|
Friday, June 30 - Press Democrat - Moving growth
Editor: The recent letter writer who
uses examples of Portland and Marin to show Rural Heritage Initiatives
will not stop urban sprawl has it backward. Those examples prove
RHIs do work, as the letter states that in both cases the RHI
forced growth elsewhere, which is one of the goals of an RHI.
Since we presently cannot manage population growth and people's
desire to move to Sonoma County, we residents have no practical
choice but to adopt an RHI to preserve our quality of life.
NIMBYism? Of course, but it is no different than the thinking
of anyone who chooses to live under the rules of a homeowners'
association or within a gated community.
As for the complaints of rural land owners who hope to turn
their property into another Skyhawk, or county supervisors who
complain about losing power, too bad. There are some things
more important than your individual self-interest, fellows.
And they include clean air, an adequate supply of clean water,
open space, safe neighborhoods, parklands and playgrounds, just
to mention a few.
If you want these things for your children, vote for the Rural
Heritage Initiative.
Hugh Helm
Santa Rosa
June 28 - Pacific Sun - Critical error
Editor: I was pleased to read coverage of the
Rural Heritage Initiative in the June 14 edition of the Pacific Sun.
Unfortunately the article contained an inaccurate statement of such importance
that it requires public correction.
The article stated, "The initiative also would require voters' approval
for any changes in use permits on agricultural land." This statement
is not true, and is particularly critical to get right. This is
precisely the assertion that has unnecessarily agitated many members
of the agricultural community. Those people who claim that RHI will
require a public vote for issuance of use permits are either misrepresenting
the initiative, or are misinformed.
The Pacific Sun did its readers a disservice to unquestioningly
echo what is essentially anti-RHI propaganda. The reporters should
have at least asked the authors of the initiative whether this assertion
regarding use permits was accurate. If there was disagreement about
the effect of the initiative, the article should have acknowledged
that disagreement. Instead, the article lent the authoritative voice
of the newspaper to the wild claims of an anti-RHI press release.
I also not that Judy James of the Farm Bureau was allowed to summarize
for the readers a letter written by backers of the initiative, (specifically
by me). Her summary neglects to mention that backers of the initiative
have been steadfast in their desire to place the question before the
voters in November. Namely, that the initiative is on very solid legal
footing, drafted by the foremost experts, and following the example of
Napa's Measure J. It seems to me that it would have made more sense for
the reporter to have a) either read and interpreted the letter himself,
or b) asked the author of the letter what it said.
I value the coverage that the Pacific Sun has provided in the
past on this issue, and will provide in the future. Nevertheless, I believe
that this article has actually done some harm to its readers by promulgating
misinformation.
Peter Ashcroft
Chair, Citizens for Sonoma County's Future
(emphasis added by Web site editor)
June 25 - Press Democrat - Preventing sprawl
Editor: Sonoma County Supervisor Mike Cale is quoted in Sunday's
Week in Review section as saying that the Rural Heritage Initiative backers
couldn't care less about saving farmland.
What in the world is the good supervisor talking about?
The RHI is about preventing sprawl. Sprawl consumes farmland. If
you prevent sprawl, you save farmland. Surely Mr. Cale can grasp
that concept.
Helen Shane
Planning Commissioner
City of Sebastopol
June 25 - Press Democrat - Creating parks
Editor: How Parks Commissioner Eric Koenigshofer could have read
the Rural Heritage Initiative "at least 20 times" and still conclude
that the measure would threaten the county's ability to establish new
parks is beyond me.
We are talking about rural parks here, nature parks, like Annadel, Sugarloaf,
Steelhead Beach, etc. RHI is clear on this The county supervisors could
approve these types of parks in accordance with current procedures.
Or is Koenigshofer talking about urban-type parks, soccer fields, public
facilities and infrastructure? Does he honestly contemplate that
the county would propose an urban-type "park" on agricultural lands,
far from urban areas? Or is this another red herring, intended
to confuse rather than clarify?
Yes, the RHI would require that an urban park to be built out in the
rural areas be approved by the voters. I doubt that this would
ever be proposed, but if it were, and if it somehow had merit, then the
voters would have their say.
Marta Williams
Graton
June 23 - Press Democrat - Saving Ag
Editor: If a recent letter writer really believes
that "the answer to maintaining rural space is to help promote Sonoma
County products and support agricultural businesses," she is either unaware
of the impact of urban sprawl on agricultural lands throughout the county,
or she is ignoring it in order to promote an anti-Rural Heritage Initiative
position.
What is being suggested here -- that we all drink more wine?
Hardly anyone would question the premise that the flip side of preventing
sprawl is saving open space and agricultural lands. The Rural Heritage
Initiative would prevent sprawl.
Of course, it is true that RHI would not save all farmers, nor do all
farmers want to be saved from the potential financial windfall which
occurs when farmers become developers.
I suspect that the latter group is the one making most of the noise
in opposition to RHI.
Christine Sheeter
Petaluma
June 23 - Windsor Times - Attacking RHI Messenger
Editor: The opposition to the Rural Heritage
Initiative seems preoccupied with attacking the backers of the measure.
Does it really matter whether some wealthy residents of San Francisco
contributed to the RHI campaign or whether a San Francisco law firm did
the legal work? The fact is that more than 200 local volunteers
gathered more than 26,000 signatures to put it on the ballot, making
the effort one of the truly local grassroots campaign in recent memory.
I wonder if this is not a case of the Farm Bureau attacking the messenger
because they don't like the message. On the other hand, I cannot
figure out what it is about RHI, which is clearly intended to preserve
farmlands from encroaching urban sprawl, the the Farm Bureau doesn't
like.
Victoria McMains
Healdsburg
June 20 - Press Democrat - Unprofessional
Editor: I attended the Sonoma County Board of
Supervisors meeting as one of the volunteers for the Rural Heritage Initiative.
I was shocked and appalled at the behavior of four of the supervisors.
They were insulting and disrespectful, calling us "elite political opportunists."
When the county counsel attempted to answer a question raised by one
of the supervisors, the same promptly silenced him. This was my first
time attending one of these meetings, and I was truly dismayed by the
unprofessional conduct with which these men handles themselves.
During the same session, I sat through several other agenda items, one
of which was a report on Sonoma County's worsening air quality. In response
to this lengthy report there was only one suggestion by a supervisor
- to widen the freeway.
I had been skeptical about putting the important issues of preserving
the general plan in the hands of the electorate, but after witnessing
the spectacle of the supervisors' meeting, I am now confident that the
people will do a more responsible job .
Carol Lander
Santa Rosa
June 15 - Press Democrat - Warts and all
Editor: Of course the Board of Supervisors slammed the Rural Heritage
Initiative and continue to add obstacles to its success.
When was the last time a governing body willingly gave up some of its
authority to the people? No one likes governance by initiative, but when
elected officials fail to effectively deal with such basic matters as
water consumption, wastewater disposal, traffic gridlock and abuse of
precious land, the people have to get directly involved.
Of course the initiative is "elitist", mostly as the result of poor
judgment on the part if its framers. Partial funding by a wealthy, absentee
vineyard owner is as elitist as the "farmers" who oppose it with expectations
of a "crop" of subdivisions.
Those of us who have lived here many years will vote for RHI in November,
warts and all. It may be our last, best hope to preserve this county.
A.J. Wood
Sebastopol
June 15 - Press Democrat - Smoke screen suspected
EDITOR: I read Dawn Pillsbury's article (Ag community gearing up to
fight Rural Heritage Initiative) on the front page of last week's addition
(stet). One thing is clear - the ag community is fighting for their right
to subdivide their farms and doing it behind a smoke screen of not having
been consulted, and the need for family farmers to pass their farms onto
future generations.
These same arguments were used when Petaluma-area farmers sought to
preserve their rights to subdivide their farms under a countywide referendum
several years ago. Sonoma County voters soundly rejected that attempt.
I hope they will similarly vote to approve the Rural Heritage Initiative
this year. It has worked in Napa County for many years and it can work
here, and boy, do we need help with sprawl in Sonoma County.
George D. Tuttle
Sebastopol
June 15 - Sonoma West - Rural Ranchettes?
EDITOR: I am surprised you would print a front-page article (Ag community
gearing up to fight Rural Heritage Initiative) with so little input from
proponents.
As the best examples of this, I will address the statements of Eric
Koenigshofer, the man who is being paid to lead the opposition to the
Rural Heritage Initiative (RHI). Eric says "it doesn't constrain a huge
book in rural ranchettes". He is 100% accurate with this statement, and
I thank him for pointing this out. RHI also does nothing to solve the
transportation crisis, the proliferation of vineyards, nor does it cure
the common cold.
If fact, RHI does not alter any current rights of property owners. RHI
does not attempt to tell anyone what they can or cannot do with their
property. If a property owner like Mr. Dutton can give his property to
his children now, he will be able to do exactly the same thing after
the measure is passed.
Eric also faulted the initiative for "implications in the language that
could crop up and cause problems when the proponents are long gone." This
is a typical statement that Koenigshofer and members of the Sonoma County
Farm Bureau have been airing. Exactly what "implications in the language",
Eric? While it is true that "problems crop up" they just as well could
not.
I remind you that this measure was carefully crafted with precise language
by a law firm which has had 14 years experience in drafting such measures.
This firm drafted the very similar Measure J in Napa County, which withstood
a California Supreme Court challenge.
The Rural Heritage Initiative is intended to curtail the threat of suburban
sprawl on agricultural land in Sonoma County. The Rural Heritage Initiative
will transfer the power to amend these designations or densities from
the current or future Board of Supervisors to the people of Sonoma County
for a period of 30 years. That is what RHI does do!
Tom Cruckshank
Guerneville
June 14 - Healdsburg Tribune - Shortsighted RHI foes
Editor: These comments are in response
to the recent coverage you have been giving to the Farm Bureau concerning
their opposition to the Rural Heritage Initiative.
First, I don't believe that the 26,000 citizens of Sonoma County that
signed the initiative and groups of people that worked on it are in any
way the rascals that these misguided Farm Bureau leaders make them out
to be.
This initiative is not going to replace the Sonoma County General Plan. Instead
of a supervisor in one district wishing to make changes to the agricultural
uses, at this time all that is required is to get two fellow supervisors
to go along with his amendment proposal to allow a subdivision to be
put in Dry Creek or Alexander Valley or any other place in the county.
Under the proposed Rural Heritage Initiative (RHI), there would have
to be a vote by the county registered voters in order to make any of
these changes in the agricultural areas of the county. there is a process
similar to this initiative in Napa and one other county in California
that has been working quite well for a number of years.
We must take a stand now to preserve our agricultural and rural lands
at the county level. It's the county supervisors, our politicians,
per se, that are making this development possible all over our state
and nation.
It's the farmers and ranchers that sell this farm land to the developers. Many
times Santa Clara County is used as an example of the loss of some of
the world's richest farm lands. It was not the little old ladies,
or the barber, or grocer that sold all this rich farm land of the last
crop -- houses.
During the long process of adopting the Sonoma County General Plan,
a group in the Farm Bureau fought it every step of the way, throwing
every obstacle imaginable in the way.
There is only one reason for the opposition to the Sonoma County General
Plan and this RHI--they want to have it both ways. The right to
sell out to development interests when the opportunity arises. If
your readers cannot see through their smoke screen, they certainly should
see how obvious they are.
Parading the little children on tractors might look impressive, but
without the farmland saved for our children and future generations, they
can forget about their farming operations.
I wish to make one comment on a letter written and printed by a Jason
Gifford of Windsor, quoting from his letter, he says, "I wish the best
of luck to Mr. Richard Olufs and all the landowners fighting for the
right to do with their land what they choose." That quote puts
it very succinctly why they oppose this initiative and any other restraints
the General Plan makes on them, interferes with their dreams and their
future hopes for the end results of their land holdings. You must
have the lands available to farm and run cattle, sheep and grow farm
crops in order to feed this country. Don't let the short=sighted
stewards of the lands fool you. Stand by a conviction to preserve
what we have.
Thomas E. Edwards
Healdsburg
June 8 - Press Democrat - RHI debate
Editor: To the letter writer on May 30 who opposes
the Rural Heritage Initiative because he feels that landowners have a "right
to do with their land what they choose," I would like to point out that
the agricultural land in question is already zoned under the county general
plan and cannot be developed for residential uses beyond what is permitted
under that plan.
The Rural Heritage Initiative merely reaffirms the general plan zoning. It
does not change anything.
Possibly the writer's beef is really with zoning in general, and not
the RHI. In that case, I wonder how he would feel about one of
his close neighbors here in Windsor raising hogs in their backyard. That
would drive his property value through the floor, I would imagine. But
fortunately, we have zoning which prohibits hog-raising in Windsor.
In the rural areas of the county, we have zoning restrictions which
are based on the premise that all of us have a shared interest in the
land around us and the person whose name happens to appear on the title
does not have the absolute right to do whatever he or she pleases with
that land.
Fran Tanti
Windsor
June 8 - Sonoma West - Thirty years from now
EDITOR: There was a story in last week's Sonoma West, about the Rural
Heritage Initiative. Quoted at length was a local grower of apples and
grapes who declared at the end of the quote "If my business goes down
and I'm down to my last $5, I'm going to save that for a 'for sale' sign.
RHI will not prevent anyone selling their property now or in the 30
years. What it will do is prevent three out of the five votes on the
Board of Supervisors from changing the General Plan to allow increases
in density on agricultural and open space land.
RHI is about preserving farmland and open space for people who are living
today, and who will be living 30 years from now.
For people to say 30 years is too long to plan ahead, I say if we don't
plan ahead we are doomed, and so are out children and their children.
RHI does not restrict farmers from changing crops, as some claim. It
says that anything you are doing today that complies with the General
Plan you may do for the next 30 years, or until the General Plan is changed.
If you wish to change the General Plan to build more residences than
the General Plan now allows, it must go to a vote of the people. Changing
zoning in any way that is consistent with what the General Plan allows
would not require a vote of the people.
The Rural Heritage Initiative was created to protect the General Plan's
policy of city--centered growth. That is what it does. One need look
only to east Santa Rosa along Highway 12 to see large homes in a steady
creep toward the Valley of the Moon. That is the kind of sprawl that
RHI will prevent.
Helen Shane
Sebastopol
June 7 - Healdsburg Tribune - Farm Bureau's fears
Editor: Can someone please explain to me what it is that
the Farm Bureau finds so onerous about the Rural Heritage Initiative?
All this measure would do is reaffirm the existing county General Plan
zoning for the agricultural areas of the county, then require approval
of the voters for any amendment which would either increase residential
density (i.e., subdivisions) or redesignate the ag land to some other
non-ag usage.
A nearly identical measure has been in effect in Napa County for the
past 10 years. There have boon only six ballot initiatives for
possible amendments; three have passed, three were turned down. The
consensus even among the agricultural community there is that the plan
has worked well in preventing sprawl and preserving farmlands.
Most people agree that we want to stop sprawl and encourage city-centered
growth in Sonoma County. The flip side of stopping sprawl into
the agricultural areas is preserving farmlands. So just what is
the Farm Bureau's agenda here?
Rhonda Bellmer
Healdsburg
June 6 - Press Democrat - Preserving ag
Editor: I thought at the time that the May 21 Editorial
Notebook commentary predicting the Rural Heritage Initiative would divide
us along farmer vs. environmentalist lines was a disservice to the community. And
sure enough, as if on cue we see among the letters to the editor on May
28 a gentleman rising to the bait and bashing the backers of RHI as if
they were all part of some conspiracy to make life as difficult as possible
for farmers.
In the first place, it is not correct to say that the RHI sponsoring
organizations have been behind efforts to impose ordinances on agriculture,
to challenge Right to Farm, to complain about pesticide usage, etc.
Conservation Action was involved in helping reach a compromise on the
Hillside Ordinance, I believe, but other than that these organizations
have played no role that I am aware of.
I also know many individuals who are sympathetic to environmental causes,
who support RHI but d not fit the stereotype which both the Press Democrat
and the letter writer have put forth. They genuinely support agriculture.
I am a farmer. Unlike your letter writer, I have studied the Rural
Heritage Initiative. I believe that it does exactly what its proponents
say it does.
It protects Sonoma County from sprawl. And, without impinging
any existing property rights, it preserves agriculture.
Yael Bernier
Geyserville
June ? - Healdsburg Tribune - Plans to support Rural Heritage Initiative
Editor: Among the many things we could conclude from
Burton Barnes' 1000+ word letter in last week's Tribune is that he probably
has not actually read and/or fully comprehended the Rural Heritage Initiative.
Mr. Barnes is concerned that his property rights would be infringed
by the Initiative. to the extent that his ability to do whatever
he likes with his property is not already circumscribed by the county
General Plan, the RHI would have no impact on Mr. Barnes' property rights
whatsoever. It merely reaffirms the General Plan.
Although there is no indication from his letter that this is the case,
if on the other hand Mr. Barnes has visions of subdivisions on his property
somewhere down down the road, wherein he might be able to circumvent
the General Plan through an amendment, then yes, the RHI might be a problem
for him. The Board of Supervisors can presently approve such an
amendment by a 3 to 2 vote. The RHI would put this kind of decision
in the hands of the voters.
Mr. Barnes doesn't not like the ballot initiative process, preferring
to leave matters to the politicians. Indeed, many of the state
initiatives in recent years have been frivolous and often financed by
special interest groups. On the other hand, we see instances every
day where politicians make decisions not in the best interests of the
electorate as a whole, but influenced by lobbying, campaign finance considerations
and back room wheeling and dealing.
Maybe our Board of Supervisors will be different in the future. Maybe
it will always act in our best interests in preventing sprawl. Maybe.
But if you look around us, at Santa Clara County, for example, it sure
didn't work out that way. Traffic there makes our 101 look like
a walk in the park. The only agriculture life is backyard vegetable
gardens. And the cost of housing makes ours truly bargain basement
by comparison.
The RHI is our best hope of getting ahead of the sprawl curve in Sonoma
County. I sure plan to support it.
Liz Hawthorne
Healdsburg
5/28 - Petaluma Argus Courier - Real farmers support rural initiative
Editor: The best thing about the Rural Heritage Initiative
is that it will separate those who really care about farming in Sonoma
County from the land speculators.
Real farmers will support RHI. Among other benefits, it will lower their
property taxes, because their land values won't be inflated by speculative
pressures.
Land speculators masquerading as farmers will squeal like stuck pigs,
because RHI will prevent them from selling out to developers.
It's not surprising now, to find the North Bay Agriculture Alliance
noisily in the latter group. A year ago they were in the papers
wanting to turn their farms into an international airport!
Andy Potrero
Petaluma
5/24 - Healdsburg Tribune - Disappointed in Farm
Bureau
Editor: As a volunteer who has been involved
in the petition drive for the Rural Heritage Initiative, I was disappointed
but not surprised by the guest commentary from Mr. Olufs of the Farm
Bureau. Although the Farm Bureau in Napa County fully supported a nearly
identical measure there (which passed and has worked well in preventing
sprawl), our local Farm Bureau has a history of opposing land-use measures
which limit sprawl and, in the long run, preserve rural lands (UGB's,
community separators, etc.)
There are a number of distortions in Mr. Oluf's comments. The
claim, for example, that "even the most minor change (in the General
Plan) would have to be voted on by the entire county" is simply not correct.
The Board of Supervisors would continue to exercise authority over most
types of amendments. The important exceptions would be those amendments
which redesignate ag lands to other uses, or which increase residential
density on ag lands. In those cases, as Mr. Olufs acknowledges,
the voters would decide.
I suppose it's inevitable that any time a community takes a stand against
unwanted development and sprawl, there will be interest groups who oppose
it. So the community has to make a choice.
Do we bow to the interests of the large landholders and the developers,
or do we do what's in the best long-term interests of the majority, our
children and grandchildren...and try to stop the sprawl that has consumed
literally millions of acres of farmland in California and across the
country?
The Rural Heritage Initiative will help us stop sprawl in Sonoma County.
Jack Street
Healdsburg
|