The San Benito County Board of Supervisors decided Tuesday that
adding a second vote to the approval process for major developments
would create one election too many.
Hollister – The San Benito County Board of Supervisors decided Tuesday that adding a second vote to the approval process for major developments would create one election too many.
The board came under fire July 30, when a group dubbed the Concerned Citizens of San Benito County slammed supervisors for proposed changes to the Potential Residential Growth Increase program. Any development of 100 units or more seeking a general plan amendment would still be subject to voter approval, but proposed changes would move the election from the beginning of the planning process to the end.
As a concession to critics, county planners worked with the board’s PRGI subcommittee to craft a new ordinance that calls for two elections: an advisory vote shortly after the developer submits an application, and a binding election after the Board of Supervisors approves the project.
Many of the locals who decried the board in July said they were happy with the changes.
“(The advisory vote) is just kind of getting a feel for what the electorate wants,” said county resident Susanna Langstaff.
And Alexander Henson, the Concerned Citizens of San Benito County’s attorney, offered a “heartfelt thank you,” because he sees the two elections as “the best of both worlds.”
“What’s the drawback?” Henson said. “One extra election and the cost of that election.”
If a developer has the money to spend thousands or even millions of dollars on the planning process, they’re unlikely to balk at the cost of a second vote, Henson added.
But the gratitude and good feelings weren’t enough to sway supervisors Don Marcus, Anthony Botelho, Jaime De La Cruz and Reb Monaco, who all voted against the second election. Monaco, who initially opposed the later election, said he now endorses holding the vote after the approval process and environmental review are complete.
“One of the hallmarks of a democracy is to have an educated voting populace,” Monaco said.
Other speakers also took a dim view of the early election. Tony Ruiz, an advocate for “new urbanism,” said the early advisory vote encourages the same kind of uninformed opinions that he tried to stamp out as a teacher at Gavilan College.
“It’s nonsense,” Ruiz said. “It amounts to bad government.”
Annette Giacomazzi, who runs the consulting firm RURALnomics, noted that many of the locals calling for an early election were also supporters of Measure G, the slow-growth initiative that failed in 2004. Giacomazzi headed the No-on-G campaign.
“What are they afraid of?” she said.
The majority of the board voted to bring the revised ordinance – minus the advisory election – back for introduction on August 14 and final approval on August 28. After the vote, Supervisor Pat Loe, the lone holdout, said the later election asks voters to “rubber stamp” a decision the board has already made.
“I believe this minimizes the power of the people,” Loe said.
Anthony Ha covers local government for the Free Lance. Reach him at 637-5566 ext. 330 or ah*@fr***********.com.
