Dear Editor,
I was shocked by the Editorial Board’s Nov. 30 negative
editorial,
”
LAFCO
… It’s Not Funny.
”
Dear Editor,
I was shocked by the Editorial Board’s Nov. 30 negative editorial, “LAFCO … It’s Not Funny.”
I support LAFCO, not as an annexation building moratorium process, but as a structured mechanism to preserve open space and agricultural lands. The editorial’s lack of future insight, and the careful selection of words and terms presented a very shortsighted view of our remaining open space and agricultural lands, and the need for protection and preservation through annexation mitigation. The need for a countywide oversight for the preservation of open space and agricultural lands is demonstrated by Gilroy’s two current large-scale project mitigation failures.
I commend Gilroy’s mitigation policy task force for their two-year endeavor to develop the city’s Agricultural Mitigation Policy adopted in May 2003, not an easy task to exclude open space lands and fallow (unseeded) lands; however, its final inadequate form was so tightly constructed to mitigate only specific “prime agricultural” land that it appears the Filice family’s Glen Loma Group has received city approval to build 1,400-plus homes on 350 acres of farm, fallow and open space land without being required by Gilroy’s Agricultural Mitigation Policy to mitigate even one acre for open space or agricultural preservation for our future generations. The largest housing development ever planned in Gilroy required no land mitigation. It doesn’t make sense. The Gilroy mitigation policy apparently failed.
I fear the same is true for future homes to be built in the beautiful Hecker Pass gateway. I am not sure that I will want to continue to live in Gilroy for another 20 years with the addition of another 1,500-plus homes, additional traffic and stress on city services that they will generate and the permanent loss of our current open space. Will Gilroy be the same then?
Why is Gilroy the driving force for weakening LAFCO’s original mitigation draft policy? Why has Gilroy pushed to double the active mitigation completion timeline from the original 24 to 48 months? Why is Gilroy demanding to stack up city expansion annexation applications instead of accepting the original process of one application at a time? Why isn’t Gilroy pushing to preserve two acres for every one-acre converted by annexation? Are we so greedy or narrowly focused to get it all right now that we forget that we are the caretakers of the land? Why did we move to or decide to stay and live in Gilroy? Do we want to disregard and degrade those very same values?
We must protect the precious remaining open lands now through a structured mitigation process. Our last chance for open space lies with LAFCO’s countywide oversight.
LAFCO’s Dec. 13, 1:15 pm final public hearing will consider and adopt the Santa Clara County’s LAFCO annexation mitigation policies in the San Jose Board of Supervisor’s Chambers at 70 West Hedding Street. The LAFCO adoption meeting invitation, proposed policy for final adoption and the staff report will be on the www.santaclara.lafco.ca.gov Website under “What’s New” on or before Dec. 8.
Please attend this vital LAFCO hearing, and please speak out for the protection and preservation of annexed unincorporated prime agricultural lands without the additional one year mitigation extension. This may be your last chance to support our Gilroy and South County rural open space environment!
Ken Bone, Gilroy
