Measure G has been utterly poisonous for the residents of San
Benito County. The old-timers will tell you, and the newspapers
lament, that they have never seen anything like this rupture the
fabric of our social relationships
– ever!
Measure G has been utterly poisonous for the residents of San Benito County. The old-timers will tell you, and the newspapers lament, that they have never seen anything like this rupture the fabric of our social relationships – ever!
That said, I count the people who brought us Measure G among my allies. After all, we have worked together and with others for years to advocate sensible land-use policy in the county. Their blind pursuit of Measure G, however, has been a huge and costly mistake.
The proponents of Measure G have argued that the present Board of Supervisors has made the difference between our beautiful present landscape and the 25,000 ill-considered houses that could have been built here in the last ten years. It should be pointed out that in those ten years there have been several Board of Supervisors, all of which have had different individuals serving as supervisors. It has not been the supervisors, but rather the citizens who have shown up at the meetings who have made the difference.
As examples, take the proposed Mission Greens and Rancho San Benito developments. Between them, over 10,000 houses were proposed that would have converted hundreds of our county’s farmland acres. Who persuaded the Board to turn these foolish projects down? Janet Brians, Mark Levine, Margaret Cheney, Mark Gibson, Becky McGovern, Paul Hain, the Farm Bureau, my family and many others. This is indisputable and the record bears it out.
Our democracy requires constant vigilance and energetic participation. That participation is the only insurance of good governance that is possible. To think that popular votes can replace the efficacy of ongoing citizen participation is sheer and dangerous folly.
But the cynicism of the proponents has driven them past all bounds of reasonability. In virtually every Letter to the Editor or presentation to the press, their neighbors are represented as untrustworthy: Developers? Bad. Realtors? Bad. Politicians? Bad. Farmers and ranchers? Merely greedy SOBs awaiting “their last crop: houses.”
Who are the farmers, I ask, who the proponents of Measure G cynically and unkindly refer to as “speculators?” Is it one of the aforementioned families? Who, specifically, then? And what unearthly power of discernment do they have that allows them to know the mind or heart of their neighbors? Why has it been so difficult for the proponents of Measure G to trust their neighbors? Why have they forsaken their own standards of community and of justice as they have duplicitously sought the endorsement of outside farming organizations, rather than the input and cooperation of local farming organizations and local farm families? They should be ashamed. They should apologize.
Thus far, Measure G has poisoned only our social relationships, but if Measure G becomes law, it will damage our economic relationships as well. By micro-managing the details of businesses in the county and insisting on onerous and ridiculous regulations, it will drive small businesses from our county, a loss we can’t afford.
Moreover, by ill-considered downzoning, it will do a grave injustice to our county’s land stewards and will drive some of them from the land generations of their families who have invested with their blood. Who will replace them? Yuppies from the cities. Who will replace their culturally deep knowledge of how to live within the limits of their places? No one!
The county assessor has agreed that Measure G implies a loss to these families of $162,000,000 of value. Wrangle about the number if you will, and the county staff report not withstanding, but the assessor assesses property value, and it is he who sends me my tax bill: I believe him. Arnold Fontes, the county assessor, endorses a “no” vote on Measure G.
This lost value to your farming neighbors implies lost tax revenue to be used for education of all our children and the maintenance of our local services, public safety, roads, etc. As all things are connected, if you vote for a loss to your neighbors, all of us will lose. Tim Foley, the Superintendent of Schools, and Sheriff Curtis Hill advocate a “no” vote as well.
The proponents of Measure G have clearly lost sight of the goal. Were Measure G about controlling growth, the farmers and ranchers would have no problem with it, a growth cap similar to that of Hollister and San Juan Bautista would have sufficed. Were they merely concerned about helping our supervisors make good decisions, a requirement of a super majority of the members of City Councils and Board of Supervisors on land use decisions, as they have in Contra Costa County, would have sufficed. This very different alternative would have been – and still can be in the future! – simple, elegant, fair to all and enhancing of the flexibility and integrity of our representative democracy.
Let me be clear, the proponents of Measure G are good people, passionate people, admirable for their energetic stand for something they believe in. Yet, passion must be coupled with reason, and two heads remain better than one. They have consulted but one head, their own, and have thus remained blind to the possibility of a more creative, peaceful and just alternative to the path they have so doggedly dragged us down.
A vote for Measure G is an endorsement of injustice done to real families – your neighbors. Justice and the healthy future of San Benito County that we all want demand an emphatic “no” on Measure G.
Vote “no” on Measure G, and meet us at the consensus building process in the spring.
Joe and Julie Morris
San Juan Bautista
