|
LandWatch provides
a brief Land Use Report on KUSP Radio. Tune in every weekday at 6:33 or 8:49 am.
KUSP is at 88.9 FM in General Coverage, 105.9 FM in Big Sur Valley, 91.3 FM in
Palo Colorado Canyon, and 91.7 FM in San Ardo. Archives of past transcripts are
available here.
Week
of October 28, 2002 to November 1, 2002
The following Land Use Reports have been presented on KUSP Radio by Gary Patton, Executive Director of LandWatch Monterey County. The opinions expressed by Mr. Patton are not necessarily those of KUSP Radio, nor of any of its sponsors.
Monday,
October 28th - No Land Use Report was aired on this date
Tuesday,
October 29th – Monterey County GPU Saga Continues
The Monterey County General Plan Update, will shape the future of
Monterey County during what will probably be one of the most important
twenty-year periods in its entire history. It’s fair to say
that these General Plan decisions are the most important policy
decisions that this Board of Supervisors will ever make.
What
the Monterey County Board of Supervisors must decide, one way or
the other, is whether the future growth of Monterey County will
be directed to a few locations, where public services can be provided
on a cost effective basis, or whether the Board will continue the
past practice of basing land use decisions largely on what individual
property owners want, with respect to their own, individual properties.
The
Board has received more than 270 requests from property owners to
permit increased development in agricultural and rural areas. On
the other hand, the Planning Commission and the County planning
staff recommend that future growth be encouraged to locate in urban
areas. Which way to go is a tough choice, and the choice made will
have a definitive effect on the future of Monterey County.
So
far, there has been lots of discussion, but few decisions. Ultimately,
though, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors will have to choose
its approach. That could happen this morning, at the Courthouse
in Salinas. As always, you’re invited to attend, and you can
find out more at www.kusp.org.
For
KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
More
Information:
Landwatch
Monterey County - http://www.landwatch.org
Monterey
County Board of Supervisors Agenda - http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/suagenda/Agenda.htm
Monterey
County GPU Website - http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/gpu/
Wednesday,
October 30th – State and Local Ballot Measures
It’s time to vote; at least it’s getting close. November
5th is Election Day, and absentee ballots are already out. This
week, and continuing on into next week, I am going to highlight
some of the state and local propositions that relate very directly
to land use planning. There happen to be a number of them.
On
the state ballot are Propositions 46, 50, and 51. Proposition 46
would authorize $2.1 billion dollars in bonds, to fund 21 state
housing programs. Proposition 50 would authorize about $3.5 billion
dollars in bonds, to fund a number of water projects. Proposition
51, which is not a bond issue, would redirect current tax revenues
to support a number of transportation programs.
In
addition to these state measures, there is an important land use
measure on the ballot in the City of Watsonville, in Santa Cruz
County. This is Measure U, which would establish an urban growth
limit for that city.
I’ll
be discussing each of these measures during the next several days.
In the meantime, to do your own research, please check the Land
Use Report link at www.kusp.org.
You can also use the website to send me an email. I’m happy
to field your comments, suggestions, complaints or even compliments.
I really do like to hear from listeners, so I hope you’ll let
me know your thoughts.
For
KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
More
Information:
Landwatch
Monterey County - http://www.landwatch.org
Official
State Voters Guide – http://voterguide.ss.ca.gov/home.asp
Yes
on Proposition 46 Website – http://www.prop46yes.org/background_argument.html
Argument
Against Proposition 46 – http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_ge02/prop46_against.pdf
Proposition
50 Website – http://www.prop50yes.org/
Argument
Against Proposition 50 – http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_ge02/prop50_against.pdf
Proposition
51 Website – http://www.pcl.org/transportation/summary.html
Argument
Against Proposition 51 – http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_ge02/prop51_against.pdf
Text
of Watsonville Initiative – http://www.actionpajarovalley.org/initiative/initiative.html
City
Attorney Analysis and Arguments on Measure U – http://www.votescount.com/nov2k2/u.htm
Sierra
Club Pros and Cons of Measure U – http://ventana.sierraclub.org/ventana/0205/measureu.html
Thursday,
October 31st – Proposition 46, The Housing Bond
Housing affordability is a critical concern everywhere in California.
It’s undoubtedly the most difficult land use issue facing local
communities. The question presented by Proposition 46, appearing
on the November 5th statewide ballot, is whether the State should
borrow $2.1 billion dollars to help address this affordable housing
crisis.
The
argument against Proposition 46 is essentially that the state shouldn’t
go into debt for this purpose, and that the private market should
meet housing needs. Too much debt is certainly dangerous, but it
is often impossible to make important investments without a willingness
to incur some debt.
If
the private market could provide affordable housing without any
help from the state, then borrowing money for this purpose probably
wouldn’t make much sense. However, when the costs involved
in producing housing are added up (including particularly the cost
of land), the housing produced is simply unaffordable to most average
and below average income persons. That’s a fact.
Proposition
46 targets most of its benefits to those most in need. $200 million
dollars is set aside for farmworkers. $1.1 billion dollars would
go for programs benefiting multi-family housing and low-income categories.
Very little would be used to fuel suburban sprawl.
Get
all the facts by going to the Land Use Report link on the KUSP website
at www.kusp.org.
For
KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
More
Information:
Landwatch
Monterey County - http://www.landwatch.org
Official
State Voters Guide – http://voterguide.ss.ca.gov/home.asp
Yes
on Proposition 46 Website – http://www.prop46yes.org/background_argument.html
Argument
Against Proposition 46 – http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_ge02/prop46_against.pdf
Friday,
November 1st – Proposition 50, The Water Bond
Proposition 50 is called the “Water Security, Clean Drinking
Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002.” If passed
by the voters on November 5th, Proposition 50 would authorize the
State to borrow $3.4 billion dollars to carry out a wide range of
water-related programs. As with all bond issues, the central question
for the voters is whether it makes sense to borrow money to be able
to make the specified expenditures.
While
a significant part of the money would go to expenditures for “hardware,”
lots of the money would be targeted to what might be called “non-hardware”
items. For example, approximately $435 million dollars would go
to improvements in the water systems serving smaller communities,
but more than $950 million dollars would go to protect, acquire,
and restore wetlands, and for watershed protection.
Proposition
50, in other words, is based on the premise that natural systems
should be utilized as a primary way to provide for our future water
needs. Water security means protection of the wetlands and watersheds
that actually produce the water we use. The argument against Proposition
50 is that more money should go for dams and other water storage
facilities. On November 5th, the voters can decide.
You
can get access to all the arguments on Proposition 50 by going to
the Land Use Link on the KUSP website, at www.kusp.org.
For
KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
More
Information:
Landwatch
Monterey County - http://www.landwatch.org
Official
State Voters Guide – http://voterguide.ss.ca.gov/home.asp
Proposition
50 Website – http://www.prop50yes.org/
Argument
Against Proposition 50 – http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_ge02/prop50_against.pdf
Archives
of past transcripts are available here
|
