Tom Murray may not “recall seeing a Sierra Club endorsement of Adam Hill in the last election” (“Don’t discount Patterson and Hill,” Feb. 11), but we’re happy to refresh his memory. Not only was Hill endorsed by the Sierra Club, (see the April 2008 issue of the Santa Lucian, our chapter newsletter), he was specifically recruited to run for the seat by his fellow Sierra Club volunteers while serving on the club’s political committee. Sierra Club members were encouraged to get involved with his campaign, and the club supported Hill to the fullest extent of our ability under the laws pertaining to nonprofits. We did this because of what seemed, at the time, to be his demonstrated commitment to smart growth and environmental protection.
We agree with Murray that the current board of supervisors is doing an admirable job of seeking fiscal stability and pension reforms. Hill in particular is proving to be quite effective at leading the board to support projects that benefit the needy and the homeless. These efforts are long overdue and much needed. But they don’t obscure the fact that the board is botching numerous opportunities to strengthen conservation policies and stop bad projects, now that the board majority has flipped. Hill in particular appears increasingly comfortable as the swing vote on such critical environmental policy issues as the Ag Events Ordinance.
We haven’t changed our positions on smart growth, agricultural protection, endangered species or open space, but we are disappointed when our endorsed candidates are elected and seem more interested in courting the approval of development interests than delivering on campaign promises.