HOLLISTER
– Local voters will decide the future of the San Benito County
Slow-Growth Control Initiative next spring.
HOLLISTER – Local voters will decide the future of the San Benito County Slow-Growth Control Initiative next spring.
Ignoring the advice of its attorney, the county Board of Supervisors approved a resolution Wednesday that will place the initiative on the March 2 ballot.
By placing the measure on the ballot, every registered voter will have a say in the initiative that could affect every property owner in the county.
With a 5-0 vote, the Board accepted the results of a referendum petition seeking the removal of the growth initiative that was adopted as a county ordinance on April 1 and to place it on the ballot during next year’s primaries.
The Board made its decision following a 90-minute discussion in closed session, and went against the advice the Board received from a legal expert on election law.
“The Board feels that this issue is larger than us, and should be decided by the people,” Board Chairman Richard Scagliotti said.
He said the attorney advised supervisors could have played it safe and rejected the referendum because of omitted language, but the Board decided to send it to the voters.
Supervisor Bob Cruz said sending the initiative to a vote will help heal some of the divisive politics the issue has generated.
“I’ve seen enough damage done already when friends I’ve known since childhood won’t talk to me because of the vote I made in April,” Cruz said.
However, Cruz said knowing what he knows now and with the information the Board was given at the time it originally adopted the initiative, he would do it again.
“I don’t have a guilty conscience about my vote,” he said.
Supervisor Reb Monaco, the only Board member who voted to put the measure on the ballot in April, said the supervisors’ decision may help to put the issue to rest.
“I think basically we were trying to put this thing behind us,” Monaco said.
He said the Board had to choose between doing what was legal and what was right for the community.
“I didn’t feel there was enough legal advice to prevent us from putting this to a vote, and obviously the other supervisors felt the same way,” Monaco said. “Why not let the people vote on this? It’s probably what we all want to happen.”
The decision was met warmly by members of the Farmers and Citizens to Protect our Agricultural Heritage, which sponsored the referendum petition.
“We were extremely pleased with how things turned out. We were a little concerned that it would either go against us or be delayed for another long period of time,” said Tom Tobias, chairman of the Agricultural Heritage group. “So when they came back with their decision to rescind their adoption and put it back on the ballot, we were extremely pleased.”
