Marin IJ Readers’ Forum for May 22, 2022

Measure A needs rewrite and no vote

The devil is in the details. But important details are intentionally missing in how Measure A funds will be spent.

The Marin Agricultural Land Trust, a large contributor to the Measure A campaign, stands to access millions of Measure A dollars over 10 years if Measure A is renewed. I wonder why I don’t see MALT’s name on the ballot or on the “Yes on A” signs posted throughout the county.

MALT’s reputation took a hit after it overcharged the public $833,250 for an easement it purchased with Measure A funds. In the last two years, several members of MALT’s staff resigned and Supervisor Dennis Rodoni agreed to leave his position as a MALT board member. Even the IJ editorial board criticized MALT’s lack of transparency (“MALT needs to improve oversight, pursue transparency,” Oct. 27, 2020).

If approved, Measure A will allocate 10% to agricultural easements, helping Marin’s largest landowners “save” farmland already protected from subdivision by county zoning. The public has no access to these private lands.

Paying Marin ranchers to be ranchers is not as popular as it once was — unless you’re a rancher. One county survey showed public support for parks and open space but not for private farmland, which ranked last for future Measure A funding.

Rather than raising money to persuade voters to renew Measure A, why doesn’t MALT mount its own ballot measure for farmlands instead of “coattailing” on the popularity of parks and open spaces? Naturally, I don’t think that ballot measure would pass.

Unlike MALT, Measure A’s opponents have no financial stake. We object to a vaguely written ordinance that continues to divert millions of public dollars to a chosen few. The county can bring a better, more equitable Measure A to the ballot in November. Until then, vote no.

— Susan Ives, Mill Valley

Vote yes on Measure A for parks, open space, ag

As a lifetime resident of Marin, I feel strongly that a yes vote on Measure A is critical for the county we love and what makes it special. Since Measure A was passed in 2012, our county and local communities have benefited from funding to support our open spaces, parks, and agricultural lands.

As a hiker, walker and bird watcher, I can clearly see that our parks have been renovated. There are new facilities, our hiking and walking trails have been upgraded and habitats along our shorelines have been restored protecting wildlife.

The possibility of horrendous wildfires are a real threat to our homes and open spaces. I have watched goats brought into my neighborhood to graze removing fire fuel hazards and the clearing of French broom, an invasive species.

Grants have been given to our local communities to support hometown parks and recreation upgrading our baseball diamonds and tennis courts. Everyone can check out a library park pass to visit our parks for hikes and family picnics.

I can buy local food products at the farmers market that were produced by farmers on our West Marin ranches and farms. Who can resist a dozen eggs collected just that morning?

Voting yes on Measure A continues to preserve and protect our county for current and future generations.

— Sue Ream, San Anselmo

Put solar, battery power on low-income housing

Gov. Gavin Newsom reports an unprecedented budget surplus on the order of $90 billion. Much of this is due to taxation on recent stock market profits and is therefore unlikely to be repeated. What should the state do with this windfall?

Simultaneously, we are confronted with proposals from the Public Utilities Commission to radically increase electricity charges on people who have or are planning to install solar panels. While these proposals are among the stupidest imaginable, I won’t go into the details except to say that they initially came from the Pacific Gas and Electric Co.

One of the “justifying” claims is that solarized homes don’t pay for their use of the grid. Now, adding batteries to those homes could reduce grid use to nearly zero.

Subsidizing the installation of solar panels and batteries on low-income housing could offset the other CPUC argument that current solarized homes transfer utility costs to low income people.

Then there would be the modest benefit of decreasing carbon dioxide emissions.

I am surprised that neither the governor nor anyone in the state Legislature has not already come up with this idea, it seems pretty obvious.

— Chet Seligman, Point Reyes Station