As an opponent of Measure G, there are a few things that the
proponents are not considering.
At all of the Consensus Building Workshops, it was quite clear
that the one thing EVERYONE agreed upon and objected to were the
developments that contained hundreds of houses.
The county’s General Plan, which is currently in place,
addresses this and prevents these kinds of developments by having a
1-percent growth cap.
As an opponent of Measure G, there are a few things that the proponents are not considering.
At all of the Consensus Building Workshops, it was quite clear that the one thing EVERYONE agreed upon and objected to were the developments that contained hundreds of houses.
The county’s General Plan, which is currently in place, addresses this and prevents these kinds of developments by having a 1-percent growth cap.
The zoning change in Measure G is a punitive attack upon private property rights and does not address these types of monster developments.
The proponents of Measure G keep saying they want to protect agricultural land. The implication being that landowners (ranchers and farmers) are greedy, conscienceless people who are really developers in disguise.
It is thanks to these landowners that we HAVE open space in this county. It is they who have been taking care of it and making ends meet, and in some cases, for generations. They do not deserve to have their land values decreased because the city has annexed neighboring farm land and allowed hundred house developments.
Seems as if the greed part of this equation applies to the very people who are proponents of Measure G and wish to have the view of someone else’s land at no cost to themselves.
And isn’t it odd that Mr. Saxe, who is one of the initiators and sponsors of Measure G, moved to San Benito County, bought 10 acres, tried to subdivide it into two five-acre parcels and now is very determined that no one else should do the same? He says his motivation was well intentioned, but I suppose that no one else might have the same “good intentions.” OK for Mr. Saxe, but no one else.
There is further fallout from the proposed Measure G zoning change in the county from 40 to 160 acres.
If a rancher should have a financial need (family illness, college tuitions, drought or whatever), he can no longer sell a small 40-acre parcel, but must now carve off a large piece. This may be the end of the operation if it is a small ranch.
And who will buy this 160-acre piece? Very few of our local people would be able to afford this larger piece of property, unless land values so decrease because of this measure, that 160 acres now becomes what 40 acres was worth before Measure G. So the new owner, who can afford these prices, will probably be from out of town. They will be hobby farmers and very often absentee landowners who are speculation buyers. Is this what we wanted?
Didn’t our Measure G people tout how they want to help our local people live and stay here? Maybe they didn’t really mean the farmers and their families – they were just talking about the people who depend on farm jobs or the farmers’ land taxes so that they have a job. Not to forget the largest income in this county still comes from agriculture.
In conclusion, I believe that the zoning change punishes the very landowners we are supposedly trying to save. Otherwise, why would all the farmers and ranchers be against Measure G? And why was not one rancher or farmer or the Farm Bureau invited to participate when this Measure was developed, behind closed doors?
The issue should be about a growth cap, not zoning changes.
We need to formulate a General Plan that satisfies both sides of this issue. There are not that many areas where the two sides differ, so a General Plan could be devised that takes into consideration all parts of this community without penalizing the very landowners that keep this county beautiful.
The final plan needs to be flexible enough so that it will take into account the possible changes that are certain to occur economically, socially and ecologically in the next 50 years. By passing this measure as it is, by a vote of the people, removes all possibility of future flexibility. We need to vote “NO” on Measure G and continue to work together. There is a large group of citizens from both sides who have agreed to do just that, so that a General Plan can be developed that truly serves as a vision and a goal for this county’s heritage and it future. And with the amount of passion that this issue has raised, I believe that these same citizens will make sure that their General Plan is adhered to in the future.
Joy Law,
Hollister
