Posted by: Kim_Hamilton on 12/27/2010 10:55 PM
Updated by: Kim_Hamilton on 12/29/2010 09:53 PM
Expires: 01/01/2015 12:00 AM
:
Letter to the Editor~by David Tunno
An “Alternative View” of the CCOG Valley Springs Community Plan....The Board of Supervisors will soon choose a plan for Valley Springs that will affect development of that community for many years to come. The choice will likely be between the $250,000 job that CCOG and MyValleySprings.com penned, or the $0 document written by a local citizen’s committee put together by Supervisor Tofanelli. It should be noted that the BOS can adopt either, or neither of these plans......
One immediately-apparent difference to the reader will be the volume of material. Not surprisingly, the one written by bureaucrats is a lot longer, due in large part to language that is more repetitive than an Uzi.
So the reader will know where I’m coming from at the outset, I am one who pays particular attention to private property rights. Though we get our rights from the Constitution, but that doesn’t seem to stop government entities from trying to whittle away at them over the years, transferring ever increasing rights from us to them.
I should also note that, as a resident of Rancho Calaveras which voted overwhelmingly to exclude itself from the VS plan I know I can’t have it both ways. But for the fact that taxpayer money will flow to VS to implement any plan, the affect of the proximity of Rancho to VS and that fact that the BOS could override Rancho sentiments and bind us to that plan anyway, my views are those of an “outsider.” With those disclosures, I take particular aim at that “bureaucrat” version and offer the following observations.
Possibly due to CCOG’s understanding that people like me exist and are sometimes vocal, their plan pays some deference to the issue of property rights. In the introduction to chapter 7 (but notably not in the body of the chapter that lists the plan’s goals and policies), it includes the following sentence:
“These chapters are not designed to negatively affect developers or private property rights; on the contrary, they offer clarification and consistency to the development community and the County regarding what residents of the planning area value.”
That is an interesting composition. Whenever the phrase “on the contrary” is used, what follows the phrase is supposed to negate what precedes it, but that is not the case here. Offering “clarification” and “consistency” isn’t protecting property rights and providing “what residents of the planning area value” could easily contribute to a loss of property rights for some. The statement is nothing more than fancy verbal footwork. I envisioned the bureaucrat who penned it snickering to his or her colleagues while expressing the belief that the slick verbiage would slip past area residents. It only made me more suspicious.
Having previously perused the plan, I undertook a closer examination. On my first read, I noted an annoying repetition of certain issues and concepts. This time I undertook to quantify that repetition as at least one measure of how important those issues were to the authors, I counted the times the CCOG plan repeated various words and phrases. Here are the results.
“oak tree(s)” “oak woodlands” 21
“trail(s)” 53
“bike(s)” or “bicycle(s)” 53
“open space” 23
“open view(s), view scapes, view(s) and vistas” 37
“diversity” or “mix” of “housing types” or “options” 16
“pedestrian(s)” 39
“non-motorized” 17
“walking” “walkable” “walkability” 9
By contrast, in addition to the citation I offered above, “property rights” is mentioned only twice more, and whereas all of the above issues are included specifically and repeatedly as line items under both “Goals and Policies” (chapter 7) and “Implementation” (chapter 8), those two instances are found under “Alternative Views.” That’s right - for the authors of the CCOG plan, the issue of property rights comes under the heading of “Alternative Views,” not even rising to the level of importance of an oak tree or a trail. That might suit one of the financial contributors to the plan, the Progressive left wing Tides Foundation and one of its chief benefactors, George Soros. The question will be does it suit the property owners in Valley Springs and Calaveras County?
By way of contrast, the Tofanelli plan is much shorter, simpler and to the point. Yeah, it uses the word “encourage” much too often, but it also addresses property rights. The best viewpoint on that subject is offered by Tonja Dausend, one of our local experts on the Constitution and an ever vigilant proponent of the rights it guarantees us. She sums up her position on the plan in the form of two documents included near the front of the binder. I encourage all to read the entire binder. The bottom line is that the Tofanelli/citizen’s committee plan specifically includes protection of property rights, maybe not strongly enough, but not as an afterthought or an “alternative view.”
David Tunno
|
