George Rebane

Nevada County’s Rural Quality Coalition (RQC) is a major backer of the MGI and bases its support on the following argument –

"While the “Managed Growth Initiative” does not change the General Plan, it adds the requirement that amendments to the Land Use Element, except in certain circumstances, be approved by a majority of Grass Valley’s voters.  Is this tantamount to “locking in” or “freezing” the Land Use Element, or the whole General Plan, for 30 years, as the City and other opponents have asserted?  No.

This initiative draws on similar measures adopted in Napa, Saratoga and Escondido, and which have served their communities and survived legal challenge. Related examples of requiring voter approval of land-use actions (some more rigorous than this initiative), which passed in 2000, include:

·         the City of Clayton’s “Measure O”, which required voter approval if development involved 10 houses, 2 acres of open space or 1,000 square feet of commercial space;

·         the City of Danville’s “Measure R”, requiring a popular vote for any development of at least 10 units;

·         the City of Malibu’s “Measure P”, which required voter approval of commercial, industrial or mixed-use development of at least 25,000 s/ft, projects that involve road expansion or construction, projects that require a variance or Conditional Use Permit, and projects denser than existing zoning;

·         the City of Newport Beach’s “Measure S”, requiring a vote on most projects that require a general plan amendment;

·         the City of Solano Beach’s “Measure T”, requiring voter approval to change general plan designations, except to reduce residential density.

Instead, “the Friends of Grass Valley’s initiative measure does not prohibit changes to the General Plan. Rather, the measure simply requires the City to engage in a democratic process that includes City voters before making such changes.” As with initiatives in other communities, this initiative’s effect “is to establish a democratic process for proposed changes to the General Plan Land Use Element and Map. Why should the City be allowed to approve so-called ‘creativity’ demanded by a developer that a majority of the voters of Grass Valley find to be contrary to their well-being and values?”

To begin, the RQC’s "No" above is not supported by the copy that follows – the success of the cited measures in the legal arena is a totally different aspect of the issue.  When we examine the cited communities, we find that they are bedroom communities that don’t depend on the economic development of new businesses that hire workers.  Their residents work in other communities whose economies would be destroyed by measures such as the proposed MGI.  In short, the new folks moving into Clayton, Danville, etc. do so only when they find work in another community nearby that is not encumbered by such collectivist measures to enforce bedroom community standards.  The adopted "measures" insure that such bedroom standards and characteristics will be maintained through the support of nearby communities that do have vibrant economies.

Grass Valley as part of western Nevada County was never intended to be bedroom community for the I-80 corridor or Yuba County, and therefore should have the ability to economically fend for itself as a freestanding economic entity.  The MGI will become a ball and chain on any community already having to overcome liabilities imposed by high energy costs and CARB’s AB32 Scope Plan.  Apparently the RQC and ‘Friends’ don’t want anyone to notice this aspect of such "democratic process(es) for proposed changes to the General Plan Land Use Element and Map."