Another opportunity to steer Patterson toward agricultural mitigation went down in flames during the last council meeting. In an earlier post, we challenged the council to put up or shut up regarding ag mitigation. Unfortunately, for the residents of Patterson, only two council members answered the call.
Annette Smith and Dominic Farinha exerted sound leadership by voting “no” on the attempt to erase a mitigation condition on a 51 acre annexation.
We just can’t figure this council out. We were blindsided by the Shelton vote, after all, she does work for an organization that heavily promotes mitigation, to preserve farmland.
We know where Campo stands on this matter, we don’t expect her to suddenly change her rather archaic reasoning.
The opportunity to establish a precedent for agricultural mitigation in the City of Patterson now lies on the shoulders of Cuellar and Shelton. By joining Smith and Farinha, they can help establish a policy that will forever be cherished by future generations. We can’t continue to pave without a plan, either draw a true urban boundry or implement an ag mitigation policy. Doing nothing is unacceptable.
Again, we want to thank Smith and Farinha for having the foresight to acknowledge that paving and not preserving, will only result in an outcome that is not beneficial to the city of Patterson.
Click on the “paper image” below to read the Patterson IrriGator’s coverage.
William Johnston said,
April 30, 2009 @ 10:17 AM
I thought Shelton and Cuellar were for mitigation. Huh.
Save Farmland said,
April 30, 2009 @ 7:59 PM
GVC has been a tremendous advocate for farmland conservation. Here is an excerpt from the most recent publication. Shelton shouldn’t be forced to vote a certain way just because she happens to be employed at GVC. However, we could have used her vote to get Stanislaus County moving along with ag mitigation.
“The Agricultural Transactions Program created new models for agricultural land conservation within its three Central Valley partnership communities. It set a precedent for the region, demonstrating to community leaders, landowners and conservation funders that with adequate resources and a strategic approach, urban boundaries can be reinforced; development patterns can even be altered. This was a fundamental shift in thought. By presenting Central Valley communities with this new possibility and the resources with which to act, the investment strengthened the region’s ability to conserve important agricultural lands and define their role in its future.”
Yolo County said,
May 1, 2009 @ 8:52 AM
Thought people in Patterson may be interested. Participated in this workgroup, Shelton and Whiteside were consulting. Take a look at Goal #5.
http://www.sjvpartnership.org/uploaded_files/WG_doc/LUAH_2008Q4_mdm.pdf
Stop The Madness said,
May 3, 2009 @ 11:12 AM
Great responses,
Campo is tough to figure out. Ms. Campo was the lone vote against the Patterson Gardens project years ago. She thought then it was too much too fast. Since then, she has adopted the ” growth is inevitable ” mantra developers love so much and believes developers should basically be able to develop as much as they want. I think the mayor’s chair and the developer relationships that come with the position has gotten to the mayor.