Vi ewp o int

Viewpoint: Voters were shortchanged on Measure J

By Tony Ferrara

L et me start by commending Judge Roger Picquet for his courage in rendering what must have been a difficult decision in the Dalidio Ranch case. If you read the text of his ruling, Judge Picquet had no choice but to rule as he did. Throughout the text, Judge Picquet cites prior case law that essentially supports his decision. His determinations were careful to distinguish between local planning policies and state law. Excerpts read as follows:

“The law is clear that the electorate cannot do more than the Board of Supervisors when satisfying state mandates. Thus, under the specific facts of this case, the local initiative power cannot be used. If it were otherwise, the ability of the state to ensure that the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act, particularly with regard to the extremely critical goal of public safety in and around airports, would be severely compromised.

“The issue before this court is purely a question of law. The ability of the people of San Luis Obispo County to use the initiative to enact legislation is an extremely important constitutional right. Nonetheless, it is not unlimited, and where there is a clear showing that the state Legislature has intended to restrict that right it must be curtailed accordingly. This court finds that such a showing has been made.”

Now let’s examine Ernie Dalidio’s assertion (Viewpoint, March 5) that “California law required that the board either enact the measure as law or put the measure on the ballot.” He left out one important option the board had available to them and chose not to exercise. California Elections Code (Section 9111a) states as follows: “During the circulation of the petition or before taking either action (adopting the initiative or holding a special election), the Board of Supervisors may refer the proposed initiative measure to any county agency or agencies for a report on any or all of the following:

1. Its fiscal impact;

2. Its consistency with the county General Plan;

3. Its effect on land use (housing impacts);

4. Its impact on funding for infrastructure of all types” … and “whether the measure would be likely to result in increased infrastructure costs or savings …”

Additional areas are described in the code, but the bottom line is the Board of Supervisors could have tasked county agencies to examine any impact they felt important to explore. The outcomes of the report could have been described on the ballot and been available for voters to consider before casting their vote. The report also could form the basis of a legal challenge to the measure if passed. Again, this was not done.

There is a difference between “insulting” every taxpayer who voted in favor of Measure J and “informing” them impartially before they were called upon to make such an important decision. The fiscal impacts/ infrastructure costs that would burden taxpayers for the Prado Road interchange and surface street improvements are enormous.

Once again, I am not opposed to the Dalidio Ranch project. But the escape clauses in Measure J and the absence of a valid infrastructure financing plan can and should be revisited. Should this project come before the board again, I sincerely hope this will occur.