 |
Home | Issues & Actions | About |
Archive Page This page is available as an archive to previous versions of LandWatch websites. |
KUSP LandWatch
News
Week of January 1, 2007 to January 5, 2007
Week of January 1, 2007 to January 5, 2007
KUSP provided a brief Land Use Report on KUSP Radio from January 2003 to May 2016. Archives of past transcripts are available here.
Week of January 1, 2007 to January 5, 2007
- Monday, January 1, 2007
Happy New Year
- Tuesday, January 2, 2007
A New Year’s Resolution – A New Direction
- Wednesday, January 3, 2007
Today’s The Big Day For The GPU
- Thursday, January 4, 2007
Planning Perspectives on the Central Coast
- Friday, January 5, 2007
More Central Coast Planning Perspectives
The following Land Use Reports have been presented on KUSP Radio by Gary A. Patton. The Wittwer & Parkin law firm is located in Santa Cruz, California, and practices environmental and governmental law. As part of its practice, the law firm files litigation and takes other action on behalf of its clients, which are typically private individuals, governmental agencies, environmental organizations, or community groups. Whenever the Land Use Report comments on an issue with which the Wittwer & Parkin law firm is involved on behalf of a client, Mr. Patton will make this relationship clear, as part of his commentary. Mr. Patton’s comments do not represent the views of Wittwer & Parkin, LLP, KUSP Radio, nor of any of its sponsors.
| Monday, January 1, 2007 Happy New Year |
 |
Happy New Year to all of you! What is particularly “happy” about the start of a New Year is the fact that each New Year, as it comes, brings with it a reminder of “possibility,” that gift of the gods that has been given to each one of us. Human beings, both individually and collectively, are able to create their own realities, and have the ability to make a new world, and a new reality, unknown and unsuspected before. No other creature has been given that gift. We don’t often focus on this power of ours, because we find it easiest, I suppose, to work upon arrangements already in place. Nonetheless, we cannot escape our ability to be “as gods,” and literally to create the world we come to inhabit. We make our dreams, and sometimes our nightmares, come true! That is one of the most profound truths about who we really “are,” both individually and collectively. We are not confined to the realities that exist independently of us. We are free to construct new realities of every kind: physical realities, and sociological, and economic, and governmental, and institutional realities, too. Each New Year reminds us of this. And if we want truly to be “happy,” favored by fortune, we must embrace these powers, and use them well. The realm of land use planning provides one clear example of how to make this work, in practice. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
| |
| Tuesday, January 2, 2007 A New Year’s Resolution – A New Direction |
|
|
Yesterday, I waxed philosophical about the meaning of New Years, and reminded KUSP listeners that we human beings have the ability to create new realities, both individually and collectively. The practice of land use planning provides us with one of our best opportunities to observe this process in a very practical way. “Planning” can be seen as our way, together, to create the new world we wish to inhabit. We specify, in writing (and often after great debate and discussion) what we have decided we want our future to look like. This is our “plan.” Then, if we actually follow that plan, and make sure that the development projects proposed by individuals follow the plan, we will actually create the kind of physical, social, and economic environment that we have envisioned. The local “General Plan” is the foundation document in this planning process, and state law, which requires every city and county to have a General Plan, gives each community a very free rein to determine what its future reality should be like. Adopting a new General Plan, therefore, allows us to depart from the past, and from present trends, and to specify a new direction. There is no requirement that we chart a new direction when we adopt a new General Plan, but the process does permit that. In Monterey County, a great debate is underway, in the context of a General Plan revision, about what the future shape and character of that county should be. More on that, tomorrow. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Wednesday, January 3, 2007 Today’s The Big Day For The GPU |
|
The Monterey County Board of Supervisors has called a special meeting today, to continue its deliberations on the long-debated Monterey County General Plan. The opportunity for public testimony is over. Today is potentially a day of “decision,” not “discussion” for the Monterey County Board. If you’d like to attend in person, you’ll need to get yourself to the County Governmental Center in Salinas. You can also “tune in” to a live audio version of the Board meeting. To get the right link, find the Land Use Report page on the KUSP website, and track down the transcript for today’s Land Use Report. It will be interesting to see whether or not the Board actually does what it discussed doing the last time it met, just before Christmas. At that time, the Board indicated that it would like to place both the GPU4 document and the more “smart growth” “Community General Plan” document before the voters for a final decision. If they did that, neither version would go into effect until after voter approval. The development community has officially objected to the idea of letting the voters decide, and it’s obvious why. Development interests know thatthey’ve got at least three votes on the Board of Supervisors for the more pro-development GPU4 version of the General Plan. It’s much less clear what the voters might think! Today’s meeting is going to be an interesting and important one. Next week, I’ll provide a follow up report. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Thursday, January 4, 2007 Planning Perspectives on the Central Coast |
|
This week is short of “meetings” to send you to, since the fact that we have turned the corner into a New Year, with a full agenda of important land use issues, has not yet really penetrated the governmental sphere. Next week, there are lots of governmental meetings, including the first meeting of the year for the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. At that meeting, Supervisor Mardi Wormhoudt steps down from the Third District seat, with Neal Coonerty stepping up. As we do move into a new year, it might be worthwhile to reflect on the somewhat different situations that exist along the Central Coast, with respect to land use and planning issues. Santa Cruz, Monterey, and San Luis Obispo Counties find themselves in somewhat different “geopolitical” positions, and this definitely affects the kind of planning issues that rise to the surface. Santa Cruz County faced significant development pressures in the early 1970’s, and addressed them, most notably through the adoption of Measure J, in June 1978. Measure J mandates the permanent protection of commercially productive agricultural lands, and has focused new growth into existing urban areas. The rural areas of Santa Cruz County are not really “in play” today, and that means most of the key land use issues in Santa Cruz County are issues of urban development. Tomorrow, I’ll contrast the situation in Monterey and San Luis Obispo County. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Friday, January 5, 2007 More Central Coast Planning Perspectives |
|
|
By adopting Measure J, in 1978, Santa Cruz County voters took a “smart growth” approach to land use, protecting commercially productive farmlands, and channeling new growth into existing urban areas. Monterey County, which faces the same kind of growth pressures today that Santa Cruz County faced in the 1970’s, is debating what sort of response it should make. The GPU4 document allows the continuing development of agricultural and rural lands, while the “Community General Plan” would channel new growth into areas already committed to urban development. Unless a “smart growth” approach is taken in Monterey County, the big planning issues there will almost all be related to rural development. That’s because development pressures are unremitting, and developers can make a great deal of money by turning farmlands into subdivisions. In San Luis Obispo County, development pressures are less intense than in Monterey County, but San Luis Obispo County does allow the continued development of rural and agricultural lands. Larger lot rural subdivisions are a major planning issue. While these seem to avoid some of the problems that come with the larger, more urban subdivisions allowed by Monterey County, they will, ultimately, undermine both the rural and agricultural nature of San Luis Obispo County. Along the Central Coast, different “geopolitical” realities lead to different issues to confront. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton. |
|
Archives of past transcripts are available here
|
CONTACT 306 Capitol Street #101 PO Box 1876 Phone (831) 759-2824 Fax (831) 759-2825 |
|