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