Greenbelt Alliance In the News
October 10, 2003
Yes on Measure
L for growth control
Opinion
Byline
In last Sunday's Daily Republic, regular
contributor Murray Bass suggested rejecting Measure L because of its support
by "out-of-towners" like Green Valley residents. He even questioned
Fairfield Supervisor Duane Kromm's "meddling" in the election.
He has no problem with big-buck participation by out-of-town land speculators.
This is fishy since Mr. Bass, a Suisun City resident, will not be able
to vote on Measure L.
It falls to me, an even-handed person who both lives and works in Fairfield,
to broker this argument. Out-of-towners like Mr. Bass may participate
because opinions should be measured by their worth, not by their place
of origin.
First, let's review what Measure L would do. Simply put, it would place
three areas outside Fairfield's urban growth boundary: Suisun Valley,
middle Green Valley, and an area north and east of Travis. Urban development
would be prohibited in those areas for 17 years. Growth restrictions could
be undone only by a vote of the people.
Anti-sprawl measures are common in the Bay Area. Twenty-one cities have
adopted urban limit boundaries, including eight of nine cities in Sonoma
County.
Veterans of previous land-use battles man the front lines of the Measure
L campaign. The Citizens to Protect Travis, a grassroots organization
committed to preventing encroachment on the base, brought the measure
to the City Council. Their most ardent opponents are developers who own
property north of the base. Indeed, it is the elimination of 7,800 housing
units on those properties that ignited the latest brouhaha.
In Suisun Valley, support of Measure L comes from true farmers like the
Glashoff family who run the Pumpkin Patch on Rockville Road. Their farm
is surrounded by clever "L No" signs on properties that have
been purchased by land speculators. Election tip: If Measure L fails and
the controlled-growth council is replaced, expect to see subdivisions
on Abernathy and Rockville Roads where you see the "L No" signs.
In Green Valley, it's the same story. Measure L is supported by the Green
Valley Landowners Association, and opposed by two property owners in the
middle Green Valley buffer who are irate that their plans for 1,200 new
homes have been nixed.
If it is not already clear, I'll spell out the motivation of the anti-L
campaign: m-o-n-e-y. A few land speculators stand to win big if they can
get growth in Fairfield back on the fast track. Owners of exclusive franchises
in Fairfield will cheer if Measure L loses, because for them population
equals profit.
I sympathize with legitimate farmers who suffer from low crop prices in
the globalized economy. But not even they have the right to convert their
land to urban use.
Like the vast majority of Fairfield voters, I have no direct connection
to the outcome of this election. But the long-term effects are daunting.
If you think that the Interstate 80/680 interchange is bad now, watch
what happens if 30,000 new homes are built. Local taxpayers will be left
holding the bag. If you vote against L, you have a moral obligation to
support the next transportation tax measure. And the next school construction
bond.
If every voter understood and acted upon his/her enlightened self-interest,
Measure L would pass by a landslide, a message that might bring our land
wars to an end. Yet, developers expect to win, not by directly opposing
growth control, but by deceit and confusion.
They will ask you to "save Travis" by building houses for airmen.
They will ask you to "save agriculture" by rezoning farmland
for urban use. They will ask you to "save democracy" by allowing
future city councils the flexibility to approve more homes.
Here is my advice: If you want to protect Travis, and to preserve a measure
of quality life in Fairfield, vote yes on Measure L.
Randy Carlson is a longtime Solano County resident and a teacher at Armijo
High School.
###
|
