Measure G has created significant rhetoric on both sides of the
issue. As a director of the Farm Bureau and a financial supporter
of No on G, the arguments are many on the negative impact to the
farm community. The proponents of G, some of which are my friends
and close business partners, feel the county is in imminent danger
of being overrun. The arguments are abstract and intangible and
become nothing more than blah, blah, from both sides.
Measure G has created significant rhetoric on both sides of the issue. As a director of the Farm Bureau and a financial supporter of No on G, the arguments are many on the negative impact to the farm community. The proponents of G, some of which are my friends and close business partners, feel the county is in imminent danger of being overrun. The arguments are abstract and intangible and become nothing more than blah, blah, from both sides.
The Board of Supervisors’ action to delay the approval of the San Juan Oaks project puts Measure G into a different perspective. This is a well thought out project that meets the requirements of the 1 percent growth management system.
This project was thoroughly reviewed by the planning department and approved by the planning commission. The project provides two new golf courses, 186 new homes, of which 30 are affordable, and a 200 room hotel.
It also protects 1,200 acres of permanent open space and 55 acres of farm land. More importantly, it offers 150 new jobs as well as $800,000 to $1 million (based on 200 hotel rooms) in net tax revenue to San Benito County’s General Fund. The finished product will be able to compete successfully with some of the best destination golf and resort locations in the state.
Over the last 10 years, San Juan Oaks has proven itself to be a premier golf course with a club house that has become the favorite spot for major social gatherings. Furthermore, they have earned environmental awards for maintaining the complex including the golf course and dark skies lighting. The San Juan Oaks project delay is an embarrassment to our county.
This is a good project for the community that provides jobs, revenue and favorably showcases our county. If G passes, the planning department says this project is dead.
If the intent of G is to prevent a project of this caliber, then it is pretty clear G is not saving or controlling anything. Can we as a county afford the loss of $800,000 to $1 million to the county’s general fund, the loss of jobs, and the loss of the tourism that the passage of G will cause on this one good project that is environmentally sound? The answer is no – vote No on G on March 2.
Greg Swett,
Paicines
