With all of the debating on Measure G within San Benito County,
much of the financing for the two sides’ campaigns has come from
out-of-town donors.
With all of the debating on Measure G within San Benito County, much of the financing for the two sides’ campaigns has come from out-of-town donors.
Both sides, particularly proponents of the growth control measure, have solicited significant portions of their funding from non-county residents or companies, according to recently filed Elections Office documents obtained by the Free Lance.
The Citizens for Responsible Growth – or the Yes on Measure G committee – has obtained a total of $102,300. Of that, $80,400 – or 79 percent – came from out-of-county donors, according to documents.
The No on Measure G Committee has attained a total of $299,300. Of that, $74,600 – or 25 percent – came from out-of-county donors.
Opponents of the initiative pointed out, however, that most of their outside donations have come from parties who own land within San Benito County – yet listed a home or business address of another county.
“A conservative figure is that 95 percent of our contributors are from within San Benito County,” said Annette Giocamazzi, chairperson for the campaign.
She also defended the opponents’ overall donation advantage in saying $75,000 was spent on attorney’s fees to defend a lawsuit trying to enact Measure G without a vote.
The Yes on Measure G committee attained such a high percentage of funding from outside the county, members say, because initiative supporters don’t have a potential financial stake in the outcome. Therefore, it’s been hard to gain local funding support.
“It’s difficult to get people to give to things when they don’t have a lot of monetary benefit coming back,” said Janet Brians, a member of the Citizens for Responsible Growth, members of which drafted the measure.
Included among the Yes on Measure G committee’s larger financial supporters are: the Sierra Club for $3,000 and the People for Livable and Affordable Neighborhoods (PLAN) for $15,750.
Also included are several individuals’ donations from Livermore, and other cities such as Portola Valley, Los Gatos and Redwood City.
Retired Stanford Professor Robert Girard, who guided authors through the writing of Measure G, directed the committee to many of those out-of-town donors, said Gordon Machado, the campaign’s treasurer.
Since Girard has previously worked on similar initiatives in California, Machado said, he knows many “multi-millionaires” from the Silicon Valley region who are devoted to environmental issues.
“I guess you try to get the money from wherever you can,” Machado said.
Many denouncers of Measure G are agricultural landowners. If the measure passes March 2, the potential development value of certain ag properties would decrease.
Measure G – intended as a growth control device – also includes a credit program that would compensate ag landowners while promoting development near or within Hollister limits. And the last of its major provisions – it would leave most decisions on changing the pace of development up to county voters.
Opponents of the measure believe they’ve received undue criticism for their motives, from people claiming “big developers” have financed their campaign, according to Giocamazzi.
“We have not received one dime from a big developer,” Giocamazzi said.
Most of the No committee’s donations have come from individual residents of San Benito. Among the donors listing non-county addresses were: Mission Organics of Salinas for $35,000; the California Association of Realtors for $5,000; and the California Cattlemen’s Association for $1,000.
