At the LULAC Candidates and Issues forum, representatives for
both sides of Measure G were asked what endorsements each group
had. Tom Tobias, representing No on G, gave numerous examples of
local endorsements that I will not include as it is too long a list
and most of you probably saw it in Monday’s Free Lance.
At the LULAC Candidates and Issues forum, representatives for both sides of Measure G were asked what endorsements each group had. Tom Tobias, representing No on G, gave numerous examples of local endorsements that I will not include as it is too long a list and most of you probably saw it in Monday’s Free Lance.
Mr. Saxe could not name even one endorsement from his side. I think another interesting question would have been to ask where funding for each side is coming from. Anyone wanting to know the answer to that question can go down to the County Clerk’s office and request a copy of the Fair Political Practices Commission Report.
That report shows that most of the money received by the Pro-G group has come from outside interests with extreme environmentalist viewpoints.
On the other hand, No on G campaign money has come from local farmers, businesses, land owners and concerned citizens who are trying to keep these outside interests from dictating to us the course of San Benito County. But these points are not the main reason for my letter.
In response to the same question regarding endorsements, Tom also noted that although proponents of Measure G claim to have solicited active community participation in the crafting of their measure, the invitation came in the form of a very small paragraph within the pages of the local paper.
“Did any of you see it?” he asked.
Several people have wondered why all the stakeholders (farmers, business people, commuters, educators and so on) of this community were not represented in the formulation of a measure that presumes to preserve and protect our county, our livelihood and our home.
Surely something bearing such an impact on this county should have driven its promoters to actively solicit a more representative participation. But it is Mr. Saxe’s rebuttal to this particular point that I want to address since he referred to me by name in his response.
Sometime prior to the public unveiling of Measure G, I received from Janet Brians a large envelope with the message “confidential and private” scrawled across the front. Contained within was the Measure G initiative.
Indeed, I was invited to read the initiative and attend a couple of the pro-initiative meetings. Initially, I was attracted to the ideas of elimination of five-acre zoning and establishment of a transfer of development credit program.
I met with the proponents about the time that the petitions were being circulated and I even took a few petitions to assist in gathering signatures to put G before the voters.
I found I had a hard time asking people to sign a petition, so I kept re-reading G to see what troubled me. The more I read and talked to friends, the more I became convinced that as a whole I couldn’t support Measure G.
Since I had been invited to review the document, I did point out the problems with G as viewed by the majority of the farming and ranching community and myself, but soon afterward I informed the pro-G group that I would not support them and I quit meeting with them.
I had gathered two signatures on a petition, my own and a friend’s, but the petition was never turned in. My comments to the pro-G group, coming after Measure G had already been written, were of no consequence and I feel largely ignored.
The foregoing is the sum total of my involvement with the pro-G group and I want to make it clear that I had no input in the crafting of G.
If the pro-G side wishes to spin this level of involvement as solid support and input from agriculture, then only heaven can help them. Most people see it for what is actually is – desperation.
If you read Measure G, you will see it is an extreme initiative that is not intended to protect agriculture, but to preserve open space. It does nothing to remedy the problems that necessitated the current 1-percent growth cap already in place in the county and it needlessly undermines our system of representative government.
Current county ordinances already make developments of more than 100 homes subject to voter approval. Additionally, Measure G does not get rid of all five-acre zoning withing the county, but leaves thousands of acres untouched thanks to the crafters of the measure. I find that fact very curious.
I support transfer of development credits program, but let’s get a successful program, with city involvement, in place before changing zoning. Protecting property values needs to be an integral part of any change.
The future of San Benito County can certainly be bright, but must be guided by the contributions of all of the stakeholders. Measure G is not part of a bright future and must be defeated if we are to go forward together. Please join my wife and I in voting NO on G on March 2.
Paul and Leticia Hain,
Tres Pinos
