Letters to the Editor

Local Farmer Explains How Measure A Hurts Ag and South
County
Local Farmer Explains How Measure A Hurts Ag and South County

Dear Editor,

It struck a nerve when a councilman from Palo Alto wrote to the Gilroy Dispatch to say that Measure A won’t hurt farmers. I doubt that he would know since he’s not a farmer. I am a farmer and I’d like to share my viewpoint.  

Measure A does not support working farms. It’s unfair to even claim that this is a measure to “save the farmers” when not one farmer or rancher was asked for any input in drafting it. Not only do farmers and ranchers not support this measure, we have come out in force against Measure A.

I also have a problem with the notion that we need the people from the cities to form laws and measures to protect “us simple folk in the country” because we are too idiotic to understand the complexities of a growing urban region and the impact it can have on our community.  Thanks for the suggestion, but we would rather have a collected effort of all groups and stakeholders  in our communities – not just the environmentalists – to form land use measures that will affect our community and our businesses for generations to come.  

 What will Measure A do for farmers and ranchers? Well its core purpose is to downzone property in the hillside and ranchlands. This will devalue the land, affecting our borrowing power and flexibility in a very volatile marketplace. Contrary to Palo Alto Councilman Peter Drekmeier’s statements, there is a lot of farming and ranching in those two areas – $8 million worth of cattle alone last year, along with wineries, row crops, hay and grain. These are real businesses trying to make a living and these measures just add more regulations and restrictions. 

Besides devaluing our greatest asset, our land, Measure A contains restrictions on agricultural operations. The viewshed portions restrict where facilities can be located. The measure requires that most of our agricultural facilities be located within a 3-acre envelope. And it restricts what produce can be sold or used by farmers’ markets and wineries in the ranchlands and hillside areas.

These restrictions show that the authors of Measure A clearly don’t understand the realities of farming. We all barter and sell produce to each other, and wineries regularly import grapes from within and from outside of the county when needed to make a specific wine or augment local production.

I am also a member of the Santa Clara County Farm Bureau’s Board of Directors, so I want to comment on the fundraising issue. Our elected board of working farmers voted to put $30,000 into the campaign to fight Measure A. While Mr. Drekmeier may not consider this much of a commitment, it is quite a bit to a small political organization of 350 family farmers.

We are very proud of our work to defeat Measure A. It doesn’t support farming, ranching or the wine industry. If you want to support farmers, buy California and local produce, or support measures that help agricultural businesses expand, not restrict and devalue them. I hope your readers will read the whole measure for themselves. I’ll be voting no on Measure A.

Tim Chiala, George Chiala Farms, Morgan Hill

945 Percent Increase in Water Rates and no Board Accountability

Dear Editor,

Many of the South County residents may not know that at one time we did not have to pay a water pump tax prior to 1987. That was the year that the Santa Clara Valley Water District took over the Gavilan Water Conservation District.

From that point on, we have been charged for water that use to be free. One may ask how can that be. Well, it is very simple. In 1987 the Santa Clara Valley Water District started transferring imported water through the Central Valley Project which has become very costly to us. We use to get our water for recharging the aquifers from the local reservoirs along with the rain water.

Now this costly imported water has become so expensive, that it has outstripped any other utility in the state of California. In the past 20 years that I have lived in San Martin, my water rates charged by the SCVWD have gone up by 945 percent, my PG&E bill has gone up by 165 percent and my phone bill has gone up by 25 percent.

From 2001 to 2005, the SCVWD has elected to over charge us for the cost of this water, even though the true cost to them has not gone up.

We need a change on the SCVWD Board of Directors. We have not been properly represented by the current District 1 board member. We need someone that will stand up for the residents of South County and tell the truth about why this water is costing us so much.

I will be voting for Ram Singh on Tuesday, Nov. 7.

Robert J. Cerruti, San Martin