When San Diego County supervisors Greg Cox, Bill Horn, Dianne Jacob, Ron Roberts
and Pam Slater-Price approve the new General Plan, they will be telling the
voters: Drop dead!
By
hook or by crook their Planning Department found an ingenious way to implement
provisions of Propositions B and A that were rejected by voters in recent
elections. The new General Plan thwarts the will of the voters, nullifies two
elections and pits the supervisors against the people who elected them.
In
1998, by a majority vote of 59.49 percent, Proposition B was rejected by county
voters. Prop. B was also known as the Rural Heritage and Watershed Initiative,
which would have mandated large lot zoning requiring one house per 40, 80 or 160
acres on some 600,000 acres, or 25 percent of the county's total unincorporated
area. Land owners in the backcountry were outraged and a major effort was
launched to oppose Prop. B. During the fight to save property rights, CPPR
mailed 75,000 brochures to county residents to inform them of the property
rights abuse and to organize resistance in an effort to help defeat Prop. B.
Then in 2004 an even greater percentage of voters or 64.33 percent rejected
Proposition A, the Rural Lands Initiative that was another attempt for large lot
zoning. It would have dictated minimum lot sizes of 40 or 80 acres, a dramatic
increase from county zoning of two, four and eight-acre parcels within some
694,000 acres. Once again CPPR raised over $50,000 and took up the fight to
inform the public of yet another abuse of property rights and help defeat Prop.
A.
Nefariously buried on page 3-13 in the proposed County General Plan Update that
is scheduled to be approved by the board of supervisors later this year it is
stated: "Four residential land use designations are applied within the Rural
Lands regional category. The densities provided by these designations are the
lowest in the unincorporated County ... ranging from one dwelling unit per 20
gross acres to one dwelling unit per 160 gross acres."
The
government already owns over 50 percent of the land subject to the General Plan.
Another 7 percent (159,000 acres) is dedicated Open Space and Indian
reservations account for about 5.7 percent (pg. 3.4). Dictating onerous
restrictions on the 35.3 percent of still privately owned land was obviously
unacceptable to the voters who rejected Propositions B and A.
The
draft plan purports to only restrict 15 percent of the private property within
the county. For landowners to restrict the "use" of private property 15 percent
is economically no different from physically taking (stealing) 15 percent of
their property without "just compensation" as required by the U.S. Constitution.
Cynically, the General Plan fancies itself "the equivalent of a Constitution"
(only without a Bill of Rights).
While judges can nullify election results with impunity it remains to be seen if
county supervisors can get away with it, especially with Supervisors Horn and
Roberts up for re-election this year. No doubt approval of this contentious
General Plan will be postponed until after the Tea Parties and over 800 paid
members of CPPR vote in November.
It's a shame the supervisors have to resort to chicanery since it's highly
unlikely that most of the lands taken by "Inverse Condemnation" would ever be
developed to a noticeable degree within the next 100 years. Nonetheless, the
supervisors feel compelled to step on the necks of landowners, nearly all of
whom have preserved their rural lands in pristine condition for many years and a
few for many generations since the late 1800s.
It's a shame because there are natural constraints and topography that already
limit development on rural property. Furthermore, lack of gas, electric, and
water render much of the back country undevelopable. Most of the rural lands
will never be urbanized in our lifetimes. The General Plan Update even
acknowledges these constraints. So why needlessly inflict economic losses on
some landowners when the supervisors could easily leave existing rural zoning in
place with legally, de minimis results and approve incentives for higher density
zoning in core areas where desired?
Regarding core areas, why do government planners keep claiming it's cheaper to
build in "core" areas with infrastructure in place? It isn't. "Congestifying" is
expensive. Apparently they've never examined development downtown where density
is the highest and the cost to government, developers, homebuyers and property
taxpayers are the greatest per square foot.
Rural development historically demands fewer government services, whether it's
fire, sheriff, streets, parks or libraries. Furthermore it disproportionately
generates higher property taxes and water availability charges per public
services received. Rural residents tend to have fewer young children entering 13
years of schooling while expensive infrastructure is privately funded (wells and
septic tanks), mainly off low-maintenance, two-lane country roads that require
no traffic signals, sidewalks, curbs or gutters.
The
supervisors' June 18, last minute farce to mollify opponents of the General Plan
Update presented the Transfer of Development Rights concept. Theoretically
property owners adversely impacted by the new General Plan can sell "their"
prohibited development densities to others. This scam has been around for 30
years and the supervisors know full well that it's rare for residents in any
community agreeing to be recipients of higher density transfers, but on paper
the idea sounds terrific. To their credit the county planners point out that
only 20 of the 190 TDR plans nationally are considered successful.
With thousands of pages of planning, the supervisors, planners and property
owners can't see the forest for the trees. However, even the dumbest among us
know whenever you restrict the potential supply of residential land you raise
the cost of housing for all income groups. After 38 years of growth controls and
growth management, home prices in the San Diego MSA have skyrocketed from less
than the national median in 1973 to double the national median. It's time the
supervisors put an end to the county's land use mismanagement. They should
disapprove any additional down zoning of rural lands and let their constituents
live in harmony.
Schnaubelt, president of Citizens for
Private Property Rights, has been a commercial real estate broker
for 39
years and was a San Diego City Councilman from 1977-81.
