One of the most divisive issues in county history will be
decided March 2, while proponents’ and opponents’ efforts on
Measure G have intensified their promotional campaigns.
Signs have popped up around town in support of or against the
measure. Letters are constantly being written to the Free Lance
from both sides.
One of the most divisive issues in county history will be decided March 2, while proponents’ and opponents’ efforts on Measure G have intensified their promotional campaigns.
Signs have popped up around town in support of or against the measure. Letters are constantly being written to the Free Lance from both sides.
Meanwhile, attempts to cooperatively discuss the matter seem to be history. And both sides have claimed the other is misinforming the public.
Annette Giocamazzi – chairperson of the No on Measure G campaign – said their campaign includes 500 lawn signs and 100 large road signs. Most read, “No on Measure G.”
“The signs are just to attract attention and to get people to take notice of any information they’re presented with,” Giocamazzi said.
They also held a rally last week on the corner of Fourth and San Benito streets. And the committee’s members continually argue against the measure throughout the county.
The proponents – who call themselves Citizens for Responsible Growth – didn’t appreciate the two hours of downtown picketing Jan. 29 by No on Measure G members.
“We’re definitely not stooping to that level,” Margaret Cheney said. “I think it’s just an emotional appeal, and it’s missing the point.”
They also didn’t take too well to a study commissioned by the other side – and released about two weeks ago – that projected losses in property tax revenues to the county. Measure G supporters believe the study and its author are biassed.
The Yes committee has also posted many signs around town that read, “Keep San Benito County Livable: Yes on G – Voter Controlled Growth.”
Group member Richard Pitschka said they won’t disclose how many signs they’ve placed. But he projected it would be far fewer than the opponents by election time.
For one, he said, the measure’s naysayers have more spots to put them – especially along highways and rural roads.
“They’re not that big of a deal,” he said of the signs.
Much of their efforts have revolved around merely talking to people around town, according to Cheney.
Pitschka said they’ve been going door to door. And they also plan to spend time over the next month at shopping centers talking to residents and distributing brochures.
Cheney believes the Citizens for Responsible Growth have been successful thus far in educating the public. She called the process a “progressive awareness.”
“We’re just trying to stick to the facts,” Cheney said.
But that’s what their opponents say, too – they’re sticking to the facts.
In general terms, Measure G would change zoning to restrict subdivision of ag lands, create a program that would promote development near Hollister and leave voters responsible for changing laws related to development.
The ultimate effects of those changes, though, is what’s up for argument, and has been since early 2003.
Giocamazzi said the No on Measure G campaign will continue much of the same types of efforts until March 2. But they don’t want to give away too much of their strategy, she said.
“We could have 10 times the amount of promotion and communication regarding ‘Vote no on Measure G,'” she said. “But unless we touch every single registered voter in San Benito County, we can’t rest until March 3.”
They have had about five times the funding and spending than the measure’s supporters. According to recently filed campaign finance documents, No on Measure G has spent about $200,000 from January of 2003 until now. Citizens for Responsible Growth has spent about $40,000, according to Elections Office documents.
