Tensions surrounding growth control, according to Gavilan
College political science instructor Matthew Escover, are nothing
new to San Benito County.
A Hollister resident for the past 40 years, Escover, 46, on
Tuesday discussed the wide-ranging effects of the Growth Control
Initiative on the March election ballot.
Tensions surrounding growth control, according to Gavilan College political science instructor Matthew Escover, are nothing new to San Benito County.
A Hollister resident for the past 40 years, Escover, 46, on Tuesday discussed the wide-ranging effects of the Growth Control Initiative on the March election ballot.
He has taught at the local community college for the past 17 years. He also served four years on the City Council and was a planning commissioner for 1-1/2 years.
“This is revisiting old territory,” Escover said. “In the early 90s, a growth initiative was on the ballot and failed. There were a lot of the same emotional issues.”
That measure, also at the time intended to change policies within the county’s General Plan, would have capped new housing development at 3 percent. Thirteen years later, the current General Plan caps it at 1 percent and the pending Growth Control Initiative would include other methods to preserve the rural essence of the county.
Escover maintains a unique perspective on the current debate because he has ties to both sides – landowners and land preservationists – primarily debating the controversy.
He comes from a farming family. Yet he’s also a member of the San Benito County Land Trust, which he called an “open space and farmland preservation organization.”
The facet of the measure gaining the most attention is a policy further restricting the number of housing units that can be built on agricultural land. That would hamper, for instance, farmers’ ability to eventually sell to developers.
“It’s a tough call,” he said of the March ballot measure. “I can see both sides and I haven’t made up my mind on it.”
The issue, he said, carries the weight of not only being complicated, but it would also widely affect the development future of the county. Meanwhile, the measure, while rooted in rural preservation, is not just a matter of increasing land parcel designations.
“It’s not something that should be cast only as land rights and land preservation,” he said.
The 25-page proposal contains several amendments to the General Plan – including those that deal with low- and moderate-income housing, environmental conservation and transferable development credits – a contemporary tool that potentially rewards landowners of large tracts.
The controversial rezoning aspect of the proposal would raise the size of “agricultural productive” land parcels – each currently mandated to be a minimum five acres – to 20 acres. Tracts designated as “agricultural rangeland” will be bumped from 40 acres to 160 acres.
This, according to Escover, would widely change the scope of potential agricultural land use.
“It’s a big jump,” he said.
For many agricultural landowners, potential outside developers would be restricted in their abilities to subdivide. The measure would disallow large developments and ultimately change the resale value of the land.
“Ultimately, it does affect how (farming landowners) dispose of their land, if they dispose of it.”
The measure’s proposed introduction of transferable development credits (TDCs) to the county was intended to allow agricultural landowners the opportunity to still reap financial benefits from potential developers. And regardless of the March vote, the county is currently working on a TDC program.
Each property owner would be allotted a certain number of “development credits” by the county. And a landowner would have the right to sell his or her allotted TDCs to another landowner.
That means, for instance, farmers owning 20-acre land parcels could sell their TDCs to developers – who would in turn be sanctioned to build higher density developments where they are allowed.
“It’s a means to shape the direction of growth,” Escover said.
Escover also touched on the growth measure’s increased allotments of affordable housing units, a lack of which he said has historically been a problem in San Benito County. The state, he said, already mandates a certain number of affordable housing units in each development.
The Growth Control Initiative actually allows for up to 2 percent annual growth because it gives special exemptions for TDCs and low-income housing. Aside from maintaining the current 1 percent growth cap, it allows an additional 1/2 percent for both TDCs and low-income housing.
With so much to consider and many other aspects not discussed Tuesday, Escover advised the public to get educated before voting.
“Get in there and read it. Go over it,” he said.
When the growth control petition was circulated in the early 90s, before its eventual ballot-box demise, Escover signed it. He didn’t necessarily favor that measure, but he encouraged the democratic means. That, he said, is why he called the current situation a “healthy process.”
“If it’s a good product, (voters) will buy it. If it’s bad, they won’t,” he said.
