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
| Initiative would put development on the ballot |
|
|
| Written by Jonathan Partridge / Patterson Irrigator / | |
| Saturday, 26 January 2008 | |
|
Growth Debate: Future developments in unincorporated areas such as Diablo Grande, shown at left, would be subject to a public vote if Measure E were approved. Diablo Grande itself, though, would not be effected. It’s no secret that Stanislaus County has experienced phenomenal growth during the past decade, particularly on the West Side. Local voters will have a couple of choices of handling future growth Feb. 5 when they make their way to the polls. One ballot measure would let voters decide whether to approve any proposed future housing development outside the boundaries of Stanislaus County’s cities for the next three decades. Another would give county residents the right to approve a general plan selected by the county board of supervisors. The measures offer distinctly different visions of how to plan for future growth in Stanislaus County, and both have lined up their share of supporters. Measure E The brainchild of Modesto City Councilman Garrad Marsh and former Modesto Councilman Denny Jackman, Measure E has been a long time coming, as its authors hoped it initially would appear on the November 2006 ballot. The initiative, also known as “Stamp Out Sprawl,” gives voters the right to decide for the next 30 years on any housing projects in unincorporated areas that would entail converting farmland to homes. “It’s intended to be basic because it’s important that we not concrete and pave over the best agricultural land in the world,” Jackman said.  Elias Funez / Patterson Irrigator Meanwhile, any project with one house or less per gross acre would be exempt, as would farm-worker housing projects and development projects that already have county approval. As a result, Measure E would not affect the community of Diablo Grande, which contains hundreds of homes and two golf courses in the hills southwest of Patterson. It also would not affect a plan that county supervisors approved last year to develop more than 3,000 acres in Salida for homes and businesses. The supervisors’ approval of the Salida plan, which initially was slated to go before county residents on a ballot measure, was just one way Jackman said supervisors have ignored their constituents’ interests. “It’s not just about smart growth,” Jackman said of Measure E. “It’s about preventing stupid growth.” A provision in the measure also would prevent developers from trying to avoid putting a project to a vote by first converting agricultural land to some other use, such as industrial, before converting it to residential. That would prevent any homes from being placed within the PCCP West Park project, a 4,800-acre industrial development proposed to go in and around the former Crows Landing naval airfield. However, project developer Gerry Kamilos repeatedly has said he has no intention of building homes there anyway. The board of WS-PACE.org, a local group opposed to the proposed West Park project, voted to support Measure E earlier this month. Ron Swift, WS-PACE president, said the measure would prevent Kamilos or anyone else from getting housing developments approved in unincorporated areas without a public vote. Measure L In fact, most of Stanislaus County’s growth during the past two decades has happened within its cities, a statistic often pointed out by supporters of Measure L. The county-backed initiative, created in response to Measure E, would call for the board of supervisors to select a 15-member commission that would spend two years drafting a 30-year general plan and come up with various alternatives. The board would pick an alternative, and that plan would come before county residents for a vote after winding its way through the typical planning commission and enrivonmental impact process. If voters rejected the plan, supervisors would need to draft another plan for voters. If voters rejected that plan, the board would create a plan that is “consistent with the principles of (the) initiative.” Those principles include protecting agriculture, considering limits to residential building permits and considering whether to direct growth onto less productive farmland, such as in the county’s foothill regions. For two years, the current general plan could not be amended to allow farmland to be converted for residential uses without voter approval. Changes to the future general plan would require a four-fiifths majority by supervisors. The county is not allowed to campaign for the measure because it is a public entity, and Stan Risen, assistant executive officer for Stanislaus County, said he did not know of a campaign in support of the measure. However, Stanislaus County Farm Bureau President Kevin Chiesa supported the measure in text enclosed in the county sample, saying that Measure L “requires responsible planning and growth control by putting local citizens in the driver’s seat.”  Future Plans?: A red-tailed hawk sits atop a lightpost in Diablo Grande. One aspect of Measure L would be to consider whether to place future development in the county's foothill regions, similar to Diablo Grande. Photo by Elias Funez/Patterson Irrigator Ron Freitas, director of planning for Stanislaus County, shared statistics indicating that the population in the county’s unincorporated areas grew only by about 19,000 people to 115,036 between 1990 and 2007, while its cities grew by nearly 36,000 people to 406,461 during that same time. “It proves out our theory that the general plan is actually working — we think, anyway,” Freitas said. Though the county plans to revise the general plan anyway, Risen noted that residents would not be able to vote on the matter without Measure L, and supervisors would not likely impose a four-fifths majority on themselves to amend the general plan. “Measure L raises the bar on how (the general plan process) would occur,” Risen said. Debating their merits Ultimately, whichever measure gets the majority of votes will go into effect. If neither measure gets a majority, then neither will be approved. Supporters of both measures have taken aim at the opposition. Measure E supporters say Measure L still puts the general plan in the hands of county supervisors, and they say supervisors have allowed too much development in unincorporated areas. For instance, Jackman said there has been a dramatic increase in homes east of Oakdale, where homes typically run on septic systems. City residents must pay for extra services, such as police protection, for those areas through tax dollars, he said. Literature from Measure E proponents says supervisors have been sympathetic to developers and cites the examples of the Salida plan and West Park as evidence that supervisors are not concerned about protecting farmland. County voters, on the other hand, would have the best interest of the area at heart, Jackman said. “The public is not out of line with the public,” he said. “The board of supervisors is out of line with the public.” On the other hand, a report released by county staff on Measure E in 2006 noted that the measure would not affect growth in the cities. In addition, the measure could allow voters in large cities to make decisions about what happens in small unincorporated communities, it said. The report also said the measure could lower the value of agricultural land that is not in a city’s sphere of influence because it may not be able to be used for residential uses. The text of Measure L criticizes Measure E for allowing residents to vote on land-use decisions, saying it would “encourage uncoordinated, piecemeal, developer-driven planning initiatives.” Supporters of the opposing measures have one thing in common — they both claim the measure they support would protect farmland better than the opposing measure, and they say that’s important. “We live in a special place,” Jackman said. “We put it down a lot, but … we all need to eat.” To reach Jonathan Partridge at the Irrigator, call 892-6187 or e-mail him at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 395 Comments
(0)
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed