It seems as though any proposal associated with growth these
days garners some level of controversy, warranted or not.
It seems as though any proposal associated with growth these days garners some level of controversy, warranted or not.
A plan before the Board of Supervisors requiring voter approval of developments of more than 100 units calling for a general plan amendment after the application process – as opposed to at the beginning – has attracted a small minority of unreasonable dissent.
There are a couple of potentially questionable factors in the equation, but nothing worth the uproar witnessed at Tuesday’s board meeting leading to Supervisor Jaime De La Cruz losing his cool and uttering a curse word at an attorney speaking on the opposition’s behalf. De La Cruz’s demeanor was wrong, in spite of the antagonist’s convoluted argument.
We do believe officials should consider increasing the 100-unit threshold to reflect the primary aim prompting the adjustment, that being a careful scrutiny of – and informed decision by voters on – the proposed 6,800-unit El Rancho San Benito development.
Supervisor Pat Loe also has concerns about exempting affordable housing developers of such projects from needing voter approval. We commend her for raising questions over what she called a “giant loophole,” and officials should, indeed, tweak the proposal to balance the scale and give voters a say in all developments with a potentially immense impact.
Those against the law change believe there are bigger problems and their attorney, Carmel Valley-based Alexander Henson, made unfounded accusations of a “back-room deal” and called it an “assault on the ability of voters to participate in the land-use process.”
Strengthening voter authority, however, is exactly the point of this proposal. In the case of DMB’s massive El Rancho San Benito project, it would do just that. Voters would know exactly what they’re approving or denying, just as elected officials know precisely what they’re giving final approval or denial to when an application process culminates.
Still, however inappropriate or irrational speakers act during a public comment period of government meetings, it’s up to our elected officials to take the high road by absorbing the criticism – which is part of the job – or by respectfully telling such adversaries their level of tact is unfitting decorum.
De La Cruz denounced the attorney for “throwing out 15-letter words” and argued against delaying the vote.
“They’re going to be (expletive) and complaining about something else” at a future meeting, he said.
De La Cruz set a poor example and embarrassed the entire board. We certainly wouldn’t want other citizens dutifully playing their part by voicing opinions in a public forum to bypass that American birthright – whether they’re attorneys, businesspeople or ranchers – because they fear such offensive reactions from public officials.
