Morgan Hill Doesn’t Need a Higher Growth Rate
Dear Editor,
Morgan Hill voters, watch out! Your City Council is attempting to mislead you into believing that a higher growth rate is necessary to increase Downtown development, even though the City’s own statements show that this is entirely untrue.
Increased residential development in the Downtown rightly has huge community support for two important reasons: (1) it will bring greater economic vitality to Downtown businesses, thus a creating a “quality,” Downtown that will be more enjoyable for all residents, and (2) it will preserve open space on the urban fringes.
Under Measure C, the existing growth control ordinance, the City Council can achieve this result simply by its own vote, without any need to have the voters amend the Measure at a specially-funded election at taxpayer expense. The City admits this very fact.
The staff memo to the City Council plainly states: “The City Council may, if it chooses, further divide the allotments [for housing under Measure C] according to geography…including the number of units and timing of allocations required to complete a project…as deemed necessary to provide for the general welfare. Staff is forwarding a recommendation to the City Council…that the Council…authoriz[e] advanc[ing] allocations from 2009-2010 as may be necessary for downtown…projects based upon making findings specific to each project regarding the necessity for advancing the timing of allocations.”
Adoption by the City Council of the above proposal is all that is proposed by them to actually aid downtown development. No assistance from the voters is required to accomplish it.
So why is the City Council also proposing to ask the voters to increase the growth rate under Measure C?
Only because the City Councilmembers have greater “respect” for their crony, developer friends than they have for the voters.
Over some 28 years in 3 elections – Measure E, Measure P and Measure C, Morgan Hill voters have required, by increasing vote margins at each successive election, the same low growth rate.
The Council now proposes a ballot measure that would “restore” to developers who want to build on the urban fringes the allocations proposed to be assigned to downtown projects as described above, thus increasing the growth rate.
I suggest the voters send the politicians a message: If they put this measure on the ballot next November, when three of them (Kennedy, Tate and Sellers) will have to run for reelection to stay on the Council, vote down the Measure and vote out Kennedy, Tate and Sellers.
Let them know that you wholeheartedly support Downtown development, but oppose urban sprawl and loss of greenbelt.
Bruce Tichinin, Morgan Hill
