Yuba County "Open Space Initiative", Measure T (November 2012)
If Measure T had been approved, it would have required a majority vote of the people (until 2030) to change the land use designation of any property located in the county's "Natural Resources Land Use Element."
Meaning of a "yes" vote: A "yes" vote meant that land use designation and building densities in the General Plan Natural Resources Land Use Element would be retained until the year 2030, unless changed by a vote of the people with the limited exception of those parcels annexed to or otherwise included within a city or town and those parcels legally created as of the date of the adoption of Measure T, which are ten acres or less that may be incorporated into a rural community boundary by the Board of Supervisors, through adoption of a Community Plan.
Meaning of a "no" vote: A "no" vote meant that the Yuba County Board of Supervisors would continue to decide if and when land use designation and building densities in the General Plan Natural Resources Land Use Element should be changed, without a vote of the people.
- Final official results from the Yuba County elections office.
The official voter guide arguments in favor of Measure T were signed by:
- Mary Jane Griego
- Hal Stocker
- Meldine Rodda
- Fred Holmes
- Patrick Marmon
The official voter guide arguments opposing Measure T were signed by:
- Thomas "Tib" Belza
- Charley Mathews, Jr.
- Randy Fletcher
- Rick Cunningham
- John Nicoletti
The group called "Yuba County Alliance for Property Rights" was opposed to Measure T.
The board of directors of the Yuba-Sutter Farm Bureau was opposed to Measure T.
Coleen Morehead, a spokesperson for the opposition campaign, said, "Our concern is that Measure T is presented as something specifically for large developers, but it could impact small-property owners, particularly in the foothills."
- Text of Measure T
- Map of area referred to in Measure T
- Analysis of Measure T
- Argument in favor
- Argument against