|
|||||||
KUSP LandWatch
News |
|||||||
|
ogo.gif" width="108" height="109" border="0"> "Listen Live" |
KUSP provided a brief Land Use Report on KUSP Radio from January 2003 to May 2016. 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
|
CONTACT 306 Capitol Street #101 PO Box 1876 Phone (831) 759-2824 Fax (831) 759-2825 |
|
