More whining....

Distributive Fairness and Corporate Responsibility

Measure A places all burden and financial responsibility for environmental conservation on only one group of Santa Clara County residents, rural residents. One might ask, "How important are these lofty environmental ideals to this community, to urban Silicon Valley residents, if they are unwilling to spend a dime of their own money on any of it." It is always easy to take something for nothing, but what kind of society does that make? (Of course, there are those with a much longer historical view on this.) Where is the real commitment to environment if an affluent urban citizenship, including prosperous Silicon Valley corporations, are not willing to sacrifice a penny in land conservancy or compensatory relief?

Of course our environment is important. The protection and integrity of our environment should be a priority on all levels, community, national, and global. The issue is how this objective is being pursued here in Santa Clara County. Measure A trivialize the complexity of our environmental problems with benign sloganism, no attention to facts or consequential impact, or broad-based solutions. We know the feel-good intent of the initiative, but who has really read all thirteen pages of text? Even County Counsel Ann Ravel had to remind its author, Robert Girad, what the text set in motion, that all regulatory authority was given to the courts (litigation costs), and not the Supervisors. Furthermore, no impact analysis for Measure A was ordered by County Supervisors. Voters have no real information for basing their votes, for understanding who will be harmed, and to what extent, and for what benefit. The County established no basis for showing compelling public need to replace present County plan with the proposed new restrictions. Not a great way to go into takings litigation. What we do know is that all financial burden will be placed on one socio-economic group. The distribution of this financial burden may then extend to all taxpayers in subsequent litigation.

Measure A ignores the property rights of farmers, ranchers, and rural property owners, while property rights of urban residents remain intact and privileged. Peter Drekmeier claims that the initiative "does not devalue land" but will simply "reduce the speculative valuation of lands." Common sense tells us, this is a devaluing. And if common sense is not enough, rural policy and land use studies readily document devaluation after similar land use restrictions. Mr. Drekmeier has also characterized farmers and rural residents as not understanding the issue, and as puppets of other interests, as if opposition is not coming from real people, real families, real business ventures with sovereign needs. He has worked hard to silence the voice of those who will bare all burden. But we know from history, time and again, that there is need to challenge the agendas of those who would so easily silence others in the pursuit of "public good." If Mr. Drekmeier had genuine concern for farmers, ranchers, and rural residents, he would recognize their property and free speech rights, and perhaps help establish avenues for fair compensation.

High tech prosperity is the engine for our growing Santa Clara County population. Ironic that Silicon Valley Leadership Group has endorsed Measure A, and yet SVLG member companies exist because of strong property rights laws and protections. SVLG companies know the value of intellectual property rights. They wage fierce battles over these rights every day. Would they want the speculative value of their intellectual property reduced by a general election that would threaten or limit their freedom of action? Not likely. They could not survive in a competitive global economy. Intellectual property is the most important asset of Silicon Valley businesses, much like land is the primary capital asset of rural and agricultural families. Why is it SVLG companies protect their own property rights, but endorse a sweeping dismissal of the property rights of rural land owners? How are rural families going to survive in a competitive Silicon Valley economy if they are left uncompensated for land restrictions that amount to forced conservancy easements.

And what is the corporate responsibility of Silicon Valley companies, what is their shared financial burden, in protecting local environs from their own high tech prosperity?

---DMD, silly whiner