

Fifty-two percent of voters opposed repealing the supervisors' plan by voting "no" on Measure B.

Fifty-six percent voted against enacting GPU4 by voting "no" on Measure C.

About 33 percent of the county's registered voters cast ballots, either by mail or at the polls.

"It was not a surprise about the low turnout, because people were confused," said Chris Fitz, executive director of LandWatch Monterey County, a primary
architect of Measure A.

Fredric Woocher, an attorney working with Measure A supporters, said the county's position would violate the California Constitution.

The outcomes of referendums trump those of repeal measures, Woocher said.

"That just violates the constitution, and it just violates all logic," he said. "There's no rational way to explain what happened."

Sides wait for legal word

Both Potter and Smith said that before supervisors take any steps to put GPU4 into effect, they will need to confer with their lawyers during a Tuesday meeting.

They also must delay lifting a moratorium, set to expire this month, on processing project applications using GPU4 guidelines, the two supervisors said.

Fitz said he and other Measure A supporters are aiting to see whether supervisors vote to implement GPU4 as the new plan of record before deciding whether to sue the county over the validity of the votes on
Measures B and C.

"It's not clear if the board will take any kind of discrete, specific action or just pretend GPU4 is in force," he said.

A law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, on Wednesday said Measure A supporters might find success with a lawsuit.

Daniel Hays Lowenstein said Blankenship's argument - that by failing to repeal GPU4, voters put it into effect - wouldn't hold up in court. A measure can't be
repealed, Lowenstein said, if it's also been nullified by a referendum. Opponents of Measure A, who largely support GPU4, said they haven't decided what will happen to the campaign group they formed to defeat A. They said they do plan to support the county however it decides to deal with the legal ambiguities of the election.

"(Tuesday's outcome) is an indication voters don't want ballot-box planning" and were confused by the measures, said Bob Perkins, president of the Monterey County Farm Bureau, during a press conference Wednesday.

Supporters of Measure A have for months accused supervisors of intentionally making the ballot confusing, tilting it in the county's favor by creating a ballot that asked the same question in opposite ways.

Supervisors declined to withdraw Measure B after Measure C, a citizen referendum, qualified for the ballot. Measure A backers put C up for a vote by
collecting 15,000 voter signatures in 30 days.

Contact Dawn Withers at withers@thecalifornian.com.