Subject: Mercury News Endorses Measure A

From: Yes on Measure A <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:42:37 -0700

Hi Folks,

Check out this ringing endorsement of Measure A from the Mercury News  
in yesterday's paper.  They also included a side-bar titled "Measure  
A Foes Stretch the Truth" which I've included at the end.

Onward!

-Peter

San Jose Mercury News

October 15, 2006

Measure A protects rural land

Initiative keeps County’s hills and ranches open but still productive

Mercury News Editorial

Before you vote on Santa Clara County's Measure A, consider these  
basic questions:

Should future generations have, as we do, the benefit of rural  
surroundings, fresh local produce -- and a tangible sense of what  
made California the American Dream in the past century?

And: Should communities have the right to declare certain land areas  
for industry, for single homes, for malls -- and for agriculture?

If you think they should, then vote for Measure A. We recommend it.

Measure A amounts to a new county general plan that better preserves  
land for farming and ranching and protects our hillsides from going  
the way of South San Francisco's or Fremont's, crisscrossed by rows  
of houses.

The measure is controversial because it limits development in some  
areas of the hillsides, farmland and ranch land more strictly than  
the current general plan. And while the current plan can be changed  
at any time with just three votes on the board of supervisors,  
Measure A says major changes can be made only by voters.

These are strengths, in our view.

Today's county supervisors have been good stewards of the land, but  
there is no guarantee for future boards. And unlike city councils,  
for whom land use is a major responsibility, the supervisors' main  
role is in human services -- public health, foster care. It's no  
surprise that worries about a few houses in the country might take a  
back seat to, say, children's medical care.

Pressure to build in rural land will only increase. And all it will  
take is a few bad decisions to doom agriculture and ranching in the  
Santa Clara Valley. Measure A will make certain those decisions are  
not made lightly.

The measure sets larger minimum lot sizes for homes in some areas,  
doubling it to 40 acres in hillsides and making the minimum parcel in  
ranch lands 160 acres. It's hard to say how many fewer homes would be  
built, since the current rules include the steepness of the slope and  
other factors beside acreage. But there's no question there will be  
substantially fewer buildings.

The measure also attempts to limit the visibility of development,  
although these provisions are waived if they make it too difficult to  
use the land.

By limiting development potential, Measure A will remove speculative  
value from rural land. But agriculture will benefit because no little  
subdivisions will crop up next to the smelly cattle barns or manure- 
covered fields. Spotty developments drive farms out.

Critics say the fact that the land won't be public is a shortcoming  
of the measure. It's actually a strength. The idea is to keep the  
land productive.

Some attorneys say the measure is not constitutional. But it's less  
restrictive than a measure adopted in Alameda County in 2000, and  
that measure has withstood all court challenges.

Does that mean Measure A is perfectly drafted? No. Anything that long  
and detailed is likely to have flaws. As the county documents them,  
the supervisors can place a corrective measure on the ballot at any  
general election for little cost, just as cities and counties float  
changes to their charters.

Ballot measures on land use often are a bad idea. Measure A is  
different because it sets in place broad policies designed to protect  
the future of agriculture and the overall quality of life in the  
valley for generations to come. It's important to implement that  
protection now, while there's still something to preserve. Vote yes.

San Jose Mercury News

October 15, 2006

Measure A foes stretch the truth

Mercury News Editorial

One reason to be suspicious of opponents of Measure A is that they  
rely heavily on misleading or false statements. Here are a few  
examples from their literature and e-mails:

• The measure will remove current protections of hillsides and the  
like. In fact, it will strengthen protection.

• The measure will hamper efforts to improve communication by  
building cell phone towers -- an assertion by Santa Clara County  
Supervisor Pete McHugh. In fact, Measure A specifically exempts  
communication structures.

• The measure has been foisted on the county by Palo Alto elitists.  
In fact, its support is broad: The South Bay Labor Council, the  
Silicon Valley Leadership Group, former San Jose Mayors Susan Hammer,  
Tom McEnery and Janet Gray Hayes, and a wide range of other community  
leaders and current and former elected officials, both Republican and  
Democrat. Palo Alto's county supervisor, Liz Kniss, supports the  
measure, but so does East San Jose's Blanca Alvarado.

-----------------------------------
Peter Drekmeier
Campaign Coordinator
Yes on Measure A
People for Land and Nature (PLAN)
48 So. Seventh St.
San Jose, CA 95112
(650) 223-3306

[email-masked]
http://www.OpenSpace2006.org