Opponents to a slow-growth ordinance who were stalled two weeks
ago by questions regarding the legality of a referendum against the
measure will press the San Benito County Board of Supervisors today
to certify the petition and to have it placed on the March
ballot.
Opponents to a slow-growth ordinance who were stalled two weeks ago by questions regarding the legality of a referendum against the measure will press the San Benito County Board of Supervisors today to certify the petition and to have it placed on the March ballot.
“If the Board does not put this anti-farm measure on the ballot, they will have breached their duty as elected officials to implement the rights of voters to referend county ordinances,” said Tom Tobias, chairman of Farmers and Citizens to Protect our Agricultural Heritage.
The Board is scheduled to revisit the referendum issue during its meeting at 9:30 a.m. today.
Farmers and Citizens, a group of farmers, ranchers and landowners, will attempt to convince Supervisors to certify the referendum, which would force an election on the growth control initiative sponsored by The Citizens for Responsible Growth in San Benito County.
Two weeks ago, the Board was scheduled to certify the referendum until it received a letter from Carmel attorney Alexander Henson stating the referendum was illegal because two statements were left out of the wording of the referendum’s petition.
The Farmers and Citizens group said the Board was misled by Henson’s letter and had its attorneys with the Mill Valley law firm of Nielsen, Merkasmer, Parrinello, Mueller and Naylor send a letter to the Board stating why the referendum is not illegal and why it should be certified.
The detailed letter states the Board must approve the referendum and that the claim the referendum is illegal is baseless. Tobias said the letter states the alleged missing statements apply only to initiatives not to referendums.
According to Henson’s letter, the two statements that were allegedly left out of the petition are required by state law to be in its wording. The statements are:
“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.”
Uncertain of the possible legal ramifications that could have come from certifying the referendum, the Board opted to put the matter on hold until today. Supervisors suggested referendums supporters have a judge review the wording and rule on whether the alleged omissions are “significant” enough to kill the referendum or let it continue and be certified.
“They should seek declarative relief from the courts,” Board Chairman Richard Scagliotti said at the May 13 meeting.
Referendum supporters said the letter from Henson was a last-ditch effort by the Citizens for Responsible Growth to stop the referendum
However, the responsible growth group said the letter from its attorney was not a political ploy.
“The citizens group feels that we did not cause the problem. Our attorney merely pointed it out,” spokeswoman Janet Brians said.
The slow-growth ordinance’s re-zoning aspect is different from the county’s existing provisions in that it takes much of the land currently in agricultural productive designation and reduces it from five-acre designation to 20-acre. The ordinance also designates agricultural rangeland area from 40-acre designation to 160-acre designation.
Proponents said the ordinance will strengthen agricultural policies of the county’s General Plan and help preserve open space and conservation measures of the land’s resources.
On April 1, the Board approved outright the slow-growth measure with a 4-1 vote.
Brians said the group is not afraid of having the initiative placed on the ballot and that despite what referendum supporters say, the growth initiative will help the community maintain the rural lifestyle that attracted so many people to the county in the first place.
But the farmers and citizens group said the initiative would be disastrous for farmers and ranchers.
“This measure harms farmers, ranchers and the entire economic well-being of San Benito County and its residents,” Tobias said.
