Letters to the editor

The Salinas Californian
Posted on May 24, 2007

No on Measure A

LandWatch figures the people are able to fathom the complexities of land use that will come up in the next 25 years, but unable to elect trustworthy supervisors, except, of course, for their trusty District 5 sidekick.

Why should LandWatch be allowed to substitute itself as the people's representative to do the government's land-use job from the outside without going through the pesky little step of district elections?

Their disingenuous "save the farmland" initiative is nothing more than a romantic self-indulgence, fancying themselves as more enlightened than the ignorant masses. It does not take a majority to prevail, just an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires to ignite emotional responses so they can have their way with the majority.

Reject their twisted, anti-government rants and keep our options open. If truly persuasive arguments for change can be made to the electorate in each district, the supervisors of those districts will respond - or lose office.

The GPU can be revised by elected representatives now and in the future - quite unlike the Initiative.

Keeping track of the supervisors is less burdensome than keeping track of all the details of land-use proposals - or LandWatch.

No on A and B; "yes" on C.

Rick Verbanec
Pebble Beach