Measure A makes us take responsibility for the future.

• • •

On page one of the Sunday issue that contained the editorial against Measure A, the Herald ran a piece comparing the way the competing growth plans deal with affordable housing. The timing and placement of story—part of an ongoing series labeled “General Plan Showdown”—feeds the impression that this debate is largely about affordable housing.

Measure A’s opponents have succeeded in bringing this issue to the foreground. In fact, GPU 4 does little to solve the County’s affordable housing crisis. Its growth areas would include some 3,380 affordable units, compared to 2,440 with Measure A. Meanwhile, GPU 4 allows for 16,000 units that will be priced beyond the reach of 80 percent of county residents, while Measure A would allow for around 7,000 market-rate homes.

In it’s anti-Measure A editorial, the Herald states the common fallacy that “more market-rate housing means more affordable housing for people who need it.” Where on earth is the evidence to support that conclusion? Over the past decade, the California landscape has been transformed by massive sprawling housing developments. Meanwhile, we find rent or mortgage payments taking a bigger and bigger bite out of our paychecks.

We need to find a solution to Monterey County’s affordable housing problem—in fact, I wish that the Measure A plan did a better job of dealing with that issue. But that is not what this is about.

The campaign against Measure A is largely funded by groups and individuals who have fought long and hard against legislation that would provide more affordable housing. These powerful interests are spending a lot of money to see that GPU 4 passes—and not because they care deeply about the poor.

The heated political battle sparked by the citizens’ General Plan Initiative is evidence that the stakes in this election are very high. We need to keep that in mind, focus on the big picture, and work to see that Measure A passes—even if we have problems with some of the fine print.