No on A

Posted May 9, 2007

The Californian
Editorial Endorsement
May 9, 2007

It’s often said that the two armies in what feels like “the Hundred Years’ War” over Monterey County’s general plan are at odds because they hold competing different visions for the future.

Actually, though, the conflict arises because one side — allied behind the general plan initiative known as Measure A — seeks to create a future that’s more or less a version of the present.

The slow-growth crusaders who pushed Measure A onto the June 5 ballot through a petition drive are so focused on keeping the county as it is that they miss its inevitable need for evolution, for growth, for change.

They emphasize the importance of preserving the county’s natural beauty and its quality of life, and this certainly is a visually stunning and very wonderful place to live. But it is not Yosemite National Park, and the owners of much of the land being fought over — who grow $3 billion worth of vegetables and fruit on it every year — haven’t exactly sought out the “expert” advice. Nor have those county residents who most need an improved quality of life — in the form of better jobs and better housing — asked for their help.

In contrast, opponents of Measure A who instead support Measure C, the county’s General Plan Update 4 (GPU4) — favor a more fluid approach to growth and development in unincorporated areas. (One fact often
lost in the rhetoric is that neither A nor C will limit cities’ abilities to make decisions about how
and where to grow.)

Instead of subjecting nearly every project outside city limits to a countywide vote, GPU4 can adapt to economic, demographic, geographic and social dynamics that can’t be locked down for 25 years by a single planning document.

Monterey County is not merely a place in abstract that can be frozen in time. Rather, it is home to 426,000 people who need gainful employment, access to goods and services and a wide variety of housing now and in years to come. The county also belongs to the greater San Francisco Bay Area region and is a critical part of California as a whole.

Measure A doesn’t deal with that reality. Rather, it is overly restrictive, shortsighted and, ultimately,
undemocratic.

Measure C, the general plan adopted in January by the Board of Supervisors on a 4-1 vote, is not a guarantee of effective land-use planning, but it does provide a framework to serve citizens’ needs and stay competitive in a global economy.

Whether by absentee ballot or at the polls on June 5, the right choice is no on A and B, yes on C. We also recommend a “yes” on Measure D, which would permit development of Butterfly Village north of Salinas, but we will address that in detail in a future editorial.

Because a general plan is all about land, one’s point of view in this debate concerns more than opinion alone. It literally includes where someone is coming from, and in our case that’s the Salinas Valley.

Much progress has been made over the years at tearing down the “lettuce curtain” that has separated the valley from the Monterey Peninsula in social, economic and cultural terms. But when it comes to the general plan, a little parochialism is warranted.

That starts with the agricultural industry, truly rooted in the valley, whose unanimous opposition to Measure A has been written off as greed by LandWatch Monterey County and other A supporters. Undoubtedly
some individual landowners would like — sooner or later — to develop their cropland for housing. But it is not greedy to want freedom to build a processing plant on land zoned for agriculture when market conditions demand it without first obtaining permission from voters who may have no stake in their survival.

If growers and shippers decide that land-use inflexibility imperils their future, then the ag industry’s jobs — the valley’s economic lifeblood — could easily be lost with nothing to take their place.

A beautiful valley without thriving agriculture would be a hollow prize in the campaign against “sprawl.”

As for affordable housing, both Measure A and Measure C would permit thousands of new units to be built in designated “community centers” (plus additional “rural centers” in the case of GPU4). Measure C also permits development of low-cost housing outside of those specific areas if projects survive the lengthy government approval process. But under Measure A, each project would be subject to a countywide election involving far-flung voters with no personal stake in its benefits and little motivation to carefully study
and consider their merits.

Take the example of San Lucas, a farm- worker community south of King City. CHISPA, a private nonprofit developer of affordable housing with an outstanding track record, has begun a 33-unit project to address specific local needs. It would be subject to countywide vote under Measure A and might be attacked because it doesn’t adjoin King City. But people in San Lucas want it very much.

Whether deciding what’s good for agribusiness or where affordable housing should go, individual voters are not the best judge. But that’s exactly what Measure A would ask of them. One only need consider California’s out-of-control initiative system to see how perilous direct democracy can be.

As is the case with the June 5 special election itself, land-use policy at the ballot box is both hugely expensive and potentially dangerous.

Voters elect supervisors — district by district — to follow a plan for logical growth and to carefully consider every proposal. If they don’t do that, they should be thrown out of office. Likewise, individual projects can be challenged and stopped through a citizen referendum if voters deem that necessary.

The time has come to thwart a general plan initiative whose supporters seek to dictate to the Salinas Valley. Vote no on Measure A and yes on Measure C.