We’re avoiding real questions
In,
”
We’re avoiding real answers,
”
(The Pinnacle, July 18) Mark Dickson made several broad
arguments against development in the unincorporated areas of San
Benito County; however, I believe that broad arguments are the
wrong approach. Rejecting all development proposals on generalities
makes no more sense than accepting them on generalities. The only
way to make the right choice is to evaluate each proposal on its
individual merits.
We’re avoiding real questions
In, “We’re avoiding real answers,” (The Pinnacle, July 18) Mark Dickson made several broad arguments against development in the unincorporated areas of San Benito County; however, I believe that broad arguments are the wrong approach. Rejecting all development proposals on generalities makes no more sense than accepting them on generalities. The only way to make the right choice is to evaluate each proposal on its individual merits.
I agree on one important point; previous development has been haphazard and has not brought the desired economic prosperity, but to do better we must answer the critical question, “why?” not just give up. Yet, without attempting to find an answer, the article recommends we just continue the failed policies of stuffing more unplanned communities and sprawl into Hollister. Planned communities, especially those with a healthy economic component, have the potential of changing that equation for the county as a whole.
Mr. Dickson has been commuting to Silicon Valley since 1993. Commuting is often criticized because it adds to our traffic, air and noise pollution; increases the cost of road maintenance and uses too many scarce energy resources. However, commuters would surely point out all the benefits their families and the community derive from their better economic circumstances. In the same way, generalizing is neither a fair nor an accurate method for evaluating a specific project, especially one that is fundamentally different from our previous experience.
Although I have no financial interest in development, complaints about profit leave me cold. It’s unreasonable to expect anyone to invest hundreds of millions of dollars without a profit incentive; risk must carry the potential of reward. I’d bet that many who are now no-growth advocates were only able to buy their homes because they were involved with profit-making enterprises, perhaps even their own. There is no reason a good project cannot be a win-win for both the private and public interests.
Neither the piecemeal development dictated by growth caps nor the moratorium has relieved the current economic strain on the county and city residents. Our costs for public services are driven, not by us, but by the competition, Santa Clara County, where the median family income is $20,000 more than San Benito County. Were it not for our county’s commuters, the gap would be much larger. Unfunded state and federal mandates, general inflation and ever-increasing cost of government account for the rest.
Clean water, better schools, improved roads and safer neighborhoods cost money, lots and lots of money. To add population with better jobs and more disposable income demands we offer more housing opportunities. We have only two choices; either develop economically or tax ourselves into oblivion. I choose door number one, but only if it is done well. Developing in little disconnected pieces simply makes no sense.
In our planning documents and statements, the county residents have expressed the things they want from a good development plan. They include the ability to pay for themselves, planned neighborhoods, open space, mixed density and types of housing, senior and affordable components, a land use plan respectful of our history and, importantly, the potential for leveraged economic gain.
Now, along comes a proposal that, on the surface, appears to offer what we desire, but the no-growth interests are encouraging us to ignore the specifics and even the possibility of improvement, and just reject it out of hand. That is not a reasonable way to control our future. The El Rancho San Benito proposal for a planned community has certainly earned the right to an unbiased analysis based on the facts. It should not be discarded merely as the result of a no-growth philosophy.
I encourage everyone to withhold judgment until they have studied the proposal in detail. Then the citizens should ask tough questions and make their choice. Those who either support or oppose these proposals must also consider the needs of the entire community, not just their personal preferences. To conquer the future we must not fear change; we must manage it.
Marty Richman lives in Hollister.
