Return to HOME PAGE

Return to
PEBBLE BEACH COMPANY DEVELOPMENT

Return to Menu of
MONTEREY COUNTY

12-22-06 T H E H E R A L D ' S V I E W A Christmas surprise from the supervisors 11-25-06 T H E H E R A L D ' S V I E W Board clearly ignoring voters
1-15-07 • Sneaking one in Linda Murdock 1-15-07 • English not the problem Xavier K. Maruyama 1-12-07 • Support for fourth plan Marilyn Maxner 12-29-06 • Paying a high price Scott MacClelland 12-28-06 • Equal standards Bill Nye 12-22-06 • Vote arrogantly denied Jeanette Nathanson 12-18-06 • Plan protects few Paul Salmon 12-17-06 • Beyond name recognition Martha A. Rau 12-14-06 • Plan ignores key ideas Carolyn Anderson 12-11-06 • Appalled by behavior John Baker	12-10-06 • Smith ignores voters Steve Rovell 12-10-06 • Land-use process hijacked Jennifer Fellguth 12-10-06 • Vote Supervisors out Thomas Tessier 12-09-06 • Put plan to vote John Pearse 12-09-06 • Vote Supervisors out Thomas Tessier 12-09-06 • Honor right to vote Tim Ryan 12-07-06 • Keep politicians in check Azalea Perez 12-05-06 • Abusing public trust Ann Lucas 12-05-06 • Scheming supervisors Robert Frischmuth 12-05-06 • Allow vote Joe Rodriguez 12-04-06 • What democracy? Robert Trillerud 12-04-06 • Supervisors' antics Jan Mitchell	12-03-06 • Let the public vote Marilyn Maxner and Mary Ellen Dick 12-03-06 • Give the people a voice Ken Wanderman 12-02-06 • Grounds for recall Janice M O'Brien 12-02-06 • Outrageous Salaries Bruce Sinclair 12-02-06 • Do it the right way Michael Kirch 12-02-06 • Board needs to listen Lee Capilla 12-02-06 • Know best balony Mike Grattan 12-01-06 • Let the Board know Barbara Livingston

From the Monterey County Herald
Serving Monterey County and the Salinas Valley
http://www.montereyherald.com

In its newest attempt to get around county voters, the Board of Supervisors approved GPU4 while promising to put it to a so-called "repeal vote" in June. In the meantime, supervisors will approve the county's most controversial project that is part and parcel of GPU4: Rancho San Juan.

How many times must people tell supervisors that they do not want Rancho San Juan? A vote of three-to-one against the project does not seem to be enough. Neither does a second referendum which people are still waiting to vote.

Instead of listening to the public, the supervisors are once again trying to get their white elephant of a project past residents by including it in GPU4 before people get a chance to vote on Rancho San Juan -- once again.

Approving GPU4 means approving Rancho San Juan. Putting GPU4 on the ballot through the latest public referendum drive is the only way to stop Rancho San Juan from being approved before voters have their say.

A successful referendum will ensure GPU4 is put to a real vote before being approved, and also ensure that voters will get the chance to decide on the Community General Plan Initiative and Rancho San Juan.

Protect your voting rights by signing the GPU4 referendum.

Linda Murdock
Aromas

English is my second language, but I don't think that is the reason I am confused by the actions of the Board of Supervisors regarding a referendum on the general plan, GPU4. As I understand it, the supervisors maybe proposed a ballot measure in which yes means no and no means yes.

It is immaterial whether I support or oppose GPU4. I want to vote on the plan. Therefore, I have signed the petition to place the general plan on the ballot in June. I understand the petition.

Xavier K. Maruyama
Carmel

Support for fourth plan

The Leagues of Women Voters of the Salinas Valley and Monterey Peninsula support the Rancho San Juan referendum and the Community General Plan Initiative.

The Board of Supervisors' approval of the fourth effort to develop a plan (GPU4) enables Rancho San Juan to be vested. It also makes GPU4 the prevailing plan until voters have a chance to ratify or repeal it. This would allow unacceptable development to move forward pending the public's eventual vote. And we note that even an election date is uncertain.

A referendum on GPU4 puts that plan on hold until a vote of the people, and it guarantees that the voters have a right to vote on the plan before it goes into effect, in a clear and meaningful election.

By contrast, the board's action adopts the plan with a legally unenforceable statement that it will submit it to possible "repeal" by the voters six months from now -- in which a "yes" vote means you are against the plan.

We urge the public to join the Leagues in signing the petition for the referendum.

Marilyn Maxner
Monterey

Paying a high price

Recently, my walking companion and I hiked from Holt Road (Carmel Valley Ranch) to the top of Snively Ridge, at 2,000 feet elevation. The good news is that the views of Carmel Bay and northern Monterey County are spectacular. The bad news, from that vantage, is that most of the rural character of Carmel Valley is now just a memory. When you superimpose on that view all the development already approved by the county, Carmel Valley and its adjacent hillsides will be pretty well blanketed by big-ticket residential and visitor-serving projects.

If members of the Board of Supervisors deny a countywide vote on the general plan, as the Local Agency Formation Commission denied an incorporation vote by Carmel Valley residents, you've got to ask: Why are the taxpayers who pay these politicians' salaries continually being finessed out of their rights in favor of those special interests that lavishly finance their re-election campaigns? Obviously, supervisor/commissioners Calcagno and Smith love saying yes to their campaign contributors more than they fear losing lawsuits against the county. And we already know who pays for those. A recall election against these special-interest politicians would be money better spent.

Scott MacClelland
Carmel

The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to vote on the general plan update on Wednesday. A petition was submitted some months ago with the intent to offer an alternative to the plan by the county. I hope the board will vote to acknowledge the petition and allow a vote at the earliest date possible.

Hopefully, the residents of the county and the board understand that the general plan is a tool that is intended to guide development through the next 20 years. It should not be used to give preference to any project by noting it in this document. It is only right for all projects to meet the same standard by originating in the planning process. To note a particular project, by name or location, gives, in essence, a pre-approval. I believe this risks violating the "due process" clause of the Constitution and will create lawsuits the county can ill afford. If this language were deleted the county would not be open to litigation.

Bill Nye
Carmel

The supervisors must immediately announce their plan to put both general plans (GPU4 and the Community General Plan Initiative) on the June ballot as well as the Rancho San Juan/Butterfly Village referendum and Carmel Valley incorporation for Carmel Valley residents.

The right to vote on these issues was arrogantly denied in favor of development interests.

To the supervisors: Stop the nonsense, listen to your constituency and schedule the vote. We will not be ignored.

Jeanette Nathanson
Carmel Valley

Large county agri-businesses gain lots of perks if the county's general plan, GPU4, becomes a reality.

GPU4 allows development of 14 so-called "Rural Centers" in county unincorporated areas with fuzzy borders called "transition zones," allowing large landowners to replace farmland with exclusive, large-lot subdivisions.

GPU4 lets rich landowners make big profits while average citizens pay for impacts in overburdened county services, drying water wells, and more time spent stuck in traffic on substandard roads.

GPU4 expands the list of agri-business practices that can be conducted without permits -- practices that have nothing to do with growing crops, like the construction of airfields and reservoirs and the industrial processing of farm products.

It creates a winery corridor that provides special treatment for a few high-end vintners who want to avoid the level of environmental review required of any other industry. These are not sensible concessions to support mom and dad's family farm.

GPU4 is a wholesale attempt by big agri-business to derail regulations that protect the public and make big money growing houses instead of vegetables.

Paul Salmon
Salinas

The Herald's Nov. 25 editorial, "Board clearly ignoring voters," was right on the mark. However, the residents of Monterey County must also bear some of the burden for our poor government. I have lived here for 24 years and know only a handful of people who have ever actually attended a Board of Supervisors meeting, much less know who their supervisor is or what district they live in.

If you sat on the board and every Tuesday saw only four or five people in the chamber, and most of them lawyers representing special interest groups, would you get the message that nobody cares what we do, so we will do as we please?

Every once in a while, a group of good knights will sally forth on their white chargers to do battle for the voters of this county, but they face an almost insurmountable task. The people of this county need to become more proactive and stop voting for their representatives on a name recognition basis only. They need to know their voting records.

People tend to get what they deserve in government.

Martha A. Rau
Salinas

The supervisors' "sprawl-now-pay-later" plan for Monterey County, general plan update four (GPU4), ignores and discounts many key things residents have said they want, and don't want, in their new general plan.

GPU4 includes Rancho San Juan on agricultural land next to Salinas. Seventy-six percent of Monterey County voters rejected it, yet supervisors are determined to force this wasteful development on residents by any means necessary.

GPU4 sets no definite boundaries between urban and rural areas and allows development on the outskirts of virtually all future developments approved by county government.

GPU4 grants 14 well-heeled rural property owners approval to develop 3,000 acres nowhere near existing communities. It creates 16 "Special Treatment Areas" that people know nothing about.

GPU4 allows major new residential development on the outskirts of Salinas, Marina and King City, with no consideration for impacts to these cities.

Carolyn Anderson
Royal Oaks

I am appalled at the Board of Supervisors refusing to let land-use issues be put on the ballot.

John Baker
Corral de Tierra

A majority of the Board of Supervisors, led by Jerry Smith, continues to deny the citizens their right to vote on the Community General Plan Initiative. In the meantime, that same majority is continuing its work on a pro-sprawl, pro-developer plan. Whom do they work for anyway?

It seems their allegiances lie with the developers when it should be with the voting public.

This seems eerily similar to how the Bush White House has continued to ignore the majority of the public on issues such as the Iraq war.

Getting back to voting, 12,915 voters gave Jerry Smith the slimmest of victories in his run for supervisor, barely squeaking by with 50.2 percent of the vote. Over 15,000 voters signed the petition to place the General Plan Initiative on the ballot. It sounds like he has outraged more voters than voted for him two years ago.

Steve Rovell
Marina

Thank you for the editorial expressing the same frustrations Monterey County voters feel as they observe our Board of Supervisors subverting the democratic process and denying us the opportunity to vote on a general plan developed through public participation.

Watching Jerry Smith and Lou Calcagno leading the charge to deny Carmel Valley voters the opportunity to vote on incorporation serves as yet another object lesson in what happens when developers purchase the fawning allegiance of public officials. As a result, intelligent land-use planning is hijacked by the disastrous decisions of rubber-stamp stooges.

Fortunately, we will soon have the opportunity to vote these hand puppets out of office and replace them with competent leaders who truly represent the public interest. I, for one, will be delighted to volunteer my time to replace Jerry Smith with Jane Parker in the upcoming election.

Jennifer Fellguth
Carmel Valley

Supervisors Jerry Smith and Lou Calcagno haven't seen a row of tract houses or a parking lot that they didn't like.

Both the Ninth Circuit Court and the U.S. Congress sided with the 15,000 people who would like more study before plastering the area with tract houses and strip malls. These do-nothing supervisors need to be voted out.

Thomas Tessier
Salinas

While I generally do not think it a good idea to legislate by the ballot box, I agree completely with your editorial of Nov. 25 that enough people are at odds with the Board of Supervisors's handling of the general plan, that in this case, it would be good for the supervisors to hear directly from the voters.

If nothing else, it should be a straw vote.

No doubt developers would pour money into such a vote, and they might even persuade voters to vote with them, but at least we would know that that is where most voters want to go.

As it is, there are too many outspoken people against large-scale development on prime agriculture land to go ahead without the voters' direct consent.

John Pearse
Pacific Grove

The Monterey County Board of Supervisors has shown it will do anything under its collective power to prevent the voting public a chance to weigh in at the ballot box on any potential growth issues, be it incorporation of Carmel Valley, the fate of Rancho San Juan and Butterfly Village or the Community General Plan Initiative.

I do not always agree with the entire initiative process, but it is the law of the land, and the rights of citizens to vote must be honored.

When 15,000 voters sign a petition for an election, the Board of Supervisors has no right to deny the public the right to vote.

Tim Ryan
Salinas

Keep politicians in check

General plan update 3 was developed through compromise by interested parties addressing the needs of our community for future growth. Why are Monterey County supervisors now holding meetings to develop a new land use plan, update 4?

Through the referendum process, the voters have made their opinion on growth issues abundantly clear. They want a reasonable growth plan, not uncontrolled growth. Supervisors take heed: The electorate is watching.

I recently heard an editorial by the general manager of KSBW-TV, blasting the public for its use of public referendums in regard to future land-use issues. He went on to say that the people should let the politicians do the job they were elected to perform.

My response is that when the politicians decide to respect the wishes of the community they were elected to serve, is when we the people will cease resorting to referendums.

Azalea Perez
Salinas

Abusing public trust

It's one thing for the public's elected representatives, such as the county Board of Supervisors, to use their own judgment when it's unclear what the public wants. However, Monterey County residents have made it very clear that they want a direct say about the general plan and projects such as Rancho San Juan.

When the public's desire is clear, and elected representatives use their power to suppress democratic processes, those representatives are abusing the public trust. With such arrogant, unscrupulous representatives, is it any wonder the public doesn't trust them to make the right decision?

Ann Lucas
Salinas

I am enraged about the county board's scheming to keep valid land-use petitions off the ballot.

Of all the supervisors, it seems only Dave Potter is responsive to the people. How come the others are not? Those supes seem more susceptible to money, a few large landowners, and developers. How are the district boundaries determined and changed anyway?

Clearly the people of the county need to take charge and clean up the board.

Robert Frischmuth
Pacific Grove

Allow vote

We attended the first public meeting review at the Land Use Advisory Committee and voiced concerns we hoped would be included in the comments. We were disheartened to hear that the North County planning commissioner did not allow our area comments to be heard by the Planning Commission.

Until the supervisors allow the Community General Plan Initiative on the ballot for our vote, it is apparent that our voices will not be heard. The developers will benefit by the general plan update while we sit with neighbors trucking in water since their wells have gone dry and all of us are stuck on Highway 101 from gridlock traffic. What more do we have to do?

We signed the Rancho San Juan referendum and the Community General Plan Initiative petitions after watching the county botch yet another attempt at a world-class plan. Allow us to vote.

Joe Rodriguez
Aromas

You rightly point out in your editorial of Nov. 25 that the Board of Supervisors is ignoring the voters and, I might add, our democratic ideals. We know it has been a long time since the supervisors have been in school, but perhaps they should see how well they do on the questions asked of new immigrants.

Here are two, with answers by the Immigration Service:

Q: What does "We the People" mean in the Constitution?

A: The power of government comes from the people.

Q: Name one right or freedom from the First Amendment.

A: Speech, religion, assembly, press, petition.

Let's see: all the petition rules were followed for the two Rancho San Juan and Community General Plan initiatives. The county elections department certified both measures, the courts said no voting rights were violated. So what has happened to democracy in Monterey County?

Robin Trillerud
Pacific Grove

And the award goes to... The Herald, for the editorial "Board clearly ignoring voters." Finally, the local newspaper bravely defines taxpayers/voters rights, criticizing supervisors' antics and their we-know-best-style of governance.

Two voter referendums, an initiative, court rulings -- what other options remain for voters to shout their message? We agree, it shouldn't matter where one stands on underlying planning issues. The proper legal steps have been taken. How shameful local history will reflect this Monterey County board and county counsel worked overtime to outmaneuver the public will at every juncture.

Our gratitude extends to Supervisor Dave Potter for his lone, brave common-sense vote, and his support for the people to decide.

Government should be of, by and for the people. Thank you for reminding supervisors "to listen and lead, not to dictate."

Jan Mitchell
Prunedale

The Leagues of Women Voters of the Monterey Peninsula and the Salinas Valley applaud The Herald's Nov. 25 editorial on the Board of Supervisors' failure to set election dates for the Community General Plan Initiative and the Rancho San Juan Referendum. Denying the public a chance to vote on these issues is a flagrant violation of the right of citizens to petition their government. Proponents of these measures have followed the law. In a democratic society ruled by laws, not by men, it is just and right that the people be allowed to vote on these issues.

The board continues to expend thousands of dollars of public funds finding ways to thwart public involvement. The county not only relies on county counsel for legal representation, it employs outside counsel at significant cost to the taxpayers. At a time when public services for health and safety are on the block, it is incomprehensible that the board continues to squander public resources and the public trust.

Our leagues have been steadfast in expressing concerns about the process. We join The Herald in encouraging other groups to ask the Board of Supervisors to move forward and let the people of Monterey County vote on these important land-use issues.

Marilyn Maxner and
Mary Ellen Dick Chapter presidents

Land use is the most critical issue facing Monterey County, and there are differing views on how we address the problem. Right now the only voice being heard is that of the developers. There is a solid Community General Plan that represents all voices within the county. Fifteen thousand voters signed a petition to put this plan on the ballot. Why won't Jerry Smith and the Board of Supervisors allow us to vote on whether we want this plan? It's time they stopped thwarting the will of the people.

Ken Wanderman
Marina

Bravo for your timely editorial regarding the Monterey County Board of Supervisors (Nov. 25). The board's persistence in its refusal to comply with the legal requirements of a duly certified initiative process is a flagrant violation of supervisorial obligations and should be grounds for a recall.

In addition, full accountability must be assigned for any public funds expended on impending or future lawsuits regarding this issue.

Janice M. O'Brien
Pebble Beach

Having read your Nov. 25 editorial, I agree with your view that the Monterey County Board of Supervisors is clearly ignoring voters. Their annual salaries of $96,000 are outrageous and it may be time to consider having an emergency meeting regarding their performance, with a vote of no confidence as they are out of touch and have wasted $6 million in six years with no results on the general plan.

Bruce Sinclair
Watsonville

In response to Charles Lerable's guest commentary, "General plan a map to nowhere," I strongly agree with his premise that the county supervisors have failed to effectively manage the process of creating a new general plan.

This has led to a plan that consists of far too many details, which ultimately will lead to further litigation down the road.

A general plan should consist of seven broad categories -- land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise and safety.

The details should be addressed if and when the development occurs. There are many good reasons why this is a much more practical, fair and objective way to create and implement a plan. It outlines the future vision of the county without encumbering itself to needless rules and regulations.

The board should reflect back on the process and then fix it before the draft becomes a final document that we have to live with for the next 20 years. If it takes more time, then so be it.

Michael Kirch
Monterey

I am dismayed by the inability of Monterey residents to vote on some sensitive ballot measures. We all are lucky to be living within a unique and stunningly beautiful ecosystem--from the fragile marine waters to the rugged coastline to the redwood glens--all worth our admiration and respect.

While there are exclusive economic forces that threaten our county, we have a system of checks and balances that only can work if our citizens preserve their democratic right--a right guaranteed by California's Constitution--to express political opinions in the proper forum. In this instance, it is the Board of Supervisors who should listen to the people who, at the end of the day, gave them the privilege of serving in office.

Lee Caplin
Carmel

I agree with your recent editorial regarding the Monterey County Board of Supervisors' continual fight to block a vote on land use in Monterey County. I think its outrageously arrogant of them to think they "know best" when it comes to planning and land use. Let the voters speak!

Mike Grattan
Salinas

It was gratifying to read The Herald editorial Saturday, “Board clearly ignoring voters,” calling on voters to ask the Board of Supervisors to put the Community General Plan Initiative on the ballot.

I have accepted this challenge and urge everyone concerned about the sustainability of our county to do the same. Write the Board of Supervisors at Box 1728, Salinas 93902 and remind them that more than 15,000 voters told them they wanted the opportunity to vote on land-use planning in Monterey County.

Thank you for inspiring us to write letters to the supervisors, which hopefully will persuade them to let stand the decision of the voters. We are lucky to have a local paper so understanding of the vitally important issues facing our county.

Barbara Livingston
Carmel