A San Juan Bautista resident backed by a prominent environmental
organization filed a lawsuit this week against the county Board of
Supervisors to remove the Growth Control Initiative from the March
ballot.
In her suit Rebecca McGovern claims the Board wrongly sent the
initiative to the election ballot. If successful, it could
essentially enact the Growth Control Initiative without a public
vote, according to several sources.
A San Juan Bautista resident backed by a prominent environmental organization filed a lawsuit this week against the county Board of Supervisors to remove the Growth Control Initiative from the March ballot.
In her suit Rebecca McGovern claims the Board wrongly sent the initiative to the election ballot. If successful, it could essentially enact the Growth Control Initiative without a public vote, according to several sources.
Superior Court Judge Steve Sanders held a preliminary conference Wednesday at 2:30 p.m. and set a hearing for Oct. 29. McGovern was represented by Earthjustice, a non-profit environmental law firm, sources say. She could not be reached for comment; nor could lawyers from the firm, which represents such clients as the Sierra Club and Audobon Society.
The suit challenges the legality of a referendum signed by 5,344 residents and approved by the Board July 9. That thicket of signatures had overturned the Board’s initial and controversial 4-1 decision in early April to approve the Growth Control Initiative outright.
Before the Supervisors – under a cloud of political pressure at the time – approved that referendum, both a county lawyer and an outside legal consultant had advised them against it.
The referendum’s wording raised some legal flags. Lawyers were concerned that the following statements were omitted from the referendum petition:
– “Notice to the public that this petition may be circulated by a paid signature gatherer or a volunteer. You have the right to ask.”
– “The use of your signature for any purpose other than qualification of this measure for the ballot is a misdemeanor. Complaints about the misuse of your signature may be made to the Secretary of State’s office.”
The Board, however, had decided to disregard those question marks and send it to the ballot.
The county subsequently made public the lawyers’ documentation showing the referendum’s hitches. McGovern is using that testimony as her basis for attempting to erase the initiative from the ballot, according to officials.
The Growth Control Iniative – otherwise known as Measure G – is intended to preserve the county’s agricultural landscape. The focal point of controversy surrounding the initiative is a rezoning policy that would restrict farmers and other landowners from subdividing their properties.
Since the Growth Control Initiative’s filing more than nine months ago, the two sides of the contentious issue have progressed from an oftentimes bawdy rhetoric to communicating respectfully, in pursuit of potentially reaching an agreeable alternative.
Farm Bureau President Tom Tobias, who vehemently opposes the Growth Control Initiative, expressed both surprise and disgust at the news Wednesday. He is also a member of the group that organized the referendum, Farmers and Citizens to Protect our Agricultural Heritage.
“We keep trying to play by the rules, and they just keep pulling rabbits out of the hat to thwart everybody from having a say in the deal,” he said.
But it was not clear by Wednesday night whether many proponents of the Growth Control Initiative were involved in the decision to file the lawsuit, or whether they supported it.
San Juan Bautista rancher Joe Morris, who helped lead two growth consensus building workshops in recent months, was also shocked by the suit.
The workshops, which included members from both camps, were largely designed to prevent the action McGovern took this week.
“The fact it was brought on is damaging to the spirit of the community,” said Morris, who stressed the suit escalates the importance of continued consensus building talks.
