#54, November 1, 2000
Common sense has been a theme in local campaigns, so I'm going
to apply some to the paradoxical campaign against the Rural Heritage
Initiative, Measure I.
"Save Our Farms," say the signs. For what? The
land development industry is contributing heavily to the No on I campaign. Why
are developers so interested in saving these farms? Do they see big business in
building the often-mentioned second homes for the kids who choose to stay on
the parents' farm (by the way, these homes already are allowed by the
General Plan and thus Measure I.) Or could it be that land speculators want to
"save the farms from farming?" Y'know, save them for framing.
Like with 2 by 4s?
"Save Our Parks," say the signs. Just where are
these threatened parks? Measure I wouldn't prevent the hiking parks we need so
badly in the South County. It would disallow jungle gyms and sandboxes on ag
lands, but we can still build those and the new sports fields within urban
growth boundaries. Does the Farm Bureau want to convert working farms to
playgrounds? C'mon, Farm Bureau, make up your mind! Maybe the Farm Bureau wants
some fishing parks, to produce more of these red herring.
If we pass Measure I and it turns out to have some
superficial flaws, the Board of Supervisors can put an amendment measure on the
next scheduled ballot. But if we vote it down, holding out for a better-drafted
future RHI, don't expect the Supes or the folks bankrolling the big green signs
to get behind it. They like the status quo. I understand why farmers want
maximum "flexibility." But flexibility in the face of huge development
pressure made Swiss cheese of Santa Clara County's General Plan, and planted
their ag industry six feet under. Do we want to take that risk? Get the full
story at www.ruralheritage.net
Speaking of green signs…what about Ralph Nader? Here's a guy
who, by fighting corporate greed, has probably directly saved a million
American lives. He's smart, tough, funny, and un-owned. Like the heroes of
those political films we wish were true--Warren Beatty's Bulworth and
Kevin Kline's Dave-- Nader tells it like it is. He is awakening the
interest of the voters who are sick of government of, by, and for the highest
bidder.
Under a Nader presidency, the American people would turn
government back to service of people, not transnational corporations. Nader
would engage the new millenium's equivalent of Kennedy's "brain
trust", scholars and businesspeople who know how to make us prosper
without imperialism, make us secure without Star Wars, make our neighborhoods
safe without creating a police state.
We'd crack the military industrial complex and the WTO. Our
energy and money would support sustainable technologies and community
self-reliance, ensuring justice and prosperity worldwide. For a fraction of
what we spend on prisons and the military dictatorships of our drug war allies,
we'd solve the drug problem through education and treatment. With top to bottom
campaign finance reform, the HMO's would be powerless to prevent a fair and
efficient universal health care program, like those in Canada and Germany.
Think what we could do with the money we'd save!
I like Gore's recent populist talk, and "Earth In The
Balance" was a good book. But when you actually look beyond the rhetoric
to the record, especially in global affairs, Gore looks a lot like a more intelligent
version of plutocrat Bush.
Petaluma has a reputation as a national trendsetter. What if
we voted our conscience and gave Nader a majority? Petaluma alone can't elect
him, but we could be "the mouse that roared," and give the other
parties a push toward ecological and economic sanity. Plus, a 5% showing will
get the Greens $5 million in matching funds in the next election. If you want
to play it cautious, wait until 7PM, and if California isn't close or critical,
vote Nader. In any case, vote for US Senate Green candidate Medea Benjamin.
She's the brilliant founder of Global Exchange, one of the most effective
international human rights organizations. Learn more at
www.sonomagreenparty.org