Restrictive county land-use ballot measure narrowly defeated
Gilroy – County voters have defeated a controversial land use measure that sought to restrict development on hillsides and ranchlands in unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County.
The Measure A land use initiative, spearheaded by a consortium of environmentalists called People for Land and Nature, was defeated Tuesday 51.1 percent to 48.9 percent, in a vote of 166,878 to 159,508.
The margin of victory – more than 7,000 votes – comes as a surprise in a race where many South County voters expected to get overwhelmed by their eco-friendly, urban neighbors to the north.
“We are thrilled and amazed at how voters came out in support of farmers, even in a county as urban as this one,” said Jenny Derry, executive director of the Santa Clara County Farm Bureau. “I think the voters wanted the same thing that we want, which is successful farming in the future of our county, and they voted accordingly.
“I think the biggest factor in its defeat,” she added, “was that it was not a cooperative measure. It trampled private property rights and would have made it very hard for farmers to continue to compete in an urban area.”
PLAN spokesman Peter Drekmeier could not be reached shortly after 1am due to busy phone lines. He and other Measure A supporters touted the law as a way to prevent urban sprawl and encourage farming. South County contains the vast majority of the county’s roughly 500 farms that would have been affected by the measure, while more than half of all the land that would have been affected lies in South County.
The measure would have reduced the number of homes that can be developed on 400,000 acres of land outside the borders of cities in Santa Clara County. Most significantly, it would have uprooted regulations permitting up to eight homes on every 160 acres of hillsides or ranchland. The measure sought to lower that cap on the same amount of land to four homes for hillsides and one for ranchlands.
Ag buildings restricted
The measure did not seek to change regulations allowing one home for every 40 acres of farmland, but it called for all agriculture-related buildings, including worker housing, to lie as close as possible to a three-acre area set aside for buildings. It also sought to cap the footprint of new buildings at 2 percent of the parcel’s size or 20,000 square feet, whichever is less.
Those were the most publicized highlights of a ballot measure that was 28 pages long.
Patricia Scherbing, a Gilroy voter, said she agreed with some of aspects of the measure, but ultimately voted against it because she felt overwhelmed.
“When we were reading the ballot, it just kept going on and on,” she said. “It was horribly long.”
Ron Gorman, another Gilroy voter, said he opposed Measure A because it was “too extreme for property owners.”
The battle over Measure A began shortly after PLAN submitted a petition in the spring with 60,000-plus signatures – more than double the amount needed – to quality for the fall ballot. Farmers, property owners and Realtors organized the Alliance for Housing and the Environment to oppose Measure A, though the group’s efforts were blunted by county supervisors and the courts.
No economic, legal analysis
In a highly unusual move, county supervisors in June voted to forego an economic and legal analysis of Measure A. Opponents claimed at the time that such an analysis could have strongly influenced the election by exposing the true costs of the measure.
Opponents won a small legal challenge in September when a Santa Clara County superior court judge ordered the removal of some ballot language supporting the measure. But they lost a bigger battle when a federal judge refused to prevent Measure A from appearing on the November ballot, despite arguments that PLAN volunteers violated voters’ civil rights by failing to circulate their petition in multiple languages.
If approved, the only way to uproot Measure A changes would have been through another election. In a county struggling to cope with a $201-million deficit, a broad overhaul of county zoning regulations that comes with no in-depth economic or legal analysis is a recipe for disaster, according to Santa Clara County Supervisor Don Gage.
“The people who want this are the liberals, who are the ones who want all the services, and if this passes we have to cut those services,” Gage said early Tuesday evening, before final results rolled in. “If this passes, then you have to go to the voter if you want to change it. Then why I am here?”
