There wasn’t a housing development in site and not a single car
could be heard on a scenic bluff where about 30 community leaders
met Wednesday for seven hours to continue talks surrounding the
future development of San Benito County.
The consensus-building workshop was a follow-up to an initial
meeting in July involving both sides of the controversy over the
upcoming March vote on Measure G
– otherwise known as the Growth Control initiative – which is
intended to restrict growth by limiting landowners’ ability to
subdivide their properties.
There wasn’t a housing development in site and not a single car could be heard on a scenic bluff where about 30 community leaders met Wednesday for seven hours to continue talks surrounding the future development of San Benito County.
The consensus-building workshop was a follow-up to an initial meeting in July involving both sides of the controversy over the upcoming March vote on Measure G – otherwise known as the Growth Control initiative – which is intended to restrict growth by limiting landowners’ ability to subdivide their properties.
The first workshop, according to organizers, was intended for proponents and opponents of the ballot measure to meet each other and promote more efficient communication.
The general goal of Wednesday’s meeting, a majority of which was made up of residents who oppose Measure G, was to continue the dialogue and move closer to taking some type of action.
San Juan Bautista rancher Joe Morris, who organized both workshops with his wife, Julie, and facilitated Wednesday’s gathering at the St. Francis Retreat, said afterward he felt the meeting accomplished that objective.
“The process needs to be cultivated,” Morris said, “and you can’t skip large steps. Today, I think our focus is much narrower. There were steps people were proposing.”
By the end of the workshop, the group had decided to increase its aggressiveness, and many in attendance acknowledged, if anything is to be done before the March 2 vote, time is running out.
They agreed to form a leadership committee that would plan regular meetings. From there, many of the participants in opposition hoped a “broad-based alternative” to Measure G could be authored.
Furthermore, the group resoundingly expressed a need to educate the community on the measure before a potential vote. And they talked about potentially commissioning the local cable access station to broadcast subsequent meetings.
“It’s amazing what can happen between now and March,” said Morris, who is one of the residents aiming for an alternative plan.
At times throughout the day, emotions and tensions escalated. But for the most part, members voicing both sides of the issue remained respectful of each other.
Emblematic of that cooperation, two perpetually vocal members of both camps, Anthony Botelho and Janet Brians, sat next to each other and, at several points of the workshop, calmly talked.
Botelho, who opposes Measure G, is an orchardist who has said he plans to run for the Board of Supervisors in March. Brians is a member of the Citizens for Responsible Growth group that was instrumental in drafting and promoting the initiative.
“I talked to Janet more than all the times I’ve known her,” Botelho said. “I truly believe, in talking to her and talking to Rich Saxe (another proponent), that we truly value the same things in the community. There’s beginning to be a level of trust.”
Saxe, among a scattering of Measure G proponents at the meeting, acknowledged imperfections about the 35-page document. Regardless, he said, current local land development practices need to change. And he believes Measure G would move the county in a more desirable direction.
“We definitely have to change the way things are presently,” Saxe told the group.
Proponents of the initiative, which has been the subject of community-wide controversy during the past six months, say the document’s rezoning aspects would help preserve the county’s agricultural land. Opponents, the most outspoken of which are landowners of agricultural tracts, say it is unfair to restrict their right to sell land.
But farmers and land preservationists weren’t the only residents taking part Wednesday. An array of others – including business people, a county planner, Supervisor Reb Monaco, education officials and other concerned citizens – also participated. No other Supervisors or City Council members attended.
“Let (the voters) go to the poll with knowledge,” said Ruben Lopez, a resident of San Juan Bautista and a retired educator.
The workshop, which included small-group discussions and proactive exercises, began at about 9 a.m. and lasted until about 4 p.m.
The setting, distinguished by distinct sounds of wind-brushed leaves and birds chirping, featured a circle of chairs for participant discussion.
After introductions by each member of the group, members took turns reading a collective statement of “best possible outcomes” formulated from the July workshop, which Morris called “a verbal portrait of who was there.”
“When I read these statements, I was really moved,” Morris said. Of Wednesday’s gathering, he said, “This is the third time you were heard.”
Several sequential small-group sessions each carried a general question that Morris instructed the members to answer, after which each shared their recorded views with the entire group.
They were pleased, for instance, about progress made with “active listening,” “optimism and trust” and “education of voters.”
The series of discussions throughout the day gradually led up to the final subject – the “strategies and actions” that can be taken by the group.
Many of the participants remained forthright in their hopes. Some opponents of the Growth Control initiative said they hope a different measure, an altered measure, somehow, finds its way to the ballot.
Tom Tobias, president of the county farm bureau, said the best possible outcome of Wednesday’s gathering would include, “Everyone here today denounce Measure G and do everything they can to defeat it.”
That, clearly, wasn’t going to be the case. Some proponents, such as Brians, remained firm about the initiative’s potential effect on the county.
“Educated voters will support the initiative,” she said.
By the day’s end, a few of the members expressed disappointment and did not carry the same optimism about the group’s future intentions. Tres Pinos resident Paul Hain, a land steward of organic crops, said residents on both sides have been largely uncompromising.
“I am extremely saddened by that rigidity,” he said. “Both sides are willing to put this community through hell.”
Morris acknowledged backers of Measure G are unwilling to slow their advocacy of the ballot measure.
“For proponents, there has to be a better plan before Measure G can be let go,” Morris said. “And they don’t see any alternative right now.”
Morris said he hopes to have a leadership committee formed within a week and another meeting held within a month.
“The general feeling is that Measure G, there’s a consensus, it is not perfect,” Morris said. “There’s a feeling among a lot of people here we can do something better.”
