Committee forms to fight Measure H in San Luis Obispo

August 6, 2010

The debate over Prado Road took a major turn Thursday with the announcement of a new committee, formed to fight Measure H on the November ballot in San Luis Obispo.

The controversial measure, which recently qualified following a successful petition drive, calls for the planned Prado Road extension to end in a cul-de-sac near the Damon-Garcia playing fields, rather than connect with Broad Street.

Three local community leaders have agreed to co-chair the “No on Measure H Committee.” John Spatafore is a local attorney. Hillary Trout serves as president of Softec. Stacey White is an architect and environmentalist.

“Measure H is a dead end that will hurt San Luis Obispo,” said  Spatafore, in the committee’s first press release. “If it passes, it will cause added traffic congestion, slow police and fire response times, discard years of public input on cross-town circulation, increase traffic through neighborhoods, deter affordable housing and ignore countless environmental studies.”

All five members of the current San Luis Obispo City Council have announced their oppostion to Measure H and will be placing an opposing argument on the November ballot.



  1. turquoise says:

    This new committee is backed by the SLO Chamber of Commerce. My company is a member but it bothers me that Dave Garth and the Chamber have the attitude of develop at any cost. And if Stacey White is an environmentalist, I’ve never heard of him or her, though I’ve been active in this area for decades.

    I’m in favor of Measure H. Do not cut a road through an open space. Do not increase pollution at the sports field with another road on another side. Those young lungs don’t need it. Tank Farm is mostly fields and already polluted with oil residue. There’s room to widen it and build in a merge lane from Prado.

    Some people think transportation will be what it has been, and that’s why we need two parallel, high-speed roads cutting across our valley. Making more roads is global warming business as usual. It’s backward thinking. Why is the committee projecting from the past to make a future with more of the same? It’s a mistake, and it’s disappointing that some folks are pushing the Prado extension as though we gotta do it now. What’s the rush?

    This is a hummer of a campaign for more cars, less space for wildlife. Let’s slow down, avoid running over the stop sign and really think about which way we want to go. My vote is for sustainability.

    (-5) 17 Total Votes - 6 up - 11 down
    • bulwark says:

      Regarding this new committee, Turquoise wants to know “What’s the rush?” Far as I know, the Prado Road extension and the Margarita Area Development have been included in the SLO Transportation Element and General Plan for the past 20 years or so. Enough already.

      What appears to turquoise as backward thinking is simply traffic engineers and planners using accepted design standards to efficiently move folks from their residence to their job. That standard doesn’t care whether the commuters are in alternative energy vehicles or mass transit.

      Turquoise states that the committee is campaigning for “more cars, less space for wildlife” Really?
      You really think the committee has that as their trigger. That statement is just another classic red herring from an environmental fundamentalist and poorly worded at that. I’d suggest that next time have Sarah Christie or David Blakely wordsmith your post prior to posting. Think globally wordsmith locally.

      As far as Dave Garth and the chamber preaching for “more development at any cost” perhaps what he/they are saying is what can we do to retain employment possibilities for the people that live in SLO. Excluding jobs locally and throughout this state simply means they happen elsewhere, and that means other pacific rim countries with zero environmental controls. China is bringing a new coal fired power plant on line every week and we live downwind from those nice folks. So much for your “Vote for sustainability”

      (3) 11 Total Votes - 7 up - 4 down

Comments are closed.