Why Los Altos will benefit from passing Measure C
Los Altos’ Measure C is clear and simple: It allows residents to decide whether our public land should be made available to private developers and special interests or be kept for public use.
All claims otherwise are deliberate attempts to confuse voters into voting against it — an all-too-common election tactic. We trust residents to see through this.
Measure C protects more than parks. It includes protection for lands that residents assume are parks but are not classified as such by the city, e.g., ball fields, a playground and our historic apricot orchard. It also covers our tree-lined public parking plazas.
In the past, some city officials have expressed interest in selling or leasing much of this public land for private development. Hotels and office buildings have been mentioned.
These same individuals have deliberately misrepresented Measure C, a well-written document from the top land-use firm in California, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger.
The residents group Friends of Los Altos rebutted every argument put forward. Its analysis is available at FriendsOfLosAltos.org.
Leases: Existing leases would not be covered by the measure. Any future changes or new leases that maintain public use would not require a vote.
Measure C applies only to transactions that would “significantly impact the public character” and “effectively privatize” our public lands.
Claims that leases for libraries and fire stations would require a vote are simply false. But if the council wanted to lease
the orchard or a baseball field for a private office building, that would deservedly require a vote. Why aren’t opponents using that example?
Cost: Opponents claim Measure C will cost the city tens of thousands of dollars. In fact, the only cost would be for elections if the city wanted to sell or lease public land for private development. In such a case, an election would be a small price to pay to allow residents to vote on giving up public land forever.
Taxes: Opponents quote the County Assessor saying Measure C reduces tax revenue. He apparently doesn’t realize Measure C applies only to public land.
Do we need Measure C? Opponents claim the city hasn’t sold park land in the past. But Measure C is about the future. The composition of our city council changes every two years. Growth and development pressures continue to increase. We can’t predict whether a future council might want to monetize our public lands.
The city council recently passed an ordinance to require a vote before park land is sold, thereby saying Measure C is unnecessary. Council member Lynette Lee Eng pointed out two loopholes: 1) the ordinance covers only parks and not other public land covered by Measure C, and 2) the ordinance can be reversed at any time by another council vote. Measure C is permanent unless changed by vote of the residents.
As with many political issues, it’s useful to follow the money. Almost half the contributions to the effort against Measure C are from real estate interests. The California Association of Realtors PAC, Los Angeles, donated $10,000 — more than one-third of all No on C contributions. Why are private interests from outside our town trying to tell us how to vote?
If Measure C is defeated, the winners are developers and businesses who would profit from our public lands.
If Measure C passes, residents win.
It’s that simple. Vote “yes” on Measure C.