ELECTIONS 2013 - No on K, No on M: the unintended consequences of both might overwhelm us.

First, some history and context for the dueling Fort Ord measures voters face this election.

On the heels of the closure of Fort Ord in 1994, our community was justifiably anxious about how we could ever possibly recover from the loss of one of the largest drivers of the county’s economy. Seaside and Marina were hit particularly hard as soldiers, their families and civilian personnel left the area, and took their dollars with them. But a post-Army Fort Ord, with 28,000 acres and at least some infrastructure (such as roads and sewer lines), presented a world of opportunity.

Establishing the Fort Ord Reuse Authority that same year created a mechanism to help leverage federal and state money and begin rebuilding on Fort Ord, and the money did flow in. FORA had an early success when CSU Monterey Bay was established – the skies had literally opened with an epic conversion from swords to plowshares. We loved seeing CSUMB open its doors, and the energy and vitality the university brings to a region is palpable. And we still love the idea of an expanded research cluster in and around the area of the campus.

Now nearly 20 years later, corralling the interests of the cities surrounding Fort Ord and managing a transparent process that reinforces FORA’s independence are ideals that demand courageous, visionary leadership. But the cities and FORA seem to have a built-in impulse, particularly in the post-2008 economic implosion, to behave like kids on Christmas morning whenever a developer has an idea. They fail to articulate a vision or honor agreements already in place.

One glaring example: The city of Seaside in August entered into an agreement with KB-Bakewell Homes, a controversial residential developer, which sent the city an unsolicited proposal to do a residential development on former Fort Ord land known as the “Surplus II” parcel. A few problems with that: The parcel had already been designated for mixed-use development. The project was never put out to bid. And developer Danny Bakewell Sr. failed to build promised affordable housing at the Seaside Highlands development a decade ago.

Depending on your point of view, the initiative process is a way to put lawmaking power back in the hands of the people. About half of the U.S. states have voter initiatives and referendums. But we shouldn’t overlook the unintended consequences of local and state measures. Locally, Marina stopped urban sprawl onto Armstrong Ranch and forced smart development via an urban growth boundary – that was a clear victory. Conversely, Prop. 140, passed in 1990, established strict term limits for state legislators – and increased the power and influence of professional lobbyists. And Prop. 13 may have kept taxes down for long-term homeowners as California home prices surged, but it nearly bankrupted the services of local government.

Even in this context, neither of the dueling Fort Ord measures – Measure M, backed by the open-space advocates at the Fort Ord Access Alliance, and Measure K, backed by pro-development interests under the guise of supporting a veterans cemetery – stands on its own merits.

MEASURE K
No

Titled the “California Central Coast Veterans Cemetery, Open Space Preservation, and Economic Revitalization Initiative,” Measure K clocks in at 119 pages and seeks to modify some sections of the Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan, presumably to boost the whole region’s economy. If you haven’t read the whole thing and are still considering supporting it, now is the time to ask yourself why.

Measure K backers claim their measure is not a referendum on the already-controversial proposed Monterey Downs housing and horse track development. But with the Monterey Downs LLC development group funding the initiative to the tune of $86,000, an amount that represents 90 percent of the measure’s funding to date, we fail to see how it can be anything but. Even worse, backers Sid Williams of the United Veterans Council of Monterey County and Carlos Ramos of the Coalition for Jobs, Opportunity and Jobs in Seaside sought to hide this financial reality by refusing to tell the Weekly’s editorial board its finances. (It was perhaps a naive move on Williams’ part, and definitely more of a calculated one on Ramos’.) Then, when the measure’s financials were filed (late) with the county Elections Department, the disclosure of Monterey Downs’ contributions were placed in a different category than the campaign’s filings, making them harder to find.

Further, Measure K backers had a Monterey Downs attorney at their side when they went to court to sue backers of the rival Measure M, a move that proved unsuccessful.

Measure K was written as a direct shot at Measure M. It’s unfortunate, then, that some of the veterans backing Measure K still claim the fate of their long-awaited cemetery is tied their initiative. It has also become disingenuous, given that state Sen. Bill Monning has floated a bill which would secure $1 million of the $2.6 million needed to close the gap between state and federal funding to build the cemetery’s first phase. Heavy hitters including Carmel Mayor Jason Burnett and aspiring politico Jimmy Panetta, who served as U.S. Navy intelligence officer during the war in Afghanistan and is a member of the Central Coast Veterans Cemetery Foundation, are pressing the flesh and gathering checks to help close that gap (see “Forum,” p. 15). So it’s a real stretch, if not a fabrication, that the cemetery’s fate is tied to Measure M’s.

Should the veterans and their loved ones get the cemetery they were promised decades ago? Absolutely. Should it be exploited as a star-spangled ruse to benefit developers like Monterey Downs, who have consistently hidden their dealings from public view – and are months late getting the city of Seaside an economic and fiscal impact analysis that will spell out the types of jobs and salaries the project would create? We don’t think so. Secure the Promise’s financial backers have been playing dirty, and this community deserves better. No on K.

MEASURE M
No

We empathize with the authors of Measure M, the “Protect Fort Ord Open Space Access Initiative.” Fort Ord’s chaparral and woodland habitat are sacred ground for hikers, bikers and equestrians who have come to know and love it – and we share their hope that much of the land be preserved. But this initiative may have overreached.

It’s telling that voters aren’t the only ones confused by what Measure M (and certainly K) would do and where. Some of the lawyers who have studied the Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan amendments proposed by both initiatives are also scratching their heads. We’re pretty sure that if either one wins the popular vote, it’ll end up in court.

Measure M spells out four parcels it would take out of development and preserve for open space and recreation. That should be clear enough, but unfortunately it gets more complicated.

Measure M would revise the Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan language regarding what’s called the Eucalyptus Road Planning Area, otherwise known as Parker Flats, by deleting residential and light-industrial land-use designations on the land comprising the majority of the proposed Monterey Downs. As the M initiative presents it, the affected parcel is 373 acres. But as FORA reads it, the revisions would actually impact up to 1,300 acres.

The discrepancy has officials with Monterey Peninsula College confused, because their planned emergency vehicle operations course (EVOC), which will offer professional training to police, fire and other first responders, sits right in the gray area. If they and their lawyers are stumped about what M would mean for the EVOC, well, you might be, too.

Ditto the Eastside Parkway. It’s probably misleading for the Measure K campaign to claim Measure M would kill the long-planned shortcut through northern Fort Ord; Measure M leaders say even open space allows roads. But there’s certainly nothing explicit in Measure M protecting FORA’s ability to plan the road that’s going to be critical to traffic mitigation for virtually every other future development on the former base.

As for the veterans cemetery: We join Measure M leaders in pooh-poohing their opponents’ convoluted arguments that M would somehow block it. It wouldn’t. In fact, it seems to make more sense to surround the soldiers’ eternal resting place with peacefully preserved open space rather than homes and industry. In that regard, the conservationists behind M have been unfairly and somewhat cynically maligned under the guise of patriotism.

Still, we believe Measure M may have more unintended consequences than its supporters acknowledge. We share their frustration (and even their distrust for some local elected officials, who seem too hypnotized by the spell of developers to act in the long-term interests of the community). But we are unconvinced Monterey Downs’ proposal to build homes, apartments, hotels, an arena and a horse racetrack will see the light of day – there’s simply not enough water or political consensus. When the Downs’ economic study does finally come out, we suspect the promised jobs will be at more low-end wages – not all that enticing.

Our editorial board narrowly agreed to a no vote on M as a result of our confidence in Monterey Downs’ failure, all on its own.

Your vote may come down to your own trust in the process, in your faith in local elected officials, and in the way Measure M gets interpreted by the courts. Are you feeling lucky?

The Weekly’s editorial board comprises CEO Bradley Zeve, Publisher Erik Cushman, Editor Mary Duan, Managing Editor Mark C. Anderson and Assistant Editor Kera Abraham.