Dear Editor,
Contrary to your Oct. 3 editorial, Measure A on the county
ballot is in no way a draconian land grab, and there are many good
reasons to support it.
Dear Editor,
Contrary to your Oct. 3 editorial, Measure A on the county ballot is in no way a draconian land grab, and there are many good reasons to support it. One very good reason is that it represents the last chance to save our hillsides, ranchlands and remaining agriculture from ugly sprawl. It does so through such means as increasing minimum lot sizes on hillsides and ranchlands, and precluding building on ridgelines unless no less visible site exists.
Opponents claim that A will hurt farmers. In fact, its purpose is to help farmers stay in business instead of converting their lands to development. Measure A does not apply at all to medium-scale agriculture, and lot sizes for large-scale agriculture (40-acre minimum) are not changed. So even though the opposition claims that it primarily represents farmers, 90 percent of its funding comes from realtors and developers.
Another good reason: County policy requires that urban development be in cities, so the only development allowed in unincorporated areas is huge mansions that destroy views and cost taxpayers a lot to service.
The measure does not involve North County imposing its will on South County. Many areas of hillsides and ranchlands are north and east, and Stanford University is excluded only because it is already subject to strict open space requirements under its conditional use permit.
Finally, A will not expose the county to liability under Proposition 90. That proposition excludes extensions of existing laws, and A is an extension of the county’s General Plan. In any case, Measure A provides that it cannot be applied to deprive anyone of rights, and that would include rights granted under Prop 90.
Preserve the quality of life, vote “Yes” on Measure A and “No” on Proposition 90.
Walter Hays, Palo Alto
