April 09, 2007

"Judge rules Monterey planning wording must change"

"Arguments made by proponents of a slow-growth alternative to the Monterey County General Plan are misleading and must be reworded before placement on a ballot for a special election in June, a judge ruled Thursday.

The ruling by Monterey County Superior Court Judge Robert O'Farrell came just days before ballot arguments regarding the General Plan, written by the county Board of Supervisors, and the competing General Plan Initiative are due at the Registrar of Voters.

The ballots for the June 5 election are scheduled to be printed next week.

Chris Fitz, executive director of LandWatch Monterey County, the group that wrote the slow-growth, General Plan Initiative, says the changes O'Farrell ordered were minor.

"There were four changes made out of 17 allegations, and two of them involved one word -- that word being 'small,'" Fitz said.

In another instance, where LandWatch's argument read "In 2004, thousands of citizens testified in favor of (General Plan 3)," the judge ordered the language be changed to "testified in favor of the principals" of that plan, Fitz said.

"We remain very pleased with our ballot arguments. They say everything we wanted them to say," he said. "To me, this is akin to a bunch of medieval theologians arguing about how many angels can sit on the head of a pin."

Rich Smith, owner of Paraiso Vineyards and plaintiff in Thursday's proceedings, said he brought the challenge because he attended many of the General Plan debates held by the Board of Supervisors and contends that ballot arguments made by Initiative backers were inaccurate.

"You can say anything in a campaign. The ballot measure itself is what it is, and the only thing you can do is make your arguments for and against," Smith said. "I assume when I read a ballot argument it's been vetted, but the process depends on citizen input."

According to a press release sent by General Plan supporters, Judge O'Farrell ruled that several claims made in ballot arguments are misleading."

The story is here.

Posted by Randy Riddle at April 9, 2007 08:59 AM