King City Rustler

Editorial Endorsement

Vote NO on three out of four

King City Rustler
Posted on May 30, 2007

BY RICHARD SITTS, EDITOR

This fill-in-the-blank on A sign was found last Saturday on River Road north of Chualar.

I've been voting regularly in elections since I turned 18 - legal voting age - in 1972. No ballot I've seen has been as confusing as the one we're now faced with - the dueling General Plans for the future growth of
Monterey County.

With opposite accusations and propaganda flying back and forth like the Salinas Valley winds, it has been a challenge for voters to try and figure out which side to believe.

The battlelines were drawn months ago when the war of words commenced. The basic message was this:

If Measure A, the LandWatch Initiative, is approved, a landowner in Lockwood won't be allowed to add so much as a storage shed on their property without a
county-wide vote.

If the supervisors' General Plan is approved, choice farmland in the Salinas Valley will be paved over with tract homes and shopping malls.

As with much of the information that has been flying around out there, I strongly doubt that either of these statements is completely true. Again, it depends on who you choose to believe. There's been a lot of misinformation coming from proponents of both plans. Everyone has their own take on the plans and two people often come away with exactly opposite interpretations of the same passage.

Truth is, no General Plan is perfect. For this reason, the plan needs to be flexible and able to change and adapt. There are parts of Measure A that I do agree with, but overall, it is too inflexible and too restrictive, which is why I can't support it. It calls for a county-wide vote on any significant growth or
development. In a very public and costly lesson a couple of years ago, Gov. Schwarzenegger taught us all that government by initiative does not work.

Yes on A folks lump our politicians - the same people we elected to represent us - with developers who are only out to get rich. If our representative are not
representing us, we have the power to vote them out of office.

About three-quarters of county voters on Nov. 7, 2005, rejected the Rancho San Juan development. If the county commissioners bring it back and go forward with it, then it's time for new commissioners. 

Measure D asks us to vote on the Butterfly Village development, which is phase one of the Rancho San Juan development. We should vote No to let commissioners know that we are serious about no massive developments
that will tax our water supplies and lead to more traffic congestion without the necessary infrastructure. Commissioners say that the county will be open to litigation by developers if this project does not go through. Fear of a lawsuit is no reason to approve this development. That they have put is in this position is further reason to replace them.

The county plan certainly isn't perfect, but it has had more public input than Measure A has had. Yes on A mailers state that meetings on Measure A were held "throughout Monterey County," attracting more than 3,000 people. I don't recall any of those meetings being held in South County. Measure A proponents call it the "people's plan" though not that many people had
input on it.

A truly independent interpretation of the plans has been hard to find.
First, the League of Women Voters came out with its analysis and endorsed Measure A. But one of the leaders of that group is also on the board of
LandWatch, so there goes any impartiality. Then a group aligned with the NO on A camp came out with its counter-analysis. No impartiality there either.
It's been frustrating to the point where I was tempted to just vote NO on EVERYTHING. That would only revert us back to the county supervisors' 1982 plan, which is outdated and would be a big step backward.

The most independent analysis I've seen so far can be found at KSBW Channel 8's Web site - theksbwchannel.com. The Salinas television station
asked an experienced city planner and university teacher, Mark Winogrond, to provide an independent analysis. He came up with a 12-page document that is
readable and understandable. It points out that there are good components to both plans without coming down on one side or the other.

This analysis does a good job of laying it out for the voter to make up his or her own mind. Its conclusion states that, "This is one of the most complicated
land-use controversies in the history of California," and "You must respect and truly listen to your so-called opponent in order to understand your own
position."

The money spent by both sides in this campaign has totaled well over $1 million. Too bad that money could not have been spent on some decent farmworker housing. Growth in Monterey County is inevitable. We must
manage it wisely, but not by forfeiting landowners' rights. By approving the county plan, we need to stay on top of development issues and hold a tight rein on county commissioners.

It is my hope that voters have read as much as they can on the opposing plans and make up their own minds, rather than just follow a newspaper's or any group's recommendations.

I will vote No on A, No on B, Yes on C and No on D.