Public against ranch grab
Poll shows only 15 percent of Yolo County voters support eminent domain takeover

Ali Bay
California Staff Writer

DAVIS – Although a survey done by the current Conaway Ranch owners indicates that the general public does not agree with eminent domain proceedings to take the 17,300-acre ranch, the county says it will not back down on efforts to take the agriculturally rich property.

A June survey of Yolo County voters initiated by the Conaway Preservation Group shows that just 15 percent of the surveyed population supports the county’s action to take the land. More than 70 percent of the voters surveyed said they at least somewhat opposed the county’s plan to take the ranch using eminent domain.

Historically, eminent domain has been used by governments wanting to change the principal uses of a given property, said Tovey Giezentanner, a spokesman for Conaway Preservation Group, the current owners of the ranch.

“When you think of eminent domain, you think of a change to the use,” he said. “(The county) is using eminent domain, theoretically, for the status quo. People are happy with the status quo. They don’t want change.”

But Yolo County is worried that Conaway Preservation Group won’t keep the status quo of the property.

Calling the survey a “public relations tool,” Yolo County Supervisor Mike McGowen said many people, including himself, would feel uneasy about eminent domain if the situation is portrayed as the government taking private land.

But if you compared the county’s track record to that of Conaway Preservation Group, people are more likely to favor the county’s move, McGowen said.

“When you talk about the fundamental reason here and you compare and contrast the histories and resumes, so to speak, of the county versus these investors and developers, then I get very positive and very favorable responses from anybody I talk to,” he said. Conaway Preservation Group couldn’t compete with Yolo County’s track record of stewardship on unincorporated lands, McGowen said.

In July the county launched a smaller survey of its own, asking a selected population of Yolo County voters their opinion on the Conaway Ranch controversy.

“It’s not a scientific poll,” said McGowen. (The survey went to about 38,000 registered Democrats who voted in the past six elections.) “But we did ask for a response and we’re getting it.” He said that about 80 percent of the surveys that have been returned show favorable opinions on the county’s plan to take the land.

McGowen added that the Conaway Preservation Group poll could be an attempt to “dissuade the Board of Supervisors from going to court” on Aug. 23 for the first hearing on the eminent domain proceedings. But the county isn’t giving up its plan.

“We’re going to court,” McGowen said. “We have convinced ourselves that this if the right thing to do. I think it’s worth watching between now and then to see what happens. We’re in an excellent legal position.”

The ranch’s owners also argue that they’re “trying to do the right thing.”

When questioned about Gidaro’s history for proposing developments on farmland (one such plan was recently rejected by the city of Davis), Giezentanner said that the local processes to prevent such development are working.

“People don’t want that type of development,” he said. “And the (respective) county or city can stop it.”

When it comes to Conaway, Giezentanner said Gidaro wants to keep the land in agricultural uses and also as an area used for wildlife preservation and hunting. Although the group once proposed development on the ranch, the owners now say they will look to get income from the land by securing conservation easements and potential small water sales to their Yolo County neighbors.

“Just because (Gidaro) is a developer... doesn’t mean he’s necessarily going to develop this property,” Giezentanner said.

While the county boasts that more than 67 percent of its land is enrolled in the Williamson Act, keeping land in agriculture, Giezentanner criticizes the county’s recent decision to cancel one such contract for the same tribe that is planning to help them purchase Conaway.

“They just canceled a Williamson Act contract and allowed the tribe to build a golf course on farmland,” he said. “The county wants to turn this into a trust issue. But they don’t have to trust Steve (Gidaro) because they control development.”

Capital News

08/12/2005