None

MORE TO THE STORY

While the farmers at ALBA (Agriculture and Land-Based Training Association) share Edward Moncrief’s concern [“War is not the answer,” Letters, April 10-16] with the portrayal of our complaints against the organization as a “land war,” we disagree with the numbers he offers. There are 14 farmers in the “incubator” program. Two are related to staff members, so they would naturally have no quarrel with the situation at the nonprofit. Six more are considered commercial, so they don’t fall into the “small farmer” category. About 10 farmers met with Mr. Moncrief in February to express some of the concerns outlined in the Weekly article [“Land War,” April 3-9]. It’s not just two farmers who have issues, it’s a majority.

We would also like to challenge the assertion that those who are taking issue with ALBA are those who don’t want to adhere to the contract. Nobody’s ever said anything about skirting our responsibilities. All we’ve asked, for months and months, is to have a different method to review those contracts to avoid conflicts of interests. All we’ve received is the runaround.

While we agree that “differences arise across several cultures” we believe there are universal values such as dignity and respect that know no boundaries, and we’ve hoped the staff exhibited those traits to no avail. –Víctor Almazán, Domitila Martínez, Alex Sancén, Delfina Córcoles, Miguel Cisneros, María Aide Aguilar, Irene Zamudio, Pablo Pérez, Juan Pérez | ALBA farmers

GET REAL, GET OVER IT

In your April 10-16 issue, I noted with some amusement the naivety of Mr. Perelman, a Monterey resident, who is enamored with the idea of a pedestrian-only walkway on Lighthouse Avenue, our busiest street in Pacific Grove [Letters, “Shock—Then Awe—in P.G.”]. I suggest Mr. Perelman has no idea what havoc this lousy idea of our mayor would create. Stick to Monterey and let us handle our own affairs, Mr. Perelman.

It is at once impractical because the mayor ignores the fact that there are handicapped people in Pacific Grove and would have no access to shops and banks if they were not allowed to drive there. This is heartless and deserves to be shelved.

If this is to be a pedestrian only area, who will go to shop there and then lug whatever purchases made to their cars which are somewhere else? From what I have seen in other cities, these pedestrians-only areas are a pain in the posterior to those who need to use their cars or other public conveyances to get there and back. –Andrew Wilson | Pacific Grove

A TRUCE—FOR NOW

Battling over Rancho San Juan, and its smaller version, Butterfly Village, has ended in compromise. Now 671 acres instead of its original 2,500, Butterfly Village now has 342 acres of open space instead of a golf course, increased affordable housing from 15 to 32 percent, doubled commercial space, and the addition of an elementary school. Development in North County is restricted to legal lots of record.

Community groups, including Citizens For Responsible Growth, that fought to stop the original Rancho San Juan agreed to compromise not only because Butterfly Village is better, but because of commitments made by county supervisors to maintain city-centered land-use policies articulated in the latest draft of the general plan, GPU5.

Fernando Armenta hopes the Butterfly Village agreement will provide a framework for compromise. Lou Calcagno says the settlement signals a new direction in how the county will deal with future projects and says the settlement was indeed reached using GPU5 as its foundation.

Both supervisors will be responsible for ensuring GPU5’s moderate growth policies remain intact. If they deliver on their promises, it could foreshadow improved trust and cooperation regarding county land-use decisions. If not, the fragile truce will likely unravel and it’s back to the trenches. –Alexander Urciuoli | spokesman, Citizens For Responsible Growth, Salinas