Will ballot split city voters east versus west?
Will two controversial measures on the upcoming June primary ballot divide voter sentiment in this community on a geographical, east versus west basis?
Probably, according to comments by Mayor Mark Schwing at a City Council meeting, when members voted 4-1 to put the two measures dealing with increased densities for low-cost housing to voters in a special city election combined with the June 5 primary.
A Schwing political opinion merits close attention, since he’s the city record-holder for most times on the ballot, with six runs for council (won four, lost two), one for water board director (lost) and seven for county GOP Central Committee (won six, lost one).
The two measures include one in which voters will decide whether or not to allow higher densities and increased building heights for nine properties on the city’s westside and a second in which voters will make a decision regarding two eastside Savi Ranch parcels.
Approval for increased densities--20 units per acre for some properties and 30 units per acre for others--would allow, but not require, the construction of low-cost, multi-family residential units to meet state-mandated affordable housing requirements.
“We’ll probably again have an east versus west issue,” stated Schwing, who sought a separate vote for each parcel, at the Jan. 17 session, referring to a measure that lost in November 2010, which he said was “clearly an east versus west issue.”
The 2010 measure would have allowed up to 30 units per acre and heights up to 45 feet on a 3.2-acre Savi Ranch site, once home to a car dealership, but Measure Z lost by 197 votes, 13,344 to 13,147, narrowest margin for the 14 measures ever put on a city ballot.
The defeat came from eastside voters, defined by the boundary between the 60th and 72nd Assembly districts, who voted “no” 6,931 to 5,776, a 1,155-vote deficit, which overcame a pro-Z margin of 958 votes, 7,371 to 6,413, from westside voters.
The only money involved in the campaign came from National Community Renaissance, which paid out $22,738 seeking “yes” votes, plus $8,500 to put the measure on the ballot.
Interestingly, John Seymour, the firm’s acquisitions vice president, told the council at the Jan. 17 meeting that his group, a non-profit affordable housing developer, is submitting a plan with two options for the Savi Ranch site on the ballot again in June.
He said one proposal is for 69 units should new zoning be approved and the other for 43 units allowable under current standards. His firm, which uses the name National CORE, rebuilt 143 affordable units at Arbor Villas and Villa Plumosa, north of the library.
Cost for the special June election will be between $85,000 and $104,000, based on figures from the Registrar of Voters, and the cash might come from the former Redevelopment Agency funds, if allowed by a newly named, seven-member oversight panel.
The city also plans to spend $45,000 for voter/community public relations that Schwing said could fund four to five mailers. The outreach could tell voters of consequences of a majority “no” vote, including possible lawsuits and loss of local planning control.
Probably, according to comments by Mayor Mark Schwing at a City Council meeting, when members voted 4-1 to put the two measures dealing with increased densities for low-cost housing to voters in a special city election combined with the June 5 primary.
A Schwing political opinion merits close attention, since he’s the city record-holder for most times on the ballot, with six runs for council (won four, lost two), one for water board director (lost) and seven for county GOP Central Committee (won six, lost one).
The two measures include one in which voters will decide whether or not to allow higher densities and increased building heights for nine properties on the city’s westside and a second in which voters will make a decision regarding two eastside Savi Ranch parcels.
Approval for increased densities--20 units per acre for some properties and 30 units per acre for others--would allow, but not require, the construction of low-cost, multi-family residential units to meet state-mandated affordable housing requirements.
“We’ll probably again have an east versus west issue,” stated Schwing, who sought a separate vote for each parcel, at the Jan. 17 session, referring to a measure that lost in November 2010, which he said was “clearly an east versus west issue.”
The 2010 measure would have allowed up to 30 units per acre and heights up to 45 feet on a 3.2-acre Savi Ranch site, once home to a car dealership, but Measure Z lost by 197 votes, 13,344 to 13,147, narrowest margin for the 14 measures ever put on a city ballot.
The defeat came from eastside voters, defined by the boundary between the 60th and 72nd Assembly districts, who voted “no” 6,931 to 5,776, a 1,155-vote deficit, which overcame a pro-Z margin of 958 votes, 7,371 to 6,413, from westside voters.
The only money involved in the campaign came from National Community Renaissance, which paid out $22,738 seeking “yes” votes, plus $8,500 to put the measure on the ballot.
Interestingly, John Seymour, the firm’s acquisitions vice president, told the council at the Jan. 17 meeting that his group, a non-profit affordable housing developer, is submitting a plan with two options for the Savi Ranch site on the ballot again in June.
He said one proposal is for 69 units should new zoning be approved and the other for 43 units allowable under current standards. His firm, which uses the name National CORE, rebuilt 143 affordable units at Arbor Villas and Villa Plumosa, north of the library.
Cost for the special June election will be between $85,000 and $104,000, based on figures from the Registrar of Voters, and the cash might come from the former Redevelopment Agency funds, if allowed by a newly named, seven-member oversight panel.
The city also plans to spend $45,000 for voter/community public relations that Schwing said could fund four to five mailers. The outreach could tell voters of consequences of a majority “no” vote, including possible lawsuits and loss of local planning control.
posted by Jim Drummond at 12:00 PM
<< Home