King City Rustler

Chamber hosts third and final election forum: Simon Salinas, Tom Carvey, and Nancy Isakson speak out against Measure A

King City Rustler
Posted on May 16, 2007

BY GINNIE WEATHERWAX

Tom Carvey, left, Nancy Isakson, and District Supervisor Simon Salinas presented their views of Measure A and the potential impact the measure will
have on the county if it passes.

The King City Chamber of Commerce and Agriculture hosted its final information meeting regarding Measure A and the general plan update. Guest speakers were District Supervisor Simon Salinas, Tom Carvey, Executive Director of Common Ground, and Nancy Isakson, an independent government affairs and land use consultant for the Salinas Valley Water Coalition
and the Independent Grower's Association. Election day is right around the corner, June 5, and Simon Salinas wants the community to be "in the know"
with regard to Measure A and the people behind it. Salinas claimed that some of the people responsible for the creation of Measure A have not even been off
of Highway 101; therefore, they have no idea what the needs are within South County communities like King City.

"Measure A is good for the Peninsula, because they have found a way to become exempt," Salinas said. "We need to be able to meet the needs of a changing economy and we need to be able to make those changes,"
he added.

Salinas described Measure A as unfair, and rigid, whereas the updated general plan allows for flexibility, and meets the needs of communities within
the county.

Isakson, who has been involved in the general plan process since 1999, said the general plan has been a process of public participation all along, while
Measure A was written by two out-of-town attorneys, behind closed doors, without public input. Like Salinas, Isakson expressed her concern with the
lack of flexibility Measure A exhibits. If it passes, Measure A will lock the county down for 25 years.

To illustrate the potential severity of this "lock-down," Isakson likened Measure A to buying a sweater for a new baby, and expecting that sweater to fit the growing infant until he/she is 25 years old. Isakson supports the general plan update, because it allows for changes to better suit the needs of
communities within Monterey County.

Adding to Measure A's lack of appeal, according to Isakson, is the fact that Measure A does not include and Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and it has the same level of unavoidable significant impact as the general plan update, just to a lesser degree. Isakson added that Measure A has a greater impact on
agricultural land, because it does not allow for any affordable housing, commercial, or industrial development south of Chualar. "They've disenfranchised the south (South County), which is really a disservice
to this county," she said.

Carvey outlined Measure A by highlighting the obvious and severe issues involved. First of all, Carvey said, Measure A will increase congestion and population densities, because it forces all growth into the 12 existing cities and the five "community areas" the initiative allows for. He added that three of the five areas are flood zones during the rainy season. According to Carvey, Measure A does not provide a method of paying for traffic improvements, which would be necessary if population densities are higher. "It
(Measure A) will undercut funding for roads, water facilities, fire stations, and schools," he said. Measure A will also have adverse effects on property
taxes. Carvey referenced the results from the Bay Area Economics Report, which indicated that, in the event Measure A passes, there will be millions of dollars less in generated tax revenues for the county. Carvey explained that revenues will be down because Measure A devalues 97 percent of the land in the county. This land cannot be used, developed, or subdivided, based on provisions within Measure A. While land value will go down, residents will still
have to pay for the same services; therefore, taxes will go up, Carvey said.

Additionally, Measure A locks the county into a fixed situation for 25 years. According to Carvey, it does so in three ways.

First, Measure A does not allow for any new parcels on 97 percent of the land in Monterey County without county-wide voter approval. Secondly, no provision of Measure A can be changed, amended, or repealed, except
by a vote of the people. Finally, the entire package of the initiative will remain in effect for 25 years. Carvey, like Isakson, is awestruck by the fact that
there was no EIR done for a plan that seeks to lock in all 2.12 million acres of the county for 25 years. Carvey said, unlike Measure A, the general plan update allows for nine rural centers, which takes pressure off of cities within the county and saves farm land. Carvey encouraged audience members to spread the word about the election. Forty percent of the county's voters live in the Peninsula area, which is a significant percentage, according to Carvey. "It's imperative that we get everyone to the polls," he said.