”
It’s like dej
à vu all over again.
”
It was a generation ago when baseball legend Yogi Berra uttered
those words, but nobody could better sum up last week’s decision by
the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to send what’s being
called the Land Conservation Initiative to voters on Nov. 7.
“It’s like dejà vu all over again.”
It was a generation ago when baseball legend Yogi Berra uttered those words, but nobody could better sum up last week’s decision by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to send what’s being called the Land Conservation Initiative to voters on Nov. 7.
As reporter Kate Woods points out in this week’s edition of The Pinnacle, the initiative bears striking similarities to Measure G, the 2004 ballot measure that was soundly rejected by San Benito County voters. That should come as no surprise, because both were drafted by the same Stanford University academic.
Both initiatives sought to “downzone,” or mandate much larger minimum parcel sizes on land outside city boundaries but within the county.
We believe the initiatives are only symptoms of a complicated malaise.
First, it should be obvious that proponents of both initiatives are reacting to what they see as sprawl and plain bad planning.
It should be just as obvious that legislators are not doing the job they’re paid to perform.
Land use planning in the Bay Area is a far more complicated endeavor than can possibly be confronted with ballot initiatives. It demands deliberation and expert analysis. Finally, it involves a measure of courage from policy-makers.
The appearance of this initiative, like its San Benito predecessor, tells a grim story of the breakdown on all fronts. Ironically, the San Francisco Chronicle’s lead story just two days after Santa Clara supervisors voted to place the measure on the ballot probed the biggest part of the breakdown.
In cities throughout the Bay Area, the middle class is being forced out as the landscape shifts into an uneasy mix of blighted areas housing the poor and exclusive neighborhoods that are only the province of the very rich. Working people are being pushed farther and farther from where they work to find homes they can afford.
In the face of unquenchable demand for housing near job centers, the free market system has failed in addressing the growing crisis.
Government’s role is manifest. Government should not compete with the open market, but when needs are perceived that business cannot effectively address, government must play a role. That’s why public safety services are provided by governmental agencies. How practical would it be for a fire department to refuse a call because a homeowner is a little behind on paying the bill for last year’s chimney fire? It’s the role of our leaders to create avenues that lead to housing for people at all segments of society.
The Land Conservation Initiative ignores that reality in an attempt to protect privately held viewsheds and preserve agriculture.
Ballot box planning usually offers simple solutions to complicated issues, and this may be no exception.
What is certain is that the kind of feverish campaigning that split San Benito County two years ago is about to be repeated in Santa Clara, while the real issues continue to get less attention than they deserve.
We should demand that our own leaders serve that greatest slice of their constituency that calls itself middle class and present some a more comprehensive approach to planning that enfranchises all stakeholders.
