Opponents of Measure G released a study that predicts an array
of negative economic effects from the proposed initiative on the
March 2 ballot.
The No on Measure G Committee commissioned Nicolai Kuminoff
– a Ph. D. economics student at North Carolina State University
– to conduct the study. It was released to the Free Lance late last
week.
Opponents of Measure G released a study that predicts an array of negative economic effects from the proposed initiative on the March 2 ballot.
The No on Measure G Committee commissioned Nicolai Kuminoff – a Ph. D. economics student at North Carolina State University – to conduct the study. It was released to the Free Lance late last week.
Measure G’s authors also received copies of the 92-page report, according to Margaret Cheney, one of several proponents.
Cheney on Sunday denounced its conclusions.
“I just thought he (Kuminoff) was trying to please the people from the Farm Bureau who commissioned the study,” Cheney said. “Being from North Carolina, he’s not very well informed about California.”
Among his conclusions, Kuminoff found that Measure G – otherwise known as the Growth Control Initiative – would decrease property values and force processing plants to relocate.
He concluded the measure could actually increase the number of houses built – through a credit program that promotes development within or near Hollister limits. It could also increase housing costs and decrease funding for schools, public safety and the hospital district, Kuminoff derived.
In the report, though, he acknowledged that several long-term effects of the measure remain uncertain, such as specific population growth rates.
Members of the No on Measure G Committee say they sought their researcher through officials at the University of California, Davis, according to Annette Giacomazzi, chairperson of the campaign. She said the measure’s opponents were seeking an objective viewpoint.
Kuminoff did not return phone calls made to his cell phone Sunday. His services cost $8,000, according to Giacomazzi. Printing costs added another $1,500 to the total, she said.
“We had no idea what was going to come out of the study,” she said. “As suspected, the negative impacts are far reaching.”
Measure G is an amendment to the county’s General Plan that intends to control population growth through several mechanisms.
It would re-zone agricultural property in unincorporated areas of San Benito County – making it impossible to subdivide and sell land. Another program would allow ag landowners to sell designated allowances of “credits” to developers building near Hollister.
Measure G would maintain an annual 1-percent growth cap – while allowing an added 1/2 percent growth for both low-income housing and the credit program.
Giacomazzi said the measure’s authors have used “scare tactics” toward the public in trying to compare San Benito’s growth to that of San Jose. With changed laws and modern environmental restrictions, she said, “It can’t happen.”
“It (Measure G) does nothing to control growth in the City of Hollister, where all the problems have been,” Giacomazzi said. “This is purely county land, which has seen an only 8.5 percent population increase in the last 20 years.
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
But Cheney, from the proponents’ side, maintained that many of the study’s conclusions were based on “very dire predictions.” Furthermore, the information is misleading, she said.
She called Kuminoff’s point about processing plants leaving town, “wild speculation.” Measure G includes restrictions on the size of such plants.
County supervisors would still hold authority to increase the allowable size of those plants, she said. The Board would never allow the companies – along with hundreds of jobs – to leave, she said.
Cheney also referred to a report conducted in 2003 by the county’s head planner, Rob Mendiola. It contradicts Kuminoff’s contention about property values and public services dropping, she said.
Whether the study will hurt their efforts to promote Measure G, Cheney responded, “Not in the least.”
“Frankly, I think most people have made up their minds about wanting growth controlled in this county,” Cheney said.
The study’s release comes about five weeks before the March 2 ballot vote on the matter. Over the past year, it has been the subject of widespread debate, along with governmental and legal wrangling.
Since July, efforts have burgeoned to educate people on Measure G. Both sides, along with impartial residents, have met in several “consensus building workshops” and other gatherings.
Most recently, the San Benito Agricultural Land Trust sponsored two forums. On Jan. 21, the second meeting, about 60 residents met at the Hollister City Council Chambers.
“Our forums were not consensus building,” said Paul Hain, a member of the Land Trust. “They were just informational. And in that respect, I didn’t really hear a lot of new information.”
Though he said he’s confident people who haven’t made up their minds will have more opportunities to learn before the vote.
Next, the county Chamber of Commerce will host “candidate forums,” he said. Those – to include discussions about election races as well as proposed measures – will occur Feb. 12 and Feb. 19.
