What you need to know about MALT (and Measure A)
Introduction:
If you support Measure A it is likely because you support parks. It's also likely that you saw part of MALT's misleading $300,000 advertising campaign, after all, MALT will be thing winners if this passes. What you likely don't realize is that Measure A will allocate 20 percent of public funds—some $30 million—to Marin’s largest landowners.. Private, wealthy land owners get 20% of your tax dollars that you thought were going toward parks and restoration. The financial aspect of this sneaky allocation of tax dollars is bad enough, but from an ecological aspect I can say that supporting ranching is the same as hurting nature.
If you support Measure A it is likely because you support parks. It's also likely that you saw part of MALT's misleading $300,000 advertising campaign, after all, MALT will be thing winners if this passes. What you likely don't realize is that Measure A will allocate 20 percent of public funds—some $30 million—to Marin’s largest landowners.. Private, wealthy land owners get 20% of your tax dollars that you thought were going toward parks and restoration. The financial aspect of this sneaky allocation of tax dollars is bad enough, but from an ecological aspect I can say that supporting ranching is the same as hurting nature.
PART 1 - Disturbing Articles on MALT
The Pacific Sun has written two very in-depth articles regarding MALT over the last couple of years. Filled with research, these can be a little overwhelming to read, but the evidence has been conveniently laid at our feet if we're willing to look. These articles hold jaw-dropping examples of misuse of funds as well as examples of failures to act as land stewards despite receiving millions of dollars to encourage stewardship practices. MALT's board consists of ranchers, the very ranchers who vote to approve their very own families receiving millions in MALT funds.
The most recent article is pertinent for the Measure A ballot so I'll list it first.
The most recent article is pertinent for the Measure A ballot so I'll list it first.
|
|
The article from 2020 focused on conflicts of interest
|
|
Part 2 - Common Sense
1. We need to stop referring to the wealthiest land-owners in Marin County as small, struggling families. These are dynasties of incredible wealth and power. Sadly, MALT funds have been spent expanding empires rather than engaging in land stewardship.
2. We need to stop referring to rape of the natural world for the sake of commodity livestock as "conservation". Take a long, hard look at ranch land, including MALTED land. Go take a walk on that land and count how many native plants you find. Count how many native animals you find. Count how many healthy water sources you find. Of course, you're probably not going to do this for several reasons, not the least of which is fear of being shot. Other reasons include not desiring to navigate barbed wire, stabbing thistles and weeds, and a general blanket of manure. So not only is this "conserved" land not desirable to recreate in, you're also not allowed to be there. So why are you paying for it?
3. "But without ranchers the land will be developed!" No. Wrong. First of all the land is already protected from subdivisions and urban development (read more about this false threat at the bottom of the page). That battle was waged and won decades ago. Secondly, even ranches that received multi-million dollar easements still ended up selling their land. So what was the point of the easement? Next, why are we living in fear of "stewards of the land" threatening to sell and develop land in the first place? Kind of goes against the depiction of being stewards who love the earth, right? A common counter argument is that they are struggling in hard times and need financial help not to sell. Well, let's not forget that these are all advertised (heavily advertised I might add) as multi-generational family operations, so to that I ask, "How many generations does it take to get your business running efficiently? The truth is there's no such thing as efficient animal agriculture; the financial and natural resources required just to keep these businesses afloat is staggering, yet instead of embracing this reality we've been trained to believe we all need to do everything we can to keep unsustainable businesses running.
4. How about giving back? Make no mistake, these are millionaires. If a ranch decided to shut down the least it could do is donate the land to habitat restoration rather than getting one more big pay out to developers. Try actually being stewards rather than constantly demonstrating greed.
2. We need to stop referring to rape of the natural world for the sake of commodity livestock as "conservation". Take a long, hard look at ranch land, including MALTED land. Go take a walk on that land and count how many native plants you find. Count how many native animals you find. Count how many healthy water sources you find. Of course, you're probably not going to do this for several reasons, not the least of which is fear of being shot. Other reasons include not desiring to navigate barbed wire, stabbing thistles and weeds, and a general blanket of manure. So not only is this "conserved" land not desirable to recreate in, you're also not allowed to be there. So why are you paying for it?
3. "But without ranchers the land will be developed!" No. Wrong. First of all the land is already protected from subdivisions and urban development (read more about this false threat at the bottom of the page). That battle was waged and won decades ago. Secondly, even ranches that received multi-million dollar easements still ended up selling their land. So what was the point of the easement? Next, why are we living in fear of "stewards of the land" threatening to sell and develop land in the first place? Kind of goes against the depiction of being stewards who love the earth, right? A common counter argument is that they are struggling in hard times and need financial help not to sell. Well, let's not forget that these are all advertised (heavily advertised I might add) as multi-generational family operations, so to that I ask, "How many generations does it take to get your business running efficiently? The truth is there's no such thing as efficient animal agriculture; the financial and natural resources required just to keep these businesses afloat is staggering, yet instead of embracing this reality we've been trained to believe we all need to do everything we can to keep unsustainable businesses running.
4. How about giving back? Make no mistake, these are millionaires. If a ranch decided to shut down the least it could do is donate the land to habitat restoration rather than getting one more big pay out to developers. Try actually being stewards rather than constantly demonstrating greed.
|
|
I made a 2 part video presentation regarding the inefficient use of resources for the sake of Marin's Agriculture.
Long, but thorough...see if you can make it through. |
In fact, I have an entire playlist on YouTube full of MALT videos, shedding a little light on the destruction wreaked upon Marin County by the very people we call stewards of the land.
More regarding the false threat of development
I copied and pasted the following excellent summary of zoning in Marin County from the Oppose Measure A website.
Runaway development no longer looms. The development that was feared in the 1960s and 70s has been effectively extinguished through the County’s agricultural zoning. Marin’s A-60 zoning, which limits one house per 60 acres, was enacted in 1973. It has not been challenged in the 50 years since. A developer would need to successfully sue the County to overturn it.
When Marin Supervisors updated the Countywide Plan in 2007, they removed more land from the reach of developers, carving out 43,332 low-lying acres from the eastern edge of the Highway 101 corridor and creating a protected Bayland corridor.
According to the U.C. Cooperative Extension, about 50 percent of the total land area of Marin are farms or ranches. MALT holds easements on 54,000 acres (already protected under A-60 zoning). Landowners who sell easements to MALT agree to limits on what they can do with their properties, such as subdivide them to build homes. Since 2011, MALT has required that land under easement be used actively for agriculture. Even if the land were to be sold, the easements remain in place.
In recent years, California enacted legislation (SB167), (SB35), and (SB330) to address the dire need for affordable housing. These state laws include multiple provisions to protect agriculture and specifically exclude land under conservation easement, as well as wetlands and other sensitive habitats, lands with coastal access, and lands with historic structures and cultural significance.
These legislative efforts have been misrepresented by MALT and its allies as threats to Marin agriculture.
Runaway development no longer looms. The development that was feared in the 1960s and 70s has been effectively extinguished through the County’s agricultural zoning. Marin’s A-60 zoning, which limits one house per 60 acres, was enacted in 1973. It has not been challenged in the 50 years since. A developer would need to successfully sue the County to overturn it.
When Marin Supervisors updated the Countywide Plan in 2007, they removed more land from the reach of developers, carving out 43,332 low-lying acres from the eastern edge of the Highway 101 corridor and creating a protected Bayland corridor.
According to the U.C. Cooperative Extension, about 50 percent of the total land area of Marin are farms or ranches. MALT holds easements on 54,000 acres (already protected under A-60 zoning). Landowners who sell easements to MALT agree to limits on what they can do with their properties, such as subdivide them to build homes. Since 2011, MALT has required that land under easement be used actively for agriculture. Even if the land were to be sold, the easements remain in place.
In recent years, California enacted legislation (SB167), (SB35), and (SB330) to address the dire need for affordable housing. These state laws include multiple provisions to protect agriculture and specifically exclude land under conservation easement, as well as wetlands and other sensitive habitats, lands with coastal access, and lands with historic structures and cultural significance.
These legislative efforts have been misrepresented by MALT and its allies as threats to Marin agriculture.
#MALT #Marinagriculturallandtrust #measureA #ranching #marincounty #pointreyes #cattle #nature #parks #openspace #shameofpointreyes
