Last Wednesday, the Monterey County Planning Commission had a spirited discussion about how the Planning Commission might best review the fourth version of the Monterey County General Plan Update, which will be coming before the Commission (and the public) in the near future. Most Commissioners agreed that it would be best for the Commission to consider the full Environmental Impact Report, prior to making decisions about the Plan. In order to make good recommendations, the Commission needs the environmental analysis that will likely point out potential problems. For instance, that the sprawl-type development called for in the latest version of the General Plan Update will significantly impact prime farmlands and generate massive amounts of new traffic, putting the current road system in even greater distress than it is already.

The Board of Supervisors, however, has told the Planning Commission that it will not be allowed to refer to the Final EIR during the Commission’s consideration of the latest version of the General Plan Update. The Board clearly doesn’t want the Commission to make recommendations for changes to the Plan, based on the negative impacts that the EIR will probably reveal.

Avoiding recommendations from the Commission that would change the Plan will help the Board to get that “Yes” vote that will finally (after about seven years and seven million dollars) officially recommit Monterey County to continued sprawl. It’s no wonder that local residents have been doing everything they can to have a chance to vote on these matters directly!

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Monterey County General Plan Update Website
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/pbi/gpu/

Every holiday is an occasion for both celebration and remembrance, and the Fourth of July, celebrating the creation of democratic self-government in this country, is one of my favorites.

Recently, I reviewed a book about Santa Cruz County published in 1896, and entitled, "Beautiful Santa Cruz County, California, A Faithful Reproduction in Print and Photography of its Climate, Capabilities, and Beauties." The Prologue says:

"God was very gracious when He made this beautiful strip of shore and valley...The man who invests in Santa Cruz soil can rest certain that he will reap richer returns than did the hardy generation which upturned the soil in search of gold…The publisher of this book does not deal in hyperbole. He believes in doing business on straightforward lines. And this book is a business proposition from cover to cover.”

In fact, the book promoted the purchase and development of Santa Cruz County real estate as a way to “coin hard dollars” out of an abundant earth.

Today we know, as people a hundred years ago didn't, that treating our natural resources strictly as a "business proposition," and maximizing business development without regard to the preservation and protection of our resources, will ultimately lead us to "Paradise Lost." On the Fourth of July, as we celebrate our abundant present, and remember our past, let us be careful for the future of this beautiful Central Coast.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

The June election brought some good news from Napa County (at least good news for those who favor using land use policies to protect agricultural land and to advance community goals). As frequent listeners know, I have an unhidden bias in favor of allowing our democratically-elected local governments to adopt rules and regulations to protect the environment, promote a sound and healthy economy, and to advance our social equity objectives. And, by the way, I think we should be doing all three of these things simultaneously.

The “other” position (and there is another side to the story, of course) is that governments regulate too much, and that we should let individuals use their property whatever way they want to, on the theory that if we let each individual pursue his or her individual self-interest, the ultimate outcome will be the public good. We get to the “public good” by simply adding up “individual goods.” I think Adam Smith said that!

Well, an initiative in Napa County called the “Fair Payment for Public Benefit Act,” failed on June 6th. This measure would have made it impossible to use land use regulations to achieve community environmental, economic, and social equity goals. The public could only act if it paid for the privilege. Keeping Bonny Doon rural, for instance (just as an example) could only be achieved if the public bought up all the so-called “development rights” in Bonny Doon. Tomorrow and Friday, I’ll have more on this topic.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Website supporting the “Fair Payment” measure
http://www.landstewards.org/fairPayment/fairPayment.html

Independent report on fiscal impacts of measure
http://www.napavintners.com/news/pdfs/2006_9111_report.pdf

Official Napa County information
http://www.co.napa.ca.us/measurea.asp

Today and tomorrow, I hope to provide an “early warning” of an upcoming debate and discussion about fundamental American values. Land use policies will be center stage.

During this Fourth of July week, it’s good to remember that we fought a revolution here in the United States not to eliminate government, but to create a government that would be under our direct, democratic control. I’m fond of reminding people of a part of the Declaration of Independence that often gets overlooked. We all remember that the Declaration says that we are created equal, and that we have certain unalienable rights, and that among these are “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Let’s pay attention to the language that comes immediately afterwards: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted … deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

In other words, those who led the American Revolution believed that our “rights” are “secured” by government. We can’t protect our lives, secure our liberty, or achieve happiness unless we have a government in place that derives its powers from the consent of those governed by it. In other words, the United States came into existence as a nation because the Founders believed that the creation of a democratic self-government was necessary to secure our freedom. We advance our rights when we use our governmental powers to attempt to achieve our community goals.

Tomorrow: the specifics of the upcoming debate.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

The so-called “Protect Our Homes Act” will be on the state ballot this November. This initiative measure has been initially backed and funded by Howie Rich, a New York City real estate investor. He is attempting to advance the proposition that governments should not be able to regulate property unless they pay for the privilege. This is exactly the approach that was rejected in Napa County on June 6th. You can get more information by clicking on the links below.

The so-called “Protect Our Homes Act” is trying to disguise its main effect (which is largely to eliminate land use regulations in the state of California) by including a provision that would prohibit local governments, or the state government, from taking your private property by eminent domain, and then turning over what was formerly your property to some other private party, to let them develop it. A fairly recent Supreme Court case, the Kelo case, did say this was “ok,” and Kelo does validate governmental powers that can easily be abused. Correcting the excesses of the Kelo case would be just fine. In fact, however, the so-called “Protect Our Homes Act” is an extremist measure that would virtually eliminate the ability of local and state government to use their land use “police powers” to achieve community goals.

I am definitely planning to give you more details as the November election comes closer. For the time being however, this is a “heads up.”

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Text of the proposed measure
http://www.caag.state.ca.us/initiatives/pdf/sa2005rf0146.pdf

The “Pro” Protect Our Homes website
http://www.protectourhomes2006.com/

San Francisco Chronicle article - http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/06/26/MNGAVJKD791.DTL

A piece of federal legislation, also called the “Protect Our Homes Act,” would address the excesses of the Kelo decision, without the provisions contained in the California initiative. It’s worthwhile to compare the proposed federal bill with the California initiative. The California initiative would make it virtually impossible for state and local governments to use their land use police powers. The federal legislation does not have that effect. The text of H.R. 4088 (by Congress Member Pallone) can be reviewed at
http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/bills.text/109/h4088.pdf