Dear Editor:
Since when did exercising your democratic right to petition the government become communism? I think perhaps our local McCarthyite missed that day in government class.
As a veteran who defended this great country in the Korean War, I resent being called a communist simply because I support a citizens petition to manage growth in this county. Equally so, I respect the right of those in opposition to petition for a referendum.
Name calling and outright lies about motive and intent have no place in a democracy. However, I am grateful for the freedoms we have which not only allow for lies but afford the opportunity to refute them in the public arena.
In addition, our local McCarthyite has not done his homework on the history of private property rights. Apparently he doesn’t know that the concept of private property rights was initiated to protect the property not the property owner. Interesting isn’t it?
Originally, laws were enacted to protect large tracts or zones of land which could sustain a particular activity, like let’s say, agriculture.
It has been recognized since the establishment of agrarian society that the land had to be protected and managed in order to continue to sustain life giving food. So, we end up with zoning laws which dictate what we can and can’t do on our property in order to protect it, and us for the long term.
The San Benito County Growth Control Initiative only seeks to make these protections permanent and therefore not subject to the changes in political whim – changes can only be made by a vote of the people.
And speaking of changes only by a vote of the people, can you explain to me how an initiative which gives the people the right to vote on any future changes in growth rate or land use, takes away the vote of the people?
The supporters of the referendum aren’t telling you the whole story, yes, the Supervisors voted affirmatively, acting in their legal capacity through state law to enact this initiative without going to a vote of the people just like San Juan Bautista City Council did last summer with its growth control initiative.
There is nothing in state law that indicates that this provision to enact without alteration is only used in emergencies – great lie though, but brilliant strategy but not the truth.
The initiative clearly states that it cannot apply if it is found that its inaction would constitute a taking under private property rights. And no where does the initiative assign blame for the current state of affairs with reference to sprawl.
The initiative simply acknowledges where we are and seeks to remedy the situation for the future.
Ruben Lopez
Hollister
