Open Space and Landscape as View
– Who Owns Them?
Many cultures have long believed that agricultural land and
water belong to everyone. Without food and water security, what
else has value? But for Americans and others descendants from
Western cultures, the idea of private property reigns supreme over
both agricultural lands and water.
Open Space and Landscape as View – Who Owns Them?
Many cultures have long believed that agricultural land and water belong to everyone. Without food and water security, what else has value? But for Americans and others descendants from Western cultures, the idea of private property reigns supreme over both agricultural lands and water.
But what about agricultural and open range lands as open space and views, for example the open space and landscapes that are now the focus of an initiative to change San Benito County’s General Plan, which is heading for a showdown with County voters in March of next year? Who owns these?
The current General Plan is premised on certain principles, among others, bearing on these questions. It seeks to “maintain the County’s rural identity and atmosphere” and to “assure large forms of open space, such as farms and grazing rangelands.” Measure G, the “Growth Initiative”, by drastically down-zoning agricultural lands in our County if approved, proposes to implement these general principles, so as to moot the question forever. Some lands go from five-acre lot potential to 20; some from five-acre to 160 acre; and the remainder from 40-acre lot potential to 160. This seems to me, and may be, pretty radical stuff. But more important, in my view, is a deeper question. Is it fair?
I am actually in favor of securing open space, particularly agricultural lands, including rangelands, for future generations. They have unique economic and social values that you just can’t find in, say Manhattan, London, Paris and LA. These open landscapes are timeless. They tie us to our roots and to our futures. They convey a unique essence of place, an endangered value for post-modern societies. So I consider that its insistence on preserving this value is a plus for Measure G.
But I also believe that we, the citizens of San Benito County who enjoy these landscapes, should join with those who bear the principal burden of preserving these lands, i.e. the farmers and ranchers, who are their stewards. In my judgment, Measure G in its present form fails to provide a fair method of compensation to them. And so I must oppose Measure G for this fundamental injustice. There is no free lunch.
Paying For Open Space – Some Options
Measure G’s proposed Transfer of Development Credit, or “TDC” as a means of compensation, is, under the circumstances, of no value in this regard. Others have commented in detail of the reasons why this is so and I will not repeat them here. There are alternatives that would work; at least until such time as the TDC technique is demonstrated as fair based on solid economic analysis. For example:
Ag-tourism – Those who have examined the economic plight of ranching and farming with an eye toward making these enterprises “sustainable”, or pretty much bulletproof in the face of business uncertainties arising from international food trade over which local producers have little control – not to mention weather, drought, pests, etc. – have urged ranchers and farmers to develop opportunities for what they call “ag-tourism.” San Benito County has a special committee, chaired by Scott Fuller of San Juan Oaks, looking into this very subject. As partial compensation for transfer of open space rights to the public, Measure G should be modified to provide maximum flexibility to farmers and ranchers who wish to diversify the use of their lands to offer resources to those desiring ag-tourism experiences, actually something quite common in Europe.
Eco-friendly development – Measure G should be amended to leave as is whatever residential allotments agricultural and ranch lands now have, and at the same time, amended to restrict their utilization to development that has minimal ecological impact on the particular ranch or farm. In effect, criteria analogous to planned unit development guidelines would apply, for example, clustered development, a single road, single well, single sewage system, energy efficient construction, including solar generation, if reasonably feasible, and so forth. There are in existence many models for this type of residential planning and construction that have been used in other communities, both in and beyond California. This type of housing could also be used on these lands in respect of Measure G’s favored treatment of affordable housing.
San Benito County could achieve wide recognition for insisting on this kind of development where its valuable agricultural and ranch lands – and its open space – are affected.
Compensation for land management – The 2002 Farm Bill contained provisions, as yet unfunded by Congress, to compensate farmers and range managers for certain conservation practices deemed desirable for the long-term health of our agricultural lands and watersheds. Reducing erosion through excessive run-off of irrigation water, or poorly managed field design relative to land contours and elevations, reduction of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, both of which leave harmful residues in the soil that ultimately leach into our fresh water sources to the detriment of human and wild life, use of cover crops to hold soils in winter and produce natural soil amendments – all of these measures could be promoted by incentive payments to land stewards willing to implement such practices. It seems self evident that preservation of open space would be automatically advanced if those owning farm and range lands were compensated in this way to preserve it for us, and we in turn, through our tax payments, helped save it ourselves. Many developed nations consider these progressive tools of agriculture in their best interest and are gradually building a system that supports such compensation.
Assessment Districts. Another option for merging those who enjoy the benefits of the open space that farms and ranches offer with those who bear the burdens of their stewardship would be to create assessment districts of the urban/commercial/residential zones in the County for the purpose of creating a pool of funds with which to buy conservation easements from farmers and ranchers willing to sell them. Such easements could be for a minimum period, say 10 years, or permanent. The assessments would be paid through and governed by the existing property tax system, without reference to Proposition 13’s limitations, just as other district improvement assessments, such as sewers water lines, are financed.
“Controlling the Politicians” or “Any Given Tuesday” – Measure G’s most troublesome feature, though well intended, is its restriction on the flexibility of our elected representatives to amend certain provisions of the County’s General Plan without a vote of the entire electorate. This proposed policy is based on the fear that a vote of only three Supervisors, on “any given Tuesday,” the Board’s regular meeting date, is all that is needed to gut these expanded open space provisions of the General Plan. Three votes are not that hard for rich, outside developers to pick up, Measure G supporters say.
Maybe so. But amendments will be needed regardless. All laws do. We cannot see that far into the future for law to be otherwise. So the question is who makes them: the Board of Supervisors, over whom the voters have ultimate authority to vote them out, or recall them, or amend their amendment, or we the people? I am sure some think the current Recall Governor Davis process now in full swing in our State is wonderful. But I believe that most thinking people believe that it confirms James Madison’s concerns when he wrote in Federalist Papers 49 and 50, written in 1788, to the effect that such ultimate power over government should not be exercised ordinarily or casually. First, he doubted that most citizens most of the time possess the prudence and discrimination to reach informed opinions on such issues. But most important, he feared that use of this ultimate authority over customary government would undermine the respect for the institutions of government and, in effect, weaken both its sense of responsibility and effectiveness. Unstable and unwise government would necessarily follow. What qualified person would be interested in holding office if subject to continual second-guessing by those who have devoted comparatively little time to the questions at hand?
If the fear is that foolish Supervisors, or venal Supervisors, or both, can do wrong that cannot be righted, or righted in time, there must be a better way. One approach would be to establish a “Land Use Council,” composed of perhaps 50 persons selected by 50 citizens groups throughout the County and representing the diversity of land use interests in the County, all of whom would be required to have lived here 10 years continuously before being elected to serve. This Council would have either final or advisory review, authority over certain decisions affecting the General Plan. This process would highlight the controversies facing the Supervisors, slow the action down and tend to assure that the total community was “on board” as to the outcome.
Conclusion – The end of Measure G is definitely a goal which I favor, namely, to shape the economic life and structures of the County so as to preserve agriculture as the dominant landscape feature. To me, the modern, highway entangled, big metropolis is not a likely or feasible destination for San Benito County, because it has no southern access, and is essentially land-locked for 60 miles. So, to preserve its character consistent with its geography makes sense. For those who want the big cities, let them first move to San Jose, and then beyond as far as they wish. But assuring that San Benito County is viable and healthy pretty much as is, seems the priority for its current population.
But the means of doing so must be fair. Because Measure G sacrifices fairness and long-term community health for a quick fix, and for the reasons discussed above, we must continue to improve on Measure G provisions until the goal of open space is secured justly.
Sincerely,
Richard B. Morris
San Juan Bautista
