<body><div><figure><img src="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?type=thumbnail_580x000&amp;url=1NQzr0_0wFXcCE900" alt="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=1NQzr0_0wFXcCE900" width="1280" height="853" ><figcaption>A huge swell batters West Cliff Drive in 2023. Credit: Kevin Painchaud / Lookout Santa Cruz</figcaption></figure>Editor’s note: A Lookout View is the opinion of our Community Voices opinion section, written by our editorial board, which consists of Community Voices Editor Jody K. Biehl and Lookout Founder Ken Doctor. Our goal is to connect the dots we see in the news and offer a bigger-picture view — all intended to see Santa Cruz County meet the challenges of the day and to shine a light on issues we believe must be on the public agenda. These views are distinct and independent from the work of our newsroom and its reporting.Measure Q asks us to do something uncomfortable. It wants us to imagine and plan for a more climate-unfriendly future, where our infrastructure – including homes, roads, water sources and our beloved natural blessings – our rivers, creeks, trails, ocean and wildlands – will be tested even more than they have been in the past few years of storms and wildfires. It asks property owners to think of the future and act now by paying an $87 annual parcel tax to create a fund to make our community more climate resilient. It also demands we do something that is becoming more difficult for many in our community – trust those in positions of power, elected or otherwise, to allocate the money wisely. We enthusiastically support it. The money it generates – $7.3 million a year – is a drop in the bucket of what’s needed to address the challenging and growing issues of reducing wildfire risks, protecting drinking water sources, managing public lands, safeguarding the ocean and marine life and fighting pollution and environmental degradation. The funds would also, supporters argue, help leverage tens of millions of more dollars from the state and federal government through grants and matching funds. We see that as a big opportunity, and one worth betting on. NOVEMBER BALLOT MEASURES: Find Lookout’s local and state coverage hereYes, we agree that parcel taxes like these are not the progressive ones we’d most like to see, but local governments have few choices when it comes to raising money. This less-than-$100-investment is worth making. The measure, officially titled the Santa Cruz County Water and Wildfire Protection Initiative, puts a particular focus on South County, which, along with Capitola, suffered gravely in the 2023 storm surge, but which also has faced decades of environmental racism that merits attention. The money is complicated, but aims at fairness. Funds collected from the tax would go into four buckets: <ul><li>40% (about $2.7 million) going to a county-administered grants program and county parks.</li><li>20% ($1.4 million, allocated per capita) to individual cities, with each city guaranteed at least $200,000.</li><li>20% ($1.4 million) to the county.</li><li>20% ($1.4 million) to the Resource Conservation District and a land-stewardship partner for projects on private lands that offer public access. More than half the land in the county is privately owned. </li></ul>The supporters of Q are a broad and impressive coalition of more than two dozen local, mainly nonprofit environmental groups joined by labor organizations, educators and dozens (we counted 32) public officials from city councilmembers to the county board of supervisors to state Sen. John Laird and U.S. Rep. Jimmy Panetta. If approved, the measure calls for a nine-person citizens oversight board that will oversee disbursement of the money and offer public transparency on spending. It requires more than 50% of the vote to pass and the tax would last until voters choose to end it. Sarah Newkirk, executive director of the nonprofit Land Trust of Santa Cruz County, was the primary author of the measure. The Land Trust and two other nonprofits – Peninsula Open Space Trust and Sempervirens Fund – are the campaign’s largest funders. The only opposition to the measure comes from the Santa Cruz County Fire Chiefs Association, whose members say they felt shut out of the measure-writing process. They worry it does not adequately fund small fire districts and inadequately outlines how it will reduce wildfire risk. Mark Bingham, Boulder Creek Fire Protection District chief, has become the face of the opposition and told Lookout he worries not enough money will get to the incorporated areas and that small agencies won’t have the capacity to submit grants. We see his point and we raised it with Newkirk when she came to our offices for an endorsement meeting. She said the coalition took years to craft, that the measure went through 36 drafts and that it focuses more on resiliency than response. She points out it has support from the Fire Safe Council of Santa Cruz County and the Professional Firefighters of Santa Cruz County Local 3535, the largest county firefighters union. But, she said, she regrets the fire chiefs weren’t included in the process. So do we. It feels like an unnecessary roadblock to a measure with such a remarkable aim, coalition and potential to attract state and federal funding. We are impressed by the ingenuity in bringing all these groups together and the care the groups took in crafting it. The disbursement of funds offers a notable attempt at equity. The Land Trust is set up to benefit and to likely receive a portion of the fourth bucket, designated for the land-stewardship partner. We see that as important to note – given Newkirk is the chief author of the measure. But we look to the excellent work the Land Trust does, its long-standing track record and the oversight this money will receive and give it a nod. The bottom line is we believe in prevention and girding for resilience. We trust the collective will of the local environmental organizations that have guided us for decades and our elected officials to try this experiment in community preparedness. We believe the citizens board can work – but we will also be reporting on how it gets selected and administered. We will be looking for transparency and will keep close watch on how the money gets spent. We want Santa Cruz County to take more proactive action to protect us and our way of life from climate-induced change. We say yes to Measure Q. </div></body>

Mountain View, CA

NewsBreak

A Lookout View: Vote yes on Measure Q and climate resilience

Editor’s note: A Lookout View is the opinion of our Community Voices opinion section, written by our editorial board, which consists of Community Voices Editor Jody K. Biehl and Lookout Founder Ken Doctor. Our goal is to connect the dots we see in the news and offer a bigger-picture view — all intended to see Santa Cruz County meet the challenges of the day and to shine a light on issues we believe must be on the public agenda. These views are distinct and independent from the work of our newsroom and its reporting.