|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| COLAB: The Colition of Labor Agriculture and Labor |
| County Supervisors are shooting in the dark April 25, 2002 - Each week the Board of Supervisors agenda is divided into two parts. The first part of the agenda is known as the Administrative agenda or the Consent Calendar, the second half is known as the Departmental Agenda. The Admin agenda can consist of more than 50 items that are passed in one fell swoop via the consent of the board. No discussion or debate is scheduled for any of these items because by definition these items are considered non-controversial. The departmental agenda on the other hand consists of items that are approved one by one after discussion and debate by the Board. A little over a week ago, the Board of Supervisors had scheduled for approval an item on the Admin calendar consisting of recommendations concerning proposed legislation at the State level. I don't appreciate the Board taking a position on items that are to be voted on by our State Representatives for a number of reasons. First of all, these County Supervisors are typically shooting in the dark when they take a position on State legislation. That is because what they typically have in front of them is a cursory outline of the proposed legislation. What they don't have is any analysis of the bill nor are they privy to the debates and discussion that takes place in State Legislature Committees so that they might be better informed of all the pros and cons of the legislation. Additionally, they take a position on most of these bills before they get changed as a result of committee hearings. And finally, why do we need the Board of Sups to weigh in on State issues when we are already represented at the State level by our Assemblyman and Senator? At this particular Board of Sups meeting, Joe Armendariz, Executive Director of the Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association, and I showed up protest the Board's proposed opposition to State Assembly Bill 2685. The County's Legislative Committee led by Supervisors Schwartz and Rose proposed that the Board of Sups oppose this bill. Fortunately, Supervisor Gray spoke up, and Chairwoman Gail Marshall conceded to have this item instead placed on the departmental agenda for debate and discussion on May 7. As you know, our Constitution has a basic provision that if and when our government "takes" a property, then they must compensate the landowner. Things have gotten pretty cloudy over the years because governments have become very crafty in their ability to "take" a property without actually taking it completely from the control of the owner. They accomplish this through zoning machinations, permit conditions, required easements, and the like. State Assemblyman Cox has introduced AB 2685. AB 2685 would require the State, or any political subdivision of the State, to provide compensation, equal to the reduction of fair market value, for any regulation enacted or enforced, that has the effect of reducing the value of the property upon which the regulation is imposed. How much has the land in Carpinteria been devalued as a result of the Greenhouse EIR? How many property owners in Toro Canyon lost half the value of their property because of the downzoning? How many farmers and ranchers are going to lose the use of thousands of acres of land as a result of the Resource Protection Ordinance provisions? The State Assembly and the Board of Supervisors need to hear from you on this issue. Those of you that belong to Statewide Associations or organizations that have a lobbying presence in Sacramento, need to get on the horn and alert your people about AB 2685. Secondly, those of you that have lost or are about to lose part of your investment in property in this county, need to show up at the Board of Sups meeting on May 7 when this item is going to be discussed by the Board of Sups. |