>>THELOCALSPIN

We are constantly being reminded that the decision we are making in the June 5 special election is extremely complicated, and that is true, in a way. But the fact is, we face a clear-cut choice between two starkly contrasting futures.

Much of the recent coverage and debate around the question has focused on side issues and legalistic minutiae. While these details are important, the bigger issue seems to have gotten lost. We run the risk of losing sight of the forest for the trees.

Yes: The two documents we are to choose between are lengthy and filled with complex jargon; the history that led us to this crossroads is long and rife with twists; the politics that surround the issue are convoluted and fraught. But the decision we face is too important to let any of this get in the way. In voting whether to adopt Measure A, the slow-growth General Plan Initiative (GPI), or Measure C, the plan put forward by the Board of Supervisors (GPU 4), we are determining the way this county will look and feel in 20 years.

At the heart of the proposals are two fundamental differences:

• The Supervisors’ plan “allows roughly twice as much growth, in roughly twice as many places” as Measure A.

That conclusion is not a scare-tactic dreamed up by the slow-growthers; it comes from an editorial in last Sunday’s Herald, which opposed the citizen’s initiative.

In the Supervisors’ plan, growth control sare almost meaningless.

The citizen’s initiative would allow 10,000 new housing units (in addition to the 40,000 new units already approved) and mandates that all new development occur in five growth areas—mostly located around cities. The Supervisors’ plan allows for the construction of around 21,000 new units, and creates 17 areas for development.

However, in the Supervisors’ plan, growth controls are almost meaningless.

• Under GPU 4, developers seeking to build outside the growth areas—in the middle of nowhere, on prime farmland, anywhere at all—need only appeal to the Board of Supervisors.

Under Measure A, this type of development (and only this type of development) requires a popular vote. That controversial requirement is specifically designed to limit the Supervisors’ power to recklessly ignore the General Plan. It is a cumbersome arrangement, but necessary.

The whole point of the citizens’ initiative is to stop sprawl by deciding where growth can occur. It accomplishes that goal by making it impossible for elected officials to override zoning regulations. That gives Measure A teeth.

Without the provision for the popular vote, all of this effort would be a waste of time. The Board of Supervisors has proven that, given the chance, they will not think twice before giving a developer the green light, regardless of whatever plan is in place.  

Ultimately, this election asks a simple question: Do we want to have a say in the county’s future, or do we want to leave that to someone else?