• City Council Votes Not to Vote on Measures K, M

    Two controversial voter initiatives are vying for support on the Nov. 5, 2013 ballot: Measures K and M. Each seeks to address future land use on the former Fort Ord Lands.

    A comprehensive Fort Ord Reuse Plan was developed in 1995-96 and included input from stakeholders including the County of Monterey; the cities of Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Monterey and Seaside; the Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA) and the Local Agency Formation Commission, as prescribed by state law. Many individuals and groups also participated in the process of establishing the plan, including a veterans’ cemetery which already has gained two grants.

    With combined taxpayer costs of more than $1 million, the two measures each seek to override zoning established by FORA with the input of actual stakeholders. The decision will be made by voters not directly affected by the decision, such as those in South County. As City Manager Tom Frutchey pointed out in the staff report of the item on the agenda at the Oct. 2 meeting, if either measure passes, there will likely be lawsuits and more legal expense, diverting money and energy “from the important business of fulfilling the goals of the [Ft. Ord Reuse] Plan, including removing the blight, creating new jobs, and fully restoring the open space.

    Neither measure, Frutchey pointed out, requires analysis of environmental impacts and there is no requirement for acceptable mitigations.

    In order to pass, either K or M must receive the most yes votes over 50 percent of the total votes. If both receive more than 50 percent of yes votes, the decision will be for the measure receiving the most yes votes. If neither receives more than 50 percent of the yes votes, they both go down and we retain the status quo. The voter guides mailed out on Monday, Oct. 1 do not indicate a choice of not voting for either, nor is the full wording in the voter guide.

    Except for Dan Miller, each City Council member – including Mayor Kampe who sits on FORA  –  agreed that the City of Pacific Grove should merely receive the report and not endorse one choice or the other. Miller had previously disagreed about Pacific Grove funding its seat on FORA in any case.

    posted to Cedar Street Times on October 3, 2013

    Topics: Front PG News


    You must be logged in to post a comment.