Helping Our Peninsula's Environment


Why Does Landwatch "Favor" Huge (25%) Growth in Next 15 Years?

"[Our Community General Plan] does allow a significant amount of growth." - Landwatch Executive Director Gary Patton at the televised Green Party debate between HOPE and Landwatch, March 9, 2005


  1. On November 22, 2004 Landwatch wrote a Salinas Californian Commentary endorsing a 25 percent population increase and 40,000 more housing units for Monterey County in the next 15 years. The Landwatch commentary also disavowed no-growth and slow-growth. It was signed by Landwatch's President Rod McMahan.

  3. As a result on January 21, 2005 HOPE published an article shining a light on this. HOPE also reminded readers how we are out of water, our Carmel River is dying, our roads and highways are gridlocked and how every bit of additional growth further stresses our natural environment and could lead to the extinction of the some 68 local animals, flowers and trees officially on Endangered Species lists. The article was signed by all HOPE's Trustees and its Executive Director.

  5. Landwatch responded with a February 2 letter to HOPE's Executive Director trying to imply the commentary did not advocate for that growth their piece explicitly mentioned. This was signed only by Landwatch's President Rod McMahan. He also asked that HOPE send his letter to our members and others who had received our article, which we did.

  7. HOPE sent a letter back to Landwatch on February 23, inviting Landwatch to refute or disavow that growth, explaining that HOPE could find no disavowal of the 40,000 new housing units or the 125,000 population increase in their letter and asking "Does Landwatch Accept Growth?" Again, it was signed by all HOPE's Trustees and Executive Director.

  9. Landwatch sent a final letter trying to trivialize HOPE's grave concerns and failing to respond to any of our questions.

  11. HOPE sent the Landwatch Board a response on October 12, 2005 pointing out their failure to respond to crucial concerns.

What follows here is the full text of all six documents, a commentary exposing "Smart Growth" as doublespeak and an article explaining six ways to create affordable housing - without any bulldozing.


HOPE letter to Landwatch illuminating the points to which Landwatch Refused to Respond.

"Solid 'no growth' sentiment among Monterey Peninsula voters."

-Monterey Herald Editorial, November 7, 1996

Landwatch Letter to HOPE declining to discuss the issues. March 10, 2005

"No-Growth Movement Can Declare Victory."

-Carmel Pine Cone Editorial, April 13, 2001

HOPE letter to Landwatch "Does Landwatch Accept Growth?" February 23, 2005

(PDF 350kb)

Coast Weekly article on the avalanche of development County Supervisors WILL Approve in 2005

"Monterey County 2020: The vision for the future includes a lot of new houses, but not for the people who live here."

February 10, 2005

Landwatch letter to HOPE responding to HOPE's article "Re:Community General Plan." February 2, 2005 (RTF format)

Q. Why did Cal-Am announce their "No-Growth Dam" soon after they lost the vote on the Carmel River Dam?

A. Because even developers know we will always vote against growth.

HOPE Article about Landwatch's Pro-Growth Commentary and their Pro-Growth "Community" General Plan. January 21, 2005 (Word RTF file)

Why Smart-Growth Isn't

Landwatch Commentary advocating for 40,000 new housing units and a 25 percent County population increase of another 125,000 people. (November 2004)

Six Ways to Create Affordable Housing without New Buildings or Bulldozing

Feedback - HOPEinfo(at)

831 / 624-6500 P.O. Box 1495, Carmel, CA 93921

Search HOPE's Website:

powered by FreeFind

Or Search the whole Web with IxQuick

This Page Last Updated October 12, 2005

Home Ecosystems Page