“SOAR” stands for “Save Our Agricultural Resources,” and the SOAR initiatives require voter approval, at the ballot box, for any development that would extend beyond specified areas set aside for future development. According to my friend, this system, which has been in place for many years now, is doing pretty well. Once in a while, developers try to evade the process by going directly to the people, asking for voter approval for projects that haven’t been given any environmental review, and that would violate the basic rules set out in the General Plan. This is not unlike the effort by Del Webb, in San Benito County, that was just rejected by San Benito County voters on November 7th. The same kind of rejection is apparently the rule in Ventura County, lending credence to the idea that we’ll do alright on land use, most of the time, if we just let the voters decide!

For more information on SOAR, check the KUSP website.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

You can get more information on the Ventura County land use system, which includes initiative measures adopted by the voters of Ventura County, and the voters of each of the cities in Ventura County, on the Ventura County website
http://www.ventura.org/planning/pdf/soar.pdf

The Monterey County Board of Supervisors will soon be taking final action on its version of a new General Plan for Monterey County. This will culminate a process that has taken about seven years, and that has involved the preparation of four separate versions of the proposed General Plan. Just after the Board threw out the “third draft” version of the General Plan, refusing even to consider it, despite the unanimous recommendation for approval by the Monterey County Planning Commission, a group of citizens who had been participating in the process decided to write their own plan. In about six months, they produced a “Community General Plan,” endorsed by a broad range of community groups. The Board refused to consider that document, too, and that’s when the Community General Plan groups went to the voters, and qualified an initiative version. So far, the voters haven’t had a chance to express themselves on that initiative, but it’s pretty clear that they are going to get that chance, as they of course should, given that the California Constitution provides such strong protection for the voters’ right to use the initiative process.

Wouldn’t it be great to end the legal skirmishing and simply put the options to the voters? Having been an elected official myself, I know that initiatives are often suspect in the eyes of elected officials, but we do have those Constitutional provisions for a reason: to let the people have the ultimate say about what they want their government to do.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

You can review the provisions of the California Constitution online at
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const.html

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL
SEC. 11. (a) Initiative and referendum powers may be exercised by the electors of each city or county under procedures that the Legislature shall provide….

San Benito County gets lots of pressure to make its agricultural and range lands available for residential subdivisions. Developers who can get the votes necessary to turn farm land into urban land make a huge profit. But here’s the problem: what is good for the landowners and developers may not be that great for the public. Residential development has lots of “negative impacts,” as well as some positive ones, including traffic, air quality degradation, increased government costs, and the loss of the rural and open space character of the land.

Whether to convert farmlands to subdivisions is, in fact, the “big issue” in land use policy almost everywhere. Santa Cruz County dealt with this debate in the 1970’s. Monterey County is dealing with it now, and so is San Benito County.

Below you’ll find a link for a story from the Mercury News entitled, “Fury on the Range.” That title may understate what’s going on! Death threats, dead dogs, and allegations of bribery all play a role. It’s enough to convince many, I’m sure, that they should stay as far away as possible from land use policy making. I’d like to suggest just the opposite conclusion: it’s time for ordinary folks to get directly involved and engaged, lest local politics turn out badly for the public!

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Part One of the Mercury News story, “Fury on the Range,” can be read a
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/
mercurynews/16053349.htm

More information at
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?
p_action=doc&p_docid=1158B291DA042800&p_docnum=1

The Transportation Agency For Monterey County (called TAMC for short) will be meeting on Wednesday, December 6th, at the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office in Salinas. You can get a link to the full agenda on the KUSP website.

Land use policy is mainly made by what are called “general purpose governments,” specifically by cities and counties. “Special Districts” are another variety of local government, and they don’t have quite the same policy making role. They generally deal only with a single issue, not with every issue, and they don’t set policy so much as they provide the infrastructure that should be related to and implement the policies adopted by cities and counties. Water districts and sewer districts are two of the “Special Districts” that play an important, but supporting, role in land use policy making.

Regional agencies of various kinds also have a big impact on land use. The Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, and the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (or AMBAG), both play a key role in the growth and development of the Central Coast region. The regional transportation agencies, including TAMC in Monterey County, largely determine where transportation monies get spent. This is obviously of major importance to the future growth and development of our communities.

I encourage you to get an idea of what our transportation commissions are doing. Attend the TAMC meeting on December 6th, if you can; or read the agenda, if you can’t.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

TAMC Website
http://www.tamcmonterey.org/

December 6, 2006 TAMC Agenda
http://www.tamcmonterey.org/committees/tamc/
meetings/2006/dec/agenda.pdf

Consider marking your calendar for December 11th. At 9:00 o’clock in the morning, on that date, at the San Jose Courthouse, located at 280 South 1st Street in San Jose, Federal District Court Judge James Ware will hear cross motions on summary judgment in the case involving the Rancho San Juan referendum.

Citizens opposing the approval of Rancho San Juan, the biggest development project in Monterey County history, collected enough signatures to place a referendum on the ballot, to let the people decide. The Monterey County Board of Supervisors in fact did place the referendum on the ballot (for last June’s election), and then summarily removed it, with no court order to do so, claiming that the referendum violated the Federal Voting Rights Act. There was, perhaps, a reasonable argument in support of what the Board did, since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in the “Padilla case,” had held that a recall petition was invalid, because circulated in English only. However, the Ninth Circuit “Padilla” decision was reconsidered by the Ninth Circuit, and decisively reversed.

There is now absolutely no precedent anywhere in the country that would defeat the voters’ right to have a qualified referendum measure decided by an election. Nonetheless, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors continues to argue that the voters should not get to review their decision on Rancho San Juan. That’s what the arguments are going to be about on December 11th.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information
Federal District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose)
- http://216.152.235.70/webdir.fwx?mode=
divofc&srchstring=D09CANCSan+Jose+++++
+++++++++++0000001748&jnet