Letter of Feb 2, 2005

HOPE Response to Landwatch Letter of February 2.

(no response)

Apparently hundreds of people attended your seven community forums. These people voiced a clear opposition to using AMBAG's growth numbers.

Landwatch claims theirs is a "Community" General Plan, yet in your own words "Landwatch favored" using AMBAG numbers; and the Landwatch letter defends using AMBAG population growth numbers.

Then a decision was made somewhere where the community was not invited and the "Community" General Plan magically uses AMBAG's numbers - as Landwatch wanted.

• Since our community specifically and strongly opposes that AMBAG growth, why is Landwatch insisting on it, getting it, and opposing our community's wishes?

2. "Landwatch's commentary then advocates for 40,000 new housing units and another 126,000 people to live here - within the next 15 years."

"Not True. My commentary did not discuss the amount of growth issue. Rather I focused on the location for new growth."

Directly contradicting this is your Landwatch commentary -

This clearly discusses an amount of growth.

This raises two substantial issues.

1. How can Landwatch claim something so flagrantly false, which directly contradicts its own published words, and

2. How can anyone now trust Landwatch to write a complex General Plan after examining such a flat out falsehood on such a critical, basic and controversial issue?

Letter of Feb 2, 2005

HOPE Response to Landwatch Letter of February 2.

"Not True."
(No other references to this topic)

While 'no-growth' and 'slow-growth are ambiguous terms, again, directly contradicting this is the Landwatch commentary explicitly stating -"This reasonable policy ... is neither 'no-growth' nor 'slow-growth.' It is planned growth..."

However big "planned growth" favored by Landwatch is, it is more growth than downzoning, 'no and even slow-growth' - which Landwatch dismisses above as not "reasonable."

4. "How many of the 18 organizations actually read, understood, and then signed off on the document before it was turned in?"

"Absolutely true. In submitting the "Community General Plan" to the Board of Supervisors, none of the groups (including LandWatch, by the way) officially endorsed the document."

This is a breathtaking admission.

It directly contradicts Landwatch's Executive Director' words and implications to Supervisors - "You can adopt this General Plan today."

The Herald reported - "A coalition of 18 environmental, community and controlled-growth groups unveiled a 261-page version of a 20-year growth blueprint that representatives said reflects the true desires of county residents. They urged county supervisors to adopt the plan as law or face a possible initiative campaign to put their general plan to a countywide vote."

This threat is hard to interpret as anything other than support. The League of Women Voters objected; Landwatch however has yet to refute this in any subsequent letter to the paper.

"Not True."

(No other references to this topic)

Landwatch did not use the term "huge" growth, nor did our article imply that they used that term. They did raise the concept.

Landwatch admittedly supports growth. They prefer to call it "Planned Growth."

"Huge growth" is the term used by HOPE for adding 40,000 more housing units to our County (more than all housing in Peninsula cities) when we are enduring a water emergency, our Carmel River is dying, our roads are choked with gridlock, and we are forcing dozens of animal and flower species into extinction.

Please help us understand which part(s) Landwatch disputes -

• That 40,000 new housing units is huge growth; or that
• Landwatch does not oppose 40,000 new housing units?

"not true" "...there is nothing in my commentary that would support that statement."

While it seems to do so - the Landwatch letter does not refute or oppose 40,000 new housing units (more housing units than in all Peninsula cities).

• Landwatch can very easily refute this by simply and clearly putting in writing -

"Landwatch absolutely opposes any County General Plan allowing 40,000 (or more) new housing units."

we hope Landwatch will join us.

"LandWatch was not 'advocating' for such growth"

Landwatch seems to be concerned about the concept of "advocating" for huge growth.

The Oxford Universal Dictionary states advocating is "to argue in favour of, to recommend publicly."

In your own words "Landwatch favored" using AMBAG numbers. Your commentary publicly favored, accepted, endorsed or recommended the use of the numbers it explicitly mentioned - 40,000 more new housing units and another 126,000 more people (a 25 percent growth increase in 15 years).

"Untrue. David Dilworth in fact participated in at least two of the Community General Plan Forums held by the eighteen community groups sponsoring the Community General Plan process."

Landwatch does not deny deciding to exclude HOPE and other organizations, the letter changes the subject.

"Participating" in a Community General Plan Forum is far different from playing a "key role."

Your letter says - "Landwatch was one of eighteen different community groups that played a key role in developing the 'Community General Plan.'"

Considering HOPE's undisputed strong track record of local land use successes and substantial expertise, why was HOPE not invited to play a "key" role as 17 other groups were?

Your letter states that HOPE is now "on the Landwatch mailing list." Yet less than a week after your letter was sent to HOPE, Landwatch sends out invitations to hear our Coastal Commission's Peter Douglas speak and HOPE is omitted. Nor was HOPE asked to co-sponsor the event.

It is difficult to ignore how Landwatch made strong efforts to meet with & cooperate with those loudly demanding growth (Common Ground), but has yet to ever write or even call HOPE, except to ask for money - and now to respond to our article.

• Besides HOPE, how many of the 17 other groups were not invited to participate in the decision to use AMBAG's growth numbers?

HOPE will be glad to make a presentation to Landwatch's Board and each of the 17 other co-sponsors about the AMBAG growth numbers and let them decide whether such huge growth should be opposed.

9. AMBAG Technical Advisory Committee participation

"It is important to note that you did not participate in the 2004 forecast update process, which is the process that produced the forecasts the HOPE email complains about."

This is simply false. Not only did HOPE participate as members of the public, we may have been the only non-governmental attendees at the Technical Advisory Group (TAC) meetings. On the other hand - Landwatch did not attend any of the AMBAG meetings HOPE attended.

HOPE's leaders have been involved in AMBAG's population forecasts for 14 years, since 1991. In the most recent Population update process, HOPE and all other non-governmental persons were excluded from Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) membership. This was a contrast to 1997 when Sierra Club, the League of Women Voters and the Highway 68 Coalition were all TAC members and HOPE's Executive Director authored the Minority Report which is included as part of the official forecast.

Since HOPE was excluded from its membership, at the first and second Technical Advisory Group meetings this time, HOPE participated by making presentations asking that all official (governmental) members read the minority report from 1997. We asked them to adopt a population forecast constrained by infrastructure and resources.

HOPE attended until the TAC adopted a poor forecast methodology. HOPE also attended two AMBAG Board meetings where the forecast numbers were discussed.

Landwatch did not participate in any of these meetings, yet it attacks HOPE for not participating when in fact we did?

One of the Landwatch board members participated, but only as a government agent - not as a Landwatch member. By law she was prohibited from representing Landwatch at the same time.

Why is Landwatch trying to disparage HOPE's public participation? We know of no group in the County who participates in more issues in more governmental meetings (including AMBAG's), than HOPE.

supportable.

To familiarize themselves with how anti-scientific the AMBAG population growth "forecast" process is - perhaps the Landwatch Board could read the 1997 AMBAG Population Forecast Minority Report. It is written in plain English (without technical jargon) on HOPE's website at --

Just because a government agency provides some biased growth forecast (wish-casting) numbers does not mean they are either valid, reasonable or scientifically defensible. In reality, AMBAG's growth "forecast" numbers are pre-determined, then everything is adjusted to make them add up to the pre-determined growth numbers. There is absolutely no scientific reason to use them - even if they now pretend to use resource constraints.

"HOPE has never corresponded with LandWatch on these issues."

True, while HOPE has not written specifically to the Landwatch address on this issue, that is an attempt to duck reality. We gave our comments on Carrying Capacity to your General Plan Forum leaders.

Those eight Healthy Community policies are supported by HOPE and six (6) other local community and environmental groups. (At least one more organization has signed on since then.) These open letters were directly given to your planner Terrill Watt.

We also gave our article on "Affordable Housing without New Buildings" to a Landwatch staff person - who tried to refuse it.

Have Landwatch's Board members read any of these documents? That is also on our website.

At that Marina forum two tables including ours, explicitly decided to strongly oppose the AMBAG numbers and support "Sustainable Communities" with a Carrying Capacity. It is on the video tape of that meeting. Our table at the Carmel Valley meeting included the same sentiment.

12. "The 'Community' General Plan appears to increase private property rights so large property owners can get around county environmental protections."

"Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only does the property rights language not have this legal effect, the purpose of the property rights language is to make it impossible for the Board of Supervisors to hide behind an alleged concern for "property rights," and by doing so fail to adopt the strongest possible environmental protections."

We hope we are wrong on this. However,

• because there is an alarming movement to increase property rights on our West Coast,
• because Landwatch boasts of their efforts to accommodate the developer driven Common Ground,
• because of earlier ambiguous language suggested by Landwatch,
• because the "Community" General Plan document was not available to us or the public, and
• because that Plan used AMBAG numbers that our community opposed,

HOPE was and is reasonably concerned with any General Plan language that might be interpreted or mis-interpreted by a Judge or by the pro-development Supervisors to increase property rights.

As we wrote, "HOPE will be obtaining a formal legal opinion on this soon and will let you know."

13. (HOPE did not raise this issue in our article.)

"[The Community General Plan has] the strongest environmental policies ever proposed for Monterey County, and probably anywhere else."

This is an absurd claim, laughable to anyone familiar with genuinely strong environmental policies.

Worldwide, hundreds of cities, counties, states and nations have policies and laws that explicitly prohibit harmful activities which Landwatch's Community General Plan policies merely regulate. It is the difference between outlawing rape or only regulating it by requiring permits.

Locally, Landwatch's Community General Plan "environmental protection" policies are a mere shadow to HOPE's three "Informed Consent" Pollution Prevention Policies, our Model Meetings Guidelines and our "Monterey Pine Forest Ecosystem Ordinance." You can read these at www.1hope.org/gp

Again, we gave copies of these policies to the County General Plan staff, both "Refinement Groups" and to your Planner Terrill Watt at the Prunedale "Community" General Plan forum. They have been on our website for more than a year soliciting improvements. These are reasonable, strong and publicly supportable environmental protection policies that use the best available science and have real enforcement teeth.

(no response)

This is simply an unacceptable process.

Even the developer driven "Refinement Group" puts all their documents for their General Plan on their website and have not yet asked the Supervisors to adopt it. When HOPE asked, the developer driven Refinement Group even put us on the next agenda letting us make a formal presentation on an Informed Consent Pesticide Policy. They let us finish, asked good questions, argued fiercely but politely against it, and refused to include any part of it - but at least they made the motions of taking us seriously; recognizing that we were providing sincere respectful public interest suggestions.

"The Twelve Guiding Objectives) adopted by the Supervisors, ... are the foundation upon which the Community General Plan was explicitly based."

Upon her request, HOPE provided your Planner Terrill Watt, our critique and serious objections to the fatal provisions of the Supervisor's 12 Guiding Objectives. It is available on our website at -

We have never received any response to this whatsoever other than "thank you for sending it."