Guest View
Mike Smith
I read with interest Kate Woods’
”
A Growth Battle Royale
”
story complete with photo by Martin Jimenez of Peter Drekmeier,
campaign coordinator for PLAN, who is ostensibly standing in front
of someone else’s property with his hand on a barbed wire fence.
It’s almost a metaphorical snapshot of the environmentalist
movement and the equivalent of the proverbial hunter posing next to
his landed prey.
Guest View
Mike Smith
I read with interest Kate Woods’ “A Growth Battle Royale” story complete with photo by Martin Jimenez of Peter Drekmeier, campaign coordinator for PLAN, who is ostensibly standing in front of someone else’s property with his hand on a barbed wire fence. It’s almost a metaphorical snapshot of the environmentalist movement and the equivalent of the proverbial hunter posing next to his landed prey.
In gratitude, Mark Paxton’s “Son of Measure G” editorial offers an almost balanced perspective of the story. In it, he rightly condemns the role of ballot box initiatives to correct bad planning and even cites the libertarian mantra on the role of government: Don’t compete with the open market. But here is where his commentary falls just short.
The egregious pratfall of land control measures is that they defy the basic tenets of economics in our capitalistic society. The right and ability to own land and risk utilizing it for pecuniary gain is an essential right that, for better or worse, has made the United States the wealthiest, most innovative nation on earth. Yes, there are winners and losers in capitalism, but the nature of the market is such that losers can make adjustments to their capital strategy and make economic comebacks, ultimately benefiting the market, investor and the consumer.
As a business, ranching and farming has always been risky. Increasingly, ranchers and farmers depend on the value of their land as collateral to purchase equipment and services in order to increase crop yield and stay competitive in a global market place. Land control measures decrease the value of these land holdings and create one more burden that the agricultural industry cannot afford.
I submit that those who advocate for land control measures have self-interest at stake. Invariably, they have economic means at their disposal and don’t give a damn about the American Dream, which is to better oneself by investing in a home with which to shelter one’s family and build a nest egg. Their philosophy is rife with fallacy, elitist in principle and their strategy is to circumvent due process by appealing to the uninformed voter to “save the environment”… typical parking lot planning.
Were these same people to come to the average voter’s door and ask for the deed to the house and pink slip to the car in the name of the environment and to preserve pristine viewsheds, they would meet with little success.
Instead, they point to their neighbors land and ask that the voter discriminate against his property rights for supposedly egalitarian principles, warn of sprawl and blight, and say: “Please sign here and vote for us come next election.” Incredibly, the self-righteous raiders are exponentially more successful.
I admit that it has been almost 30 years since I took economics in school, so I asked my son about it as he just passed the course at SBHS. In essence, he said, you need land, labor, capital and entrepreneurship to fashion a successful economy, not ballot box initiatives, Transfer Development Credits (voodoo economics) and unnecessary government intervention. It has been suggested to me that the present 1 percent growth cap is not only illegal, it artificially retards economic development by limiting the investment potential of businesses and industries looking to expand into San Benito County.
The due process required of government to protect the environment already exists through CEQA and is administrated by the planning department wherein planning staff evaluates proposed development projects and recommends measures to mitigate, if necessary, their impact on the environment. The evidence and/or merits of which are considered by the planning commission, occasionally modified and ultimately voted up or down.
In my view, we all need to focus on our local/regional (micro) economy and demote the Sierra Club’s interests subordinate to that of the greater economic well being of our diverse population.
We need to create jobs, improve housing opportunities for local families and promote youth development opportunities like the Hollister Youth Alliance, the YMCA, the arts and culture. These social amenities thrive in societies that balance economic interests with responsible environmental management practices while voluntarily supporting the arts and cultural interests of the local populace. We have a ways to go toward reaching that balance locally and the Battle of Measure G was a victory in a much larger war that continues to be fought throughout the state and now in Santa Clara County.
Mike Smith lives in Hollister and is employed in water treatment in Salinas.
