Why we won the battle for open space in Livermore - and how to win in your town

Election results are often a matter of heredity: we inherit what was handed down to us from previous residents.

In a given year we can tinker and possibly shift the balance a little, but usually possibilities are limited by what previous electorates and policymakers have left us. When Livermore voters last November defeated a developer's ballot measure by a 3 - 1 margin, we ran a good campaign, but we must also thank our predecessors for a well-oiled environmental engine, tended by many dedicated activists over several decades.

Former Livermore Mayor Don Miller (he served in 1973 - 74) recounts a bit of the history: "In the early '60s, a lot of us got tired of seeing the developers bamboozle earlier City Councils to let them maximize their profits with tiny lots, no amenities, and no benefits to the home buyers. Therefore there grew up an interest in reforming zoning practice. By the '70s, air pollution got bad, water was close to being rationed, the sewer plant was at capacity, and the schools had been on double session for 20 years. All this got the community riled up, and environmental consciousness was raised. The political history is complicated, but a lot of us became involved in trying to make the community environmentally conscious and to change the political situation."

The community has stopped one major development proposal after another over the years.

• In the early '70s the City Council, including even the pro-growth members, opposed a proposal for a 50,000-person "new town" in North Livermore. The county Board of Supervisors illegally approved the project in 1974, but the city sued, and in 1975 the courts ruled in the city's favor. In 1977 the proposal came back to the Board of Supervisors, but the Board had changed and rejected the proposal by a 3 - 2 vote.
• In 1984, the Supervisors placed on the countywide ballot a plan for a 50,000-person "Las Positas New Town" in North Livermore. The developers outspent the opposition by about 20 - 1, but Livermore Valley residents, combined with environmentalists throughout the county (including, of course, the Sierra Club), ran an effective campaign, and the measure lost by about 2 - 1.
• The '90s saw continued political and legal skirmishing over North Livermore development. In 2000 once again Livermore area residents worked with the Sierra Club and other environmentalists throughout the county - to pass Measure D, a county Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Then in 2002, Livermore residents drafted a city ballot measure to establish a city UGB, as well. We gathered almost 50% more signatures than required, and a new Council chose to enact the measure itself, without requiring an election. Now any change in the UGB requires a vote of the people.
• In the winter of 2004 - 2005, Pardee Homes, part of multinational Weyerhauser Corporation, came out of the woodwork with a ballot measure asking voters to set aside the UGB and allow building of 2,450 homes outside the limit. Pardee owned the land it wanted to build on, and if money had been the deciding factor, Pardee would have won hands down. It broke the local record with its $3.5 million dollar campaign, but fortunately for us, the company didn't spend terribly wisely. The television and radio ads, commercials in movie theaters, and dozens of slick mailers only succeeded in making residents sick and tired of hearing about Pardee's cleverly-named "Livermore Trails". Pardee lost - by 72 - 28%.

Some of these successes involved votes of the City Council, but none could have happened without active and widespread support in the Livermore community. The residents of Livermore have built up a consciousness of what people experience every day - an appreciation of the beauty of the environment, a concern about air and traffic. It's a tribute to the level of understanding and of education of Livermore citizens.

Another key asset was the Livermore Independent. This unusual local newspaper gave support and a forum where concerned residents could compete with the business and development interests.

So what came first - the popular movement by voters to protect remaining open space or energetic visionaries who led the way? One cannot delve far into the history of open-space protection in Livermore without running across the names of several former mayors, city councilmembers, and even some businesspeople and local journalists. Why were we so lucky to have these environmentally minded people in the first place?

It may help to study the make-up of Livermore. What you will find is a town that has grown by leaps and bounds in the last half century. From a small town centered around ranching, it has changed into more of a "lab town" where Sandia and the Lawrence Livermore Labs are big employers. Though the isolated ranch folks seem a world apart from the average Lab employee, the two groups have more in common than one might suspect. These strange bedfellows both value the maintenance of small-town character where an agricultural way of life (including the many newer family-owned wineries) is worth protecting for its own sake. Still newer residents have also come to see these environmental values.

What can we learn from all this? For one thing, it's going to make a huge difference in the outcome of a local election if a strong group of volunteers is working proactively. The Livermore smart-growth (labeled `slow-growth' by local media) folks were on their toes. One can see in retrospect that a group of outsiders, even well-heeled ones, like Pardee, could not compete with a trusted local group with a reputation for protecting Livermore.

When a community protects its environment, people who care about the environment will be attracted to the area, building the next crop of activists to whom the torch can be passed. If your community doesn't have a strong volunteer group in place, there's no time like the present. What will be your legacy? It's up to each one of us.

Susan Edgar-Lee