Let’s see if we understand Gilroy’s farmland mitigation policy
pickle: If the city adopts the stringent policy needed to comply
with its General Plan, farmers will likely sue the city.
Let’s see if we understand Gilroy’s farmland mitigation policy pickle: If the city adopts the stringent policy needed to comply with its General Plan, farmers will likely sue the city. If the city rewrites its General Plan and adopts the less stringent plan the agriculture preservation committee has recommended, environmentalists may send their lawyers to court.
Since it’s a wash either way, the decision is easy: Do the right thing.
The right thing is to adopt the policy the city’s agriculture mitigation task force recommended, a thoughtful plan that balances the rights of farmers, developers and environmentalists, all of whom were represented on the committee.
If that means rewriting the city’s General Plan, haul out the red pens and start editing. If that means inviting a lawsuit from environmentalists who are wont to confuse open space with farmland, bring it on.
Whoever slipped the requirement that any farmland preservation must be done at market value into Gilroy’s recently adopted General Plan hoodwinked this community. Clearly, the intent of including the 660 acres of farmland east of the outlets in the General Plan was to allow in this case the landowners’ (read farmers) to develop their land because the park would be good for the city in the long run.
But the General Plan’s requirement that any farmland mitigation must equal the cost of buying the land outright is extreme, unfair and just plain wrong.
Farmers should have the right to sell their land – frequently their only asset for any purpose for which it is properly zoned. But doubling the land cost for developers by making them pay market value to preserve an equal amount of agriculture land clearly denies them that right.
Lee Weider was right on the money when he told reporter Eric Leins: “I know of no other city or county that has requirements this harsh. It seems the real agenda here is to stop growth and preserve open space. It’s not about preserving agriculture.”
As we told Gilroy First! organizers when they tried to hide their union ties, we’ll tell open space advocates: You need to be above board with Gilroy citizens about your intentions.
From the evidence we’ve seen, it looks like open space advocates’ intention is to use farmland preservation to push their no-growth agenda.
We don’t have a problem with preserving open space. We have a serious problem with forcing farmers to pay for it.
The proper course of action for Gilroy City Council is clear: Fix the General Plan, adopt the farmland mitigation proposal of its task force, and, if necessary, hire a great attorney to defend the duplicitous lawsuits of environmentalists.
Sometimes doing the right thing – especially when you’re doing it too late – is expensive. But it’s still better late than never.
