What does the CVS/Chase issue tell us about handling future issues?

[Gus diZerega]

The CVS/Chase issue raises a possibility for a more lasting approach to how people in Sebastopol, and potentially any where else for that matter, keeping a better handle over future development in their community.

Simply add one more step to the city’s process approving any development proposal: that for a period of time after the proposal is approved, opponents have several weeks to get an initiative on the ballot that, if it passes, vetoes the decision. This measure could itself be added by initiative, if California law enables local communities to exercise this kind of authority, which I do not know.

Large corporations like centralization of power because when there is a high concentration of it they can bring their resources to bear far more easily than if power is dispersed. This is one reason why, conservative and libertarian mythology to the contrary, large companies promote centralization. One national ‘organic’ standard is easier to manipulate that 50 state ones, for example.

Decentralizing power can make their job harder while simultaneously leveling the playing field to a greater degree for local people. Buying local and paying cash or check so the financial industry gets no spin-off is great and I do it a lot, but making sure that governance is resistant to outside pressures is equally important.

This proposal or approaches like it does not guarantee that projects like CVS/Chase will always be rejected. It is a community decision. It depends on the issue and who is involved. It also depends on available alternatives. But the existence of such a measure would guarantee that those pushing for developments will really listen to those who are skeptical or even have suggestions, and seek to bring them on board.

[Howard]

Maybe you're just thinking out loud here but I'm not sure whether you've thought this through. Couldn't your initiative be utilized to stop additions to homes, second units or construction of a single family home on one lot? Houses of worship? Farmers markets? Schools? All of the above are, by definition, development. All of these add to the traffic at our major intersections regardless of the exact location. All could be opposed by enough people to qualify for an initiative.

Howard

The CVS/Chase issue raises a possibility for a more lasting approach to how people in Sebastopol, and potentially any where else for that matter, keeping a better handle over future development in their community.

Simply add one more step to the city’s process approving any development proposal: that for a period of time after the proposal is approved, opponents have several weeks to get an initiative on the ballot that, if it passes, vetoes the decision. This measure could itself be added by initiative, if California law enables local communities to exercise this kind of authority, which I do not know.

Large corporations like centralization of power because when there is a high concentration of it they can bring their resources to bear far more easily than if power is dispersed. This is one reason why, conservative and libertarian mythology to the contrary, large companies promote centralization. One national ‘organic’ standard is easier to manipulate that 50 state ones, for example.

Decentralizing power can make their job harder while simultaneously leveling the playing field to a greater degree for local people. Buying local and paying cash or check so the financial industry gets no spin-off is great and I do it a lot, but making sure that governance is resistant to outside pressures is equally important.

This proposal or approaches like it does not guarantee that projects like CVS/Chase will always be rejected. It is a community decision. It depends on the issue and who is involved. It also depends on available alternatives. But the existence of such a measure would guarantee that those pushing for developments will really listen to those who are skeptical or even have suggestions, and seek to bring them on board.

[Gus diZerega]

The thing about democracy is that it there is no guarantee you will always win. That said, think about what it would take for a city wide initiative over someone adding a spare room. In my opinion a city's residents should have a say over the future development of thew community in which they live. Similarly, if a proposed farmers' market was so disruptive of people's lives that the community as a whole rejected it, maybe its location needs to be reconsidered. Maybe the developers of the idea need to listen to and pay attention to the worries of the residents.

We are after all talking about a city wide reaction to decisions that impact the entire community. Most of your examples seem very far fetched to me and, were they big enough to provoke that much opposition, they should be subject to that final level of consent.

Maybe you're just thinking out loud here but I'm not sure whether you've thought this through. Couldn't your initiative be utilized to stop additions to homes, second units or construction of a single family home on one lot? Houses of worship? Farmers markets? Schools? All of the above are, by definition, development. All of these add to the traffic at our major intersections regardless of the exact location. All could be opposed by enough people to qualify for an initiative.

Howard

[Howard]

What you're asking for is tyranny of the majority which isn't any better than what we’ve got now. You may think that a majority wouldn’t object to my examples, but you might not say that if you've been to as many public hearings as I have.

I remember when dozens of neighbors became unglued when an existing day care center wanted to expand by less than a dozen kids. You'd think the world was coming to an end if you’d been there. I heard things like "The majority of us don't want it so why are you voting for it?" Sound familiar? With not much trouble the opponents could’ve easily outspent the day care owner (a local couple) and killed it with your plebiscite.

We've got a representative democracy, however flawed or easily manipulated, that I think works pretty well in our small town. I'm willing to let those who spend the time actually understanding the laws and regulations make the decisions.

Howard

The thing about democracy is that it there is no guarantee you will always win. That said, think about what it would take for a city wide initiative over someone adding a spare room. In my opinion a city's residents should have a say over the future development of thew community in which they live. Similarly, if a proposed farmers' market was so disruptive of people's lives that the community as a whole rejected it, maybe its location needs to be reconsidered. Maybe the developers of the idea need to listen to and pay attention to the worries of the residents.

We are after all talking about a city wide reaction to decisions that impact the entire community. Most of your examples seem very far fetched to me and, were they big enough to provoke that much opposition, they should be subject to that final level of consent.

[1104GT]

The thought of putting development issues to general vote is unbelievably scary. In addition to the issues mentioned by Howard, many voters don't take time to truly nderstand issues or candidates on ballots. Add the fact that elections can be easily manipulated by anyone with money and you've got a recipe for disaster. Manipulating an election is just as easy as influencing an elected official.

Our General Plan is the way we communicate the desires of our community. Ours just happens to need updating and should be revisited every +-ten years. My hope is that the CVS/Chase situation has motivated people to get involved and insist that our city take on this task.

Ted

[Gus diZerega]

You appear easily frightened. Nor it seems to me have you or Howard read my response carefully. IF the measure is well written it will take considerable effort to get a goodly number of signatures objecting to a hypothetical measure. More than is able to be obtained from angry neighbors alone. It will have to be an issue of city wide significance.

In such cases I submit that the average citizens SHOULD have a say. In simpler times New England was world famous for local self-government that while certainly not perfect, impressed almost everyone who saw it. Read Tocqueville some time. Jefferson wanted it spread throughout the country. That kind of action is impossible today but it does not then follow that average citizens should no longer have any access to decisions other than voting to re-elect or depose a representative after the fact. California's initiative system has not been abused by regular citizens, as predicted by opponents of citizens having any say, it has been abused by private interests who simply buy the signatures needed to get some piece of corruption on the ballot. Are you terrified by initiatives? Are Sebastopoleans less competent than the state's average voter?

Perhaps the burden should be on you to say why we should not have a say in major city decisions that affect the town in which we live? Do you really feel so superior to the rest of us that we scare you by having a vote in such cases?

Representative democracy is a good system for governance, but no system of representation is perfect. No system yet devised ensures an identity of interests between the representatives and their constituents. The 10% favorable rating of Congress, the lowest in history, is a particularly gross example. Even local representatives can have their judgment altered by having more ambitious political plans and the need to cultivate support beyond the confines of Sebastopol. Ideological divisions can split a city council of any size, and ideologues can vote their theories regardless of its impact on real people.

To have an institutionalized way for regular citizens to appeal a development decision when its requirements are demanding enough to require real work while not so demanding as to make it effectively impossible is only good sense, especially in a world where we increasingly are relegated to observer status over the decisions made influencing our lives.

The thought of putting development issues to general vote is unbelievably scary. In addition to the issues mentioned by Howard, many voters don't take time to truly nderstand issues or candidates on ballots. Add the fact that elections can be easily manipulated by anyone with money and you've got a recipe for disaster. Manipulating an election is just as easy as influencing an elected official.

Our General Plan is the way we communicate the desires of our community. Ours just happens to need updating and should be revisited every +-ten years. My hope is that the CVS/Chase situation has motivated people to get involved and insist that our city take on this task.

Ted

[Helen Shane]

I think Gus's idea, as are his marvelous drawings, wonderful to think about but not advisable to implement. I agree with Ted that in matters as complex as CVS and NEAP, public hearings are useful for consensus, as would be initiatives, but projects really need to be structured to comply with our General Plan, the update of which takes lots of people, lots of facts, yes, even opinions, but is really scrutinized for unintended consequences. Just as our experience with NEAP and the current project have been. In other words, public discussion is good to point out what should not happen, but General Plans and Design Review Guidelines shepherd what must happen, I hope others will join this discussion.

Helen Shane

The CVS/Chase issue raises a possibility for a more lasting approach to how people in Sebastopol, and potentially any where else for that matter, keeping a better handle over future development in their community.

Simply add one more step to the city’s process approving any development proposal: that for a period of time after the proposal is approved, opponents have several weeks to get an initiative on the ballot that, if it passes, vetoes the decision. This measure could itself be added by initiative, if California law enables local communities to exercise this kind of authority, which I do not know.

Large corporations like centralization of power because when there is a high concentration of it they can bring their resources to bear far more easily than if power is dispersed. This is one reason why, conservative and libertarian mythology to the contrary, large companies promote centralization. One national ‘organic’ standard is easier to manipulate that 50 state ones, for example.

Decentralizing power can make their job harder while simultaneously leveling the playing field to a greater degree for local people. Buying local and paying cash or check so the financial industry gets no spin-off is great and I do it a lot, but making sure that governance is resistant to outside pressures is equally important.

This proposal or approaches like it does not guarantee that projects like CVS/Chase will always be rejected. It is a community decision. It depends on the issue and who is involved. It also depends on available alternatives. But the existence of such a measure would guarantee that those pushing for developments will really listen to those who are skeptical or even have suggestions, and seek to bring them on board.