It appears that the ill-fated agriculture preservation task
force has been browbeaten
– certainly by the process and the politics and perhaps by some
of the players – into acquiescing on its farmland mitigation
policies.
It appears that the ill-fated agriculture preservation task force has been browbeaten – certainly by the process and the politics and perhaps by some of the players – into acquiescing on its farmland mitigation policies.
The task force, comprised of environmentalists, farmers and developers, originally crafted a plan that carefully balanced the sometimes competing interests of open space advocates, environmentalists, farmers and developers. But it looks like the task force is ready to scrap that plan and send to Gilroy City Council the a stringent ag task force plan that it originally opposed.
There’s plenty of blame to go around in the frustrating situation, but certainly a good share belongs with a state-mandated agency called LAFCO.
The long and complicated tale of Gilroy’s relationship with LAFCO – the Local Agency Formation Commission – should be a cautionary one for all Gilroy residents. It should serve as a painful reminder of the perils that can await local governments when they cede control to non-local agencies.
What is LAFCO? Here’s a description from the Santa Clara County agency’s Web site: “LAFCO is a state-mandated local agency set up to oversee the boundaries of cities and special districts. Encouraging orderly boundaries, discouraging urban sprawl, and preserving agricultural and open space lands are the key goals of LAFCO.”
Because LAFCO refused to approve Gilroy’s full planned annexation for our long-planned sports park, the facility – whenever it is finally built – will be less than Gilroyans envisioned. Partly as a reaction to that decision, Gilroy’s General Plan was written with many LAFCO-friendly policies, designed to give the city an edge the next time an annexation request went before the appointed – not elected – LAFCO board.
Here’s how the LAFCO board membership is determined: Two County Supervisors are selected by the Board of Supervisors; one City of San Jose City Councilmember is chosen by the San Jose City Council; one other City Council Member is chosen by the Cities Selection Committee; One Public Member is chosen by the other four LAFCO members.
These five people wield a great deal of control of the fate of Gilroy.
One of those LAFCO-friendly policies – snuck into the General Plan – is causing Gilroy headaches: Gilroy is poised to adopt some of the most stringent agriculture mitigation requirements of any city, all so we can make nice with LAFCO.
Our city leaders face an important decision: Adopt punitive and precedent-setting strict agriculture mitigation plan that will punish farmers, ranchers and developers; or spend a good deal of money to rewrite the General Plan so that the thoughtful proposal the agriculture mitigation task force originally crafted can be adopted.
We think the latter plan is the right one. If that brings on LAFCO’s wrath, so be it. At least Gilroy’s blueprint for the next 20 years, its General Plan, will reflect the will and best interests of Gilroyans, not the will of an unelected board meeting in a soulless boardroom in San Jose.
