A 'no' vote protects the community

Monterey County Herald
Posted on May 13, 2007

By PAUL MUGAN
Guest commentary

Monterey County planner Carl Holm withheld significant fire in his April 8 commentary on the League of Women Voters' endorsement of LandWatch's
general plan. Compared to Holm, the league has little grasp of how the California Environmental Quality Act, the Permit Streamlining Act and the Subdivision Map Act collaborate in the planning process to protect
communities and inform the public. "Objectivity" isn't the issue, as some have argued, but understanding the subject matter seems a problem for the league. As a professional land-use planner uninvolved in the general plan debate until now, I'm compelled to tackle several issues that beg for clarity. The people of Monterey County must reclaim possession of our future from a small group of
individuals camouflaged as nonprofit corporations, specifically LandWatch and the League of Women Voters. If you are a current or future property owner, a "no" vote on Measure A gives you significant protections unavailable in LandWatch's plan. For instance, if LandWatch made a mistake with your property, guess who's responsible for fixing it? You are! You also bear the cost of paying and campaigning for your own personal ballot measure, with the hope that the electorate will fix what LandWatch broke. Unless you've actually read the text of LandWatch's plan and checked on your own property, you should not rely on the hope and prayer that they got it right. Reliance on paid petition gatherers pretending to be land-use counselors also poses certain risk. Review of LandWatch's environmental review document could provide a clue
regarding the significant adverse impacts of its plan — except no review exists. There is no scientific analysis of its plan whatsoever, except that the
League of Women Voters likes it. This turns the public process on its head. LandWatch's home away from home is the inside of a courtroom, suing others over inadequate environmental analysis, making its own attempt to give CEQA a timeout stunning. LandWatch doesn't let others skirt CEQA, and voters shouldn't let LandWatch do so, for the community's sake. The significant adverse environmental impacts of the LandWatch plan remain unidentified with no means to fund mitigations. In addition to hoping LandWatch didn't make a mistake on your property, you should also hope it didn't make any regional mistakes, because if it did, you're on your own. Protect your community and vote no on A. We can do better than the "hope and a prayer" approach to land use. While there is no such thing as general plan utopia, a no vote on A provides better protections for our community. A general plan's very conception presupposes and requires flexibility. A plan must be a product of the public process. The LandWatch plan is neither flexible nor a product of the public process.

While reasonable people disagree regarding Monterey County's place among California's slowest growing counties, it remains a truism that general plans only work if they are road maps to the future. They are dynamic tools, not instruments of rigor. A plan that cannot change without a ballot measure is useless because that constraint removes the plan's utility to guide policy. The county spent millions, toiled for years and helped give LandWatch and others a seat at the table, but LandWatch vacated its seat and now attempts to abuse the initiative process. Not one scientist has weighed in on the LandWatch plan, while hundreds of thousands of dollars have been invested in strong environmental review of the update, GPU4. Flexible policies embrace our future and empower us to create it. Supporters of NO on A understand the benefits of a functioning general plan to keep Monterey County's economy competitive and strong, and its resources protected. That's what a no vote on A accomplishes. Paul Mugan is a former planner for Monterey County and member of the Seaside Planning Commission.