If you visit the KUSP website, you’ll find a lengthy disclaimer, letting you know that the voting recommendations I’m making this week are personal to me, and don’t necessarily reflect what KUSP Radio or the Planning and Conservation League might think. If you would like to see my list of recommendations on some of the key state and local ballot measures that impact land use, please see below.

In Santa Clara County, Measure A, the “PLAN” initiative, would stop future sprawl into hillside and other areas with important natural resource values. Measure A would place some strong “smart growth” provisions into the Santa Clara County General Plan, and I’m recommending your “YES” vote, if you can vote in Santa Clara County.

In the City of Santa Cruz, I’m recommending a “YES” vote on Measures I and J, which would give residents of the City some ability to influence the future growth of the University of California. The UC system is, by and large, excused from having to follow local planning rules. The City Council drafted Measures I and J to provide a component of “shared governance.” I join the Santa Cruz Sentinel in urging your “YES” vote. If you want to help in the campaign, ask for “Yes On I and J” postcards at Bookshop Santa Cruz.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

There is always a disclaimer on these KUSP Land Use Reports. That disclaimer is particularly relevant this week, since I will be giving you my personal recommendations on a number of measures on the November ballot, as a way to illustrate the critically important impact that both state and local ballot measures will have on land use policy. My personal recommendations are as follows:

• Proposition 90 – NO (Most important vote on the ballot, in my opinion)
  
  
• Proposition 1C – YES (Affordable Housing Bonds)
  
  
• Proposition 1A – NO (Reduces financial flexibility in tough times, favoring roads over people)
  
  
• Proposition 1B – NO ($20 billion for – mostly – cars; no principles to make spending environmentally sound)
  
  
• Proposition 1E – NO (Much of this “flood protection” money may actually put more people in harm’s way)
  
  
• Proposition 84 – YES (Watershed protection and parks)
  
  
• Santa Cruz Measures I and J – YES (Gives local residents some say over future University growth)
  
  
• Santa Clara County Measure A – YES (Incorporates “Smart Growth” principles into the General Plan)

PLAN website
http://www.openspace2006.org/

Text of Santa Clara County Measure A
http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/ca/scl/meas/A/

Text of Santa Cruz Measures I and J
http://www.ci.santa-cruz.ca.us/ (See link near bottom of page)

Supporters of Proposition 90 say it would end “eminent domain abuse,” but its agenda is actually to achieve a radical overthrow of democratic self-government. When the California Manufacturers Association, the Building Industry Association, and the California Taxpayers Association are on the same side with Gary Patton and the Sierra Club, pay attention. Proposition 90 has been financed by an extreme anti-government developer from New York state, and your “NO” vote is critically important.

Proposition 90 would make state and local governments pay for any action having a significant negative economic impact on any person’s property (and that doesn’t just mean real property; it means any property). A new law limiting the right of a landlord to evict tenants couldn’t be enacted unless the taxpayers paid the landlord to be fair. A new regulation requiring expanded public notice and community involvement in planning projects would mean payments to property owners. A new business regulation could be enacted only if the government were willing to pay for the economic impacts on the businesses affected. New General Plan rules, to protect the environment, would also require taxpayer payments. The taxpayer cost of buying land for infrastructure projects would go up dramatically.

A “NO” vote on Proposition 90 will be your most important vote.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

There is always a disclaimer on these KUSP Land Use Reports. It should never be assumed that the opinions I express are the opinions of either KUSP Radio or of the Planning and Conservation League. That disclaimer is particularly relevant this week, since I will be giving you my personal recommendations on a number of measures on the November ballot, as a way to illustrate the critically important impact that both state and local ballot measures will have on land use policy. My personal recommendations are as follows:

• Proposition 90 – NO (Most important vote on the ballot, in my opinion)
  
  
• Proposition 1C – YES (Affordable Housing Bonds)
  
  
• Proposition 1A – NO (Reduces financial flexibility in tough times, favoring roads over people)
  
  
• Proposition 1B – NO ($20 billion for – mostly – cars; no principles to make spending environmentally sound)
  
  
• Proposition 1E – NO (Much of this “flood protection” money may actually put more people in harm’s way)
  
  
• Proposition 84 – YES (Watershed protection and parks)
  
  
• Santa Cruz Measures I and J – YES (Gives local residents some say over future University growth)
  
  
• Santa Clara County Measure A – YES (Incorporates “Smart Growth” principles into the General Plan)

Text of Proposition 90
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/vig_06/
general_06/pdf/proposition_90/entire_prop90.pdf

YES on 90 Website
http://www.90yes.com/

NO on 90 Website
http://noprop90.com/

This November, Californians are being asked to borrow a lot of money. That’s what “bond issues” are. They authorize the state to borrow money and spend the proceeds. The taxpayers then pay back the borrowed money with interest, over time, and that raises the overall cost of whatever we’re spending the money for. In fact, it roughly doubles the cost. However, since the money gets paid back over a thirty-year period, usually, bond issues are a way to make our children and grandchildren pay for the things we’re planning to enjoy today. As you will probably remember, our state is not running a balanced budget, so we are actually paying for ongoing programs with our state credit card, increasing the cost of government overall, but putting off the day of reckoning till someone else will have to pay the bill. It’s not really a pretty sight, but there are some practical reasons we’re doing it. It’s not all selfishness.

Paying for “infrastructure” with borrowing (rather than borrowing for current programs) tends to be more justifiable, since the infrastructure we construct will presumably be with us over time, so paying for it over time seems fair. This election, my own priority is for the passage of Proposition 1C, the Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006. Your “YES” vote will authorize a $2.8 billion dollar investment in affordable housing. There is more information below.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

There is always a disclaimer on these KUSP Land Use Reports. It should never be assumed that the opinions I express are the opinions of either KUSP Radio or of the Planning and Conservation League. That disclaimer is particularly relevant this week, since I will be giving you my personal recommendations on a number of measures on the November ballot, as a way to illustrate the critically important impact that both state and local ballot measures will have on land use policy. My personal recommendations are as follows:

• Proposition 90 – NO (Most important vote on the ballot, in my opinion)
  
  
• Proposition 1C – YES (Affordable Housing Bonds)
  
  
• Proposition 1A – NO (Reduces financial flexibility in tough times, favoring roads over people)
  
  
• Proposition 1B – NO ($20 billion for – mostly – cars; no principles to make spending environmentally sound)
  
  
• Proposition 1E – NO (Much of this “flood protection” money may actually put more people in harm’s way)
  
  
• Proposition 84 – YES (Watershed protection and parks)
  
  
• Santa Cruz Measures I and J – YES (Gives local residents some say over future University growth)
  
  
• Santa Clara County Measure A – YES (Incorporates “Smart Growth” principles into the General Plan)

Text of Proposition 1C
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/vig_06/
general_06/pdf/proposition_1c/entire_prop1c.pdf

“Yes” on 1C Website
http://www.homes4ca.org/

The largest bond measure on the November ballot is Proposition 1B, which would authorize borrowing almost twenty billion dollars for transportation purposes.

I believe that our transportation investments should be focused in existing urban areas, and make our cities more livable, with significant expenditures for buses and rail systems, and for pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Expenditures that improve or increase capacity on roads and highways should be coupled with expenditures that ensure the permanent protection of the commercially productive agricultural lands and the natural resource lands that are often adversely affected by highway projects. When transportation expenditures paid for by the taxpayers directly subsidize businesses, a “beneficiary pays” principle should be applied to recapture taxpayer dollars through appropriate user fees. Furthermore, expenditures on new road and highway projects should be accompanied by an effective strategy and expenditure plan to make certain that adverse air and water quality impacts are offset.

Nothing in Proposition 1B insures this kind of thoughtful investment plan, and it’s likely that passage of this massive bond measure will lead to lots of new growth-inducing highway projects throughout California, taking the wrong road, not the right one, to our transportation future. That’s why I am personally voting “NO” on Proposition 1B.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

There is always a disclaimer on these KUSP Land Use Reports. It should never be assumed that the opinions I express are the opinions of either KUSP Radio or of the Planning and Conservation League. That disclaimer is particularly relevant this week, since I will be giving you my personal recommendations on a number of measures on the November ballot, as a way to illustrate the critically important impact that both state and local ballot measures will have on land use policy. My personal recommendations are as follows:

• Proposition 90 – NO (Most important vote on the ballot, in my opinion)
  
  
• Proposition 1C – YES (Affordable Housing Bonds)
  
  
• Proposition 1A – NO (Reduces financial flexibility in tough times, favoring roads over people)
  
  
• Proposition 1B – NO ($20 billion for – mostly – cars; no principles to make spending environmentally sound)
  
  
• Proposition 1E – NO (Much of this “flood protection” money may actually put more people in harm’s way)
  
  
• Proposition 84 – YES (Watershed protection and parks)
  
  
• Santa Cruz Measures I and J – YES (Gives local residents some say over future University growth)
  
  
• Santa Clara County Measure A – YES (Incorporates “Smart Growth” principles into the General Plan

Text of Proposition 1B
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/vig_06/
general_06/pdf/proposition_1b/entire_prop1b.pdf

Proposition 84 was put on the ballot through the initiative process. It would authorize the state to borrow almost $5.4 billion dollars, and to invest these monies in clean water, parks, and coastal protection. I, personally, think that we do need to invest in parks and recreation, and watershed and coastal protection, as our state continues to grow in population.

If you’ve been looking at television, you’ve probably been seeing a lot of ads for various statewide initiatives. Many people, I believe, are starting to get discouraged about our democratic system, and see this proliferation of initiatives (including Proposition 84) as a sign of failure. There’s probably some truth in that, but here’s the reason that we have so many initiatives. The initiative process is the only way that the people of the state can make important decisions by a majority vote. In the Legislature, every important proposal (proposals that require us to spend money) requires a 2/3 vote. Unless and until our elected representatives can make decisions by majority vote, the only way that a majority of California voters can get what they want, is to go to the initiative. Did you ever think about that? My advice is to vote “YES” on Proposition 84, and then to start agitating for a repeal of those Constitutional provisions that allow a minority veto of what the majority would like to do.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

There is always a disclaimer on these KUSP Land Use Reports. It should never be assumed that the opinions I express are the opinions of either KUSP Radio or of the Planning and Conservation League. That disclaimer is particularly relevant this week, since I will be giving you my personal recommendations on a number of measures on the November ballot, as a way to illustrate the critically important impact that both state and local ballot measures will have on land use policy. My personal recommendations are as follows:

§      

• Proposition 90 – NO (Most important vote on the ballot, in my opinion)
  
  
• Proposition 1C – YES (Affordable Housing Bonds)
  
  
• Proposition 1A – NO (Reduces financial flexibility in tough times, favoring roads over people)
  
  
• Proposition 1B – NO ($20 billion for – mostly – cars; no principles to make spending environmentally sound)
  
  
• Proposition 1E – NO (Much of this “flood protection” money may actually put more people in harm’s way)
  
  
• Proposition 84 – YES (Watershed protection and parks)
  
  
• Santa Cruz Measures I and J – YES (Gives local residents some say over future University growth)
  
  
• Santa Clara County Measure A – YES (Incorporates “Smart Growth” principles into the General Plan)

Text of Proposition 84
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/vig_06/
general_06/pdf/proposition_84/entire_prop84.pdf

“Yes” on Proposition 84 Website
http://www.yeson84.com/