I'm voting no on this constitutional ammendment. Please feel free to use my E-mail to ask for more detailed reasons, but to list them in no particular priority, they are as follows:
1- It could trigger the next recession.
2- affordable housing will suffer.
3- farmers will lose their savings.
4- Our property values could go up even more making redevelopment in our neighborhood more attractive (if we don't immediatly go into recession).
5- It could have the opposite of the desired effect and increase sprawl rather than controling it.
6- There is no method of enforcement, so the courts will be full of new cases at taxpayer expense.
7- There is no way to change the law, should it prove to have negative effects, except another general statewide election next Nov.
8- It won't work. We need statewide planning with enforcement, not growth boundries.
9- Exempt areas, such as small towns and counties may grow wildly. Growth follows the path of least resistance.
10- 35 acre ''ranchettes'' may proliferate over the mountains and other open space since they are also exempt from the law.
1- It could trigger the next recession.
2- affordable housing will suffer.
3- farmers will lose their savings.
4- Our property values could go up even more making redevelopment in our neighborhood more attractive (if we don't immediatly go into recession).
5- It could have the opposite of the desired effect and increase sprawl rather than controling it.
6- There is no method of enforcement, so the courts will be full of new cases at taxpayer expense.
7- There is no way to change the law, should it prove to have negative effects, except another general statewide election next Nov.
8- It won't work. We need statewide planning with enforcement, not growth boundries.
9- Exempt areas, such as small towns and counties may grow wildly. Growth follows the path of least resistance.
10- 35 acre ''ranchettes'' may proliferate over the mountains and other open space since they are also exempt from the law.
