The editorial board of San Jose Inside recommends voting for the following:
SAN JOSE MAYOR
Chuck Reed
SAN JOSE CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT 3
Sam Liccardo
DISTRICT 6
Steve Tedesco
SANTA CLARA COUNTY DA
Karyn Sinunu
MEASURE A
Yes
We invite SJI bloggers to make your own recommendations for local races below and tell us why.
I’m writing in Dave Pandori’s name.
Vote no on Measure A.
Stop all measures telling people what they can and can’t do with their own property.
Tyranny in its most basic form.
3 – Measure A is our last, best chance to preserve our hillsides and ranchlands. The bulk of the money opposing Measure A comes from Southern California real estate interests. Is that who you really want calling the shots for us here?
You should actually read the text of Measure A and you will see it is not “tyranny” at all. It is common sense planning to protect open space and prevent resources from being drained by poorly planned sprawl development.
You should join over 100 elected officials, environmental organizations, the League of Women Voters, etc., etc. in supporting Measure A by voting yes.
I also voted no on all the bond issues. This state has too much debt as it is. Bond financing is fine, up to a point, but we have too many interest payments. I also voted no on A becuase it’s just a bunch of spoiled brats and whiny yuppies complaining about their precious views.
Measure A will not solve anything. Thing is, good solutions do not happen instantaneously as a simple matter of feel-good sloganism. The best solutions, if taken seriously, require time and encourage a more broad-based process, giving voice and respect to all stakeholders and their unique perspective. Even those in the minority. Measure A excludes an entire group, private rural land owners, from a privileged economic model, with no consideration for determining a win/win value proposition. Measure A is unbalanced, unfair, and coercive.
Thing is, you can “save” the farm, but if you don’t save the farmer, what then?
As it is with Measure A, concepts of property are no longer consistently applied. Concepts of environmental conservation and sustainability have also become trivialized by the initiative with its privileged view of who bares all burden. If Santa Clara County values open space, then the community should make that value explicit by spreading the burden and legitimately securing open space. Compensation is a mechanism for shared burden. Measure A never addresses compensation; what we get, we get for free. How easy is that?
And if our prosperous high tech companies want “a quality of life for their employees”, as Carl Guardino, the president of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group stated in his endorsement press release, then these member companies, who are keen to protect their own intellectual property rights, and who have been the engines of growth and prosperity here in Silicon Valley, should also share an environmental obligation. Member companies should significantly contribute to open space funding. The more our environmental perspective opens to broad-based solutions (starting with what WE contribute individually), the closer we may get to the desired objective, that is, protecting environment within a realistic understanding of accelerating population growth.
I would definitely vote NO on Measure A, because it does not represent environmental complexity, democratic process, or distributive fairness. It has raised the issues, though, of what is needed and who should bare the burden of this need.
Just exactly who is the “editorial board” of San Jose Insider?
7 – I have been writing under this name for a long time. I appreciate the flattery of your using my name but would appreciate it if you would choose another name.
Thanks.
6 – So, your solution is to oppose Measure A and allow sprawl to continue? By the time anything is done to protect us from over-development, there won’t be any land to save and our resources will be stretched to breaking and all of us will be paying more for less services. Doesn’t sound like a good plan to me.
Measure A will still allow for smart planning and keep sprawl in check so that our resources aren’t pushed to the limit. Sounds like a better plan to me.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said,” A strong punlic desire to improve the punlic condition is not enough to warramt acjoevomg tje desire by ba a short cut rather than the consitutional way of paying for that change.”
Need more be said?
As for the bonds, General obligations are paid for out of the general funds that should be available to fix pot holes and pay for the maintainance to the parks and pay for police and fire protection. It first goes to the bond payments. Then, it pays for the rest… who says no taxes!
Jerry
#2, I was bent on writing in Pandori’s name but I felt the race was going to be too close and wanted to do my part to remove Cindy from City Hall completely, so I voted for Chuck.
I voted yes on A. I saw “No on A” signs outside of Republican headquarters behind Valley Fair so that helped me decide. Anyone who enjoys the green hills they see in San Luis Obispo County should vote yes on A. This is like a local version of the Williamson Act of the 1970’s, which was put in place in SLO county when I was at Cal Poly majoring in City and Regional Planning. The benefits are obvious to anyone who visits that area.
Also voted for Sinunu after not being sure which choice was the right one for me. Again, saw a sign for Dolores Carr on the lawn of Republican headquarters so that influenced the way I cast my vote.
This time around for me, it’s all about throwing the bums out. Glad I had a reason to be passing by Republican HQ last week. It helped me get my absentee ballot completed a little faster.
I voted Libertaran for Governor. Won’t vote for Arnold after what he did in Ohio in 2004, but can’t vote for Phil Milquetoast either. Maybe I should have written in Steve Westly to make my point to the Democratic good ol’ girls’ network who like lemmings threw their support behind a loser like Phil. Since when has the PC thing to do become shooting your own party in the foot? Westly actually had a shot at beating Arnold but the Dems were too afraid to snub a guy like Phil who has been paying his dues forever. Verrrrry Stoooopid.
Disappointing that Poizner is on target to buy his way into the governor’s office. Disappointing that another loser, Bustamante is the best the Dems could offer to run against him.
I smell another rat just like Darryl Issa in this situation.
Disturbing that Mc Clintock might beat Garamendi. That guy is a certified whack job, he’s got a permanent crazed look on his face (this likely due to the fact that he IS crazy) and makes Pombo come off like a lefty.
OK Novice, contain yourself or you’ll make way too many typos.
#4- What made the hillsides ours? Is it because we can see them from our windows, or when we drive down the freeway? You think they’re yours just because you’ve lived next to them for some time, now you can tell the landowners what is best?
You are forcing your own notion of preservation, one I may even agree with, onto everyone, with no regard for someone who may have a different vision.
God forbid someone wants to put another home on their piece of property. Or even worse, build homes for other people.
Voting for Pierluigi Oliverio for District 6.
We need more private sector high tech people for balance.
12 – Everything we do has consequences. If you build more homes in the hills it impacts many people—it goes beyond impacts on the view—it also impacts costs to provide services (water, etc.), costs to provide infrastructure (roads, etc.), impacts on water and air pollution, etc. Who do you think pays for all of this poor planning? You and me. I don’t want to pay for poor planning and the negative impacts it will bring. Measure A allows some building and some housing. It does not go as far as it could (and some might say, should) but it does establish some limits to growth so that we don’t further reduce the quality of life here.
Every other civilized country I am aware of builds in the hills when posssible and leaves as much of the fertile valleys as possible for growing food.
Preservation of land is a lofty goal; but when done at the expense of the few, it constitutes a tryanny of the majority. It is not a lofty goal to take other peoples’ land without just compensation. That’s what Measure A does.
If it pases, affected landowners should get in touch with The Pacific Legal Foundation.
This just in…
The ghosts of FDR, JFK and LBJ have all endorsed Cindy.
The Chavez campaign made the startling announcement during a séance at the Winchester Mystery House.
There was no comment from the endorsers but the Chavez campaign was quick to point out that the dead Presidents are the latest in a long line of prominent Democrats to endorse the Vice Mayor’s candidacy.
This is a letter that appeared in the Gilroy Dispatch over the weekend:
Letters to the Editor
Friday, November 03, 2006
Local Farmer Explains How Measure A Hurts Ag and South County
Dear Editor,
It struck a nerve when a councilman from Palo Alto wrote to the Gilroy Dispatch to say that Measure A won’t hurt farmers. I doubt that he would know since he’s not a farmer. I am a farmer and I’d like to share my viewpoint.
Measure A does not support working farms. It’s unfair to even claim that this is a measure to “save the farmers” when not one farmer or rancher was asked for any input in drafting it. Not only do farmers and ranchers not support this measure, we have come out in force against Measure A.
I also have a problem with the notion that we need the people from the cities to form laws and measures to protect “us simple folk in the country” because we are too idiotic to understand the complexities of a growing urban region and the impact it can have on our community. Thanks for the suggestion, but we would rather have a collected effort of all groups and stakeholders in our communities – not just the environmentalists – to form land use measures that will affect our community and our businesses for generations to come.
What will Measure A do for farmers and ranchers? Well its core purpose is to downzone property in the hillside and ranchlands. This will devalue the land, affecting our borrowing power and flexibility in a very volatile marketplace. Contrary to Palo Alto Councilman Peter Drekmeier’s statements, there is a lot of farming and ranching in those two areas – $8 million worth of cattle alone last year, along with wineries, row crops, hay and grain. These are real businesses trying to make a living and these measures just add more regulations and restrictions.
Besides devaluing our greatest asset, our land, Measure A contains restrictions on agricultural operations. The viewshed portions restrict where facilities can be located. The measure requires that most of our agricultural facilities be located within a 3-acre envelope. And it restricts what produce can be sold or used by farmers’ markets and wineries in the ranchlands and hillside areas.
These restrictions show that the authors of Measure A clearly don’t understand the realities of farming. We all barter and sell produce to each other, and wineries regularly import grapes from within and from outside of the county when needed to make a specific wine or augment local production.
I am also a member of the Santa Clara County Farm Bureau’s Board of Directors, so I want to comment on the fundraising issue. Our elected board of working farmers voted to put $30,000 into the campaign to fight Measure A. While Mr. Drekmeier may not consider this much of a commitment, it is quite a bit to a small political organization of 350 family farmers.
We are very proud of our work to defeat Measure A. It doesn’t support farming, ranching or the wine industry. If you want to support farmers, buy California and local produce, or support measures that help agricultural businesses expand, not restrict and devalue them. I hope your readers will read the whole measure for themselves. I’ll be voting no on Measure A.
Tim Chiala, George Chiala Farms, Morgan Hill
15 – Read the initiative. That’s not what it does.
Coyote- The “costs” are a miniscule part of this discussion and measure. I will happily discuss the “costs” we all share as taxpayers anytime. This measure is about one group of people forcing another group of people to adhere to their ideas.
If you and I want to “preserve” some land and stop outsiders from enjoying the area we do, then lets raise some money from people who share that idea. If not enough people do, lets not take it through political measures.
The government already takes our money for whatever pet projects are the issues of the day (healthcare for everyone, education bureaucracies, car races, fancy offices, rep. theaters, etc.). Please don’t let them take the last thing my family may have, our property.
Vote No on Measure A.
Joe – The cost are not miniscule, but obviously you are not going to be convinced in the short time today we have to discuss this. Practical experience and study after study show that the costs are major and that it is much more expensive to allow sprawl in urban areas than to have some rational planning in place.
I’m not sure who the “one group of people” is. Most people prefer to live in and near a well-planned community and one that also respects our natural resources. Although those opposing Measure A continue to circulate the canard that it was put together in secret, the reality is that it was drafted with the input of hundreds of individuals and representatives from many organizations.
As for how the government uses our money, that’s why we have elections. If people were smarter about how they voted, our money would not be wasted as it often is today.
I’m not sure about your comment about “healthcare for everyone” though. I think the millions and millions of Americans who do not have health insurance might wonder where this “healthcare for everyone” is.
“Pierluigi Oliverio”
He just seems like a guy who hasn’t been able to get started in life. His high-tech experience seems really thin like the rest of his resume.
His whole appeal seems to be: ” I grew up in Willow Glen and my family is from here and I only take money from the local moneyed interests but not from anyone else.”
I don’t see and “there”, “there.”
1) Measure A is our last, best chance to preserve our hillsides and ranchlands – False – most of development on hillsides and ranchlands is in 15 cities like Coyote Valley , Evergreen and Milpitas etc while only average 65 homes a year for last 10 years in unincorporated county
2) County pays higher cost for unincorporated county – Yes and No – many rural property owners are off the grid and have private paifd roads, septic systems, windmills and solar systems and use cellular phones – If costs are the issue charge for them not take their private property rights
3) Measure A is a taking of property rights and while California law does not define down zoning as a ” taking” when you rezone from 20 to 40 acres to 160 acres and take away the ability of thousands property owners who are paying for or got the property from family to have a reasonable use because you have a few developers or rich tech millions you are trying to prevent abuses it results in an abuse of thousands of working prople
4) Measure A has been grossly misrepresented to the voters and the envirnomentsal groups have bullied the politicians and not told the voters the actual impacts
If you expect this talking of private property by the majority from rural minority to go away it will not and you can expect lawsuits and other actions to continue since property rights are a fundamental constitutional right and if the same was happening to you as a city propety owner you would be equally upset.
Our property is not your property and if the issue is proper property care then have the common sense and intergrity to bring up the issues with us rather than try to bully us by Measure A
There’s a blog purportedly written by “Southern California Realtors Against Santa Clara County” which claims to support the No on Measure A Campaign:
http://socalrealtorsagainstsantaclaracounty.blogspot.com/
It discusses how it’s important to vote No on Measure A in order to advance the cause of making our county look more like their beloved Los Angeles. It brings up multiple examples of false statements made by the No campaign, and defends them. It has this slogan:
Vote No on Measure A – Southern Californiafy Your County Instead!
(For the irony-impaired, consider whether this is a parody blog. And I have no comment on whether I’m involved in the blog.)
– Will only affects developers and tech millionaires – Fact – down zoning will affect 2-4000 regular people and most people in unincorporated will see higher costs for routine home inprovements
– Was not fairly presented to the voters with the legal and financial actual impacts – Fact – envirmnomental groups did not want a fair open discussion or the actual fact to be discussed and relied on misrepresentation and surprised farmers, ranchers and rural property owners and DID NOT have the political courage or good faith to discuss the issues with those who would be affect or pay for our private open space that benefits the entire community
– Will only have a minor affect on rural property owners – Fact – Reading of the initiative and county council analysis refutes this gross misrepresentation
If Measure A is passed we will REMEMBER those passed it. The legal and political fights have just begun Measure A will be used as a rallying example of excessive envirnomental activism and how envirnomental groups bully politicians lied to voters and abused property owners for decades to come
Hey Brian and Coyote who is RB Gelman, and it’s interesting that you and the proponents of Measure A (PLAN) say you are trying to protect agriculture in the valley while claiming that 100,000 acres in unincorporated county land is suitable for high density development. Unfortunately, most of this land is currently being used for agriculture on the valley floor, including the Gilroy garlic fields. Measure A does not protect these lands, indeed, you are promoting their development. Ironic, isn’t it? To understand what PLAN is up to visit http://measurea.blogspot.com/2006/11/who-is-people-for-land-and-nature-plan.html
#18-
I’ve read the measure, and in some detail. (And, for the record, neither I nor my family own any of the affected land.)
It has nothing to do with “conservation”. Not one acre would be purchased for public use. No conservation easements would be signed.
What it does is restrict the use of someone else’s land, without paying them for it.
It will pass, because there are more of us (in the cities) than there are of them (in rural areas).
That may not bother you, but put the shoe on the other foot.
There are more people in southern california than there are in the north. Do they have a right to take our water rights without compensation?
There are more people in the central valley than there are in silicon valley. Do they have a right to dictate our land use decisions?
If they did, y’all would be screaming bloody murder.
But for some reason it is ok for us to pass a law regulating land use in rural areas.
That isn’t to say I don’t support conservation. If you want to pass a law raising my taxes to buy land for open space, I’d vote yes.
My family has lived in San Jose since it was a pueblo. Until 1984, I made my living in local agricuture, as did my family for generations before me. I have lived through the years of uncontrolled growth here in San Jose and have seen what it did to the Garden City located in the Valley of Hearts Delight. As a Republican I am not for big government and don’t like the government running our lives. I do feel however, we need to plan for the future. I see most of those supporting 90 and opposing A as a bunch of outsiders that want to make a buck off our future. Sorry #11 Mark T, but there are those of us Republicans that are free thinkers that also see the value in smart planning. Democrats don’t have a monopoly on good planning. That is why I am voting yes on A and no on 90.
Yes on Measure A
No on Prop 90.
However, I admit that I think developed hillsides with nice homes look better than bare hills. The problem is that we get stuck with the tab when they burn up or slide down the hill.
Dear Editorial Board,
I am behind you 90%. I am with you on all but the DA. I have several friends that work in the DA’s office and one that is a Judge. They all said to vote for Carr. I don’t know either candidate but must go with those that have worked with both. I would like to hear your thoughts on 90. All the people that I respect as good city planners say to vote no, or NO! is more like it.
#21 thanks for your response to #13…not once in any forum has anybody said they wanted a high tech salesperson to answer our needs. I found the newspaper endorsements peculiar to say the least. My money is on Clark Williams. He has a great background, broad endorsements and I think the ability to protect our neighborhoods and small business districts while making sure infill development serves our district as well as San Jose. Happy Vote Day all!
#18: I have read the initiative, and that’s exactly what it does.
25 – Interesting blend of very little fact and a lot of fiction. You are wrong about most of what you say including who I am. I’m not Gelman, and I don’t know who that is. Your website is similarly strewn with statements that you can’t substantiate. I would have to assume you work with those who oppose Measure A based on the distortions and untruths on your site. As with so many of the campaigns on tomorrow’s ballot, truth has been a victim.
#28, you can’t be serious about hillsides with houses looking better than those without. Have you been to the Los Gatos area lately? I moved out to this part of San Jose 17 years ago and have a view of the eastern hills and ridges above LG. In that time, the number of homes on those hills and ridgetops has increased by probably at least 500%. And these aren’t just any homes, they are big boxy trophy homes painted snow white so they can stand out and give some poorly endowed over-achiever over-compensator types a feel-good moment as they view their triumph from the parking lot that is southbound 17 each evening.
That kind of defacing of our luscious and beautiful hillsides needs to stop.
Brian,
Whether or not Measure A passes, as a proponent of in-fill development, can we count on you to testify before City Council’s on the peninsula in support of high-rise development? In-fill! In-fill! In-fill!
32. My apologies, I meant to ask who is RB Gelman, as a question to you and Brian, not to mean you were him.
#33
I said “nice homes”, not trophy houses. Granted, that is subjective. However, in my opinion well designed homes that integrate with the hillsides look better, and provide housing. The problem is they burn up or slide down the hill at some point in their existence.
Do the math. If I have a forty acre spread and the zoning is twenty acres, I can either subdivide it into two lots and build a house on one lot to sell, or I can sell twenty acres for someone else to buiild on it. Either way, I make some money, and still have my twenty acres to build on.
If suddenly the government changes the rules to forty acre minimums, I have lost the ability to sell half the land or to build a house to sell on half the land.
There is no denying that I have lost money, or value. The Constitution says I must be compensated for that. Under Measure A, they are trying to tell you there is no taking, but there clearly is a taking. I’ve been robbed of the ability to make money off something I own, by a bunch of folks who have no interest in that land.
Swell enough for all you self-styled environmentalists who don’t take the hit; but for the country landowner, it’s costly.
If you want someon’es land, raise money like Sempervirens does and buy it. Don’t steal it under the guise of some high-minded environmental elitism.
#33 – absolutely it needs to stop.
I wonder how those beautiful monstrocities got built near the 85 merge onto 101. What a shame. How soon will those residents be clambering for a more convenient Wal-Mart, Bed, Bath & Beyond, Circuit City and Jamba Juice with a Costco across the street?
#15 – as far as other civilized countries building up their hills and leaving the flats for food, England seems to have done a decent job of protecting their hills from development around all but the largest of their cities. Feels much like there is a POST organization when one goes to Horsham, for example.
Smart, sustainable growth – if only all could agree on what that means – is critical for Coyote Valley.
As far as compensating landowners for a ‘taking’, some compromise seems warranted there but not for speculators who put forward unrealistic development plans and then scream ‘property rights’. It is just too crowded here to allow landowners to do what they want with large tract, high value views.
Just to correct the usual misinformation, Measure A locks in the current land use protection for large scale flatland valley farms located outside Gilroy city limits to the south and east of the city. No sprawl could come to that area except by a vote of the people. Gilroy could annex that area, but it would have to go through an extensive public process and get approval by a county agency (LAFCo), so premature annexation is unlikely.
In other words, if you want to protect farming as was done in San Mateo and Alameda counties, vote yes on Measure A.
#38: yes there are a few speculators who have bought up tracts. But there are thousands of small landowners who will be the babies thrown out with the bathwater if measure A passes.
40 – History has not shown that to be the case. The Board of Supes had to enact emergency legislation back in the 70s because speculators were doing an end run around the General Plan. They would buy a parcel that was only allowed to be subdivided into fourths, then they subdivide the subdivide thus getting more houses approved than should have been allowed. If you don’t think speculators are clamoring to build all over the hills, then lets talk about some property I have to sell.
“I have been on the San Jose city council almost as long as he has, and I’ve accomplished more.” Chavez said. “I’ve doubled the amount of parks and we are the first city in the nation to offer children under the age of 18 health insurance.”
http://cbs5.com/local/local_story_310162206.html
Is Chavez confused? She’s been on the City Council “almost as long” as Chuck Reed.
Ummmm…don’t think so.
There is no question in my mind that builders want to build, Planner #41. There are legitimate means to plan development properly without stealing peoples’ land.
Hey, Coyote
About the only thing that A will accomplish is move all of the law suits out of the local courts directly to the federal system where the definition of a “taking” has been established. It will provide the Pacific Legal Foundation with more cases than they can handle.
What kind of a socialist are you?
J
44 – Socialist?? That’s a good one, Jerry. I want sensible planning and hillsides and ranchlands that aren’t overdeveloped. I want our resources to be managed in an efficient and economic manner. I want wildlife protected so they aren’t forced further down into the valley where homeowners then want to kill them. I’d like to see some remnant remain of what this valley used to be known for before we started paving it over. I’d like our air to be clean and breathable. I’d like our roads to be able to handle our traffic and I’d like us to be able to keep those roads in good shape (unlike how most of them are today.) Basically, I want this valley to be a decent place to live, both today and in the future. If you think that makes me a Socialist then we have different ideas about what Socialism is.
I’m in awe of how many posters want to control what other people do with their property.
-Some want to keep their idea of pretty views
-Some like houses
-Some don’t like certain kinds of houses
-Some don’t want other people clamoring for local retail
-Some don’t like people who buy to turn a profit
-Some don’t like when people buy to prevent others from buying or protect wildlife
-Some don’t like when people build houses for other people
-Some think because they have lived here for x years they should plan for the rest of us.
Should we be allowed to force people to support our personal preferences through political measures?
I hope not
Measure A will NOT slow developers building on hillside or ranchland most od county where development occurs – 15 cities only working people building family homes. It will NOT stop building in
– Los Gatos hills as #33 Mark T wants,
– San Jose near 101 and 85 as #38 Another Poster in Sunnyvale wants
– Coyote Valley as Coyote wants
– Homes along 101 in South San Jose as many want
– Evergreen as others want
– San Jose or Milpitas hillsides as many want
These are NOT covered in Measure A because 15 city’s hillsides and ranchlands are NOT included – Read the Initiative
I’m curious about what this space will look like on Tuesday morning. What will we have to yell about them. It will be all over. Maybe JMO can teach us how to play golf at Pasa Tiempo without stepping on the banana slugs.
48 – I wish you were correct, but I fear there will be plenty for some to yell about. The Cindinistas will find some reason to complain about why they lost, the Measure A opponents will threaten legal action, etc.
We’re a long way from being able to play golf. There is a lot of work to be done, regardless of who/what wins or loses tomorrow. Maybe folks on this site will find some common goal we can all agree on and move forward to actually do something to make San Jose a better place to live with a real democratic government. OK, I can dream can’t I?
Coyote:
I use the term “socialist’ in all kindness. It is the nicest thing that I can say to one who wants to take something that belongs to another without paying. What would you call such a person?
J
Vote an absolute NO on all bond issues. How can we justify obligating future generations? The schools and roads that would be built with the bonds would need replacing before the 30 year bonds are paid off and then more bonds are needed. Where does this short sightedness end?
Native #48: Based on my round @ Pasatiempo on 10/23, all I could teach is how NOT to play.
Never saw a banana slug, though. Someone must have killed them all already.
Coyote – is like many local socialist envirnomentalists with oversimplified solutions that want others to pay while unwilling to pay themselves
Coyote says – I want sensible planning and hillsides and ranchlands that aren’t overdeveloped
– About 25 years late to starting to apply Smart Growth to 15 local cities It is not large developments that change our envirnoment but tens of thousands of exceptions to city Smart Growth and General Plans San Jose is worst example while No envirnomental organization has complained that San Jose has NOT following it’s Smart Growth policy for decades resulting in an envirnomental and land use disaster
I want our resources to be managed in an efficient and economic manner.
– Continue to Vote in city politicians that pander to envirnomental groups on issues like Measure A that will not affect cities while these same politicians finance their campaigns with developer campaign contributions or take developer free office rent – check out who owns campaign headquarters and how they get free or low cost rent – Politicians can not serve 2 masters – envirnomentals and developers
I want wildlife protected so they aren’t forced further down into the valley where homeowners then want to kill them.
– What is forcing or encouraging wildlife into cities – could be packs of dogs released by their city owners, lack of natural preditors in cities, residents feeding wildlife or wildlife overpopulation that encourages wildlife to come to cities Get a clue homes in unincorporated county do not causes all problems
I’d like to see some remnant remain of what this valley used to be known for before we started paving it over.
– It is probably too late since envirnomental groups have been ineffective in stopping city hillside and productive farmland developments responsible for 95% + of paving over of most of valley not the few homes in unincorporated county
I’d like our air to be clean and breathable. I’d like our roads to be able to handle our traffic
– So having poorly thought out very restrictive planning and developmet laws, restricting 1/2 county from development, and having a poorly designed VTA did not result in very high local home prices? High home prices / rents and decades of ineffective uncontrolled city planning resulting in 1) homes not being build near jobs and thousands commuting across the valley to work and 2) people moving 1-2 hours from Silicon Valley for affordable homes has causing our poor valley air quality from high levels of traffic and industrial pollution
I’d like us to be able to keep those roads in good shape (unlike how most of them are today.)
– reduce the traffic from outside of Silicon Valley by transfering jobs outside Silicon Valley which is happening due to very high housing costs
Have very low density Silicon Valley companies 1) reduce acres of free parking by build housing walkable to jobs near them and require employees more thatn 15 miles from work take company subsidized public transit and have Silicon Valley companies pay fees based on the mileage employees live from work to pay for transit improvements which will reduce traffic jams Implement company paid Transportation User Fees for impacts on local roads, freeways and transit usage rather than expecting local budget short local government ito pay
Basically, I want this valley to be a decent place to live, both today and in the future.
– Try not bullying others. preventing discussion of impacts in trying to convince people what you want is best for them or taking their property rights but work together to solve our problems
If you think that makes me a Socialist then we have different ideas about what Socialism is.
– Yes you are a Socialist – Socialism is a system in which property and wealth are subject to social control associated with collective ownership either directly or indirectly — exercised on behalf of the people by the state
Reed for Mayor, wouldn’t vote for Chavez if she were the only person in the race. She has been nothing but a flunky for the unions never even had a real job.
So all these supporters of Measure A are socialists? Didn’t know that. Thanks for enlightening me. I looked at their website and it seems to refute most of what the name-callers are saying. For example, it says ” Under Measure A, all existing legal parcels and uses remain valid. The measure is not applicable if it would violate any person’s property rights.” How is this socialism or a taking? Do you equate all environmentalists with socialism? Just because people want to protect open space, wildlife habitat, air and water, limit traffic congestion, etc. they are socialists? If so, what label do you put on yourselves who apparently feel the opposite of the environmentalists?
Let me clarify my statement above. It’s a free country. If people want to build their monster homes high on the wooded hills above Los Gatos, rather than deny them that “right” to build I’d like to see the county implement some rules around structures blending in, like no more refrigerator-white Home Depot big boxes glaring out from the ridge line, and no more stadium lighting. Life is about compromises. Buildinig your trophy home and having it blend in by using a color palate compatible with its natural surroundings seems like a workable solution. A good percentage of the over-achievers/over-builders in this valley clearly need some supervision as they can’t seem to kick the ugly and unbecoming habit of conspicuous consumerism.
Lan Duse…. you are playing hypothetical boundaries. What is the “entitlement” of a high-tech urban Palo Altan to decide agricultural land use 50 miles away? That too doesn’t make sense.
60 – Over 60,000 voters from all over the county signed the petition to put this on the ballot.
I thought I’d try out some new monikers, like Coyote and Lan Duse. Please know, that raven_bubbles_moonbeam is 10 years younger, 10 pounds slimmer, and twice as rich as Diane. OK? Great.
Can anyone tell me the veracity of the information at http://measurea.blogspot.com/ ?? Seriously, is this stuff accurate? Newspapers like the Merc never addressed who was funding the Yes campaign or who the “players” behind the intitiatve are. Why?
Is Brian S. on the board? The reason I ask, is that I had found your blog mentioned at #23 last Friday, before you posted yesterday. There was a comment left on one post about the treasurer of PLAN trying to hurriedly sell his Mt. Hamilton ranch land. That’s what I’m reading on that “measurea” blog as well. But I just checked your blog, and all comments have now been removed. Why was that removed? Is there truth to this?
Missing from this discussion is the obvious:
If Measure A passes it will not be implemented by the vote but by the outcome of the inevitable lawsuits that will follow.
The phrase you cite “not applicable if it would violate any person’s property rights” doesn’t do what you say.
It merely says that, if the county overreaches and violates property rights, then they should not have applied the law in that case. It isn’t there to protect he landowner- it is there so that the law is harder to overturn.
I still offer my challenge to the measure A proponents. If you accept urban voters rezoning rural land, is it ok with you for the central valley to rezone San Jose and Palo Alto?
More info on A.
http://measurea.blogspot.com/
55 – I merely cited the initiative—I didn’t say it did or did not do anything.
OK for the central valley to rezone San Jose and Palo Alto?? Nice try, but of course not only does that make no sense, it’s also apples and oranges. The people of Santa Clara County should deal with their own land use issues. Measure A does that. If the central valley wants to deal with their own land use issues, that’s fine, too. The rural land is in the county—residents of the county have the right to make a decision on what kind of land use they want to see in place. the central valley is not in Santa Clara County. This is the best you can do?
Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual). – Ayn Rand
Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic. – Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people. – Giordano Bruno
#43 JMO
I have not read all of Measure A yet.
You say that Measure A will steal people’s land. Do you really mean this? Will it force a change of title of land without any payment? Will the owners of the land still be able to use the land the same way they have in the past? Is it considered a taking if a few selfish people choose to destroy the quality of life of hundreds of thousands of people, or is that just called CAPITALISM? #52… It is never too late to start practicing smart growth!
Measure A requires you dedication theyour land beyond 3 acres per parcel to open space or conservaion easements which may be may be made a separate legal parcel which may be deeded to Open Space Authority or public agency or entity
————————-
2 Open Space: the land area outside of permitted building envelopes shall be preserved permanently as open space through dedication of open space or conservation easements precluding any future development:
b. areas subject to easement may be made a separate legal parcel
c. the open space area shall be privately controlled and not accessible to the public unless the area is deeded to a public agency or entity willing to undertake responsibilities of ownership, maintenance and public access
http://openspace2006.org/pdf/FinalInitiativeText.pdf
Now that the elections are over, could someone tell “Average Joe” who posted on Nov 6 at 9:20, (#3) that I just closed escrow on the home next door to him and I have decided to put up a 4 story brothel. I appreciate “Joe’s” continuing support which allows each homeowner “the right to choose what they can and can’t do with their own property”. Thanks, “Joe”. P.S. The girls will be right over.
#66
I believe there was a typo in your name. Isn’t it supposed to read Hysterical Guy.
Thanks to all who voted against Measure A.
If you love the sprawl of L.A., you’ll love the potential for sprawling destruction that now can occur in our county.
66 – I assume you have a solution that will allow everyone to build whatever they want and save hillsides, ranchlands, wildlife, etc.? If not, then your thanks to the opponents rings hollow.
Wondering #68, if you focus only on the easiest solution, as I understood Measure A to be, then you might feel defeated and do nothing from here on out. But you would be missing a great opportunity.
So much has come out of this election. Now you have real numbers to show that Santa Clara County residents/voters consider open space important. Open space has become a focal issue. You also have a spokesperson for high tech industry, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group who endorsed Measure A, saying that open space is important for “the health of our companies and the quality of life of our employees.” http://www.openspace2006.org/release_091206.htm
Since a prosperous high tech industry is the engine of our population growth here in Santa Clara County, the dynamic stressing our immediate environment, wouldn’t it make sense to expect some obligation from all these companies, some financial responsibility for securing open space? Many of these businesses are in a privileged position to assume some responsibility. That seems more than reasonable to me.
You’ve got the numbers, you’ve got the endorsement, you’ve got the statement. And you now have some serious wattage on the issue. The time seems right for the supporters of Measure A to challenge Silicon Valley industry, to expect some financial assistance from them in securing open space.
Then again, the “politics” of making a challenge might be problematic for some. And so it goes….
Hi People
How are you doing?