Search
Polls
Latest Forum Posts
| Taking a Knee unclebuck 15-11-08 13:51 |
| Re:Football unclebuck 07-10-08 15:24 |
| Re:Football unclebuck 02-10-08 12:59 |
Login Form
| Our Voice |
|
|
| Written by PI Editorial Staff | |
| Saturday, 26 January 2008 | |
|
Vote no on E, L There’s no doubt that farmland preservation is a major concern in Stanislaus County and that county supervisors have a less-than-stellar record when it comes to showing restraint in developing the county’s unincorporated areas. However, neither a proposed ballot-box planning measure that will come to a vote Feb. 5 nor a countermeasure proposed by Stanislaus County provides an adequate solution. Measure E proposes to let county residents vote on projects that would convert farmland to residential uses. Its proponents say that city dwellers unfairly face the burden of paying for services in unincorporated areas. That may be true, but allowing voters to handpick development projects is hardly the way to ensure “smart growth” in Stanislaus County. Furthermore, West Siders likely would have less influence in determining the destiny of projects in their own region if this measure were to pass. While local residents often complain that they have only one representative on the county board of supervisors (20 percent of the vote), the West Side makes up less than 10 percent of the population in Stanislaus County — likely giving us less representation among voters. Just for fun, go up to a dozen random people in Modesto sometime and ask if they know what county Patterson is in. Keep in mind that these would be the people potentially determining future development in West Side communities such as Grayson and Crows Landing. The county-backed Measure L also is fatally flawed. The county’s stated policy of directing growth into the cities and areas with adequate infrastructure is nowhere in the text of the measure. Instead, it mentions the possibility of building homes in the foothill regions of the county, which lack water on the West Side. The sparsely populated community of Diablo Grande, which has been battered with environmental and water-related lawsuits, has hardly been the attraction the county and developers expected. Is that what the county wants for the future? Meanwhile, the requirement for a four-out-of-five supervisors’ vote to amend the future general plan may hinder flexibility needed when unforeseen issues arise at a later time. Regardless, supervisors must realize that Measure E’s authors drafted the measure because residents are increasingly dissatisfied with the county’s land-use decisions. It’s sad when, despite the county’s stated land-use policy to direct growth into cities and areas that have adequate infrastructure, more than a third of the county’s growth between 1990 and 2007 happened in unincorporated areas. It’s imperative that West Side residents take an active role in any future county general plan process, just as it is essential that sprawl be prohibited in our backyard during the revision process for Patterson’s own general plan. This region’s wishes have been ignored long enough. If county residents are unsatisfied with the county’s growth, they need to say so at the polls the next time their elected representatives are up for reelection. It’s time to install representatives who believe “thinking outside the box” is more than filling up farmland and environmentally sensitive areas with massive developments.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 190 Comments
(0)
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed