The San Benito County Board of Supervisors will hold a special
meeting on Wednesday, where they are expected to discuss the fate
of the referendum opposing the Growth Initiative.
The San Benito County Board of Supervisors will hold a special meeting on Wednesday, where they are expected to discuss the fate of the referendum opposing the Growth Initiative.
Although the meeting agenda has not been finalized, supervisors said the main topic of discussion will have to do with the legality of the referendum petition challenging the growth control initiative.
The special meeting is intended to give the Board a chance to reach a decision on whether to accept the referendum or reject it as not meeting legal requirements to qualify for election.
“That’s what I understand the meeting is supposed to be for,” Supervisor Reb Monaco said.
The referendum petition is being sponsored by a local group of farmers, ranchers and property owners named Farmers and Citizens to Protect our Agricultural Heritage.
The farmers’ group is opposing a Growth Control Initiative that the supervisors adopted as a county ordinance in April because they said it would ruin their agricultural-based businesses. Agriculture as an industry brought in about $215 million in gross income to the county in 2002.
The Growth Control Initiative is sponsored by a local grassroots organization called The Citizens for Responsible Growth in San Benito County.
The group said the initiative will not hurt farmers, and that it will help to protect the county’s natural beauty and preserve the quality of life that most of the residents moved to San Benito County for.
At the end of May, County Clerk John Hodges certified the 5,344 signatures on the referendum petition.
Hodges’ certification covered only the validity of the actual signatures, and had no direct bearing on whether the wording on the referendum were worded properly.
Carmel attorney Alexander Henson claimed that the referendum is illegal because two statements were left out of the wording of the petition.
However, attorneys for Farmers and Citizens to Protect our Agricultural Heritage said Henson’s claim is wrong and that the referendum is properly worded because the section of the law that Henson cited refers to initiatives and not referendums.
“Mr. Henson has made an attack on this referendum that is not based in any law,” San Francisco attorney Peter Bagatelos said.
Bagatelos, who represents the farmers and citizens group, said the Board was not carrying out its legal obligations.
“The Board has one of two administerial duties: To either repeal the ordinance or place this on the ballot,” Bagatelos said.
Unsure of which side was correct, the Board indefinitely suspended a decision on the referendum until it had time to consult with an attorney, who is an expert in the field of election law.
