Opinion » Letters

Opposed to annexation

San Luis Obispo



Thanks to New Times’ Kylie Mendonca for covering the San Luis Obispo Council candidates’ debate on Oct. 8 at the Madonna Inn (“Candidates face off in Chamber debate,” Oct. 16)—though I disagree that I, “made a slight blunder ... to assume that Dan DeVaul’s ranch ; was part of a proposed annexation plan.”

It’s true that the City Council voted in August to accept an application only from Temple Beth David and the Twisselman properties along Foothill Boulevard. In reality, however, the DeVaul property would be included in any annexation of the Temple or other parcels further to the west. Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) guidelines would virtually require an annexation proposal for the Temple to include the DeVaul property, in order to assure that city services would not “leapfrog” over it.

I also want to reassure your readers that I’m NOT part of any “consensus” that this annexation would benefit the city. I strongly oppose annexing the DeVaul property, and the scenic open space lands along Foothill. Our general plan designates these properties as “open space.” We face severe fiscal and economic challenges right now; the DeVaul Ranch is a massive code enforcement problem, and the county has only begun to obtain compliance from Mr. DeVaul. It’s irresponsible and unwise to suggest that the city should annex these lands.

-- John B. Ashbaugh - Candidate for SLO City Council

-- John B. Ashbaugh - SLO City Council candidate

-- John B. Ashbaugh - SLO City Council

-- John B. Ashbaugh - Candidate for SLO City Council

Add a comment