Measure A Beta Version 2.0

Interesting. In this morning's Mercury News, "Drekmeier said he thinks voters rejected the measure because opponents created doubts with TV commercials featuring farmers and Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith, who said it would hurt family agricultural operations and could expose the county to lawsuits. He said supporters have not decided yet whether to come back in a future election.
If they do decide to try again, he said, ``We would involve the Farm Bureau the next time. We need to rebuild trust on both sides."


Both sides need to rebuild trust? A huh.

Of course the Measure A Empire will strike back. That's a given. But they now realize that they need the minority, those "puppets" of other interest who do not really exist, whose lands are intended only for the the urban recreational good. They need Farm Bureau support now.

Truthiness Bureau, being the keen think tank that we are, has a suggestion. What is needed in our next Santa Clara County election, is a ballot measure that requires some obligation from Silicon Valley businesses for the stress they place on local environment. It could be a fancy formula that balances respective company market cap, along with revenues and profits per each Santa Clara County employee of that company, including supplementals and contractors, etc..etc. Mr. Girard would have to sit this one out, though, because we would need a clearly defined initiative, with provisions based in law and economics (and not just feel-good sloganism and the promise of freebies at the expense of another.) The goal would be to preserve open space while also spreading financial costs to those who benefit. The urban affluent will become joint-investors in the cause.

Monies from a Measure A Beta Version 2.0 initiative would go directly into open space funding, purchasing lands outright from private property owners, or funneled into a competitive market of conservancy easements, etc. Yep... that's what we need. Then again, Measure A's power/wealth network which supported placing all burden on one minority group might not appreciate the challenge. Not only that, those Measure A supporters who have "political ambitions" might also risk political support by challenging business leaders, but hey, the environment is the critical objective here. Silicon Valley industry would soon figure out ways to redistribute this environmental obligation to both employees and customers, thus further maximizing a distribution of financial burden. Industry is extremely efficient in cost distribution. The engine of Santa Clara County population growth is high tech industry, and population, as the environmentalists have advocated, is the dynamic stressing our immediate environment. So....if environment is the true objective, an environmental "tax" on Silicon Valley business makes sense. A lot of sense. (it's ok for the Truthiness Bureau to say such things... no one here is running for office any time soon.)

OK... after Measure A Beta Version 2.0, we can then follow up with that keen suggestion of having a proposition to end all further propositions.

A matter of perspective

From a Palo Alto Online article Nov.8:
Palo Alto City Councilman Peter Drekmeier, campaign coordinator for Measure A, was philosophical about the defeat.
"We faced a number of challenges during the campaign," Drekmeier said in an e-mail to Measure A supporters. "One of the biggest was the scare that if Proposition 90 and Measure A both passed, the result would be an onslaught of lawsuits.
"This was not true, and Measure A ended up losing, but when you have the sheriff saying on TV that Measure A is going to bankrupt the county, voters get nervous."
Drekmeier also said that "there were many undecided voters right up to the end, and they swung into the 'no' column." ...(text)
"On the bright side, things aren't worse than they were before; they just haven't improved," he said.

Mr. Drekmeier was right about one thing. One of the primary reasons Measure A lost was because of the pending threat of state Proposition 90, which would have required compensation for regulatory takings (Prop 90 would have been a nightmare for California, especially harmful to environmental laws and protections, requiring citizen compensation for perceived losses from any ordinance or regulation, big or small.)

Mr. Drekmeier's statement about Proposition 90 is especially interesting because it implies that voters turned Measure A down, not because they perceived an issue of fairness, but because they perceived serious takings with Measure A, and they were afraid of a possible distributive financial burden. That is, they knew Measure A restrictions would significantly devalue rural lands, and voters did not want the responsibility, as taxpayers, of compensating for these devaluations. They realized that eventually they would have to pay. Drekmeier and Girard said that Measure A had an "escape" clause, would not be applied if anyone's rights were determined to be violated. But what they were not readily admitting in their campaign, was that Measure A gave ALL authority to the Courts in determining rights and applicability of provisions (and not the County Supervisors.) These decisions required costly litigation. Santa Clara County Counsel Ann Ravel warned of county expenditures for litigation and compensation in two memos, with a legal analysis if both Measure A and Proposition 90 passed together.

Proposition 90 would have been especially problematic for the County because its provisions mandated compensation for regulatory takings (compensation also for attorney and litigation costs.) The legal analysis of the two passing together was interesting, never acknowledged, or perhaps even understood, by the Measure A supporters. By mandating compensation, Proposition 90 fulfilled a constitutional requirement. With the passage of Prop 90, no one's "rights" would have been violated by Measure A, since the US Constitution allows for takings with just compensation. The interaction between Measure A and Prop 90 would have shifted focus from "rights" to "compensation." Exactly when would Measure A have been a violation of rights (and therefore not applied) if Prop 90 would have readily satisfied the constitutional requirement? Voters did not want to be liable for Measure A's downzonings. So... it wasn't really "fairness" that decided the vote. It was the threat of having to pay for something. And who wanted to pay? All that open space was supposed to be a freebie. Dang that Prop 90!
(A case study of Measure A is being prepared for various policy groups and will include a legal analysis, with the competing interpretations of Robert Girard and County Counsel Ann Ravel.)

Now... as for Mr. Drekmeier's last statement, "things aren't worse than they were before." Well. He may want to read a few articles from the farming community and reassess. According to Jenny Derry, President of the Santa Clara Farmers Bureau, the farmers had always enjoyed a good relationship with environmental groups, had worked together successfully on past projects. Two allies are sometimes needed to protect mutual interests. But the environmentalists shot Measure A out of left field, without warning, written behind closed doors, without public discourse or impact analysis, without any regard for the rural community. Santa Clara farmers may possibly have a different perspective on present relations than Mr. Drekmeier.


Gilroy Dispatch
Measure A Dead
Thursday, November 09, 2006 (need to scroll down on page)

Let's start with the good local news before bemoaning the unsavory TV bombardment that has become the hallmark of California political seasons: It's over, and the little guys - the farmers, ranchers and vineyard owners - won a highly improbable victory in defeating a draconian county land-use initiative, ballot Measure A. And, there's a new Gilroy school board in place that has the potential to be an "honors" class.

Let's first tip our hats to the agriculture community and the private property advocates who fought hard against the twisted message delivered by the misguided proponents of Measure A.

In the midst of the busy harvest season, farmers showed up on the county building's steps to deliver the message that ultimately resonated with voters. Measure A wasn't about preserving agriculture, it was a land-grab led by extremist environmental groups carefully designed to steal property by making land-use regulations so ridiculously stringent that it turned common-sense uses into illegal activities.

Measure A proponents spent more than $1 million trying to make it tougher for farmers and ranchers to exist in our county, but voters, thankfully, still value private property rights, common sense and the local agriculture industry enough to turn back the big-money, Palo Alto-based charlatans.

Santa Clara County's General Plan is a solid planning document, and county supervisors respect its intent and vision. Urban voters, though unlikely allies of farmers, made a discerning judgment in canning Measure A. Now the farmers can go back to work.


Gilroy Dispatch
Friday, November 03, 2006 (need to scroll down on page)
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

Measure A gets "plowed under"

From today's Mercury News, November 9, 2006
Land-preservation initiative falls flat
LONG DOCUMENT TOUGH TO DIGEST; EARLY SUPPORT WANES AT POLLS
By Truong Phuoc Khánh

"(text)...Measure A, a land-use initiative that took 18 pages to explain itself, was voted down 51 to 49 percent. It would have reduced the number of parcels that can be developed on ranch lands and hillsides spread across 400,000 acres, or about half of the land in Santa Clara County.
(text)....The list of Measure A backers read like a Silicon Valley ``Who's Who,'' including no fewer than three former San Jose mayors.
Measure A's opponents, on the other hand, were farmers, ranchers and developers who were heavily outnumbered, given that only 6 percent of the county's 1.7 million residents live in rural areas of Santa Clara County.
On Wednesday, some environmentalists were baffled that the numbers turned against them. A poll conducted days before the election found the measure had strong support among likely voters.

Alas, a long, complicated initiative full of planning jargon, written by a retired Stanford University law professor, might not have helped.
``There were many voters who had trouble digesting the initiative,'' Drekmeier admitted.
The No on Measure A group, backed by the Santa Clara County Farm Bureau, the Santa Clara County Cattlemen's Association, county supervisors Gage and Pete McHugh and Sheriff Laurie Smith, said the measure would devalue properties and hurt farmers.
That message resonated with voters, said Vince Garrod, whose family owns 120 acres, 80 of which are in unincorporated county land. He compared his real estate to a bank account from which he might want to make a withdrawal at some point. ....(text)"



We won. The land-grab initiative got "plowed under", as the Gilroy Dispatched described the election results.

A 6% rural minority, a statistic revealed for the first time by the Mercury News, went up against unbelievable odds, and won.

Most area papers, including the slanted Mercury News endorsed Measure A ...the Silicon Valley Leadership Group representing local high tech companies and local universities influentially endorsed Measure A .... League of Women Voters, past and present city and county officials, along with a slew of Democrats, all endorsed Measure A ... and the polls were against us from the beginning. But we did it. Against all odds, we did it.

It was uncomfortably close, 51%-49%. This entire campaign has been surreal, never realized how deeply corrupt the social constructs around us have become. The press was a real eye-opener, very slanted, keenly conspicuous in promoting agenda. Reading the morning newspaper will never be the same. And what a difference a day makes. In press statements, Peter Drekmeier is no longer describing farmers as puppets of other interests (he now has to work with the Farm Bureau on future projects.) And alas! The Mercury News, for the first time today, doesn't focus on the campaign funds of the opposition. GASP! What happened at the Mercury?

We definitely need more free-thinking in our society, less unreasoned devotion to party lines. We need more questions, more analysis, more respect for the Law of Unintended Consequences. The Democrat endorsers and environmentalists sponsors of Measure A have now proven themselves elitist/ condescending, with complete disregard of a minority group's needs and rights. This region has gone into hyper-privilege from extreme housing costs and high tech salaries. Very few in this region now have any realistic basis, or point of reference, for the diversity of others and their economic differences. And the problem willonlyt get worse. As our population accelerates, desperate "sanctimonious" land grabs will become more bold, more "justified," more successful. It definitely does not bode well for the future of any group in the minority. Not well at all.



[Note: the blog link in the previous post disclosing the funding for the People for Nature and Land (Measure A) campaign does not seem to be viable any more. Another aspect of blogs is the transience and manipulation of disclosures. What a shame. After considerable rummaging on line yesterday, the disclosure information was again located. Public campaign finance statements for PLAN (as well as disclosures for the No campaign)can be found at the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters at: http://www.netfile.com/agency/scc/

All the news not fit to print

(Mercury News, Nov. 5, Mercury News Editorial)
Get California back on track
"Opposition to Measure A has been funded largely by real estate interests, which should tell voters all they need to know. The county needs this measure's protection before it's too late."



No.... that's not all we really need to know. We voters could use just a wee bit more information.

The Measure A campaign paid around $136,000 to the Mercury News for its advertising. That was a significant portion of PLAN's expenditures for the campaign. A strategic move, for sure.

The Mercury News never did an in-depth story on Measure A. They treated all Measure A news superficially, as superficially as PLAN's (People for Land and Nature) feel-good slogan, never addressed conflicts of interests, or the absence of impact analysis, or the corresponding similarities and differences to "related" initiatives, and on and on. They actually chose not to print a lot of information. A lot. Just like the supporters of Measure A, most Mercury News articles focused on the real estate interests funding the opposition. An easy scapegoat, to force a focus while avoiding any discussion of the means, or issues of fairness. Not ONE Mercury News article asked, or even wondered, who was funding the supporters? Not one article, not one sentence.

Recently, on the San Jose Inside discussion boards, the answer to who was funding Measure A came to light. A lot of interesting information came to light, by way of a board message directing readers to visit http://www.measurea.blogspot.com/

That's the great thing about blogs. Blogs churn up information; the rest is left to investigative fact checking, which is easily done by accessing public records, like campaign disclosures. None of this information was important to the Mercury News. Mercury News never asked who funded the supporters of Measure A.... nor did it ever wonder how many farmers tend to have venture capitalists friends.

"Together we can all put privileged democracy to work!"

Somewhere in the chaotic din of congressional shenanigans (Pombo), corrupted media influence, extreme private property rights activists, extreme environmental activists, Republicans, Democrats, and rambling pages of tedious text, there may be a few meaningful solutions for both the individual and the environment. Thing is, good solutions do not happen instantaneously as a simple matter of majority vote. The best solutions, if taken seriously, require time and encourage a more broad-based approach, giving voice and respect to all stakeholders and their unique perspective. Even those in the minority. [We might do well to learn a bit from countries like Denmark and Norway, and their efforts in participatory law.] Measure A excludes an entire group from a privileged economic model, with no consideration for determining a win/win value proposition. The initiative is unbalanced, unfair, and coercive.

Thing is, you can "save" the farm, but if you don't save the farmer, what then?

As it is with Measure A, concepts of property are no longer consistently applied. Concepts of environmental conservation and sustainability have also become trivialized by Measure A with its privileged view of who bares all burden. If this community values open space, then the community could make that value explicit by spreading the burden and legitimately securing open space. Compensation is a mechanism for shared burden. And if our prosperous high tech companies want a quality of life for their employees, as Carl Guardino, the president of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group has stated, then these member companies, who have been the engines of growth here in Silicon Valley, should also share a financial obligation. The more our environmental perspective opens to broad-based solutions (starting with our individual contributions), the closer we may get to the desired objective, protecting environment within a realistic understanding of accelerating population growth.

Here's a suggestion for The Silicon Valley Leadership Group who endorsed Measure A.... if just 150 of the 200 member SVLG member companies each donated an average of $1 million dollars to open space each year, a combined yearly contribution of $150 million tax exempt dollars, then land conservancy groups could purchase and preserve quite a bit of acreage. Surely a tax-exempt donation of $1 million is a mere drop in the bucket for companies like Hewlett Packard, Apple Computer, IBM, Intel, EBay, Cisco, and Google.

And here are two examples of what their pooled contributions could buy.... 20-acre hillside lots in Morgan Hill average $400,000 (valued less now with new rigid County Plan view shed restrictions, in most cases 20-acre hillside lots are now unbuildable, with lowered average cost around $300,000.) Those 20 acres are already valued less than an Atherton driveway (and the bit of land underneath it.) As for ranch land around Mt. Hamilton, the treasurer of "People for Land and Nature" (the environmental group sponsoring Measure A) put his 170-acre ranch on market in September, asking $1.7 million. Odd timing in relation to Measure A, but still, an example of ranch land value. One hundred and seventy acres around Mt. Hamilton is equivalent to a median priced home on a one-acre lot in Los Alto Hills. These are two examples of hillside and ranch land values. Now. Just think how much acreage, in various combinations, $150 million could buy. One might also consider how much more open space would be protected if conservancy easements were part of the equation.

And what if SVLG corporate "environmental contributions" were an annual obligation, for the purpose, as Mr. Guardino stated, "the health of our companies and the quality of life of our employees." ....Ain't it touching to see corporations care so much about their employees....and the environment? And here's yet another idea. What if these companies also set up employee match/ giving programs that matched the contributions of employees wanting to donate to open space? So many ways to spread the burden, to test our resolve.

Corporate responsibility makes sense. Consensus is that the media will support citizen efforts to hold business accountable, and this will not be a trivial matter in corporate/ public relations. Several publications have commented, that the "content" of the repeated message below deserves continued consideration.



http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2006/11/06/editorial4.html
(Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal, Nov.3)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Group endorsed Measure A, an initiative that imposes all impact and financial burden on a minority of rural land owners, and yet member SVLG high tech companies exist because of strong property rights laws and protections. SVLG member companies know the value of intellectual property rights, and wage battles for these rights every day. Would they want the speculative value of their intellectual property reduced by a general election that limits their freedom of action? Not likely. They could not survive in a global economy.

Intellectual property is the most important asset of SVLG businesses; similarly, land is the primary asset of rural and agricultural families.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/02/EDG6PKE10J1.DTL&feed=rss.opinion
(San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 2)
Santa Clara's Measure A
Editor -- The Silicon Valley Leadership Group endorsed Santa Clara
County's Measure A, which will impose its financial burden on a
minority of rural land owners. Would SVLG companies want the
speculative value of their intellectual property reduced by a general
election that limits their freedom of action? Not likely. They could
not survive.

Similarly, land is the primary asset of rural and agricultural
families. Open space is important, but should be done with fair
compensation to land owners. How are rural families going to survive
in the competitive Silicon Valley economy, if uncompensated for
Measure A restrictions on the use of their lands?


http://www.theburlingamedailynews.com/article/2006-11-1-letters
http://www.sanmateodailynews.com/article/2006-11-1-letters
http://www.redwoodcitydailynews.com/article/2006-11-1-letters
http://www.paloaltodailynews.com/article/2006-11-1-letters
(Palo Alto Daily, Redwood City Daily, San Mateo Daily, Burlingame Daily, Nov.1)
Property rights overlooked
Dear Editor: The Silicon Valley Leadership Group endorsed Measure A,
an initiative that imposes all impacts and financial burdens on a
minority of rural landowners, and yet member high-tech companies exist
because of strong property rights laws and protections. Leadership
Group-member companies know the value of intellectual property rights
and wage battles for these rights every day. Would they want the
speculative value of their intellectual property reduced by a general
election that limits their freedom of action? Not likely. They could
not survive in a global economy. Intellectual property is the most
important asset of SVLG businesses. Similarly land is the primary
asset of rural and agricultural families.

Lofty ideals are easy when one does not bear responsibility for those
ideals. Our environmental challenges deserve broad-based efforts, a
shared responsibility. Open space is important but should be done with
fair compensation to landowners. They too must survive.

Why do Leadership Group companies see their own intellectual property
rights but not the property rights of private rural landowners? How
are rural families going to survive in the competitive Silicon Valley
economy when they are uncompensated for Measure A restrictions on the
use of their lands? Where is the corporate responsibility of Silicon
Valley companies, their financial obligation, in protecting local
environs from the prosperity of high-tech business?


http://www.gilroydispatch.com/opinion/contentview.asp?c=198271
(Gilroy Dispatch, Nov. 2)
High Endorsement Irony in Leadership Group's Stance on Measure A
Dear Editor,
The Silicon Valley Leadership Group endorsed Measure A, which will
impose all impact and burden on rural land owners. Yet SVLG high-tech
companies exist because of strong property rights laws and
protections.

SVLG companies know the value of intellectual property rights. Would
they want the speculative value of their intellectual property reduced
by a general election that limits their freedom of action? Not
likely.They could not survive. Intellectual property is the most
important asset of SVLG businesses, similarly land is the primary
asset of rural and agricultural families.


http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/15891462.htm
(Mercury News, Oct.31)
The Silicon Valley Leadership Group endorsed Measure A, and yet SVLG
companies exist because of strong property rights laws and
protections. SVLG companies know the value of intellectual property
rights. Would they want the speculative value of their intellectual
property reduced by a general election that limits their freedom of
action? Not likely. Intellectual property is the most important asset
of SVLG businesses, similarly land is the primary asset of rural and
agricultural families.

"The cause was great"...when society takes a free ride

http://www.law.columbia.edu/center_program/legal_theory/papers/spring05
(a relevant excerpt from:)
Thoughts on Equality in the American Constitution
by Guido Calabresi


"(text)......The cause was great — but on whom was the burden?
....(text)....we can see that the 14th amendment has another meaning, and that meaning is akin to the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. It's the functional equivalent of the Takings Clause. It requires compensation. You know that the Fifth Amendment says property will not be taken for a public purpose without compensation. Compensation has two purposes. First, to compensate the person from whom the property is taken, and second, and more important, to burden those who are taking so they will decide whether taking is worthwhile or not. Compensating sounds great, but Louis Kaplow got himself tenure at Harvard by writing an article saying, “hey, if we want to take the property for a park and we know that it's a good thing, why the heck should we compensate all the people we have taken the land from when some of them are rich and don't need compensation and we could better spend the money for the poor?” A wonderful article because the left at Harvard liked it, the economists at Harvard liked it, the bananas liked it, the perfect tenure piece for any law school. But there is something to compensation despite that.

The problem is that we often don't know whether the taking is worthwhile. The point is that the less we charge those who benefit from it, the easier it is to say that we want the park. We want the park. We want the park, but is it because we don't have to pay for it? Oddly enough, the best statement of this, after Justice Jackson first said it, was by none other than Nino Scalia. In Cruzan, he asked: “are there then no reasonable and humane limits that ought not be exceeded in requiring an individual to preserve his own life? There obviously are, but they are not set forth in the due process clause.” (That is to say, where libertarian interests are not that clear, don't look to the due process clause to protect them.) “What assures us that those limits will not be exceeded is the same constitutional guarantee that is the source of most of our protection.” (And then he gives some sorts of horribles which are laughable that I'll spare you, they're about not driving and things.) “Our salvation,” he ends up saying, “is the Equal Protection Clause, which requires the democratic majority to accept for themselves and their loved ones that which they impose on you and me.” In other words, we must bear the burden, if we would put it on them."



What intriguing thoughts in this excerpt, don't ya' think?
Judge Guido Calabresi is on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He was also former Dean of the Yale Law School. Compensation, as he points out above, serves two purposes, "First, to compensate the person from whom the property is taken, and second, and more important, to burden those who are taking so they will decide whether taking is worthwhile or not."

Now here's a question: when an affluent urban majority places all burden on a rural minority, without any compensatory remedy, without any shared burden, how important is the goal? The goal here being environmental conservation and sustainability? Where is the resolve, the true commitment to this goal? There isn't any.

Does the Silicon Valley elite simply "want" amenity lands because they can easily take them without having to pay for them? Is that the insidious motive behind their environmental philosophy?