At any rate, “being there,” at the actual site of governmental deliberations and decisions, has a very salutary effect on the results we get. But episodic appearances at public meetings aren’t enough. A sustained, vocal, and participatory presence is what’s needed. In a practical sense, that means that while self-government requires us to get involved “ourselves,” no one can do it by “himself” or “herself.” Democracy is a team sport, and if you want to be one of the people involved in self-government you need to join a team or start a team, and then make sure, through your participation, that this group does enter into direct engagement with the governmental processes that will so profoundly affect our lives and future.

In terms of land use issues, the key governmental agencies are almost always Boards of Supervisors. Tomorrow, I’ll tell you what’s happening at the Monterey County Board of Supervisors’ meeting, and why “being there” could be important.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

The Monterey County Board of Supervisors meets tomorrow at 9:30 a.m., at 168 West Alisal Street in Salinas Monterey County Website
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/

Board of Supervisors Agenda for October 3, 2006
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/cttb/agenda100306.htm

Supplemental Agenda – October 3, 2006
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/cttb/suppagenda100306.htm

Yesterday, I made an impassioned plea for your participation in land use decision making, through engagement with the local government agencies whose decisions have such a profound affect on our lives, and future, and even our pocketbooks. Where land use issues are concerned, Boards of Supervisors tend to play the leading role. Today, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors will be meeting in Salinas. There is more information on the KUSP website.

The most important items on the agenda today are being debated outside the public arena, in what is called a “closed session.” The Board will probably be deciding whether or not to continue to fight against the public’s right to vote on Rancho San Juan, and on a “Community General Plan” drawn up by residents. An initiative and a referendum measure have been qualified for the ballot, but so far, the Board has refused to let the people vote. They used a Ninth Circuit decision as their excuse. That decision has now been reversed. What will they do today? Consider the value of being there yourself, to let them know you’re watching.

The Board will also be voting on the controversial September Ranch development in Carmel Valley. On what they call their “Supplemental Agenda,” they will be talking about hiring consultants for a major shopping center development on Highway 68, at Coral de Tierra, at a cost of about $600,000 for the consultants. Again, “being there” could make a difference.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

The Monterey County Board of Supervisors is meeting today at 9:30 a.m. at 168 West Alisal Street in Salinas

Monterey County Website
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/

Board of Supervisors Agenda for October 3, 2006
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/cttb/agenda100306.htm

Supplemental Agenda – October 3, 2006
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/cttb/suppagenda100306.htm

Land use and water go together. One of my favorite California attorneys, Tony Rossmann, who is an expert on California water law (and who has advised the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors on water-related matters), has set up his firm’s email system so that all the email addresses of his attorneys end in “landwater.com.” That address just reinforces the point, with every email he sends.

In California (and in fact globally) fresh water is scarce, relative to demand, and so an effort to “develop” water has always been a major theme in the land use arena. Most recently, the developers of both land and water have turned their attention to the non-fresh water supplies of the ocean, with the idea that “desalination” can be the answer to water supply scarcity. Ocean water equals fresh water. Just add energy!

There are a number of problems with desalination, energy being one, and there are some hopeful aspects, too. However, I think it’s good that a group has formed, on a statewide basis, to “cross examine” proposals for desalination as they come forth. This is a good example of how people can get together to participate in the governmental process, making sure that our decision-makers don’t overlook critical problems in their enthusiastic embrace of what may seem like a silver bullet solution. Check the KUSP website to get a link to the Desal Response Group, and to learn about a conference they’re holding tomorrow!

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Desal Response Group
http://www.desalresponsegroup.org/

October 5, 2006 Desal Conference, Long Beach
http://www.desalresponsegroup.org/files
Conference_Brochure_PDF.pdf

Our system of government contemplates that most legislative decisions will be made by our elected representatives. For cities, that means by city council members; for counties, that means by members of Boards of Supervisors, and for state government that means by Assembly Members and State Senators.

However, California also has a vigorous tradition of direct democracy, in which items are placed directly before the voters. In Monterey County, concerned citizens have qualified a referendum measure to let the voters decide whether they want to uphold or overturn the Board’s approval of the Rancho San Juan development, the biggest development project in the history of the county, and a project largely designed by the Board of Supervisors behind closed doors. They have also qualified a “Community General Plan” for a ballot vote.

In Hollister, direct democracy has taken an interesting twist. A large development company has qualified an initiative measure to approve a 4,400-home retirement community, to be built near the city’s airport. This is the same tactic used by the Pebble Beach Company several years ago, in which an initiative to “save” Del Monte Forest resulted in a vote that the developers claim will allow them to cut down 17,000 Monterey Pines. Check the KUSP website for lots of information on Measure S, the developer-sponsored initiative in Hollister.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

City of Hollister Website
http://hollister.ca.gov/site/index.asp

Hollister Planning Department
http://hollister.ca.gov/Site/html/gov/office/planing.asp

Pinnacle Article on Del-Webb Housing Project
http://www.pinnaclenews.com/news/contentview.asp?c=194724

Hollister Free Land Article on Measure S
https://secure.freelancenews.com/news/contentview.asp?c=195895

Gilroy Dispatch Article on Measure S
http://www.gilroydispatch.com/news/contentview.asp?c=195911

Local government agencies are the “first responders” where land use issues are involved. That is a public safety term, but it’s probably quite proper to use it in the land use context. Our health and safety are directly impacted by the land use decisions made by various agencies of government, which is why our personal participation in governmental decision making is so important. If we wait for someone else to do it for us, we’re going to get decisions that reflect the priorities of those who do get engaged. Special interests and developers definitely fit that description. Just check out the audience at meetings of the Monterey County Board of Supervisors, to take a local example.

Local agencies may be the only game “in town” where land use decision making is at issue, but they are definitely not the “only game.” State government trumps local government every time, and as in so many other contexts, the money decisions are really the most important. On November 7th, we’ll be voting on a number of bond measures that will have profound impacts on future land uses.

If you’d like to see my brief comments, click on the Land Use Report link at www.kusp.org. There are also links to the information you need to make up your own mind. Or, check that thick Voter Information Guide that you just got in your mailbox (presuming you’re registered to vote, of course).

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Secretary of State’s Website
http://www.ss.ca.gov/

Elections Information, 2005
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections.htm

Ballot Measures on November 7th Ballot
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#2006General

The Gary Patton Guide to the November 7, 2006 Bond Measure Elections (These are my personal comments, not a reflection of the position of KUSP, PCL, or any other group or individual):

§ Proposition 1A
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/vig_06/general_06/
pdf/proposition_1a/entire_prop1a.pdf Makes sure that road money always goes to roads. Currently, during tough budget times, this money can go to other state programs. I personally think that while roads and transportation funding is important, maintaining budget flexibility is more important).

§ Proposition 1B
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/vig_06/general_06/
pdf/proposition_1b/entire_prop1b.pdf
Would mean that we borrow $20 billion for transportation-related purposes. Transportation investments are needed, and there are significant funds for transit and other good purposes, but this measure would probably stimulate more urban sprawl throughout the state. There is no effective “focus” on making investments only within the already existing urban areas where future growth ought to go.

§ Proposition 1C
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/vig_06/general_06/
pdf/proposition_1c/entire_prop1c.pdf
Would borrow about $2.8 billion for affordable housing programs. If we’re going to borrow, this seems like a good priority to me.

§ Proposition 1E
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/vig_06/general_06/
pdf/proposition_1e/entire_prop1e.pdf
This measure would borrow about $4 Billion for flood protection purposes. During the last legislative session, the Governor opposed and the Legislature failed to pass legislation that would have made sure that these moneys wouldn’t be used to stimulate more development in flood-prone areas. In fact, passing this measure could likely mean more lives and property put in danger, after all is said and done.

§ Proposition 84
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/vig_06/general_06/
pdf/proposition_84/entire_prop84.pdf
Would authorize borrowing of $5.4 billion for various watershed, parks, open space, and other purposes. As with Proposition 1C, if we’re going to borrow, this seems like a good thing to spend money on.