In an effort to misinform and dissuade voters, opponents to Measure A tell the public that “Measure A will not slow housing growth.”
Retired officials, a handful of local political party leaders, and even the mayor of Hollister repeat this transparent falsehood. But, if you read Measure A, you will find that if it is passed, a voter majority is required before redesignating agricultural, ranchland or rural land for housing.
It is true that some exemptions exist in Measure A. Most notably, the rezoning of rural lands for affordable housing would still be a decision made by the supervisors. And this makes perfect sense.
Our problem is that developers don’t build the affordable housing we need. They build unaffordable housing. If Measure A passes, voter approval would be required before building unaffordable housing.
Then, there is the state. Measure A opponents claim that it won’t stop housing because the state will wrestle control away from us if we drop below our RHNA numbers. This won’t happen. Voters are reasonable enough to choose some housing growth over loss of local control.
But we need not grow so quickly! We can slow down and still remain ahead of the state’s requirements.
It is worth mentioning that, according to publicly available financial documents, the newest group opposing Measure A, dubbed “San Benito Neighbors Against Traffic and Outside Interests,” is financed entirely by two realtor groups and a political lobbyist corporation. Go figure why they oppose Measure A!
If you read Measure A, you’ll find four instances of the word “subdivisions,” nine instances of the word “housing,” and 35 instances of the word “residential.” That’s 48 instances just between those three words!
You’ll find that such claims as “Measure A is not about housing” are false.
Joseph Howard
Hollister
Good, informative article Joe. Much appreciated.
It’s so true that the no on A side is not being
honest or truthful with their campaign.
Measure A will do all the things that SBC
needs, affordable housing, reduce future traffic,
protect farm and ranchlands, and give choice to
voters who currently have little choice in decision-making.
I’m with you Joesph and Pete! At least half the city council, most of the BOS and various other current and former politicians that oppose measure A are so greased you could cook Sunday morning hash browns on them, IMO. Some of these folks are the same bad actors that confused voters in 2022 with their “no on Q” campaign.
Joseph we have had this discussion multiple times, yet here you are being neither transparent nor truthful. You sort of forget to mention in talking about the exemptions that it is VERY clear this measure cannot conflict with state law.
There are literally hundreds of state housing laws that mandate and push housing.
Measure A will do absolutely nothing to slow housing in Hollister.
Measure A proponents including yourself continue pushing this false narrative in order to trick voters into voting for it.
What you don’t say is that the fiscal impact report has indicated is that it will have a seriously negative impact to revenue for our county. And it will deter new business and jobs here. Measure A is just plain wrong for our community.
I’m all for growth…Smart Growth. What San Benito County is currently experiencing is called “urban sprawl” and it is ugly, ugly like cancer cells spreading across the land. Mia Casey stated, “Measure A will do absolutely nothing to slow the housing in Hollister.” So, what will slow the housing construction? I’m sure that’s not on the agenda because her concern seems to be about the “serious impact to revenue for our county.” That was the same concern back in the 2022 election cycle when Measure Q was on the ballot and was ultimately defeated. So, did that defeat bring more revenue for our county to repair our infrastructure and fund critical services and build new schools and on and on? Apparently not. Even though Measure Q was defeated the revenue numbers are not adding up. I understand more revenue is needed because there’s no way to keep up with out-of-control sprawl. Building more homes increases the need for more revenue to provide all the services for the additional people moving here and that just leads to leap frogging to more and more housing developments to increase revenues and it never ends because urban sprawl is an insatiable disease. If anything, at least tell the SBC Board of Supervisors to not entertain giving developers huge breaks on the traffic impact fee like their predecessors did in 2010 to 2016 which cost the county tens of millions of dollars in revenues for road repairs and delayed the widening of Hwy 25 which was delayed so they could reduce the traffic impact fee for the developer at San Juan Oaks. And while you’re so pro housing construction, how about incorporating smart growth practices like “infilling” where you build housing in empty spaces next to existing structures…and make them affordable. There’s lots of residents here who can’t afford to live at Santana Ranch and similar housing developments. I remember a billboard sign on Hwy 25 that boasted “Affordable Housing Starting At $569,000.” Affordable for Silicon Valley at least. I have actually talked to some of our new residents in these expensive housing developments about the traffic and urban sprawl. Their main attraction to this county was the small town feel, less traffic, and less urban sprawl. But now they are seeing the very same issues arising that they were trying to get away from.