County supervisors have been on the right track in supporting changes to growth rules that would require voter approval for major developments after the planning process instead of at the start.
Rejecting a proposal this week by planners to also mandate an advisory vote by the electorate at the front end of the application’s submittal was the right choice and one that avoids taking a step back from the current system. Planners offered the option for an additional advisory vote after opponents criticized the long-studied plan to require citizenry approval at the end of the process for developments of 100 or more units.
Critics contended moving citizens’ vote to the end of the application process would somehow deflate the electorate’s voice into a rubber stamp for the Board of Supervisors’ decisions. Voters having the last say, however, does the opposite of that because they are most educated in their decisions if they can see a final draft as opposed to the rough one before gauging a project’s merits.
Adding another advisory vote would not only waste precious taxpayer dollars, but it would also turn away many voters who simply don’t have the time – and many who likely won’t take the time – for two elections on one issue. Most important, an advisory vote before residents know precisely what’s on the table leaves the potential for premature judgments and the death of promising developments before they even explore their options, before builders get their chance at making a case to officials and residents.
The county can’t reasonably expect enough voter attention on, say, a 100-unit project to get the kind of turnout needed for a fair, representative picture of citizens’ feelings on such proposals at the outset of an application process, and then at the end, too. In effect, adding another election could handcuff potential developments and act as a deterrent to the result opponents argue they seek – and that’s giving voters the most crucial voice on the most galvanizing projects.
This change to the Potential Residential Growth Increase program is, after all, precipitated in large part by the 6,800-unit El Rancho San Benito proposal.
And telling by the attention given by voters to the monumental Measure G growth decision in March 2004, it’s hard to believe citizens won’t be tuned in throughout the county’s consideration of DMB’s El Rancho project – and ready to make an informed decision when the time comes on such a gargantuan development.
Voters, ultimately, are more astute than the credit they’re getting from opponents of this change. Four supervisors recognized that – with the exception of Pat Loe – and should be lauded for their sensible decision.
