San Jose – Opponents of Measure A wanted to remind voters Monday how the countywide initiative limiting development could run head-long into California’s Proposition 90 should both pass Nov. 7.
The result wouldn’t be pretty, they said. At least financially.
If passed, Measure A would limit development in certain unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County. Proposition 90, on the other hand, could make regulating private property throughout the state a costly business for taxpayers.
That’s because the proposition would require “just compensation” to be paid to land owners by local governments for lands seized through eminent domain – and would also require compensation to property owners whose land is “damaged” monetarily by new zoning laws or regulations that reduce how the land can be used.
Measure A, which would take effect 10 days after the election if passed, would count as one such new law if Proposition 90 passes, and takes effect after 24 hours.
Supervisor Don Gage, who spoke at the “no on A” press conference cited a memo by Santa Clara County Counsel Ann Ravel, warning county taxpayers could be liable for “hundreds of millions” of dollars in damage claims if Measure A and Proposition 90 are both approved by voters.
The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors is expected to take a position on Proposition 90 today.
In the Sept. 13 memo, Ravel advises Proposition 90 “will have significant, but unknown, fiscal impact on the County and other government agencies. Because of the potential fiscal impact, government agencies may feel it necessary to alter, or not go forward with, changes in law or regulation that affect the use of property.”
“But that’s exactly where Measure A takes us,” Gage told reporters at the small rally, held in front of the county government center at 70 W. Hedding St. in San Jose.
Measure A, otherwise known as the “Initiative for the Conservation and Preservation of Hillsides, Ranchlands and Agricultural Lands,” would increase the minimum allowable lot size from 20 to 40 acres in lands designated as “hillsides.” It would also cap minimum parcels at 160 acres in areas designated as “ranchlands.”
“The assessed value of property in the unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County is approximately $13 billion,” said local land-use attorney Bart Hechtman, who spoke at the press conference but didn’t represent any groups. “Given the down-zoning and additional restrictions on a variety of facilities and uses mandated by Measure A, a conservative estimate of the potential ‘damage’ to county property owners from its passage is at least 10 percent of the assessed value, or more than $1 billion.”
Santa Clara county taxpayers would be responsible for paying these damages, Hechtman added, damages that could “literally bankrupt the county.”
Gage said he opposes Proposition 90, regardless of Measure A. Additionally, the Santa Clara Association of Realtors and the Silicon Valley Taxpayers’ Association – who are against Measure A – oppose Proposition 90. Supervisor Pete McHugh, who spoke against Measure A at the press conference, declined to comment on his stance on the Proposition 90.
Proposition 90 is California’s part of a national backlash to last year’s Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which gave governments the power to seize properties from one private owner and hand it to another in the name of economic development.
A recent poll by Datamar, Inc., shows Proposition 90 leading statewide with 61 percent in favor, 24 percent against and 15 percent undecided.
Peter Drekmeier, campaign director for the “yes on Measure A” camp, said there is “no way” Measure A would cost the county in damage claims under Proposition 90. The county measure was drafted to include an out-clause, Drekmeier noted, to prevent it from violating the Constitutional rights of citizens or breaking other standing laws.
“Proposition 90 would take precedence over Measure A” if both pass, Drekmeier said.
County Counsel Ann Ravel took issue with Drekmeier’s suggestion that Measure A provides an escape clause.
“We don’t agree with his analysis of the issue,” she said. “What they’re saying is that there can’t be any claims because of the language in Measure A … Clearly, we’re going to have to apply Prop 90 on a case by case basis, and Measure A, on a case by case basis, should both of them pass. In a case where we decide they’re not applicable but a homeowner disagrees with us, we’re going to have to go to court.”
While much focus has been placed on the interplay of Proposition 90 and Measure A, Ravel sought to emphasize the threat posed by Proposition 90 alone.
“It appears as if we are singling out Measure A, ” she said, “when in fact, we believe that negative aspects of Proposition 90 would have this impact on every land use decision which is taken by the county, not just to implement Measure A.”
Proponents of the citizen-driven environmental measure – more than 58,000 residents signed a petition to qualify it for the election – say future development pressures may negatively affect rural parts of the county, resulting in sprawl.
Opponents, based largely in South County, have argued the initiative would reduce property values for landowners, open the door to lawsuits and even make it difficult for entrepreneurs to start wineries.
“It carves up remaining open space into a jigsaw puzzle of private easements with no public access,” McHugh told the press. “But on top of all that, we now know that it creates the specter of a catastrophic convergence with the provisions of Proposition 90.”
Responding to statements by McHugh and others that Measure A would also threaten the future of “family farming” in the county, Drekmeier said Measure A maintains existing parcel sizes in areas zoned for agriculture, so it will have no impact on the property values of farms.
“The developers are using farmers as a front,” Drekmeier, a Palo Alto city councilman, said. “They’ve filled them with misinformation about Measure A so they’ll continue to speak out against it.”
Tony Burchyns covers the county for the Dispatch. Reach him at (408) 779-4106 ext. 201 or tb*******@*************es.com.
