October 30 - Press Democrat - Disputing editorial

Your editorial of October 8 on the Rural Heritage Initiative laid out a hodgepodge of vague reasons for not supporting the measure. Perhaps a few facts may help voters reach a better conclusion about this critical issue.

Regarding your claim that the initiative was written by a San Francisco law firm in consultation with a handful of local people, this is simply untrue and infers a secretive process. I personally attended two open meetings in the fall of 1999 where the features of RHI were discussed and input was requested.

Yes, it was drafted by a San Francisco law firm, the same firm that drafted the Napa and Ventura county ordinances. To me that seems rather prudent.

As for not consulting the farm community, I point out that the environmental community had at that time finally completed a two-year negotiation with the major grape growers to draft a Hillside Vineyard Ordinance. This process yielded only a weak county ordinance to control vineyard erosion.

I think this experience convinced the environmental leaders that the big vineyard landowners were unlikely to conduct a meaningful negotiation on RHI.

Keith Kaulum
Santa Rosa

Editor: This is an open letter to all those who have taken it upon themselves to remove the "Yes on I" signs on private property in the middle of the night all over the county. You must be afraid that your campaign against Measure I has no basis in truth or fact and that your only option is to resort to breaking the law (theft and trespassing) to prevent the Rural Heritage Initiative supporters from getting their message out.

That's really pathetic behavior and certainly undemocratic. However, there is an upside for us. As soon as supporters heard that this vandalism was going on, our weekly donations doubled.

Thanks for that, and please remember not to throw those signs in the dump or leave them to clutter up your property. We'd appreciate it if you'd recycle.

Anna Ransome
Graton

Editor: I just decided how I'll vote on the complex, controversial Measure I, the Rural Heritage Initiative. Much as I don't favor governing by initiative, I favor even less political campaigns that oversimplify, even lie, to gain votes. Lies make me suspicious of the real, if unspoken, interests of those who promote them.

Like most others who live in this blessed county of ours, I value our open space and fear the super-development that's already on its way here. We live in a beautiful place and our economy is booming. That translates into more houses, expensive ones, and more pressure than we've even begun to see on our remaining agricultural and open land.

But signs are lining rural roads, Highway 12 in Sonoma Valley, for instance. They say, ``Save our Farms,'' and ``Save our Parks.'' Now, I'm not stupid, nor are most of our voters. Measure I will do nothing to endanger existing farms or parks.

In fact, it will do lots to preserve them against people and companies interested in exploiting them for development and against the political muscle those folks can muster. It may or may not impact future parks, but will prevent farms from turning into housing developments. I think that's something most of us want.

We'd better act now before we don't have the chance.

I'm voting yes on Measure I.

Sheila Albert
Santa Rosa

Editor: Most farmers, from the most conservative to the most committed organic grower, support and eloquently defend Napa County's Measure J. They praise the early few who foresaw the demise of agriculture and decided to protect Napa's agriculture from city sprawl and created Measure J.

 Measure J, like your own Rural Heritage Initiative, requires that any changes from an agricultural designation to any other commercial or residential zoning must be approved by the voters first. We have had only six proposals brought before us over the past 10 years. Half have been approved, like a fruit stand and a couple of restaurant expansions, but others like a mega resort and a housing development south of the city proposed by a Texas corporation, have failed. These opposition campaigns were led notably by the Napa Farm Bureau and Sierra Club and helped convince the electorate not to give up their agricultural heritage for a bowl of porridge.  

Environmentalists also point to and praise the long-range effect Measure J has had on Napa County keeping our valley green and open. We hope your county will also have the vision to pass the RHI and save the magnificent open spaces that give Sonoma County and the entire North Bay its charm and its character.  

John Stephens
Chair, Napa Sierra Club

Editor: Chris Coursey should be applauded for his well-written debate of the pros and cons of the Rural Heritage Initiative.

 The pro side of protecting the county general plan from developer backed supervisors is easily understood and supported. The con side, where Chris suggests we vote out Supes we don't trust, is not. The recent unfortunate close election losses of Noreen Evans and Jane Hamilton demonstrated the difficulty of defeating candidates backed by growth industries.  

The importance of passing RHI here now is reflected in Santa Clara county where today residents face mounting pressure by telecom giant Cisco to build a 688-acre facility on the edge of San Jose. This 20,000 worker plant, proposed on open space lands, is a possibility anywhere with a 3-2 vote of elected officials.  

So, Chris, thanks for the debate on both sides of RHI, but we can't re-elect supervisors fast enough to stop these permanent losses of rural lands.

Warren Watkins
Santa Rosa

Editor: Most Sonoma County residents and visitors would probably assume that our main economic activity here is based around wine, perhaps followed by the rapidly growing telecom industry. The Press Democrat recently reported instead that by far the largest industry in the county is construction.

Now we see that the former head of the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce, Keith Woods, has been hired to run the North Coast Builders Exchange. The timing is interesting, especially as the battle for the Rural Heritage Initiative heats up. It will be no surprise to see the $1.8 billion construction industry weigh in heavily in an effort to defeat Measure I.

However, those of us who spent our weekends gathering signatures to put this measure on the ballot say, ``Aye on I!'' We believe that the future of this county is in jeopardy, that Santa Clara County used to look much like our county does now and that Measure I will help protect it from sprawl. Under RHI, density changes to agricultural lands must be voted on by the citizens, not the Board of Supervisors, four of whom have strong ties to development interests in this county. I hope that this message can be heard above the noise that big money in the construction industry will be making in trying to defeat this important measure.

Barbara Mackenzie
Rohnert Park

Editor:     In response to so much mis-information being cast about by the corporate Farm Bureau regarding the Rural Heritage Initiative (Measure I), please note: The opposition complains that farmers were not included in drafting the RHI. However, since farmers were involved in writing Napa's Measure J, the RHI folks decided not to reinvent the wheel and just used the same language. In addition, the opposition will not actually say what it is they don't like about Measure I (other than not being involved). I suppose, if they came right out and stated that they want to be able to sell to developers one day, the public would not support them.

Others play on the sympathy card that farmers will not be able to build a house for their children on the farm. This is simply not true. Thanks to the Sonoma West Times & News, the entire RHI was printed for all to read. Please see Section 1.E. "Accommodating Housing Need."

Another fear tactic employed is to say the elections to change the General Plan will cost huge sums of money, and that we will have to vote on every minor amendment. Again, untrue -- read the initiative. Napa has had this initiative in place for 10 years and has had only six elections.

In typical confuse-the-public strategy of corporate interests such as the Farm Bureau, their signs and flyers state "Save our Farms", when that is exactly what the RHI seeks to accomplish. Their signs would be more accurate and honest if they read. "Save our Right to Subdivide Our Farms and Build Housing Developments--Vote No on Measure I."

Remember Santa Clara. We're next. Voting "Yes" on Measure I maybe the most important vote we ever make to save Sonoma County from the fate of the South Bay.

Paula Berkeley,
Sebastopol

Editor:     As a Dry Creek Valley resident for the past 18 years, I have watched the gradual erosion of our agricultural lands and the ongoing conversion to commercially oriented facilities. Recently, this process has accelerated dramatically.

Measure I (the Rural Heritage Initiative) focuses on the preservation of existing general plan land-use elements which are most subject to erosion by commercialism. Industrial and commercial development dominate the current economic scene. They in turn bring an increasing demand for more middle- to upper-income housing. The easiest parcels of land to convert for both these purposes are our agricultural and rural resource lands.

Measure I makes provisions for nonintrusive parks, low-income housing and necessary health and safety facilities with a four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors.

Growth in urban areas is not affected by RHI. How much and where is up to local city government and citizens.

When the Rural Heritage Initiative was first proposed, I had reservations about circumventing the representational process. I undertook a thorough reading of the initiative, however, and I now believe that RHI is the best way to preserve those elements that make Sonoma County the special place it is, and I plan to vote for it.

John A. Holt
Healdsburg

Editor:     Consolidation and globalization in the wine industry should be a concern for all of us living in Sonoma County.

As this industry evolves from family-owned wineries and vineyards to large corporations, the land on which the grapes are grown moves from individual, local ownership to an asset on a corporate balance sheet. At some point, this land may become more valuable to the corporation's stockholders as residential subdivisions than existing vineyards. Mind you, these types of decisions would be made in board rooms far, far away from Sonoma County.

Combine this scenario with the rapidly increasing developmental pressures moving up Highway 101, and we have a recipe for conversion of the county's farmlands to subdivisions and San Jose-like sprawl.

Sonoma County citizens should have the right to control our own destiny when it comes to the future of farmland and open space. Measure I, the Rural Heritage Initiative, would require a vote of the people to convert farmlands to subdivisions, and I believe that this is the most compelling argument I've heard for voting yes on Measure I in November.

Jamie Cutlip
Santa Rosa

Editor:     I am a farmer in Healdsburg, where my wife and I grow olives and make an olive oil that has been judged ``Best in Italy'' two years running. Like most small farmers, I also have a day job, nearly all the proceeds of which go to support the farm.

As someone deeply committed to Sonoma County agriculture, I, of course, am a member of the Sonoma County Farm Bureau. But I find myself appalled by its attitude toward and misleading claims about the Rural Heritage Initiative.

For example, I recently received a mailer from the Farm Bureau asking members to contribute money to the anti-RHI campaign so that its members will have the "flexibility ... to sell a 5-acre parcel to pay for new equipment."

This is unconscionable on many levels. First, the general plan doesn't allow subdivision of agricultural land, so the argument is specious. Worse still, it's dumb farming practice and terrible advice -- and would spell the end of agriculture in Sonoma County as we know it today.

In fact, it's precisely to defend against this type of piecemeal sell-off that I support RHI. It would prevent our farmlands from being consumed by residential development in the years ahead.

Interestingly, RHI would allow many of the things that the Farm Bureau claims it would prevent, and they know it. One wonders why they insist upon misleading us. Are the forces at the Farm Bureau really farmers or land speculators?

Ridgely Evers
Healdsburg

Editor:     In his letter to the editor, Jeff Barone suggests that readers contact the Farm Bureau to ``get the facts'' about the Rural Heritage Initiative.

This would be rather like calling up the fox out in the hen house to check on the chickens. The Farm Bureau opposes RHI for the same reasons it has opposed urban growth boundaries, community separators and even the General Plan land use zoning designations which RHI now seeks to protect.

The Farm Bureau represents large landholders whose primary interest is to retain as much flexibility as possible so that they might plant that ``final crop'' as and when the opportunity arises. That would be subdivisions, and that would be the worst kind of sprawl. RHI is our best hope of preventing it.

If voters are interested in the facts about RHI, why not just read the text of the initiative? This can be accessed in a number of places, including www.ruralheritage.net.

Dan Schurman
Sebastopol

Editor:     The Farm Bureau and United Winegrowers for Sonoma County have taken a position against the Rural Heritage Initiative, but that does not mean, as your Sunday, Aug. 13 headline stated, that "Farmers oppose rural land initiative."

My family has lived and farmed in Alexander Valley for 30 years; my husband and I are long-standing Farm Bureau members, and I have served on the board of directors of the United Winegrowers for many years.

After thoroughly reading the initiative itself, attending meetings, following news reports about the county staff's as well as others' analysis of its consequences, and giving considerable thought about taking a stand contrary to that of organizations I belong to, I have decided that we farmers will gain more than we can lose from the passage of the Rural Heritage Initiative.

I understand farmers' fears about regulations and outsiders telling them what to do, and I agree that the organizations that wrote RHI made a serious error by not consulting farmers and farm groups before writing it.

However, I believe we must protect the lands that are zoned for agricultural use, and the initiative does that. It does not restrict or change any current farming practices or ordinances. We need it, can live with it, and I know many other farmers who agree but are reluctant to say so publicly.

Paula Hawkes
Healdsburg

Editor:     Chris Coursey's recent column illuminated the power that campaign contributors have over our politicians.

Money talks, and most members of our local Board of Supervisors are apt to be influenced by the big business and development interests that fund their campaigns. There is a cure for this kind of power-brokering.

On Nov. 7 we all have a chance to vote on the Rural Heritage Initiative. This ballot measure requires voter approval of any changes to our general plan that will increase sprawl on our rural and agricultural lands. Why would the building industry invest thousands of dollars on the Board of Supervisors when the decision about increased development is now made by the voters of Sonoma County?

When RHI passes, less money will fall into the campaign chests of development-prone politicians. Enacting the Rural Heritage Initiative is one positive step on the road to local campaign reform.

Sky Chaney
Santa Rosa

Editor:     As farmers, we heartily endorse and support RHI as critical to our continued ability to farm without interference from encroaching development. The Rural Heritage Initiative will protect Sonoma County farmland and will have no impact on farmers' ability to plant, sell and grow their crops, change their crops when they decide to, construct buildings or worker housing on their own land as long as those changes comply with the County General Plan.

As it stands now, changes to the County General Plan that could result in threatening those of us who wish to continue to farm are made by made by three out of five members of the Board of Supervisors on a Tuesday afternoon. RHI would transfer the authority to make such changes to a vote of the citizens who helped create the General Plan.

Again and again, we have seen large areas of California farmland succumb to urbanization. Increasingly, that development spotlight is now focused on Sonoma County. Experience has shown that easily overruled General Plans offer no protection at all. The Rural Heritage Initiative will insure that our General Plan means business. Without the stability it offers, Sonoma County farmland will be permanently lost to urban sprawl.

Michael Topolos
Topolos at Russian River Vineyards
Forestville

George R. Davis
Porter Creek Vineyards
Healdsburg

Davis Bynum
Davis Bynum Winery
Healdsburg

Editor:     The recent decision to delay the parks plan by the Board of Supervisors is a good example of how only three board members can make land-use decisions that go against the public good. The Rural Heritage Initiative (RHI) is designed to help prevent this from happening.

What has it come to when a gang of three (Supervisors Mike Cale, Paul Kelley and Tim Smith) holds the county parks plan hostage in order to try to defeat RHI? This is politics at its worst.

It was previously reported that Supervisor Mike Reilly had proposed consideration of placement of an amendment to RHI on the ballot, solely to remove his colleagues' concerns on this issue. Did they go along with this? Did they even take it up for discussion? No and no.

These supervisors elected instead to advance their own agenda at the expense of the public interest.

Anna Ransome
Graton

Editor:     A recent letter writer states the Rural Heritage Initiative should be defeated because we can trust Sonoma County planning staff and supervisors to make land use decisions on the basis of their "expertise" and what is "best for our general welfare."

What planet is he from? There may be a few well-intended county staff members who try to act in the interests of county residents, but the county bureaucracy and supervisors usually silence and, if necessary, overrule them.

If we adopt the RHI, and put the power to make major land use decisions in the hands of voters, we are exercising the primary power citizens have to make government responsive to their needs. If the exercise of such a fundamental democratic right stirs emotions and a rough and tumble political campaign, so be it. Democracy may be messy, but I thank God every day I live in one.

Amy Panella
Santa Rosa

The findings of the county counsel that the Rural Heritage Initiative would have no negative impact on agriculture must come as good news to individual farmers who have been lead by the Sonoma County Farm Bureau and other agricultural organizations that the measure would have dire results.

For the Farm Bureau itself, however, whose leaders and lawyers had surely spent enough time studying RHI to realize that there was no negative impact, this news may put them in a quandary. Does the Farm Bureau now drop its vociferous opposition to RHI, or continue its opposition on some other pretense?

Perhaps we will hear from the Farm Bureau on this.

Craig Zimmerman
Sebastopol

Editor:     The public hearing by the Board of Supervisors on the Rural Heritage Initiative on July 11 was a disappointing display of elected officials throwing a public tantrum over having to put the voter initiative on the November ballot.

Even after hearing the report from their own county counsel telling them that most of the list of "concerns" were unfounded or overstated, the tirade continued. 

For example, the report clearly stated that RHI would have no detrimental consequences for agriculture. But Supervisor Paul Kelley insisted "I still think it would hurt agriculture" i.e., don't confuse me with the facts. 

The anti-RHI vehemence of the supervisors (except for Mike Reilly) in the face of increasing evidence that the measure is a moderate one with few if any unintended consequences seems to point to the main reason for their opposition. They would lose a piece of their authority, their ability to change land-use designations and increase residential densities on agricultural lands. 

This initiative wants to maintain the General Plan that exists today. The rights you have under it will continue. We, the people, are voting to preserve this.

Robin Ridder
Healdsburg 

Editor:     I think the question of whether the Rural Heritage Initiative will interfere with the development of high-impact parks is a red herring. How many farmers do you know who are clamoring to have their pastures turned into playgrounds?

This issue was raised by politicians who stand to lose influence (and campaign contributions) if the RHI passes, and I see it as little more than a scare tactic.

County supervisors have had the power all along to require developers to include high-impact parks as part of any development plan, but, with some exceptions, they have instead buckled under to the developers. Therefore, I don't give much credence to their complaints about the RHI.

Any time you are told by a politician that it is a problem when people have the right to vote on something, beware. I certainly see the possibility that the RHI would require a vote of the people to create high-impact parks as no reason to vote against it.

Edeltraud Petermann
Santa Rosa

Editor:     Though Supervisor Mike Cale has made some good contributions as a board member, his comments on the Rural Heritage Initiative (RHI) exhibit an emotional overreaction inappropriate for a representative of his diverse district.

As quoted in the I-T June 16, Cale is "mind-boggled that environmentalists are trying to circumvent CEQA."

Without the support of a majority of the Board, the only path open to proponents was to circulate petitions He knows that the legislature has declined to apply CEQA to initiatives. We know he is not consistently opposed to letting the people vote on major changes to the General Plan because similar measures protecting community separators were put on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors (with no CEQA review) in 1996 and 1998 and they passed with large majorities. Why wasn't he worried about CEQA review then? Why does he now think requiring a vote to change agricultural designations on the General Plan to allow urban development will "damage agriculture"?

Cale says "someone can go to the ballot, spend enough money getting votes, and do whatever they want to do ... We have no authority to require environmental review."

First, the Napa County developer who spent $200,000 to convince the voters to approve his initiative as required by Measure J (the model for RHI) to allow 1,200 houses on agricultural land, got an 85 percent no vote for his money. The voters are smarter than Cale thinks. But without Measure J or RHI, $200,00 might elect a supervisor who would vote the way his developer-supporter hoped.

Second, the "no ability to require environmental review" applies to an initiative amending the General Plan. Yes, but nothing can be built without CEQA compliance.

RHI could not affect that. Cale's charge that RHI supporters are "a group of elitist hypocrites who are concerned about their wants, which is hiking trails. That's all, and to hell with the rest of the county" is way off the mark. The coalition of environmental groups that gathered 26,000 signatures to put RHI on the ballot wants to keep Sonoma County from becoming Santa Clara County. They want to do it while maintaining a strong agricultural industry, a tourist industry, and a technology industry by sustaining the city-centered growth policies of the General Plan. Is that elitist?

Many might like more hiking trails, but what boggles the mind is that the Supervisor thinks the purpose of RHI is hiking trails and that hurling Spiro Agnew-type insults is the way to defeat it.

Nancy Peterson
Sonoma