Open letter to the El Dorado County supervisors


I am writing to you today as an El Dorado County resident to express my point of view on the various ballot initiatives that are being circulated in the county that are attempting to put measures on the ballot to restrict the 1.03 percent growth/development called for in the current El Dorado County General Plan. We have elected the county supervisors to manage the General Plan for the long-term growth and development of El Dorado County — not a group of special interest people that want to impose their agendas (no growth, rural or hyper growth) on us.

As I understand it, one or more of these initiatives may affect the current El Dorado County General Plan, with the potential result of having state of California agencies (e.g. Caltrans) dictate the future growth and development of the county. This is not what the citizens want; we want “Local Control” that balances the growth and development, while providing us with needed services and housing options. Our local control is in the hands of the El Dorado County supervisors; that is what you were elected to do and want you to do!

As a concerned citizen I expect to see the El Dorado County supervisors take an active role in defending the current General Plan (including the invested time and effort of hundreds of El Dorado County citizens) and to be vigilant to maintain your influence with regard to ballot measures that risk our losing local control to the state of California.

Measured growth and development in El Dorado County (taking into account reasonable EIR issues) should result in enhanced business and residential growth that creates a vibrant and financially sound community for all of its citizens.

William D. Webb
El Dorado Hills

Short URL: http://www.villagelife.com/?p=39808

This story falls on page "5"
Posted by on May 8 2014.
Last Login:
Filed under Letters to the Editor. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

4 Comments for “Open letter to the El Dorado County supervisors”

DAILYREPUBLIC.com does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy.

  1. Hal Erpenbeck

    I am in complete agreement with Mr. Webb. I would like to add that if some of the ballot measures pass the El Dorado County Supervisors will have no role or influence in the areas covered by the measures. The initiatives while sounding simple address some very complex land use issues. As a result, if passed they will have unintended consequences. These consequences will be with us for a long time because it will take another ballot measure to fix them. So I am not going to vote for any of them.

    The problems that the initiatives are trying to solve are real and they need to be address. But not by the initiative process, it’s just not a good way to govern.

  2. Mr. Webb, you have a basic misunderstanding of at least one of these initiatives. You have fallen victim to the full page ad taken out by the Chamber of Commerce some weeks back. Caltrans does not dictate the future growth and development of this county, nor will they with the approval of these initiatives in November. Caltrans determines only the capacity of Hwy 50, and what the county chooses to do with that information is up to them. The problem is that they (EDC Supervisors and staff) have thus far chosen to ignore Caltrans determinations in order to continue approving residential development that is not in keeping with our rural county. THAT is the problem. And Hal, if our county staff and Supervisors were listening, we would not be looking at a full rack of voter initiatives.

  3. Hal Erpenbeck

    Hi Ellen,
    District 4 has at least one candidate that is a signatory to one of your initiatives. Get one of them elected. There is also an election in District 5 and there maybe one in District 2 soon. Even if there is not going to be an election in District 2 Ray is not what I would call a pro-growth kind of a guy. So let’s elect Sups that listen.

    Next the part I don’t understand. If the White Rock connector mitigated the Hwy 50 problem would it be OK to do the development along Green Valley Road? I don’t think so and I don’t think you do either.

    Based on the well thought out and presented information, provided to Bass Lake Action Committee by members of the Green Valley Alliance, development along Green Valley Road could be huge problem. But it in is not tied to Hwy 50.

    Governing is about balancing the overall needs of the people and community. The initiative process is about providing solutions to complex problems with simple answers. They are not plans, they are not strategy, they are not policy, and they are not good government. VOTE NO and Initiatives.

  4. Hal: the White Rock Rd connector will not mitigate the Hwy50 problem. You are right though, that development on Green Valley Rd is a more complex issue, and that I would not agree to high density there. There is conflict in our General Plan, and developers AND county staff have used it to push development on low density lands. An initiative is proving to be the only way to allow residents like me to return to our lives, and trust that the open space next door will remain as open space. YES; vote ‘YES’ on the locally sponsored initiative(s) that will actually preserve the rural character of our county, and not pack the community region to unbearable and overflowing.

Comments are closed

Recently Commented

  • Connie Hull: Hi Kim, Praying for your dear son, Greg, and his recovering. I remember you, Greg and all your family...
  • Michael T. Connors: Harmony Home care will be there to support this great cause. www.athomecaresacramento.com
  • Cris: Great review, though Shotgun Weddings is not a novel. It’s a work of non-fiction — though...
  • Elizabeth: Why was the judge surprised? This man has proven that he cannot make good decisions. It started in the 90s...
  • Merrilee Posner: Hi Marina, lovely name. Yes it is bad. Help us by writing letters to the Board of Supervisors, all...