It’s hard to respond to people who don’t sign their name, but I
don’t have a choice in this case. To the reader who made comments
about Measure G opponents in the Citizens Voice column being
”
much more credible if there weren’t so many realtors and
property owners with developable land in the mix,
”
my response is: Of course they’re in the mix. That’s like a
school board member standing up at a meeting and saying to a
crowded room:
”
You would all be much more credible if there weren’t so many
concerned parents in the room.
”
It’s hard to respond to people who don’t sign their name, but I don’t have a choice in this case. To the reader who made comments about Measure G opponents in the Citizens Voice column being “much more credible if there weren’t so many realtors and property owners with developable land in the mix,” my response is: Of course they’re in the mix. That’s like a school board member standing up at a meeting and saying to a crowded room: “You would all be much more credible if there weren’t so many concerned parents in the room.”
Who is to define whose “hearts are in the right place?” Like parents who attend school board meetings, landowners hearts are right where they should be: their families’ futures.
I am all for controlled growth. In fact, our family has been preserving open space in San Benito County for the past 80 years and we’re still doing it. Our livelihood comes from agriculture and we would like to pass that on to our children, not develop our land.
The biggest problem with Measure G is its failure to address the economics of farming and ranching. Its authors did not include people who earn their living from agriculture in their discussion. I wish they had. I would have liked to have been at the table to give them our perspective and worked to come up with solutions that work for the whole community. Without viable farms and ranches, it’s hard to protect our agricultural heritage.
Julie Morris,
San Juan Bautista
