Without enforcement, a law is merely a collection of meaningless
words on paper. So it will be with the Williamson Act Santa Clara
County style unless county supervisors finish their revisions with
care and attention to detail.
Without enforcement, a law is merely a collection of meaningless words on paper. So it will be with the Williamson Act Santa Clara County style unless county supervisors finish their revisions with care and attention to detail.
Supervisors have undertaken the thankless job of reviewing the guidelines that make landowners eligible for tax breaks under the state Williamson Act. Thank you for that. But since supervisors have, for years, washed their hands of this sticky mess, we have little sympathy for a job half done. And that’s exactly what this will be unless the rules for enforcement are clear and carried out.
Supervisors, the county agriculture commissioner, the county assessor’s office and, most importantly, the state of California are in agreement on one point: There is rampant abuse of the law and some people are paying less tax than they should.
Preserving open space and agriculture are the noble and worthy aims of the Williamson Act. In essence, the contract is “don’t develop the land and we’ll give you a tax break.” Supervisors are set to tighten the restrictions on who gets the tax break, but who’s going to monitor adherence to the law is as clear as summer day in Half Moon Bay. Foggy would be an understatement.
The assessor’s office doesn’t want to enforce; the county planning department can’t get information from the assessor; the ag commissioner is dealing with budget cuts … and the band played on.
Supervisor Don Gage has to lead this particular charge. Most of the land that falls under the Williamson Act is under his watch. District One includes Morgan Hill and Gilroy, but also land in the Santa Cruz Mountains and vast spaces in between. The solution to the bureaucratic quagmire may be one of keen compromise and Gage’s office has proved successful in that arena in the past.
That expertise will need to be applied here. If planning is the enforcement arm, then the assessor’s office should be compelled to provide more information. If it’s the assessor’s office, then the planning department will have to meet and confer on issues and information.
The point is to get the job done, seek solutions and not to create a long-term mess again for someone else to clean.
