"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.