HOLLISTER
– With the March 2 election only 11 days away, emotions over the
controversial county growth control initiative, Measure G, are
running as high as ever.
HOLLISTER – With the March 2 election only 11 days away, emotions over the controversial county growth control initiative, Measure G, are running as high as ever.
Arguments between those in favor and those against the initiative have swung back and forth for months now.
But proponents of the measure say they are still committed and feel optimistic about leaving the measure’s fate in the voters’ hands.
“The voters in Hollister passed Measure U a year ago, the growth control in Hollister, overwhelmingly,” said Richard Saxe, one of the drafters of the initiative and part of the Citizens for Responsible Growth. “The voters want growth control.”
In general terms, Measure G would change zoning to restrict subdivision of ag lands, create a program that would promote development near Hollister and leave voters responsible for changing laws related to development.
The ultimate effects of those changes, though, is what’s up for argument, and has been since early 2003.
Some principle arguments against Measure G state that the growth problem is in the City of Hollister, not the county, and that the initiative does nothing to quell the city’s rampant growth.
The current growth control-driven Board of Supervisors, who have turned down more than 25,000 applications for new homes and several different projects in the last 10 years, will be changing on March 2, said Mark Levine, another drafter of the initiative and member of the Citizens for Responsible Growth.
A new Board could allow for more growth, and Measure G would put those important decisions in the hands of the voters rather than a group of supervisors, Levine said.
Opponents have also decried the measure for taking away property rights, and affecting people’s ability to leave land to future generations.
“You’ve got 100 acres, it’s a farm. You break off five acres for your children, you break off five acres because it’s rough times … what you end up with, instead of a 100-acre farm, is 20 five-acre ranchettes,” Saxe said. “Where is the farm? The farm is gone. There is no more farm land to farm.”
Opponents have said the measure will affect property taxes, packing plants will close, jobs will be lost and schools will lose money. All these arguments are without merit, Saxe said.
“It’s an absurd lie,” Saxe said. “They throw out all these different lies, and people are confused. They’re doing a good job of confusing people.”
The bottom line is that Measure G safeguards the long-term future of San Benito County, said Janet Brians, another drafter of the initiative and member of the responsible growth group.
“It won’t be what we hope if we don’t pass Measure G and put in place the controls that are needed,” Brians said.
The group states that Measure G will set a collective, sustainable growth limit of 2 percent per year and that it puts the ability to raise the limit solely in the hands of the voters.
They also say it would help preserve agricultural lands by prohibiting the division of land into parcels too small to profitably put to good agricultural use, and basically preserves the enjoyable quality of life county residents currently have.
