Dear Editor,
Last week the Dispatch helped to publicize a misunderstanding of
the possible negative interactions of Measure A and Proposition 90
if they were both to pass.
Dear Editor,
Last week the Dispatch helped to publicize a misunderstanding of the possible negative interactions of Measure A and Proposition 90 if they were both to pass.
The stated fear in your Oct. 3 article was that Santa Clara County could be liable for an estimated $1 billion of “taking” costs. It is important for this coming election that your readers understanding that this is not true. Section 5 of Measure A explicitly states that the new county land use restriction would not take effect if they were found to constitute “taking property without requisite compensation.”
(For validation of this check out the full initiative text at www.openspace2006.org.)
So, whereas it is true that Proposition 90 could effectively cancel Measure A out (and most other new attempts to zone and regulate land use) it is not true that the passage of both would lead to massive ‘takings’ payments – as the scary title of your article “Measure A May Mean Bankruptcy” implied.
I urge your readers to look beyond the misrepresentations and scare tactics to the initiative itself posted in full on the above web site. If they do this I think they will find that the initiative is a reasonable way for us to conserve the natural, agricultural and scenic values of our countryside before it has a chance to go the way of Los Angeles County. It is not surprising that many county landowners want to be unfettered in dividing up and developing their land but it is not good planning. Let’s direct development towards our cities. I urge a Yes vote on Measure A and a No vote on Proposition 90.
David Collier, Gilroy
