The effects of a new initiative to control growth in San Benito
County are still unknown. But after the planning department
conducts its study, the final word will end with either the Board
of Supervisors or the people.
The effects of a new initiative to control growth in San Benito County are still unknown. But after the planning department conducts its study, the final word will end with either the Board of Supervisors or the people.
“We can accept it and it becomes a law right away,” District 5 Supervisor Bob Cruz, said. “Or we can let it go to the people to decide what to do with it.
“It’s like anything else – everybody has their thoughts, but we can’t really make a comment about it. How can I take sides if I don’t what the initiative is about? That’s why we have our staff going over it and any comment prior would be useless. We have to let it take its course.”
The San Benito County Growth Control Initiative, which received 5,900 signatures, more than enough to place it on the March ballot, includes amendments to the land-use elements of the county’s General Plan that would increase the minimum parcel size for the agricultural productive of five-acre lots to 20-acre parcels and change agricultural rangeland from 40-acre parcel lots to a minimum 160 acres.
Proponents said it would protect the long-range vitality of county agriculture and the area’s rural character. Opponents said the down-zoning would devaluate their land, which would affect farmers’ and ranchers’ ability to borrow against the property.
Supervisor Ruth Kesler, whose District 2 covers prime agricultural land in the San Juan Valley, could not comment whether she backs the initiative or not until it comes before the Board of Supervisors.
“I want to wait until it comes before us,” she said. “But who knows, it may never get there.”
Kesler received only a few calls from her constituents who were in favor of the growth initiative.
“Other than that, no one has called me,” she said.
Most of the property effected by the proposed initiative is in Supervisor Reb Monaco’s District 4. And he said he has received numerous phone calls regarding the initiative.
“My constituents are absolutely opposed to this because they say it really erodes their property rights, which concerns them, and that concerns me,” he said. “Most ag people consider their ag property a major asset. This initiative will restrict their future farming operations.”
While the planning department may have been faced with problems 10 years ago because of rapid growth, Monaco said his constituents believe the department has a handle on things.
“People need to assess the impacts so they can make an informed decision,” he said. “The proponents have the right under our democracy and it will be good to get a dialogue going so voters can be educated.”
Monaco said the county needed an educated populace to look at the long-term effects of the initiative. And he agreed with parts of the initiative because it coincides with the county’s own ordinances and general plan.
“But we have to look at the impacts to the county. It isn’t just about agriculture,” he said. “What will the impacts be on industrial growth? It makes us less attractive to employers who are thinking of relocating to the county. We need to understand the ramifications of this initiative.”
District 3, Pat Loe, had not heard anything about the growth initiative from the voters in her district other than during her election campaign, in which growth was a leading concern.
“When you have anything that is governed by an initiative, it does make it harder for the elected officials,” Loe said. “But people only pass an initiative because they may feel their supervisors are not listening to them or either they like the county’s 1-percent growth ordinance and they want to make sure it stays permanently.”
Loe said it was a difficult position and that was why supervisors called for the study.
“We need to know what the true issues are,” she said.
