Friday, January 14, 2005

 

Bio-crop ban: The Fight Continues
The following is an excerpt from the message board of Brahma's World

Most of the regulars here will recognize this as a subject of great interest to the Brahma:

Bio-crop ban issue may go to voters

A Sonoma County environmental group submitted more than 45,000 signatures Wednesday for a ballot measure that would impose a 10-year ban on genetically modified organisms, part of a growing movement to outlaw bio-crops in California...

......GE-Free Sonoma County, a coalition of farmers, environmentalists and others, said it collected 45,387 signatures - the most ever for a local ballot measure in Sonoma County, organizers said.

......The board either could adopt the proposal as an ordinance or could call for a special election on it. An election would be scheduled for sometime in late spring or summer, Assistant Registrar of Voters Janice Atkinson said.

The board rejected pleas last year from GE-Free Sonoma County to place the initiative on the November ballot, which would have cost $50,000 to $92,000.

A special election could cost as much as $500,000, Atkinson said....

....Sonoma County's measure differs from the others because it was written with input from county lawyers, farmers and the county agriculture commissioner, Hanson said.

The initiative would not permanently ban genetically altered organisms but would enact a 10-year moratorium.

"We don't know what's going to happen in the future," said Hanson, director of the Occidental Arts and Ecology Center. "We're open to the concept of the technology, just not in its current application.".....


~*~ A reasonable approach, wouldn't you agree? A moratorium sounds so less radical than an all-out ban. If anyone was unreasonable it would seem to be the county board of voters (or whoever makes decsions on what will be voted upon) They denied it entrance on the ballot last year at election time, despite what EVERYBODY who as ANY IDEA of life around these parts knew.....that the minimum amount of petioners necessary to put it on the ballot (29,000) would be EASILY reached...and before too long. It was THEY who insisted upon the circumstance of a special election triggered by this. Which makes this recent editorial in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat sound like another case of payola (Re: Armstrong Williams):


Bad timing

Forcing county to spend $500,000 on special election is inexcusable

It appears likely that Sonoma County voters soon will be asked to vote on a ballot measure to ban genetically modified organisms. GE-Free Sonoma County, a coalition of farmers, environmentalists and others, has gathered more than 45,000 signatures to force a special election. The group only needed signatures from 29,000 registered voters to force the county Board of Supervisors to either adopt the ordinance or put it on the ballot.

We look forward to analyzing this measure closely and hearing more about the potential impacts on the agriculture community. One positive aspect is that the group isn't seeking a permanent ban on GMOs, just a 10-year moratorium. That's a step in the right direction.

However, one part of this initiative that is undeniably irresponsible is its timing.

Sonoma County participated in two statewide elections last year. The global debate over GMOs is not new. In fact, we would be the seventh county in the state to vote on an anti-GMO measure. So it's inexplicable that this group couldn't have put this measure together and gathered the signatures needed in time to get it on the ballot last year. Instead, GE-Free Sonoma County is forcing the county to spend half a million dollars to put together a special election for a measure that is largely symbolic anyway.

Such expenses should not be taken lightly. This is a county that has cut more than 100 people from its Human Services Department over the past three years, employees who help county residents with everything from finding jobs to fighting elder abuse. And now the county is going to spend $500,000 more that it doesn't have to hold an election sometime in late spring or summer.

Supporters of this measure will argue that the supervisors had the opportunity to avoid this problem by putting this measure on the ballot last year. But in doing so, those behind this initiative gloss over their own failure to garner the signatures they needed to put this measure on the ballot on their own. They were looking for the supervisors to bail them out, which they didn't.

If this measure was urgent, it should have gone to a vote last year. If it's not, it could wait until the state election in March 2006.

The wording of this measure may be something that voters will approve. But the timing is unacceptable - and gets this campaign off on the wrong foot.



~*~ How about a foot up'in yo ass, douchbag...? The county could have put it on the ballot last year....it would have bailed us ALL out, as far as spending half a mil on an election that will most probably approve it anyway. NOW the county could STILL avoid the extra bills and just adopt the ordinance that's probably a slam-dunk in this county anyway. So don't be hatin' the GE-Free community. Even the tone of this very editorial seems to agree with it. If you hate the timing....hate the friggin' hard-headed county decision makers who denied the inevitable.

posted by ~Brahma 10:45 PM