Greenbelt Alliance home About Us What We Do Get Involved Resource Center Your Region Join Today!

Home > Resource Center > In the News Home > Greenbelt Alliance in the News

RESOURCE CENTER
· Introduction
· Press Room
· Reports
· Newsletters
· Links
   
RELATED LINKS
· Press Releases
· Greenbelt Alliance in Your Region
 

Sign up for the Greenbelt Newswire and Outings Calendar:




WWW SiteSearch

Greenbelt Alliance In the News

March 4, 2008

Some calling county panel 'stacked'

Danny Bernardini


A handful of citizens involved in crafting the Solano County General Plan Update are voicing their concerns over the makeup of the committee and how members were selected more than a year ago.

The Solano County Board of Supervisors voted to revamp the Citizens Advisory Committee in January 2007, saying at the time that increasing vacancies were decreasing the group's efficiency. Some of the those on the first 20-person committee were carried over, while some were replaced for the new 16-person group. The original committee had worked for a year before the revamping of the group.

Now, with the first draft of the General Plan Update to be released publicly March 31, some of those past and present members are speaking out. The county's General Plan is a blueprint for land use and other elements that will shape the county's unincorporated areas for the next few decades.

The changing of the committee last January was done by an ad-hoc committee of Supervisor Jim Spering and John Silva. In the past, each of the five supervisors was allowed four appointments. The second time around, each supervisor was allowed one appointment, while Spering and Silva chose the rest.

Nicole Byrd, a field representative for the Greenbelt Alliance Napa-Solano, said when that happened, the committee was stacked with folks who were pro-development. Byrd served on the first committee and was Supervisor Barbara Kondylis' appointee on the second.
She said the influx of the pro-development people was noticed immediately and could threaten the future of agricultural areas in the county. She also was upset that the new committee was chosen behind closed doors.

" As soon as the committee reconvened, there was a clear divide in the interests that were pro-development and the people protecting ag land," Byrd said. "People are complaining about wanting transparency. This is the opposite of that. It just seems dirty."
Kondylis also was opposed to the process at the time, and still has reservations about the issue today. She said she didn't see a need to completely change the group and said she wasn't thrilled with the process either. She agreed that the new committee is a bit heavy on pro-development members.

" I just don't think that was a very democratic way. It was an insult to all the work (the original committee) had done," Kondylis said. "It was pretty well-rounded the first time. I was not happy with the way those committee members were selected."

Spering said he believes the group of committee members are more upset about the results than with the way the process played out. He said if there was really a large problem, they would have brought it up sooner.

" Why did they wait until the end of the process? I think waiting this long is disingenuous," Spering said via phone from Washington, D.C. "I really think, it's almost sour grapes. They didn't get everything they wanted and now want to criticize the process. If they are saying we have an agenda, that's a false accusation."

One person who does feel there was an agenda is former committee member Marti Brown of Vallejo. As a senior planner for the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, she felt her expertise was needed on the commission. The problem, is she was not asked back as a result of the change.

" To me, it turned into a process that was highly politicized and charged. Why would you not re-appoint a planner," Brown said? "You do have to ask yourself, what's really going on? It's very political and unfortunate."

She said although the county's legal counsel said Spering and Silva were allowed to make the selections out of the public eye, Brown said it's not a good precedent.
" There are lots of things that are legally okay, but are they good for public government?," she said. "It's going to affect all of us."

###

 

  Home | About Us | What We Do | Get Involved | Resource Center | Your Region | Join Today 

©1995-2006 Greenbelt Alliance, 631 Howard Street, Suite 510, San Francisco CA 94105, 415.543.6771, info@greenbelt.org