Some country folks don’t like city folks telling them how to use
their land
To read the entire text of the initiative, visit
www.pinnaclenews.com
Citizens pushing for a growth-control initiative say they are
getting positive response in their petition drive to get the
measure on a future ballot. But as landowners across the county
learn about what it entails, they are complaining both of
restrictions that will be placed on them as well as the fact that
voters in the City of Hollister could control their destiny.
Citizens pushing for a growth-control initiative say they are getting positive response in their petition drive to get the measure on a future ballot. But as landowners across the county learn about what it entails, they are complaining both of restrictions that will be placed on them as well as the fact that voters in the City of Hollister could control their destiny.
“There are two kinds of people that responded to it,” said initiative backer Mark Levine. “Those that push their way to get at it to sign, and those that want nothing to do with it. The former are in the majority.”
Critics of the plan that proposes rezoning the county to prevent it from being chopped up by development say it’s extreme, too restrictive on country folk and only allows farmers – not ranchers – to sell their development credits.
“Rural folks might get upset that they are losing control over their land to decisions made by people living in the city,” said Supervisor Reb Monaco, whose District 4 is the largest in the county and made up mostly of rural rangeland.
If the initiative passes it can only be repealed by a vote of the people – not the county supervisors. Along with making permanent the 1 percent growth cap, the dark skies ordinance and a ban on ridge-top development, it prevents county rangeland parcels from subdividing any smaller than 160 acres, instead of the current 40-acre minimum. Ag productive land can’t be divided smaller than 20 acres, rather than the current five.
Only one home can be built on a parcel, but subdivisions currently in place will remain valid. The measure’s supporters gathered about 200 signatures their first outing last weekend. They need 1,000 within the next six months to put it on the March 2004 countywide ballot.
Monaco said he has received several phone calls from concerned citizens.
“We cannot maintain out-of-control growth,” Monaco added. “But look at second or third generations, especially in the remote part of my district. Will they be able to afford to live here in the future?”
Though even proponents thought the measure allowed all rural landowners the opportunity to sell development credits for houses they could have built previously, fine print in the initiative shows that is not true. The way the document is written, only those owning farmland – that is those in North County and the San Juan Valley – can sell development credits to builders close to city services. Those owning rangeland – that is everyone south of Bolado Park and west of 101 – can sell credits only if the Board of Supervisors allows it.
“That doesn’t sound right to me,” said cattle rancher Joe Morris of San Juan Bautista. “I think they’ve done a lot of good things that the General Plan neglected to do, especially in Hollister, but I was upset when I got to the part that development credits are reserved for prime farmland. That doesn’t seem fair to the ranchers.”
San Juan Canyon would be re-designated into ag rangeland, as would a large part of the basin north of Buena Vista Road and the San Benito River. It means that all future subdivisions in those areas can be no smaller than 160 acres.
The San Benito County Farm Bureau has begun to study the initiative, but is reserving comment until their work is complete and the group has reached a consensus.
“The backers are basically putting it across as friendly to agriculture,” said bureau president Tom Tobias, “but I’m not so sure about that right now. The Farm Bureau has a philosophy: Let’s make agriculture profitable and then you’re not going to subdivide, the open space will be there.”
Local farmer Paul Hain feels that owners of ag rangeland who balk about not being able to sell their phantom parcel credits could have “selfish motivations.”
“The community ends up subsidizing someone’s personal desires, which is not a sustainable concept,” said Hain. “It’s not an easy thing to say to someone they can’t build or sell their credits. But people in South County have very little development potential anyway.”
A transferable development credit program is already being studied and considered by county planners. Planning Director Rob Mendiola said his department hasn’t gotten as far as deciding which regions of the county would be eligible to sell credits.
“This has been in the works for some time,” said Mendiola. “But we just started looking into a program that allows for the selling and trading of development credits amongst property owners, and it hasn’t excluded anything.”
The county’s General Plan has allowed the transfer of development credits for 10 years, but it limits a builder to shuffling units around from one piece of his or her property to another he or she owns.
“I envision a free market type program with a TDC (transferable development credit) bank that purchases credits and sells them to developers as they are needed,” said Hain. “As the market changes the price will vary. It’s like that in real estate, why should this be any different?”
Hain said that in 50 years, perhaps all the credits north of Hollister would be exhausted, in which case ag rangeland owners could start selling theirs.
But some dissenters, like developer Award Homes point man Michael Van Every, question whether the public-at-large is qualified to make decisions about future growth in their communities.
“I’ve always said that ballot box planning is a flawed process because, again, you’re not achieving a lot of things that California is trying to accomplish, like affordable housing, roads, infrastructures with sewage systems,” said Van Every. “They are acquired through growth. It’s a delicate balance.”
Van Every cautioned people to read the initiative and ponder the ramifications.
“It may not affect them but it may affect their uncle or their aunt or their other relatives and generations to come,” he said.
Van Every made the points even though Award Homes would be treated favorably should the initiative pass. The proposed zoning map of Hollister and surrounding areas depicts all of Fairview Road and nearby acreage as non-agricultural, therefore developable. Award Homes’ controversial 677-home West of Fairview project would be in that area.
“Fairview has always been targeted for urban development,” said Van Every. “I think the issues about Fairview have to do with the interpretations of the levels of services. It’s always been the vision of the city and the county. My challenge would be to the local business community, what’s their vision of this issue?”
Some wonder why proponents of the initiative didn’t opt for making current regulations permanent rather than adding extra restrictions on parcel size.
“It probably would be a lot easier to pass,” said Hain. “But would it really preserve our ag heritage by allowing five-acre sprawl to continue? It’s not good planning.”
Janet Brians, one of the initiative backers, said her group’s aim was to achieve balance.
“I understand people don’t like any kind of regulations that affect them,” said Brians. “But there has to be some kind of balance. We can’t have this gigantic amount of growth all at once that our roads can’t support. We couldn’t handle the Paicines Ranch development, for instance. Can you imagine Panoche? I would hate to see 500 more people on that road every day. We’ve been overwhelmed for the last 10 years.”
Monaco said he feels the initiative, if approved by the public, could put tremendous housing pressure on surrounding counties, which could make for tense relations with regional neighbors.
“Are we creating a bogie-man that’s ill-defined?” Monaco asked rhetorically. “Are we saying that the system in place has broken down? I don’t think it has. If you look at a continuum where you have no regulations, just chaos, and then there are these kind of tight restrictions on the other end, both positions could be very dangerous. I think the answer is somewhere in the middle.”
Hain predicted the grassroots initiative will be controversial between now and the time it is ultimately voted upon by the people.
“This is a very divisive issue,” he said. “It will probably make the Hollister sewage issue look like someone dumped a Porta-Pottie over it.”
