The Weekly editorial board’s endorsements for the upcoming elections on Nov. 3.

MEASURE G | Carmel Valley Incorporation

Yes

This is the Big Kahuna of this November’s election, the most hotly debated item that will impact both the residents of Carmel Valley and the county. It’s a fight that’s been nearly 20 years in the making, and could tell the future for the charm and rural character that is Carmel Valley.

Advocates for the town are deeply frustrated by the county government’s overzealous support for growth in the valley. Within a couple of decades, larger-scale developments – including Carmel Valley Ranch, Tehama, and the Preserve (Rancho San Carlos) – each controversial in its own right for lack of water and traffic impacts, have been approved and built. And the proposed county general plan calls for at least two new controversial housing projects: September Ranch and Rancho Cañada. With traffic noticeably denser over the years, the county’s best response has been a turning lane and new traffic lights, and a climbing lane on Highway 1 from Carmel Valley Road to Ocean Avenue. And despite the scarcity of water in the Carmel River aquifer – which limits the ability of individuals to add bathrooms throughout the Peninsula – thanks to high-paid attorneys, effective lobbying and questionable water studies (plus years of patience), several larger projects have found their footing (and the necessary water), resulting in huge financial payoffs for the developers.

With the current and future seating on the Board of Supervisors, the valley’s residents have less say on matters in their own backyards and have no effective right of self-determination: No one on the county board lives in the valley, or has for more than a decade. Yes on G has been endorsed by the local school board (unanimous), county supervisors Dave Potter and Jane Parker, and Assemblyman Bill Monning. Supervisor Lou Calcagno, from Moss Landing, was part of the county’s team that negotiated and approved the final fiscal agreement between the county and the proposed town, numbers that appear to be well vetted, with a town fiscally solvent from day one.

Still, opponents claim the costs will outweigh the benefits, and raise the red flag that it will lead to further development – though the anti-G campaign is largely led by developers, and their representatives, including Orange County attorney and Carmel Valley second-homeowner Frank Lunding, who sued unsuccessfully to try to keep the election from even taking place. Also fighting against G are notable Tehama developers Alan Williams and partner Clint Eastwood, who have a vested interest in the development of Rancho Cañada, plus some anti-government crusaders who won’t admit to any single positive that results from taxes or government. They claim that the town of Carmel Valley will create a whole new layer of government, but like their belief that government has no value value or benefit, they are wrong.

We believe that the gem that is Carmel Valley is at risk if the county continues to have reign. It seems inevitable that larger development projects will work their way through the process, resulting in increased traffic on an already congested and dangerous two-lane road. The rural character of Carmel Valley, with both sides claim to be fighting for, is at greater risk if the governing body who oversees it doesn’t live there, and has no personal stake in its future. It’s only right that citizens can directly participate in the decisions that affect their own lives, and we endorse the incorporation measure wholeheartedly.

MEASURE I | Flanders Mansion

No

Like Carmel Valley incorporation, the dispute over the Flanders Mansion and Mission Park Trail in Carmel has been kicking around for nearly as long as steelhead trout have been swimming upstream.

While it might seem easy to be done with it, and say the city has the right to dispose of the property as it sees fit in tough times, no convincing argument has been mounted for why that time should be now. Representing one of the more affluent communities in the county, Carmel councilmembers seem content to spend money to defend its city manager against sexual harassment charges, but not to preserve one of its historic sites. That’s short-sighted. It has already spent a considerable sum to keep this matter from even coming to a vote.

People of good will may disagree about the importance of Flanders as a historic site, but selling it seems like a bad idea, especially at a time when other publicly-owned parks have been at risk. Flanders could be an asset to the community for decades to come, even if it’s not clear what the immediate best use of this public building is. To that end, a call for creative proposals for its use from community groups could generate a windfall of beneficial brainstorms. The short-term gain on the sale doesn’t outweigh its permanent loss to a private owner.

MEASURE J | Pacific Grove Library Tax

Yes

This would impose a parcel tax, generating an estimated $630,000 annually, to create a revenue source to make sure the Pacific Grove Library stays open. We know we’re in the midst of hard times, but we believe libraries are good for the community, for its children and the future. Opponents of the measure have trotted out familiar arguments opposing taxation in almost any imaginable form; it’s not a serious debate.

MEASURE K | Salinas Sales Tax

Yes

This 1 percent sales tax hike would ultimately go toward expanding the size of the Salinas police force, providing badly needed help combating gang violence, which continues at epidemic proportions. Salinas Police Chief Louis Fetherolf is a stronger leader than his predecessor, Dan Ortega, but his men and women on the street need help. If approved, Measure K would provide an estimated $18 million in revenue annually; if it fails, further cuts, including reduction in police, fire and community services personnel will surely follow.

Measure K won’t stop gang violence, and it may be addressing the symptoms of gang violence more than their origins, but without K the police will always be on their heels – short-staffed and outgunned. Opponents’ arguments that it has hidden costs would be more convincing if they weren’t opposed to taxation in principle. We support Measure K, and hope the city of Salinas, in concert with state and federal agencies, does more to stop gang violence and the conditions that create it.

CANDIDATES:

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER DISTRICT

Judi Lehman

Two-time incument Judi Lehman, who has been a valuable and progressive force on the board, is being challenged by relative unknown Andrew Clarke. With water issues coming to a head, literally, both locally and in Sacramento, we need an experienced hand to help sort them out in a way consistent with the interests of the residents of the county.

MONTEREY PENINSULA COMMUNITY COLLEGE TRUSTEE

Kit Elliott

Community colleges are one of our most important, and least respected, resources. They’ve been hit disproportionately hard by the state budget cuts and are trying to stay afloat. We supported district over at-large elections to get away from the good-old-boys network that can monopolize these important posts.

This time around, Steve Emerson, Margaret-Anne Coppernoll and Kit Elliott are squaring off. Emerson is a Republican with solid business credentials and management experience, but seems like a candidate of the status quo. Coppernoll’s candidacy is largely based on advocacy for Marina. Elliott is a graduate student at the Panetta Institute who says he wants to increase opportunities for low-income students, install student programs at the Marina Education Center, and diversify MPC’s revenue stream. Emerson appears competent enough, but in the spirit of breaking up the good-old-boys’ network, we say voters should give young Mr. Elliott a chance.