If Measure B fails it will take at least 2-3 more years to adopt a new/revised plan and conduct the necessary environmental studies (EIR). The current EIR has been challenged in court by activists who oppose the 2004 GP so it is unclear how much of that document would be valid for use in a future plan. It is also unclear, but doubtful, that the same small group of opponents would suddenly embrace an EIR that they’ve formally challenged. But the problems associated with the development of a new GP remain the same as those we’ve faced for the 15 years it’s taken to achieve the current consensus…. namely: How do we please all segments of such a diverse population base? And, how do we overcome the lies and scare tactics of radical ideologues? A seldom discussed issue is the relationship between Measures B and D. If B fails and D passes “…the combined effects are much greater” according to legal counsel. This scenario would make it necessary for extensive and fundamental policy revisions and drastic changes to land-use designations – a process likely to take many years to complete. A little history is important for readers to understand the depth of the coalition and the compromises that are behind the development of the 2004 GP. It gained momentum last summer when the various interests representing land use (eg, agriculture to development) assembled before the Board of Supervisors for public hearings on the four alternative general plans under consideration. Those that filed the Referendum did not participate in all of the BOS public hearings. Recognizing the inherent conflicts between their respective interests, the ag community, the development community and numerous other groups and individuals compromised to create general plan policies that would protect agriculture and also meet the county and state’s need for additional housing. In attendance were representatives of fire fighters, public health and safety, schools, economic development, recreation and tourism. All gave their input and the Supervisors revised and worked with all these interests to develop the 2004 GP. As part of the requirements to adopt this plan, the Supervisors had to introduce “findings of fact” as to why the 2004 GP is preferable to the other alternatives. Those findings literally tell the public of the shortcomings of the other alternatives, so it would be impossible to go back and ignore those findings. They are part of the public record and would become “exhibit one” in the next lawsuit to obstruct the county if political leaders tried to backtrack and adopt one of the other alternatives. 3/1/05 Business Alliance…Update Page 2 As to what will happen if Measure B fails….the results could spell disaster for El Dorado County and include: ~ The loss of critical water rights for over 20,000 acre feet of NEW water; ~ The potential of losing state funds for road improvements, housing vouchers and other programs that require a valid General Plan for funding. ~ A loss of millions of local tax dollars that would be diverted to developing another general plan (after 15 years and over $15 million already invested in this process.) ~ The distinct possibility that the State will take over local land use control as exemptions to this county are exhausted, resulting in an increase of apartments and affordable housing units in areas not appropriate or designated for same by local leaders. (Currently State administrators have issued numerous statements expressing concern that California is not providing enough affordable housing and threatening to take appropriate measures to increase the supply of same.) If you’re not sure how to vote on B….go to the website: yesonmeasureb.com Review the large and diverse group of endorsers and you’ll understand why B is Best and D is Dumb!