While the two sides of the Growth Control initiative controversy
don’t concur on much these days, they do agree on a couple of
things.
The measure will inevitably appear on the March election ballot,
and educating the community before a vote is essential.
While the two sides of the Growth Control initiative controversy don’t concur on much these days, they do agree on a couple of things.
The measure will inevitably appear on the March election ballot, and educating the community before a vote is essential.
Meanwhile, proponents and opponents say they’re anxious to continue discussions to maintain the open dialogue expressed during two consensus building workshops this summer.
The first of those meetings, a two-day gathering, occurred in July. The second, which was intended to continue a drive for common ground with hopes of forming a strategy for the coming months, was Wednesday.
“Legally, the county and we are all committed to having an election,” said Janet Brians, a member of the Citizens for Responsible Growth organization that authored the initiative. “So that’s a given. And so we can talk about all kinds of possibilities; talking, or course, is very helpful to keep our communications going.”
Regardless of the eventuality March 2, Brians’ group, along with residents opposing the measure, expressed a willingness to continue talks.
The consensus building group plans to form a committee to organize further meetings, some of which may be broadcast on the local cable access station.
The Growth Control initiative, the subject of widespread dissension since its filing nine months ago, was intended to “provide for the protection of the county’s agricultural, open space and natural resources” by restricting development, the initiative’s summary.
Among several aspects, the initiative – otherwise known as Measure G – raises five-acre parcel designations to 20 acres and 40-acre designations (prime farming land) to 160. That would make it all but impossible for landowners of large tracts to subdivide and sell off property at a premium dollar.
“It’s inevitable that it will be on the ballot,” said Joe Morris, a San Juan Bautista rancher and a leader of the consensus-building workshops. “But we can come up with a better plan in the meantime. It doesn’t seem anybody is saying the proposal is perfect.”
Participants in the second consensus building workshop left with a wide variety of feelings on the immediate future of the issue.
“I think the foundation is there, so that we can maybe get the opposing sides together and begin to talk about what might be a better plan,” Morris said.
Richard Saxe, a proponent and another originator of the measure, also believes, regardless of the vote March 2, a continuance of work and cooperation must occur.
Saxe, like Morris, also called the initiative a tool. Residents on both sides of the issue, he said, seem hungry for the same general outcome for the long-held rural county.
“We need to focus on continuing work and guaranteeing the county keeps its agricultural base, so that we don’t end up a suburban satellite of Santa Clara County,” Saxe said. “In the end, it’s interesting, the initiative has actually provided us the initiative to meet. And it will keep us meeting and working on this.”
Dave Brigantino, a ranch broker who has attended the workshops, held out hope Measure G could somehow be taken off the election ballot. But that, according to election officials and County Counsel Karen Forcum, isn’t feasible at this stage of the process.
“I think we look forward to meeting,” he said. “It’s hard when this thing is on the table. It’s not going to go away.”
Between now and March, supporters and opponents of Measure G hope to build on a more beneficial level of communication they’ve already built.
“The more you study it,” said Tony Ruiz, a retired professor who attended Wednesday’s workshop, “the more you realize how much it affects everybody.”
