In Response to Stocker

In a recent letter in the Territorial Dispatch, Hal Stocker attempted to defend his land use ballot measure known as Measure T and a response is in order.
First of all, Mr. Stocker claims to pride himself on the protection of Agriculture and Agriculture businesses. At a recent board of supervisors meeting, I brought to the board’s attention the fact the Levees in District 10 have been decertified. As a result, the county’s largest agricultural area has been mapped into a flood plain; therefore, the businesses must pay extremely high flood insurance rates.

According to FEMA these businesses are no longer protected by levees meaning that in the event of a flood or fire, they cannot be rebuilt.

After hearing my presentation, Mr. Stocker said he was afraid that if the levees were repaired the land would be developed. He said this even though the zoning in District10 is AE 40. Where is his support for agriculture?

Hal also talks about the Yuba Highlands project. It failed by a 75% vote after both the developer and those opposed to the project encouraged a vote against it. Question; if the developer would have been willing to spend the amount that was spent opposing the project how many would have voted for the project?

Hal stated that it is his responsibility to protect agriculture to protect the rural nature of our county, yet Hal has always voted to convert agriculture lands in the south county to housing projects.

Hal also fails to mention that there is already one project in Yuba County that meets all the requirements of Measure T and has been an obsession of his for over 20 years. That project is none other than the Spring Valley Project. By having been approved by the voters in a vote forced by Hal, the only way that project can be changed is by a vote of the people.

Last, and truly unbelievable, over the years Hal has prided himself on the fact that with questionnaires and surveys he always listens to the voters in his district. Hal’s statement that “Measure T only failed by 1%”in a countywide vote is true. BUT, what Hal fails to mention is that over 60% of the voters in the 5th district voted against Measure T. 2355 said “Yes” while a resounding 3561 said “No. “

Hal’s constituents in the 5th district, the one district that would have been affected most, turned down his attempt to change the rules. Hal’s constituents said “No” loud and clear, but Hal is not listening.

No one said Measure T would require a vote of the people to replace your roof. However, for a land owner whose land is now zoned AR 5 and is outside of a community boundary, it would have required a vote of the entire county to split a 40 acre parcel into 5 acre parcels.

The question then becomes, should a person renting and living in an apartment in Marysville have the same voting power over your land as you do?

Don Schrader
Candidate-
Yuba Co. 5th District