Lessons learned two years ago from Stanislaus County's experiment in voter-controlled growth are guiding a similar high-stakes initiative in Merced County.
Like Stanislaus' Stamp Out Sprawl campaign, the Save Farmland push in Merced is a direct challenge to the home-building industry, a pillar of the valley's economy and a frequent go-to source for political money.
The ballot language is nearly identical. And supporters suspect that irked county leaders in Merced, who could lose some power over residential land use, may have pondered delay tactics similar to those employed by their neighbors to the north.
But Save Farmland seems to have even more at stake. Despite a prolonged lull in construction, developers around Merced County are waiting for a rebound with even more ambitious plans than those who opposed Stanislaus' Measure E in 2008.
Save Farmland aims to restrict plans for several new towns with homes for tens of thousands of people on rural land throughout Merced County.
"This is the beginning of something to prevent ridiculous growth," said Peter Koch, a Save Farmland supporter and past president of the Merced County Farm Bureau.
Like Stamp Out Sprawl, the Merced initiative would require countywide votes to convert farmland to subdivisions.
Followed effort's every step
Members of Citizens for Quality Growth, a grass-roots group pushing the initiative, allied with the nonprofit Valley Land Alliance and followed SOS's every step from years earlier.
SOS frontman Denny Jackman had advocated controlled growth decades before his term on the Modesto City Council ended in 2005. Mer- ced people observed as he and Modesto Councilman Garrad Marsh gathered signatures to force a countywide initiative in 2006.
Stanislaus voters approved SOS, formally known as Measure E, by a 67.18 percent landslide in February 2008. Jackman said he didn't expect the Merced contingent to wait a couple of years to follow suit.
The slow-growth group committed to the initiative after a 3-2 vote in November by Merced County supervisors for a general plan amendment favoring new towns. Allowing free-standing communities to spring up on a blank slate is tantalizing to developers, while opponents say new towns amount to land- sucking sprawl.
"Like spots of mold, they grow together," said Alan Schoff, Save Farmland spokesman.
Few were surprised when Citizens for Quality Growth began circulating petitions for a controlled-growth measure, using Stanislaus' SOS as a model. Both groups paid professionals to collect signatures in front of stores and at community events.
Rules tricky for initiatives
But Jackman and Marsh served as volunteer leaders for the Stanislaus campaign, while Merced's is paying Schoff, a marketer who has lived there four years.
Community initiatives are rare and rules can be tricky, Jackman and Marsh discovered. They gathered signatures to force a countywide election, but supervisors stalled it long enough to delay the vote nearly two years.
Stanislaus leaders also put a countermeasure on the same ballot that would have been friendlier to builders. Critics called it an ill- conceived bid to confuse voters.
In the end, the delay may have worked against builders, Marsh said, because "they weren't so fat and happy by the time it did get on the ballot." Before the economy tanked, they might have paid for opposition, he said.
Measure E's success ne- gated supervisors' counterstrike, Measure L, which won fewer votes.
Steve Madison, chief executive of the Building Industry Association of Central California, noted that his group took no stand and spent no money fighting Measure E, and said it is not likely to become involved in the Merced campaign.
RSS
E-Mail
Print
reprint or license
