October 15, 1999

This whole Measure I thing coming at voters in Fairfield just makes me tired. I'm tired of the two "sides" in the growth wars, with their attempts to get free passes for their interests.

The no-growthers and their slyly self-proclaimed "slow-growther" comrades would like to stop anyone from building anything but tastefully designed comfort stations on undeveloped land. Developers would like to get special dispensations to build on lands they bought at bargain prices due to existing use-restrictions. They all want preferential treatment at taxpayer expense!

It seems that nobody stands apart from the ADC (Aid to Dependent Commerce) recipients at one extreme and those who want to "protect" vistas of land that isn't theirs. Why do so many Californians believe rustic views are their heritage? There are no constitutional rights to the scenery on another owner's private property. As for public lands, government owns 62% of all acreage from the Rockies to the Pacific coast, which certainly should provide ample open space.

Apparently the family values with which I was raised were laughably naive and idealistic. In our family, we were taught that unless you pay for a tangible possession you have no right to demand control over its use. We were also taught not to renege on an agreement--not even a verbal one. To ask for changes in a voluntarily entered legal contract is dishonorable and unthinkable.

Within these guidelines we acknowledge extenuating circumstances, such as when an owner's property use violates the safety or welfare of neighbors or the public in general. One example would be opening a heavy-industry plant next to an existing residential neighborhood. Locally, we have Seeno builders failing to control dust that is choking adjacent Seeno homeowners.

On the other "side," if an established farmer decides to retire for whatever reason, area residents should not be allowed to block a sale to a developer who declares up front the intent to convert the property to non-invasive, compatible development.

And no public agency is supposed to have the right to seize private property for non-essentials like subjective aesthetics. Land-use law should neither handicap nor favor developers. Since Measure I seeks to extend favor to developers it is wrong and should be voted down.

© 1999 Cynthia Hahn