What should our new Board of Supervisors tackle first? We have a list of wrongs to right | Opinion

Thirteen votes. That’s all it took to flip the county Board of Supervisors, putting liberals in the driver’s seat for the first time in eight years.

With a recount in progress, that final tally could change, but based on past recounts in SLO County, the end result is likely to remain the same.

The reelection of Supervisor Bruce Gibson, together with victories by Jimmy Paulding and Dawn Ortiz-Legg in the June primary, is sure to bring some change, but how drastic will it be?

And what should be at the top of this new board’s agenda?

It’s too late to undo some decisions, but there are several controversial, ill-considered votes the new board could and should revisit over the months ahead.

Here’s a list, based on order of urgency:

Listen to farmers

In early December, the board majority — Debbie Arnold, Lynn Compton and John Peschong — radically altered a policy that limited the amount of water that can be drawn from the Paso Robles basin, which is threatened by over-pumping.

The old policy imposed restrictions on growers who wanted to plant new crops, but it included an exemption of 5 acre-feet of water. The board majority increased that to a whopping 25 acre-feet exemption, ostensibly to help small growers.

That pleased some folks, but it ticked off far more, including those who worried that the basin could be left in even worse shape. Others were upset about a whole new set of environmental regulations imposed on growers.

Several ag groups, including the influential county Farm Bureau, opposed the ordinance. The county Planning Commission unanimously recommended against it; in a letter to the editor, the chair of the commission predicted the ordinance will “inflict serious and lasting collateral damage — financial and otherwise — on all growers” in the Paso basin.

The ordinance takes effect in March. If the new board acts quickly, it can repeal it and try again.

Support affordable housing

Sure, not everyone likes the idea of charging developers an affordable housing fee — which is generally passed on to home buyers. But San Luis Obispo County’s was one of the most reasonable fees around. In fact, homes under 2,200 square feet were exempt from paying any fee.

Ironically, conservative supervisors called the fee a failure. Yet over two years, it generated nearly $1.2 million and helped finance 222 new units. The board did away with the fee entirely and neglected to backfill it with another source of funding.

Either bring back the fee or find another revenue stream to replace it.

Let county residents choose energy provider

Every city in the county gives electric customers the opportunity to switch from PG&E to Central Coast Community Energy (3CE), one of 25 Community Choice Aggregation programs in California. Basically, the programs buy and sell energy, though utilities like PG&E still transmit the power.

In 2020, the Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 against joining the program.

Among other flimsy reasons, they didn’t like the idea that households would automatically be enrolled and would have to opt out in order to stick with PG&E.

“This opt-out ... we know from experience it’s just difficult for people to keep up with things. You lose things in the mail ... the opt-out I think is very problematic,” Supervisor Debbie Arnold said at the time.

Please, new board, drop the paternalistic attitude and give folks in unincorporated communities the same opportunity their city neighbors have.

Give waste management another look

Following passage of a countywide ban on polystyrene containers, the board majority fell into a snit and insisted the county withdraw from the Integrated Waste Management Authority. They believed the countywide agency — it included all seven cities plus the county — exceeded its authority when it passed the ban.

County Public Works is now in charge of waste management, which includes meeting state recycling requirements. Reverting to the way things were may be more complicated than it’s worth, but it’s at least worth conducting a financial analysis to determine whether it would be more cost-effective to rejoin the regional organization.

Set a reasonable campaign contribution limit

Most voters want to limit the influence big money has on local elections. The board majority went in the opposite direction in 2020, when it set the ceiling at $25,000, rather than accept the state’s ceiling of $4,700. (Counties had the option of choosing the state limit or adopting their own.)

There was strong opposition, including from the League of Women Voters, which issued a statement saying that the limit “will exacerbate the public’s perception that money controls elections.”

We don’t need more money financing the types of ugly smear campaigns we’ve seen in the past few election cycles; the board should waste no time in repealing this awful ordinance.

Deflate conspiracy theories

The board majority never officially embraced conspiracy theories per se, but they did precious little to counter them.

Here’s a prime example: During the height of the COVID pandemic, it was rumored that the county would begin issuing “vaccine passports” that would be required for entrance into certain venues.

The county planned no such thing, but that didn’t stop 170 people from “spamming” a board meeting during the public comment period, demanding the county reject the idea. The board majority obliged by approving an anti-vaccine-passport resolution at its next meeting.

Certainly, the public has the right to comment at public meetings, but the board has a moral obligation — if not a legal one — to counter falsehoods with facts. That includes defending county staff members from vicious attacks.

Usher voters into the 21st century

In 2021, the board majority rejected the idea of phasing out neighborhood polling places and switching to a hybrid election model that would replace 76 polling places scattered throughout the county with 20 regional voting centers.

One of their reasons? Supervisor John Peschong said senior citizens would be “disenfranchised” because they prefer voting at their neighborhood polling places.

Yet in the November election, only around 8,000 voters cast their ballots at polling places, compared to roughly 110,000 who used mail-in ballots — despite a GOP plea that their members surrender their mail-in ballots and vote the old-fashioned way.

So we’re keeping 76 precincts open for the sake of 8,000 voters, a number that will surely only dwindle further?

The board majority’s promotion of this idea that the old ways are better is playing right into the hands of conspiracy theorists who claim that machines and mail-in ballots cannot be trusted. Debbie Arnold is a particular aider-and-abettor — she once suggested that hand-counting all ballots is the way to go.

That’s ridiculous; the new board should move SLO County into the 21st century as far as elections are concerned.

While they’re at it, they should investigate ways to get election results out more quickly, even if it means providing the Elections Office with more resources.

Stand against gerrymandering

Redistricting devolved into one big hot mess in 2021, with the three-member majority adopting a radically different map designed to give conservatives the edge — at least on paper.

The controversy isn’t over yet: A lawsuit challenging the validity of the map is making its way through court.

That could have been avoided had the Board of Supervisors turned the task over to an independent redistricting commission, as some counties have done, or, at the very least, appointed a bipartisan citizens advisory group to make recommendations.

Instead, the three-member majority voted to keep the power to themselves.

To prevent a recurrence, the new board should explore ways to take redistricting out of the hands of the politicians — such as putting a measure on the ballot that would require the appointment of an independent commission.

The board does have some time to get this done; the next redistricting won’t occur until 2031.

But it can’t wait until the last minute to act. Democracy depends on free and fair elections, and taking redistricting out of the hands of politicians is imperative — no matter which party is in power.