The Truthiness of Measure A

The Myth of Minority Rights in Santa Clara County Land-Use Policy


The great thing about living in a democracy is, majority rules.

Majority rule will soon be apparent to Santa Clara County rural residents who are now opposing Measure A, a county-wide land-use initiative that sets harsh subdivision requirements and building restrictions on 411,700 acres of privately owned rural land. Rural residents are complaining that an urbanite majority, who has no understanding of agricultural business or rural life, will soon be deciding their fate.

But really, what problem do these farmers, and ranchers, and rural families have with us putting more restrictions on the use of their private lands, especially when there are enough of us who want a pretty view and a fun place to go on weekends? We are the majority. This is a democracy. That is the rule. What does it matter if these restrictions disrupt their lives? Rural people in Santa Clara County are a minority, not even a recognized minority at that. Why do they expect special treatment from us, like conservancy easements, or fair compensation for land devaluation, or some other distributive remedy?

Haven't affluent urbanites already made a monumental contribution to Santa Clara County by transforming this valley into the prosperous Internet economy that it is? Measure A finally addresses the compelling reciprocal responsibility that rural residents have in meeting the amenity needs of this prosperity. Land is such a small sacrifice. Compensation for a regulatory taking of this land is also over-rated. Rural neighbors can still find any number of ways to scrape up monies for retirement, health care, and kid's education in an opportunistic Silicon Valley economy. It's the American way.

Our rural residents want us to believe that their land is their only family resource. This is patently untrue. Many of these families have grandparents who can readily tap into the labor needs of a nearby Walmart. The fact is, rural residents should have practiced more strategic capital allocation, or like their urban neighbors, found livelihoods that encouraged diversification, such as stock options, annuities, and 401k's. But we know from the press, as well as the promoters of Measure A, that farmers and ranchers are only puppets of insidious business interests, that they cannot think for themselves. This innate reasoning defect clearly mandates a social response. By restricting rural resident lands to ensure our recreational needs, we will also help rural residents prioritize monies, limiting their foolish spending on educational opportunity, and in doing so, we can protect their children from the stresses of an increasingly technological world, and the confusion of career directions that may go beyond their innate abilities. Santa Clara County rural families have been both myopic and unappreciative. It may not be apparent to them now, but future rural generations will thank the sponsors and urban voters of Measure A for binding their families to these regulated lands, soon to be our recreational playgrounds; rural families do not understand the great custodial opportunities that lie ahead. (At least we can be sure these disgruntled folk will never be our neighbors, unless they find cheap rent, but that's another initiative, another day.)

Many of these Santa Clara rural families have owned lands in the area for three or four generations. They should know by now how a true democracy works. This country was built on the confiscation of good land. It worked then, it works now. They are being unAmerican in opposing this solid tradition. Sure, they had their use in past years, but today's leadership is about technology. There's not a farmer, or rancher, or vintner in the whole lot. That is the past. (Has anyone even seen one of these rural people other than maybe on an organic food label?) Agricultural people insist they have real-world perspectives on environmental conservation and sustainability, and that, as stakeholders, they were denied a voice in this November initiative. More silly minority whining. They do not understand that Measure A was written behind closed doors, by a very smart man not unlike the Wizard of Oz, who excluded all voices equally. And besides, common sense tells us that real-world land-use expertise lies with the environmentalists. They have maps. They have Birkenstocks. And they know where they want to walk. Environmentalists, by their very name, understand the challenge of environmental frontiers, and have the courage to take their SUV's where no public has ever gone before.

Measure A offers us thirteen pages of sheer poetry, as elegant as the Gettysburg address. The initiative's author, Stanford emeritus law Professor Robert Girad, is undeniably Linconish. He stands privileged in the ideals of equal protection and due process, with learned expertise into who should bear all burden for our pretty views and recreational needs. Mr. Girard is a man who puts privileged democracy to work. And we should also applaud the campaign manager of Measure A, Peter Drekmeier of Palo Alto City Council, and ALL the Palo Alto City government endorsers who unselfishly propelled this initiative through their political networks. These Palo Alto officials know how to use and enjoy land; they, too, have real expertise. With their own keen democratic sensibilities over the years, they have enforced restrictions on all non-Palo Alto residents, prohibiting non-resident entry into their own 1400-acre Foothill Park, the only municipal park in all of Northern California to practice such strategic land-use protection. These conservation patriots have protected a recreational sanctuary for the enlightened few, keeping fragile land unsullied by messy, marauding county demographics. They know the power of land, the power of law, the gift of democracy. And they understand pending threat to our American ideals, our recreational entitlements, when minorities presume equal rights. These Measure A sponsors and endorsers don't see race, they just know where where their city boundary is.

Our adolescent Silicon Valley democracy is finally showing signs of maturity. Over the past few years, even Democrats and environmentalists have taken a few pages from Papa Rove. We are finally becoming one recognized people, one recognized law. Distributive fairness and progressive democracy have long been distractions, antiquated dalliances, that only muddy the waters of privileged freedom. As for Measure A, we know that beautiful open space is not free, it comes at a price, but fortunately, in a privileged democracy, it can be as cheap as your vote.




We always welcome praise in support of our righteous exploitation. You can email our staff at Silicon.Valley.Truthiness.Bureau@gmail.com or alternatively send your praiseworthy comments to your local Palo Alto officials.

"Together we can all put privileged democracy to work."




***********************************************************
From: Palo Alto Municipal Code
22.04.150 Foothills Park.
a)Only residents of the city and regular or part-time city employees, members of their households related by blood, marriage, or adoption, and their accompanied guests are entitled to enter on foot or by bicycle or vehicle and remain in Foothills Park. No person who is not a resident of the city may enter on foot or by bicycle or vehicle unaccompanied by a person entitled to enter and remain in Foothills Park...

Demographics taken from Wikipedia:
PALO ALTO: As of the censusGR2 of 2000...There were 26,048 housing units at an average density of 424.9/km² (1,100.3/mi²). The racial makeup of the city was 75.76% White, 2.02% African American, 0.21% Native American, 17.22% Asian, 0.14% Pacific Islander, 1.41% from other races, and 3.24% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 4.65% of the population.

EAST PALO ALTO : As of the censusGR2 of 2000....The racial makeup of the city was 26.98% White, 23.03% African American, 0.83% Native American, 2.23% Asian, 7.63% Pacific Islander (mainly Tongan and Samoan immigrants), 34.73% from other races, and 4.56% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 58.79% of the population.

GILROY: As of the United States 2000 CensusGR2.....The racial makeup of the city was 58.91% White, 1.80% African American, 1.59% Native American, 4.37% Asian, 0.25% Pacific Islander, 27.73% from other races, and 5.35% from two or more races. 53.78% of the population were Hispanic.