 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
Home Resource Center Press Releases Home Press Release |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
Press ReleaseNovember 9, 2005 Contact: Residents Vote For Better Growth Management Subheading South Bay voters reject sprawl measures; East Bay voters split by confusing messagesVoters in two East Bay cities today rejected attempts by developers to expand city boundaries and open up thousands of acres of land to development. In two other cities, voters passed measures that were advertised as "growth control." In Cupertino, voters rejected three measures that would have outlawed all but low-density sprawl development. Developers had put Measures K, P, L, and D on the ballot in Antioch, Pittsburg, Brentwood, and Livermore to allow the construction of thousands of new houses outside existing city limits. The measures in Livermore and Brentwood were defeated. The measures in Antioch and Pittsburg passed. In Cupertino, Measures A, B, and C would have required low-density development, low building heights, and large setbacks of buildings from the street. Opponents said they would push new growth outward and worsen the affordable housing crisis. Opponents said the measures in both the East Bay and the South Bay would have allowed sprawling development, increasing traffic and air pollution while paving over farmland and hillsides. "In this election, voters strongly indicated they wanted protection for open space, and better growth in cities," said Elizabeth Stampe, spokesperson for Greenbelt Alliance, the regional urban planning and land conservation organization. In the East Bay, "Developers tried to buy their way around the planning process. Fortunately, in Livermore and Brentwood, voters saw through the developers' deceptive language and voted no on sprawl." "In Pittsburg and Antioch, unfortunately, developers were able to pass their measures by calling them growth control. That's what people want, but it's the opposite of what these measures do," she added. "I don't think residents of Pittsburg and Antioch will be happy when, after voting to control growth, they see thousands of new houses springing up on nearby hillsidesand nightmarish traffic." "The developers' ads and gimmicks made the decision extremely confusing, but when people see what the measures really do, those methods are not going to work again." In Cupertino, Measure A would have required the density of new development to be no more than 15 homes per acre. Measure B would have set a height limit of 36 feet on new buildings. Measure C would have required new buildings to be set back 35 feet from the street. They would have effectively required sprawl-style development and made walking and biking difficult, said advocates, as well as limiting opportunities to build housing. Each of the four East Bay measures would have expanded city limits to include land owned by the developers funding the measures. - In Livermore, Pardee Homes spent well over the unprecedented amount of $3 million to push its initiative, Measure D, which would have allowed the construction of 2,450 houses on 1,500 acres of land north of town, including some of the last habitat for an endangered plant. Measure D failed with only 28% of the vote. - In Brentwood, Measure L was put on the ballot by the Nunn family of
developers to allow development of land it owns outside the city. Measure
L would open up 1,700 acres outside the city and allow 2,800 new houses
on the land. The Nunns spent over $600,000 on Measure L, which failed
with 49.3% of the vote. - In Antioch, Castle Companies put Measure K on the ballot to expand the city by 1,000 acres, allowing 1,100 additional houses on a remote areas south of the city. This will mean development for the Sand Creek area as well, an enormous four-square-mile (2,700-acre) expanse of rolling hills and kit fox habitat that residents have fought for years to protect. As of October 23rd, Castle Companies had spent over $300,000 on Measure K, which passed with 59% of the vote. The developers tried everything in the East Bay. They dangled inducements
like funding for sports parks, called their initiatives "growth control,"
and in Pardee's case, talked about adding solar panels to the proposed
development. ### For 50 years, Greenbelt Alliance has been the San Francisco Bay Area's advocate for open spaces and vibrant places, with offices in San Francisco, San Jose, Walnut Creek, Fairfield, and Santa Rosa. www.greenbelt.org
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
