Anyone who is a regular reader of Leonard McKay’s columns knows something of our once-idyllic valley before it was paved over and covered with seemingly endless, sprawling housing developments and strip malls. Residents of Santa Clara County have seen the population nearly double to two million since 1970 with no end in sight. With profits to be made, the county is in real danger of losing its remaining open spaces to greedy developers who care nothing about the quality of life of those of us who live here. The Santa Clara County Land Conservation Initiative on the November ballot aims to insure that an adequate amount of our open space remains that way for future generations.
The initiative, if passed, would amend the County General Plan to limit development on 400,000 acres of unincorporated rural agricultural, scenic and hillside county land, as well as to preserve forests and woodlands, wildlife habitats and stream paths. The limit on development would apply to hillside and ridge lands, allowing only one dwelling per 40- to 160-acre parcel, depending on the steepness and designation of the territory, and keep buildings to a maximum size of 20,000 square feet, with up to 10,000 square feet allowable on any parcel.
The citizen’s initiative was coordinated by a local group known as People for Land and Nature (PLAN), who easily collected twice the number of petition signatures necessary to place it on the ballot. The measure is comprehensive and specific in its proposals, and takes a very sensible approach to solving a long list of problems associated with unencumbered growth. It does not infringe on Constitutional property rights or any higher federal or state law. I have read the complete text of the initiative and believe it will contain sprawl and conserve land with ecological value. What’s wrong with that?
The measure is being supported by a large coalition of conservation organizations, from the Audubon Society to the Sierra Club, and an impressive list of state and local officials, individuals and community leaders, including David Pandori and Tom McEnery. Similar initiatives have passed in San Mateo and Alameda counties in recent years with very positive results. With the election right around the corner, I am sure that we will all hear more about this matter in the coming weeks. Things might get heated, as there is an organized, well-financed campaign against the initiative, the Alliance for Housing and the Environment, backed by the Farm Bureau and various Realtor associations. But this is a sensible citizen’s initiative and I think the citizens will see through the negative propaganda of those greedy few who have the most to gain from the initiative’s defeat, and support the measure in overwhelming numbers.
I urge all of our readers to visit the PLAN website and read the text of the initiative and supporting material.
This one may pass, but it is another useless law. No one has been able to build in the County, the planning department discourages it and the hillside ordinance prevents it.
The “greedy” few are property owners who wish to keep the land values high because of the “possibility” it could be developed—even though the reality is otherwise.
Anyway, it is much ado about nothing. It may be a feel good ordinance for enviros—but it has no effect whatsoever.
The status quo remains whether is passes or not.
Would this Initiative prevent the Coyote valley project? if so, it’s worth supporting. If not, then RR is probably right, it won’t make a difference.
If it just gives us an additional layer of protection against lawyers finding loopholes, it is worth it.
If this will serve to curtail the proliferation of bright white big box trophy homes on the tops of the ridges above Los Gatos, it has my vote.
RR has it wrong again. This initiative will offer much stronger protections than we currently have. On any given Tuesday it only takes 3 of our County Supervisors to make a change to our landuse plans.
This initiative will allow changes only by a vote of the people. Passing this will make a difference, regardless of what RR says.
#5
I’m sure Labor and Cindy are not for this, since it doesn’t create jobs. Why else do you think RR is down-playing it.
#6 – Normally, you would be correct in your assumption, but in this case Labor and Cindy both support it. It won’t impact jobs much either way since not much housing can be created in the areas the initiative deals with.
RR is down-playing apparently because he hasn’t read the language of the initiative.
Actually, labor is for it.
They traded their support of PLAN for Greenbelt Alliance and PLAN’s support of the measure A sales tax.
Don’t trust endorsements. You never know what deal is behind them.
Also, be sure to realize what the iniative does. It doesn’t ban development in scenic areas. It just increases the lot size. Fewer homes will be built, but just as much land will be developed.
It’s a great tool for making sure that CEOs don’t have to live next to mere vice presidents.
But it doesn’t increase open space access for people like you and me.
What do labor/Cindy think about Coyote Valley? Does it relate to this iniative?
Labor seems to view Coyote Valley as their playground for jobs. I don’t believe they have ever supported the preservation of Coyote Valley and have only advocated to build, build, build.
I believe Cindy’s position is similar to Labor’s position.
First, a couple answers:
• The initiative will not affect the development of Coyote Valley, as part of that area is already in SJ and much of the rest will be annexed to SJ. The initiative only affects land under County jurisdiction, and not even all of that. However, the initiative does cover much of the hillside lands surrounding Coyote Valley. As a result, if the initiative passes, those lands would see less development pressure if and when Coyote Valley developes.
• The initiative could curtail the big homes on ridges above Los Gatos. One of the provisions in the initiative goes significantly further than current or proposed County measures to prevent ridgeline development.
As to whether the initiative means much, I suppose that’s a matter of personal opinion. For me, two aspects of it stand out as important.
• While there might only be a small reduction in the number of megahomes built annually in the County (estimates are approximately 100 a year now and perhaps 80 a year in the initiative passes), each of those homes tends to have a disproportionate impact on wildlife, habitats, and views. To the extent those impacts can be curbed, good.
• If the initiative passes, speculative purchases of rural lands could be significantly reduced. As an example, take Sargent Ranch at the southern end of the County. Mr. Pierce purchased that ranch not primarily to become a rancher, but to propose golf course and housing development. We were lucky that we’ve had a pretty good Board of Supervisors for some time now, and they turned down his proposal. A different Board could have chosen differently. If standards such as those embodied in the initiative had been in place previously, Mr. Pierce would have been much less likely to buy that land in the first place, knowing he would need a county-wide vote to approve his plans. As a result, the property would have a better chance of either staying in ranching or becoming public open space over time.
Just a few reasons to work for the passage of this initiative.
PLAN’s Santa Clara Land Use Initiative is very biased, inaccurate and does not honestly describe very restrictive property zoning initiative that takes existing property rights from mostly middle income people who bought or inherited their county property so they, their children and grandchildren could afford to own or build family homes, work small family farms or ranches or wanted to live in less congested and less expensive county areas.
1) Why did PLAN http://www.openspace2006.org use high pressure strong arm political lobbing to oppose a fair unbiased Santa Clara County economic and legal analysis since voters would after reading any real impact analysis on Santa Clara County finances, increased county staff and legal costs as well as large future economic development impacts on potential business would vote down the Initiative
What are they afraid of ? – PLAN’s preventing voters having unbiased facts and analysis is a suppression of free speech and voter rights by withholding information necessary to make an informed decision on the facts
PLAN told supporters – stop analysis since our opponents would use study to defeat Initiative
Planning Department’s report on Initiative problems and costs – Gives you an idea on WHY they DID NOT want a detailed analysis –
http://votenoonmeasurea.com/sbcc/personalinfo.php?page=biography
2) Initiative will have NO effect on most potential hillside, ranch developments Massive hillside development that many people object is in cities and this does nothing to restrict hillside or open space development like Coyote Valley, KB Homes along 101, Milpitas, Woodside, Los Gatos etc hillside or ranch development that each city controls
Last year less than 100 homes were built on county unincorporated land and estimated Initiative will reduce to 80 per year but will cause many property owner problems and County costs
3) Initiative will result in hundreds of lawsuits, significant need for additional County Planning and Legal costs in the tens of millions, reduced county property values and reduced county taxes and is potentially a illegal “taking of property “ without compensation and cost the county tens of millions in costs
4) Taking a person property or their rights to reasonable use is unconstitutional, a right guaranteed by US Constitution
5) If you think Eminent Domain is bad and abusive at least the government pays fair value for your property under Eminent Domain pay fair market value
Initiative is worst than Eminent Domain since it (a) does not pay the property owner a fair value for their property (b) reduces property values by 1/3 to 2/3rds so they can not sell to pay for retirement as many do in California ( c) the worst is inability of property owners to use up to 90% their property which is required to be put in unusable private open space – not open to public
6) Why was Stanford University property excluded from this – because retired Stanford Professor who wrote the initiative has a conflict with his personal retirement income from Stanford which is funded by Stanford Shopping Center leases and other Stanford property leases not cover by this Initiative Stanford University would legally fight this unfair and potentially illegal taking of private property without payments to the many middle income owners and widely expose the unfairness of the Initiative
7) Look at the facts and you will see this is very UNFAIR to county property owners and is a potential illegal taking of private property and it will not accomplish the falsely stated intent of slowing or stop hillside or ranch development that is already heavily restricted and will substantially affect mostly middle class property owners and their children and grandchildren’s use of their property as well as small family farms and ranches
Fairness requires that the opponents to Initiative be given an equal opportunity on San Jose Inside to state their side and correct the many false statements of fact, who actually will be impacted and what are the economic, legal and land use impacts to mostly middle income property owners and Santa Clara County
What the initiative is really about – an illegal grab of private property from mostly middle class or less property owners promoted by PLAN using false and misleading statements and they are unwilling to allow a analysis of the impact on property owners and Santa Clara County that effective results in a restriction on the democratic process and free speech on the Initiative
PLAN is afraid if actual facts came out their Initiative would be defeated and continues to use undemocratic political lobbying to suppress all public debate and unbiased impact analysis by Santa Clara County
http://votenoonmeasurea.com/ Vote No On Measure A
13 – What a load. I understand why you didn’t sign your name to your rant. Your comments are so filled with untruths, half-truths, distortions, and fantasy that it is hard to know where to begin setting the record straight.
I’m sure others will provide the facts that your tirade managed to leave out, but most of what you say is wrong, inaccurate, and in some cases just fabricated.
There should be room for honest disagreement, but if you persist in your false statements you lower the level of discussion. The voters of the county deserve better than that.
This proposed county ordinance is about so-called “viewshed”, whatever that means. To the envirofascists, it means that even a glimpse of a house through the trees on the hillsides is OFFENSIVE! to the eyes of the great lumpen proles seething on the valley floor. Or to Green Foothillers, or Sierra Clubbers. IF they could see the hillsides through the smog. From 1800’ up on the hillsides outside Los Gatos, I can occasionally see MY “viewshed”, i.e., downtown,when it might be clear, and it’s not a pretty sight—except at night. What IS this “viewshed” crap?The ordinance has been recently modified so that downtowners “rights” to a scene without a house on a hillside has been increased from 2 miles to 4 miles. And there’s some question that if the house I built myself over many years time would be lost to fire, I couldn’t rebuild it. Again, the tyranny of the majority, pissed that they can’t be above the smog, in the peace and quiet. Gonna get even, and with righteousness!!! Just got back from Amalfi where the hillsides are COVERED with houses. Big ones. Sophia Loren’s gorgeous villa near Positano. Italians don’t build on arable, flat fertile land. They build on hillsides. And still grow lemons, grapes and olives. George Green
So start the discussion Coyote and we will see who is wrong and telling untruths and what are the facts
1) PLAN lobbyed Supervisors to not do economic and legal analysis
2 Iniatitive will restrict many middle calss families from using their land taht they are legally entitled to do now resulting in inability of familirs to build homes for children on large parcels of land that they bought and pay taxes on and are paying for or inherited and if these restrictions were in ciites the public would be very angry
3) Sanford University land in County were exempted by retired writing Initaitive who is being paid retirement form Stanford who makes money from leasing out their land
4) Only 100 homes a year are built in county while most proposed hillside / ranch land developemtn are in cities excmpte from Iniatitive
PS Did not see you real name – or is it Coyote ?
Your turn Coyote – give us the facts not BS and avoidance od discussion or taking people property rights
I work for Committee for Green Foothills, a supporter of PLAN, and I’m glad to see this discussion.
Commenter #13 is just repeating some poorly-reasoned bullet points from the realtors’ website. For example, the Stanford
Shopping Center isn’t even in County jurisdictional land – it’s in Palo Alto and can’t be affected by anythng done by a County initiative. The rest of Stanford land isn’t in County-designated Hillside, Ranchlands, or Large-Scale Agriculture lands either, but if Stanford bought property in those areas, it will be subject to the same restrictions.
Some other points – there was no critical analysis by the County Planning Department, just a single memo produced by a planner who was apparently asked to look only at potential downsides and not benefits of the project. When contacted, that planner said he saw no critical problem with resolving the Initiative interpretations.
The Initiative stops and reduces sprawl on County land, and reduces speculative pressure to change land use designations. If people want to stop other environmental problems, they can join the environmental organizations that are part of PLAN.
The Initiative does not violate property rights and has a provision that automatically eliminates any other provisions found by a court to be a “taking” of private property. Subject to elementary safety rules, anyone with an existing parcel will get to develop – they just won’t get to subdivide every bit as much as they might like. They’ll still do quite well when selling.
The rest of the criticisms don’t have any basis, as can be seen by the long list of endorsers, here:
http://openspace2006.org/endorsements.htm
We’ve got the League of Women Voters, the Santa Clara County Medical Association, and many others. They’ve listened to both sides and endorsed the Land Conservation Initiative.
As long as we can raise enough local money to fight the money coming from Southern California realtors’ groups, I think we can get the word out and get this passed.
For starters, the discussion on whether or not an economic and legal analysis should be done was held during a PUBLIC hearing before the Board of Supervisors. Opponents and proponents had the opportunity to speak before the Board. A legal analysis will be done by the County Counsel as part of the November ballot information. Numerous economic studies have already been done on measures similar to this one and they are readily available. The Board felt it was not necessary or feasible to do an additional economic study.
Post #12 addresses point 4 in your comment.
Many of the landowners you speak about have benefited from tax breaks for many years as a result of the Williamson Act. The land could not be developed under those circumstances and the initiative changes very little about that. No land is taken as you imply.
The argument about lawsuits is bogus. Other initiatives similar to this one did not bring about the many lawsuits you seem to think will happen.
More later….
#7
Thank you for the correction. When I’m wrong I admit it. Sorry RR and Cindy.
Many folks in the developed world look down on undeveloped countries, but at the same time they call developers “greedy”.
I’d rather live in a developed country than an undeveloped country. Jack, if you’re appalled by developers, find some undeveloped backwater somewhere and commune with nature.
I still don’t understand why California is one of the few places in the entire world that allows, indeed encourages, building on its arable land in the valleys and cries wolf when someone wants to build on non-arable land on the hillsides (except for earthquake concerns, of course).
Where is the alleged “right” set forth in our constitution or statutes for flatlanders to have a view of hills without homes?
Reasonable restrictions on land development have always been upheld. However, from what I’ve read in this blog, the restrictions proposed by this initiative are unreasonable and seem to constitute a taking.
I was playing golf the other day at San Juan Oaks, which is in the beginning stages of further development. They have sealed off areas surrounding the golf course to count salamanders, presumably for the EIR. I overheard one of the gentlemen there saying that they have counted a grand total of eight salamanders all year. For eight salamanders, a development has been stalled for months, if not years. Unreal!
#20 JMO
I would rather live in a civilized community that respects open spaces, than live in an over developed community that is filled with short sighted, selfish residents. So I will vote for the Land Conservation Initiative and you will not . What do you say, if it passes, you can move to an over developed community,and if it doesn’t I will move to a more civilized one.
#20…JMO
This city was founded on taking. Just ask the natives, if you can find any. I’m not sure where we found the right in the Constitution to take it from them, but I think it may be under the right to overdevelop an underdeveloped land.
#21: open spaces are cool , I must admit. But this country is one of laws, and an underpinning of our system (unlike the native americans who had no such concept) is the ownership of real property. If government desires to limit what people who purchased property in good faith can do with that property, then it must compensate the owners of that property for that taking. That’s the constitutional requirement. If you wish to change that, you need to amend the constitution.
I suspect your definition of “selfish residents” is anyone that disagrees with your view that you know better than a property owner about what to do with her/his property.
The solution to the “overdevelopment” issue will not be found as long as humans continue to breed. We’ll need more and more land to house and feed us all. If you solve that dilemma, you’ll get several Nobel Prizes.
It simply isn’t legal, constitutional, or moral to change the rules about what a property owner can do with her/his property without compensating the owner for that change of use.
#22: Of course this city, indeed the entire nation, was founded on taking. To the victor belongs the spoils. So, what would you have us do now, move to tepees and hogans and ride horses and kill the few bison left to live on?
#21:
If indeed you feel that the land is “overdeveloped”, you are more than welcome to raze your house and plant some trees. That would help to correct the imbalance.
As it is, you have no problems with developers when they built YOUR home. You just don’t like them when they build a home for someone else.
The Constitution doesn’t give anyone the right to turn our County into another Los Angeles-style sprawl, with more bad air, bad traffic, and poisoned groundwater. Let’s see someone point to a provision in the Initiative that causes a taking.
Anon makes the argument that mistakes have happened in the past, so let’s keep on making more. Initiative proponents think our County can and should do better.
Simple question for voters – which direction do they want the County to head towards, LA or something with open space? The Initiative is only one component of the answer, but it’s an important one.
#24
There is a difference between poorly planned growth and smart growth. You are for the former, and I the latter.
Two questions not addressed in the discussion so far are: What is sprawl? and How much open space does the community want?
The Merc ran an article a few months ago documenting the breakdown of land use in the Bay Area. I don’t recall the figures for Santa Clara County, but for the Bay area, 45% of the land is currently developed, 25+% was owned or controlled by Government or environmental agencies and not available for development, leaving 25+% that could go either way.
While a precise defination of sprawl is not possible, I don’t think the current situation qualifies. Developed space would have to be closer to 100% than the current level of less than half for me to classify it as sprawl.
The proponents of the iniatiative have not said how much above the 25% of land currently unavailable for development they would find satisfactory. Until they do, it is not possible to have an informed discussion of the trade offs involved.
There is no possibility of development eliminating open space in the area. The current 1/4 of land permanently off limits to develpoment is increasing as government agencies and enviromental groups buy land or development rights and add to the total every year.
A more productive debate would focus on how the 25% not in either classification should be divided between development and open space. If a consensus can be reached on this issue, then government and preservationists can take the necessary actions in the open market to achieve the it and not have to resort to zoning restrictions to achieve their unspecified goal.
For those who prefer to make decisions on the basis of facts, the Merc data make it clear that the current situation hardly qualifies as sprawl and we already have a large and growing amount of permanent open space.
100 homes a year are built in unincorporated Santa Clara County by a mix of people from all income levels not just the tech multi millionaires who build monster houses or few developers you use as justification to pass a Environmental Hypocrite’s and Bullies Iniatitive
Many of my friends bought large lots in the hills years ago because we could not afford to buy in town or liked open spaces, few people, less noise and a place where our children can safely play and where in the future we could build homes for our children I live in a 100 % solar house, solar powers my well, open air home cooling, drive a small efficient car, raise much of my food in our home garden – do you ?
So now a bunch of city people are trying to tell us and our children how we should use our property in the future that we bought and pay full taxes on since we wanted the ability to build on our property
# 25 said – The Constitution doesn’t give anyone the right to turn our County into another Los Angeles-style sprawl, with more bad air, bad traffic, and poisoned groundwater.
Yes, but the people in the hills are not doing that at 100 homes a year – you and your Environmental Hypocrites and Bullies in the cities and valley are doing this every day as you drive your 2 ton or larger SUV’s all over the valley from shopping mall to mall, drive to the open space areas getting 12 mph per gallon, use fossil fuel generated electricity to run non stop your air conditioning, large refrigerators, light up the streets like daylight, waste 40 % of summer water usage on your lawn.
Hypocrites and Bullies tell me and my neighbors that you are ” environmentally conscious ” and want to save the world and open space by force us to donate 37 of every 40 acres to our land to private open space and limiting my use of my property to only 3 acres
#25 says – Let’s see someone point to a provision in the Initiative that causes a taking. – Yea, legally rezoning is not a “ taking “ but it still is not RIGHT to penalize those who are not causing environmental problems when you in the cities are both causing the problems and doing nothing to fix them in your area
Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have beliefs, virtues and feelings that one does not truly possess. A classic example of a hypocritical act is to denounce another for carrying out some action whilst carrying out the same action oneself.
Tell us where and what city in the County is actually using Smart Growth, Green Buildings, or environmental practices, electric vehicles not just talking about it doing it in the distant future – not just a few isolated examples
San Jose City Hall is not a green environmental friendly building, has no solar and poor energy practices. How was the light show last week or the Grand Prix environmentally friendly ?
You are a Bunch of Environmental Hypocrites and Bullies taking other people’s property just because you can out vote us
May you and your children choke on the Los Angeles-style sprawl, with more bad air, bad traffic, and poisoned groundwater that YOU creating in Silicon Valley that was once the Valley of Heart’s Delight
#20
Have you ever wondered why the foothills in Berryessa and Alum Rock have not been totally built up to the summit? It’s because the hillsides are not stable. The city has had to cut off the main access road to Alum Rock Park due to a historic landslide, and had to reopen another lower road that was closed in 1983 becuase of a similar slide. If you look up in the hills at the 680/Berryessa interchange, you will see one development, that was supposed to be 50% bigger than it is – because of the unstable hillsides.
It is regrettable but true – in the immediate Santa Clara Valley, there are very few flat places to build. So unless someone goes whole-hog for vertical infill – as evidently the backers of this measure would like to see happen – you will see building in the flatlands of Coyote Valley, similar to what happened in Santa Teresa and Almaden and Evergreen Valley.
Arability has very little to do with it. When flat valley floor pieces of property appreciated in value by a factor of ten in a few years, as happened in the 1970s, sales to developers were inevitable.
Again, because of the relative affluence of the Bay Area, people can choose the “urban” lifestyle and live in SFO, or choose the “suburban” lifestyle and live in SJC. People seeking the “suburban” lifestyle typically are not going to be seeking brownstones and row houses.
#29
Wow, you almost had me. I was thinking, “this cann’t be one of those selfish land speculaters, who cry foul, when their gamble doesn’t pay off. This guy is a kind , caring citizen, that is getting the shaft. I am all for property rights and against illegal taking and respect a guy who cares for the invironment. Then I read the last paragraph. I don’t know all the facts on this issue yet, but I don’t think you are the kind of guy I want to trust.
#26
Actually, I’m a big fan of smart growth.
It just doesn’t look like the environmentalists will win that fight.
You’re telling people that they should live in high rises, and ignoring the fact that very few high rises are actually being built. (relative to jobs and population growth)
Anon
29 – It’s pretty difficult to have a rational discussion with someone who peppers their comments with phrases like “environmental hypocrites and bullies.” And then, just to make sure there is no room for a rational discussion you drop your last paragraph like a bomb of irrationality.
Perhaps some day folks who make comments like yours will take a step back and engage in rational dialogue. Until that happens though, I’ll agree with #30 that I don’t think you’re the person I would want to trust on this issue.
Jack:
Thanks for the link to the initiative. Much of the “findings” are a one-sided polemic. The stated goals seem supportable in principle, but the wording of the initiative will put off a lot more people than me. It just sounds like a lot of self-proclaimed environmentalists, who are really environmental elitists, deciding what they think you should be able to do with your lands is far more important/deserving than what you think you should be able to do with them.
Should we preserve open space where possible for the common benefit? Of course. Should we take other peoples’ land without just compensation to do so? Of course not. And that’s what will happen if this initiative passes.
The goals are positive, but this initiative needs major re-working to become fair and just to the current landowners that it will adversely affect.
If it passes, The Pacific Legal Foundation should immediately seek out a suitable plaintiff (s) to overturn it as a taking without just compensation.
33 – Why do you think the Initiative is a “taking.” It is not as you will see on the website where it clearly states “The Initiative explicitly states that it is not to be applied if it would deprive any property owner or other person of their constitutional or other legal rights. ” The Initiative will prevail in spite of the misinformation that opponents try to pass as truth. They can’t beat it with facts so they will try by making things up.
10 years ago, the air in San Jose was clean; now it is filled with smog. On a sunny day, the entire san jose is bathed in filth.
that is the price we pay for developing more homes. we do not need more population in San Jose. We do not need more cars.
It is unfortunate that Measure A excluded Coyote Valley due to some compromises PLAN made with the developers in order to get the initiative off the ground.
We should unite to ban further housing development in the Coyote Valley, and give our children better air to breathe in the future.
I am curious. I posted a comment to this thread Sunday morning and the post was never displayed. My position was that the County Supervisors never requested an impact study for this intiative, with voters not having full appreciation and information as to who will be impacted, and to what extent. Was this a problematic comment??
Thanks for allowing my post to come through.
I would like now to respond to “Coyote.”
Coyote, this initiative is very much a taking of land, and I believe it will prove to be unconstitutional, costing Santa Clara tax payers a lot of monies which could have gone into purchasing lands outright. Please understand, I am an environmentalist, was raised to respect nature; I come from several generations of (small family) farmers, and like most who will be voting on this initiative, I am a transplant from another state. The irony is that the real “People for Land and Nature” are in fact those who have lived the life of land and nature, the Santa Clara County farmers and the ranchers. This initiative places unreasonable burden on the very people of Santa Clara County who have already proven themselves good stewards of the land… never having developed their lands.
Protecting county lands is important, I would say critical… but it’s a responsibility that should be shared by all residents, spread across the entire county population, perhaps through higher tax incentives for rural residents (why did the county supervisors put an end to the Williamson Act?) or by a county-wide tax initiative to support a fund to purchase lands as they become available. Measure A is essentially an urban majority who doesn’t want to pay personal monies for land, by simply stealing land from a rural minority. There are issues of fairness and rights.
The County Supervisors never insisted on an impact study. This was unconscionable. We voters do not really know who is being impacted, what harms will be done to real Santa Clara residents. Unlike neighboring urban residents (the people sponsoring this intiative) ranchers and farmers rarely play in stocks and bonds, nor do they enjoy the outlandish appreciation of home properties that others do in the county. Their farms and ranches, which will significantly depreciate after Measure A, are their livelihoods, their bread and butter, their retirement, their source of health care, their access to education, their legacies to children. Why should these people be disadvantaged while others are left to enjoy such basic rights? It just doesn’t make sense to punish the very people who have left their lands undeveloped. In trying to curb careless developers, we are forcing an entire segment of our population into poverty. There has to be a better way, an ethical way, to save both land and people.
And we as taxpayers will never fully appreciate the impact of our own votes…. the Supervisors never allowed the study. We don’t know how many residents, how many families, how many children, or what age or socio-economic groups will be impacted. We know more about the population of burrowing owls in the county than we do our rural residents. I might also add, these ranchers and farmers are multi-generational. Many have existed here for generations, long before the supporters of PLAN or the faculty of Stanford decided the fate of their lands.
#37
I know little about this issue. #34 says “The initiative states that it is not to be applied if it would deprive any property owner of their constitutional rights”. Is that true? If so, please be specific on how this measure impacts you. What will it take from you that you now have?
“If Proposition 90 and Measure A, the land use initiative, both pass, there would likely be numerous claims for compensation filed by property owners who contend that their property has been substantially damaged as a result of the restrictions on property contained in Measure A,”
Santa Clara County Counsel Ann Ravel warned last week in a memo to county officials.
The ballot initiative broadly defines possible grounds for compensation. They include limitations on access to a piece of land or use of its private air space, as well as “downzoning” – a key component of Measure A that involves restricting the development potential of land. The ballot initiative put forth by a coalition of environmental groups seeks to cap development on hillside land at four homes per 160 acres, while allowing only one home on the same amount of ranchlands. Current regulations allow up to 8 homes per 160 acres on both types of land.
Combined with Prop. 90, the resulting loss in land value sets the stage for numerous lawsuits for compensation at a time when the county can least afford it, according to Santa Clara County Supervisor Don Gage.Millions in Claims from Measure A “
Gilroy Dispatch
http://www.gilroydispatch.com/news/contentview.asp?c=195853
Thanks for your posting; Hope you can keep going.
cheap ugg boots