The water system in Felton is currently a private system, owned by a subsidiary of the German multinational corporation RWE. Local residents, concerned that this private corporation was more interested in profits than in public service, persuaded a local public water agency, the San Lorenzo Valley Water District, to condemn the entire water system. Local residents authorized a bond issue to pay for the acquisition, but RWE refused to sell, and after long legal skirmishing, a trial was finally set before a jury, today, to determine a fair price. This is the power of “eminent domain” in action.

Last Friday, before the trial could actually take place, RWE and its local subsidiary, California American Water, settled the condemnation lawsuit, by agreeing to sell their system to the Water District for $10.5 million dollars.

This outcome demonstrates a couple of things: first, public agencies can, in fact, successfully use their eminent domain powers to reverse the “privatization” of a community water supply. Second, a determined group of ordinary people, if they are both persistent and organized, and if they are truly “speaking for the majority” in what they’re trying to accomplish, can make government work just the way the Founding Fathers thought it should. Hats off to Felton FLOW!

There’s more information below.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

One of the powers of governmental agencies, the so-called “power of eminent domain,” allows a public agency to purchase private property over the objection of the current property owner. Private property can be acquired for public purposes, even if the current owner resists, but the governmental agency acquiring the property must be able to demonstrate that the acquisition is for a “public purpose,” and it must pay “just compensation.” If the owner of the property which the public agency wishes to acquire doesn’t want to sell (and of course that does sometimes happen, as in the case of this effort to purchase the Felton water system over the objection of its private owner), the private property owner can challenge whether or not the acquisition is actually for a “public purpose,” and the owner can also demand a jury trial to set the level of the “just compensation” that the public agency will be required to pay.

Felton FLOW Website
http://www.feltonflow.org/

San Jose Mercury News article
http://www.mercurynews.com/
centralcoast/ci_9437052

Santa Cruz Sentinel article
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/
ci_9437052?source=rss

The first Tuesday in June is the traditional “primary election” date in California. State Assembly and State Senate primary elections, and local ballot measures, and county supervisorial elections, are traditionally held on this day in even numbered years. Presidential primary elections are also usually held on this date, but not this year. If California were holding its Presidential primaries today, the national outcome of the Democratic Party primary election would probably be totally dependent on what California voters decided as between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. This year, though, Californians expressed their views on that contest in February.

Because the Presidential Primary isn’t taking place today, some voters may have concluded that “not much is going on” in terms of the election. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only are there important local measures on the ballot, voters who care about land use policy should pay attention to the County Supervisorial elections scheduled for today.

Furthermore, State Propositions 98 and 99 are of critical importance to our land use future. If Proposition 98 were to pass, future state and local efforts to regulate land use in the public interest would become virtually impossible.

If you haven’t got “voting” on your agenda for today, please reconsider, and be sure to vote!

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

A past Land Use Report on important local elections (May 26th)
http://www.kusp.org/landuse/2008/05/12.html

A past Land Use Report on Propositions 98 and 99 (May 13th)
http://www.kusp.org/landuse/2008/05/12.html

Editorials on Propositions 98 and 99
http://www.noprop98.org/go/editorials/

Yesterday, the Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner released his “Crop Report” for 2007, documenting what’s going on in agriculture, the biggest business in Monterey County. I’ve put information on the KUSP website that will allow interested listeners to see what sort of trends are at work. Just look below for more info.

One thing that is evident in the yearly Crop Reports is that the acreage planted to agriculture in Monterey County is generally increasing. And this is occurring even as prime soils are being converted to subdivisions and shopping centers. I’ve also put a reference in the transcript for today’s Land Use Report to data from the State Department of Conservation that shows that 4,252 acres of important farmland in Monterey County were converted to non-agricultural uses between 2004 and 2006.

Farmland owners often say that this documented conversion of prime land doesn’t matter, because overall agricultural acreages are up. In effect, they seem to be claiming that the transformation of hillside, non-prime lands to grapes and strawberries should eliminate any worries about the conversion of the rich lands of the Salinas Valley to urban uses. I’ll let you all make up your own minds about that argument.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

June 3, 2008 Agenda, Monterey County Board of Supervisors
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/cttb/
agenda20080603.htm

Agricultural Commissioner website
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/ag/

2006 Crop Report for Monterey County
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/ag/
pdfs/cropreport2006.pdf

Data on farmland conversion in Monterey County, from the State Department of Conservation
http://redirect.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/
fmmp/county_info_results.asp

The Santa Cruz City Planning Commission is meeting tonight, and will be discussing possible changes to the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance. If you have any interest in trying to preserve local housing opportunities for individuals and families who have an average or below average income, you might want to attend this Planning Commission meeting.

“Inclusionary” housing requirements are being imposed by an increasing number of local governments. In general, the idea is to impose an obligation upon anyone constructing new housing to “include” a share of housing that will be price-restricted so as to be affordable to persons who could not afford to purchase a home at a market price. “Inclusionary” housing is sometimes called “Below Market Rate” housing, because it will be sold, and then (usually) resold at a below market rate price.

There are lots of details in any inclusionary housing ordinance, and the City Planning Commission will be getting into those details in their discussion this evening. While there is no doubt that an inclusionary housing requirement modifies the “market,” and for that reason is sometimes resisted by those who believe government should never intervene to modify market forces, the “market” is basically governed by that famous “Golden Rule,” that “those who have the gold make the rules.”

An inclusionary housing program is based on the idea that we all should make the rules, to produce what we believe is best for the common good.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

City of Santa Cruz website
http://www.ci.santa-cruz.ca.us/

Planning Commission agenda
http://www.ci.santa-cruz.ca.us/pl/cpc/
CurrentAgenda/060508%20Agenda.pdf

The Monterey City Planning Commission will be meeting on Tuesday, June 10th, starting at 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon. Among other things, the Planning Commission will be discussing the City of Monterey’s innovative “Neighborhood Improvement Program,” as it considers the City’s overall Capital Improvement Program. State law requires the Planning Commission to review the Capital Improvement Program, to make sure it is consistent with the City’s General Plan.

The City of Monterey “Neighborhood Improvement Program” was initiated some years ago, as there began to be significant community resistance to intensive, tourist-oriented developments, like proposed new and expanded hotel facilities. City leaders hit upon the idea (working with community activists) that the City should formally “share” the income generated from such facilities with the City neighborhoods that were complaining about receiving all the impacts and none of the benefits of increasing tourism.

The solution was to set aside a part of the Transient Occupancy Tax that hotel visitors pay, and to allocate this money to “neighborhood improvement” projects selected by neighborhood organizations, and not by the City’s own bureaucracy. It’s been quite some time since I’ve “checked in” to see exactly how the program is working, but the last time I did investigate, the program had broad community support. If you’re interested, think about attending the Monterey City Planning Commission meeting next Tuesday!

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

City of Monterey website
http://www.monterey.org/

City Planning Commission Agenda for June 10, 2008
http://www.monterey.org/boards/planning
/agendas/2008/0610pctentative1.pdf