The county supervisors voted to return the controversial
Hillside Ordinance to the planning commission for reconsideration
and more public input. As the environmental zealots who proposed
Measure G will certainly make their voices heard again, I urge all
supporters of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
regarding private property to attend the workshops and public
forums to give the planning board their input.
Dear Editor,
The county supervisors voted to return the controversial Hillside Ordinance to the planning commission for reconsideration and more public input. As the environmental zealots who proposed Measure G will certainly make their voices heard again, I urge all supporters of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution regarding private property to attend the workshops and public forums to give the planning board their input.
Did anyone notice the slick change the outgoing board of supervisors made to Measure G on Dec. 7 when they voted to adopt the Hillside Ordinance of that publicly rejected measure? While Measure G applied only to hillsides of 30 percent slope or more, the outgoing supervisors voted to apply the restrictions to slopes of 15 percent or more, thus vastly increasing the scope and reach of the publicly repudiated measure. A 15 percent slope is a very gentle hill; it applies to a great deal of land in this county. Why did the supervisors adopt this sneaky, drastic change?
In this agricultural county, what sense does it make to restrict housing to flat, fertile land, while putting gentle hillsides off limits to construction? As the nation requires farms to produce food for an ever-growing population, which will be more valuable: flourishing agriculture, or environmental zealots’ “viewshed?”
John C. Buchanan, Hollister
