Sides fight for future
Opposing factions say ballot puts
much at stake

The Salinas Californian
Guest Commentary
Posted May 7, 2007

By DAWN WITHERS

Second of three parts

Yard signs, slick brochures and grand pronouncements are part of any campaign. But in a June 5 special election focusing on complicated land-use issues, the need to present a clear, compelling message is even more important, say people on both sides.

Monterey County voters face four growth measures on a confusing ballot. Three of them concern what kind of growth and development should be allowed outside of cities over the next two decades. The fourth asks
voters whether the controversial Butterfly Village project in the Rancho San Juan area should be built north of Salinas.

Despite the number of measures, this political fight really splits evenly into two opposing forces.

On one side are slow-growth advocates who support Measure A, the general plan initiative, and who oppose Measure C, better known as General Plan

Update 4 (GPU4), which county supervisors approved in January. They also want a “no” vote on Measure D, which would overturn Butterfly Village.

“We need to protect not only our natural resources but our facilities and services, and we need to protect the things that make a community worth living in,” said Julie Engell, chairwoman of the Rancho San Juan Opposition Coalition and a lead figure in the “Yes on Measure A” and Measure D campaigns.

“We need a general plan for all people in Monterey County — not just a few influential and well-heeled interests.”

On the other side is a coalition of business, labor, governmental and agricultural groups who vehemently oppose the initiative and support Measure C — GPU4. Measure B asks the same question as Measure C, only in
reverse, meaning a “yes” vote on B would repeal GPU4, while a “yes” vote on C would approve it.

GPU4 was subject to a full environmental review and more than a year of public meetings, including more than two months of hearings by the county Planning Commission.

“The supervisors’ plan (GPU4) was formulated through the public process and received comments from every facet of the community,” said GPU4 supporter Tom Carvey, executive director of Common Ground Monterey County.

Facing a ballot that resembles alphabet soup, the two camps have framed their campaigns around whether the initiative should pass, with “Yes on Measure A” on one side and “No on Measure A” on the other.

So far, supporters of Measure A have spent about $271,000, while its opponents have spent more than $367,000.

Campaign themes are similar

While each campaign accuses the other of spreading misinformation and half-truths, both say their approach is the best way to preserve farmland, keep
the agricultural industry viable and increase affordable housing.

The No on A campaign, in addition to wanting the initiative to fail, also supports GPU4, the county’s fourth attempt in seven years to replace its 1982
general plan.

GPU4 includes seven community areas and nine rural centers targeted for growth. It also features a wine corridor plan that would allow the construction of up to 40 artisan wineries without additional environmental review.

Although it identifies 16 areas for growth, GPU4 would allow development in wide-ranging areas, as long as legal conditions are met and the Board of Supervisors approves. Citizens, however, would still have the right to use petitions to seek a countywide vote and block developments approved by the board.

Measure A, on the other hand, envisions a radically different scenario for development in the unincorporated county over the next 25 years. Drafted
by slow-growth advocates under the direction of LandWatch Monterey County, the measure would require a countywide vote, with few exceptions, before any
development could occur outside the following five community areas: Pajaro, Castroville, Fort Ord, Boronda and Chualar.

Opponents to Measure A say the public-vote requirement would curb property-owner rights and limit where affordable housing can be developed. They also say the initiative would needlessly mandate a vote of the people before landowners could build processing and cooling facilities on agricultural land, threatening the viability of the county’s No. 1 industry.

Initiative supporters, however, contend the Board of Supervisors can’t be trusted to decide where development can occur. Without Measure A, they predict San Jose-style sprawl that eats up precious agricultural land, puts more cars on the road and saps natural resources.

“What we really want people to understand is we are looking at a situation where water is in dire straits, and people already feel the traffic is out-of-control,” said Chris Fitz, executive director of LandWatch.

The Measure A campaign is using phone calls, lawn signs and TV and radio spots to reach voters, Fitz said.

He said the campaign is targeting voters all over the county, not only in north county and Monterey Peninsula communities, where the campaign believes its
support is strongest.

Modest turnout predicted

Cliff Staton, a political consultant to the “Yes on Measure A,” campaign, said he isn’t expecting high voter turnout for the special election because it’s not tied to a general election or gubernatorial contest.

“I would say that it’s probably on the high side if we had 75,000 votes or about 52 percent turnout,” Staton said.

Absentee ballots will be mailed out beginning today, starting the vote as soon as they’re received and returned by voters.

Andre Charles, campaign manager for Plan for the People, which is running “No on Measure A,” said the campaign is tapping TV ads, radio spots, mailers, and phone calls to reach voters, especially those still undecided, and to encourage them to reject the initiative.

“We are just going to be very direct to the community and communicate the unintended consequences of Measure A,” Charles said.

“LandWatch is very organized, and they use intimidation to neutralize their opponents more successfully here (than groups) in other communities.
They use scare tactics for traffic, they use the term ‘dry wells’ and ‘longer traffic waits’ — scare images that aren’t based in reality. That is unfortunate.”

Businesses, labor and agricultural have mobilized to help Plan for the People in its goal of raising $1 million to defeat Measure A. Since Jan. 1, Plan for the People has raised more then $500,000, with its largest contribution of $150,000 coming from the California Realtors Association.

Woodman Development Company Inc. in Monterey sent a letter to its partners and trade groups urging them to give between $1,000 and $5,000 to Plan for the People. “You may be sick of the general plan issue. You may think it won’t impact you. But that is not true,” wrote co-owners John Anderson and William Silva.

Business, housing key issues

Backing the Measure A initiative is a coalition of environmental and community watchdog groups, such as Citizens for Responsible Growth, whose members live all over the county but tend to come from Salinas, north county and the Peninsula. Most visible among the coalition is LandWatch, which has led the legal and political fight behind Measure A and is a contributor to and supporter of the Rancho San Juan Opposition Coalition.

Supporters of GPU4, on the other hand, generally include business organizations and the agricultural industry, but support is also found among housing groups such as CHISPA, a Salinas-based, nonprofit developer of affordable housing.

Bob Perkins, executive director of the Monterey County Farm Bureau, which supports GPU4 and opposes Measure A, said, “We’re talking about the future, and all of us are attempting to interpret an incredibly obscure initiative and reach some clarity of what it will do in the future.”

All of the four city councils in south county — King City, Soledad, Greenfield, and Gonzales — have passed resolutions opposing Measure A. Also opposing the initiative are the Salinas Valley and Monterey Peninsula chambers of commerce. Juan Uranga, executive director of the Center for Community Advocacy, said the initiative’s call for countywide votes, rather than relying on locally elected supervisors, would further disempower Latinos. Most voters live on the Peninsula, he said, far removed from places where affordable housing might be proposed, such as farm worker communities in far south
county.

“It just totally flies in the face of using district elections to empower disenfranchised people,” Uranga said.

Contact Dawn Withers at withers@thecalifornian.com.