Helping Our Peninsula's Environment

(c) Copyright Feb 23, 2005 HOPE

Board of Directors February 23, 2005

Landwatch

Salinas, California

 Dear President Rod McMahan and Landwatch Board members:

The Trustees and staff of Helping Our Peninsula’s Environment wish to express our appreciation to Landwatch for your efforts towards bringing the community out on the crucial subject of land use and the importance of having a good General Plan. Thank you for educating and inspiring citizens to act.

Furthermore, we appreciate most of the information that has been given out on the Land Use Report on FM radio station KUSP. However, we must point out that Mr. Patton’s KUSP statement on Friday, January 21st, "What community members said they wanted wasn’t a "no growth" approach for Monterey County…" is not true. As our article pointed out the public votes on the Carmel River New Los Padres Dam and Rancho San Carlos strongly indicate why even developers recognize that our community will always oppose growth when we organize and get to vote on it.

Thank you for your letter of February 2 responding to our article about Landwatch's November Commentary and "Community" General Plan. This was not something we wrote eagerly or lightly. However, those actions forced us to do so. Your November Commentary and the "Community" General Plan are both great disappointments, primarily for the huge growth they support - allowing 125 thousand more population - that we call huge growth - during this time of local environmental crisis.

HOPE is truly disappointed that Landwatch failed to present a General Plan that provides a genuinely sustainable community, one that solves our problems without worsening our local environmental crisis. We can't imagine anyone credibly arguing that a 25 percent County population increase in the next 15 years is sustainable.

While HOPE continues to aspire for Landwatch to prove us wrong, your letter fails to do so. You can easily prove us wrong by simply and clearly opposing 40,000 more housing units and a 125,000 population increase in Monterey County.

However, until Landwatch explicitly opposes 40,000 more housing units and a 125,000 population increase for Monterey County, HOPE cannot agree that we have similar positions on major land use and environmental issues.

Your letter claims to correct some errors in HOPE's article, but it doesn't - either technical errors or errors of spirit. It does provide differences of opinion, but opinions are a species distinct from erroneous facts. Nowhere can we find any clear declaration contradicting our claims other than arguing "not true." It admits we are right on important factual points, on other key points it directly contradicts your own commentary's plain language (which we cannot agree are errors), and it even introduces its own factual error. We can find absolutely nothing identifying any evidence of factual errors or flaws.

(Please see our attached detailed responses)

• It does not explain why your "Community" General Plan opposes the wishes of the hundreds of people at the forums who firmly rejected using AMBAG's growth numbers.

• It even essentially admits deceiving the media by continuing to allow them to believe that 18 organizations support the "Community" General Plan when your letter admits none of them did.

 At its core, it appears that Landwatch is now accepting growth. Twenty five (25) percent population increase in 15 years is huge growth, while HOPE clearly does not accept growth. HOPE is unambiguously dedicated to fighting environmentally harmful growth. As long as there is no water, we cannot grow without causing harm.

 We hope this is not the case, and invite and welcome your response explicitly opposing 40,000 more housing units and opposing a 125,000 population increase for Monterey County.

Signed,

• Terrence Zito, HOPE Trustee
• Vienna Merritt-Moore, HOPE Trustee
• Ed Leeper, HOPE Trustee
• Holly Keifer, HOPE Trustee
• Dena Ibrahim, HOPE Trustee
• David Dilworth, HOPE Executive Director

PS HOPE is sending out your letter to our list along with this response. HOPE has had a link to your November commentary for four weeks, since January 21 (your commentary not included with your letter). HOPE has already posted your letter and this response on our website for everyone to read your actual words. We respectfully request you also post a link to our article and this response on your website.

Footnote:

References:

Landwatch Letter to HOPE, February 2, 2005

For more information on this topic

and on a sustainable General Plan see our website at -

This letter as a PDF file

(Attached detailed responses)

Entire Letter as PDF File - (315kb)

Or Search the whole Web with IxQuick

Home

General Plan Update Page

This Page Last Updated February 23, 2005