Local voters will decide the future of the San Benito County
Slow-Growth Control Initiative next spring.
Local voters will decide the future of the San Benito County Slow-Growth Control Initiative next spring.
Ignoring the advice of its attorney, the county Board of Supervisors approved a resolution Wednesday that will place the initiative on the March 2 ballot.
By placing the measure on the ballot, every registered voter will have a say in the initiative that could affect every property owner in the county.
With a 5-0 vote, the Board accepted the results of a referendum petition seeking the removal of the growth initiative that was adopted as a county ordinance on April 1 and to place it on the ballot during next year’s primaries.
The Board made its decision following a 90-minute discussion in closed session, and went against the advice the Board received from a legal expert on election law.
“The Board feels that this issue is larger than us, and should be decided by the people,” Board Chairman Richard Scagliotti said.
He said the attorney advised supervisors could have played it safe and rejected the referendum because of omitted language, but the Board decided to send it to the voters.
Supervisor Bob Cruz said sending the initiative to a vote will help heal some of the divisive politics the issue has generated.
“I’ve seen enough damage done already when friends I’ve known since childhood won’t talk to me because of the vote I made in April,” Cruz said.
However, Cruz said knowing what he knows now and with the information the Board was given at the time it originally adopted the initiative, he would do it again.
“I don’t have a guilty conscience about my vote,” he said.
Supervisor Reb Monaco, the only Board member who voted to put the measure on the ballot in April, said the supervisors’ decision may help to put the issue to rest.
“I think basically we were trying to put this thing behind us,” Monaco said.
He said the Board had to choose between doing what was legal and what was right for the community.
“I didn’t feel there was enough legal advice to prevent us from putting this to a vote, and obviously the other supervisors felt the same way,” Monaco said. “Why not let the people vote on this? It’s probably what we all want to happen.”
The decision was met warmly by members of the Farmers and Citizens to Protect our Agricultural Heritage, which sponsored the referendum petition.
“We were extremely pleased with how things turned out. We were a little concerned that it would either go against us or be delayed for another long period of time,” said Tom Tobias, chairman of the Agricultural Heritage group. “So when they came back with their decision to rescind their adoption and put it back on the ballot, we were extremely pleased.”
The farmers’ group opposes the growth control initiative the supervisors originally adopted because they said it would ruin agricultural-based businesses. Agriculture as an industry generated about $215 million in gross income to the county in 2002.
The Board’s decision was met with a sense of surprise by members of the Citizens for Responsible Growth in San Benito County, which sponsored the growth control initiative.
“That is unexpected, but now people will have a chance to vote for it,” spokeswoman Janet Brians said.
The initiative group said the measure will not hurt farmers and that it will help to protect the county’s natural beauty and preserve the quality of life.
“This initiative will slow down growth and will help farming in the county by preserving some of the best ag land in the region,” Brians said.
She said the idea behind the initiative is not to end the current housing crunch but will, if enacted, provide for long-term protection of county lands.
Tobias said the Board’s change of heart will give everyone the opportunity to educate the public on all the ramifications of the initiative.
“We think it will benefit all the citizens of San Benito County,” he said. “Whether you are for the initiative or against it, we’ve always said it should be decided by the people and we are glad they have given us a chance to do that.”
Placing the measure on the ballot is only the first step in stopping what they see as a potentially dangerous piece of local legislation.
“At this time, our work is not done. We still have to get out and expose all the citizens of the county to what this growth initiative does,” Tobias said.
“It’s not helping farming. It’s actually it is detrimental to our way of life and the land that they so desperately want to protect,” he said. “This is not protecting the land in our opinion.”
Monaco said the Board changed its mind to place the initiative on the ballot once it realized how deeply the issue radiated within the county.
“We found that there was about 11,000 people in our county, voters, who were obviously concerned about this,” Monaco said. “That was probably the deciding factor, I thought.”
