Full disclosure: I’ve publicly and repeatedly endorsed Measure A-24, but I did so as an independent voice, on behalf of or at the behest of any political organization or movement.
In the recent November 5, 2024, election, Morro Bay voters approved Measure A-24, a significant decision that underscores the community’s commitment to maintaining local control over land use decisions. The measure amends the city’s General Plan to prohibit changes to land use designations of Visitor-Serving Commercial and Commercial/Recreational Fishing without voter approval, affecting approximately 103 acres, including the former power plant site.
Understanding Measure A-24
Measure A-24 was introduced to ensure that any alterations to specific land use designations within Morro Bay would require direct voter consent. This initiative emerged amid concerns over proposed developments, notably a battery energy storage system (BESS) by Vistra Energy at the old power plant site. Proponents argued that such projects could significantly impact the coastal landscape and community character, warranting broader public involvement in decision-making processes.
Election Outcome and Community Implications
The measure passed with 59% of the vote, reflecting a clear preference among residents for greater oversight on land use changes. This outcome empowers the community to have a direct say in future developments that could alter the city’s coastal areas, ensuring that any significant projects align with the collective vision of Morro Bay’s residents.
Critique of Opposition Strategies
Opponents of Measure A-24, including former City Councilmember Marlys McPherson and resident Ron Reisner, expressed concerns that the general electorate might lack the expertise to make informed land use decisions, suggesting that such matters are better handled by elected officials and city staff. This perspective, however, appeared to underestimate the community’s capacity for informed participation, especially given their history of supporting measures involving tax increases for city improvements.
Furthermore, the opposition’s campaign strategy faced criticism for its tone and funding sources. Instead of engaging in constructive dialogue about the measure’s implications, opponents were perceived as dismissive of proponents’ concerns, potentially alienating undecided voters. Additionally, the acceptance of substantial funding from undisclosed sources raised questions about transparency and accountability, undermining the opposition’s position.
Proponents’ Effective Grassroots Campaign
Supporters of Measure A-24 demonstrated a well-organized grassroots effort, maintaining community engagement over an extended period. They effectively communicated the potential risks associated with the proposed BESS project, emphasizing the importance of preserving Morro Bay’s unique coastal environment. This sustained advocacy played a crucial role in the measure’s success, highlighting the power of community-driven initiatives in shaping local policy.
Backlash to Vistra Energy’s Decision to Pause the City’s Application
When Vistra Energy announced they were pausing their application for a proposed battery energy storage system (BESS) in Morro Bay, it seemed to add a new dimension to the debate over Measure A-24. Vistra chose instead to pursue opt-in certification through the California Energy Commission (CEC) and the Coastal Commission, which bypasses the local permitting process. Opponents of Measure A-24 seized on this development to argue that the measure was causing unnecessary complications and could potentially discourage investments or slow progress on renewable energy initiatives in Morro Bay. However, this argument lacked solid backing.
Crucially, Vistra Energy never cited Measure A-24 as a reason for their decision to seek state-level certification. Instead, their move appeared to reflect a strategic shift toward a more streamlined permitting process that would address their timeline and project needs, independent of local political dynamics. Yet, opponents of A-24 reacted with heightened rhetoric, accusing supporters of the measure of being obstructionist and fostering anti-development sentiment in the community.
This aggressive stance from opponents proved problematic for several reasons. First, their assumption that Measure A-24 was a direct cause of Vistra’s pivot was unsubstantiated, suggesting a lack of understanding — or worse, a deliberate misrepresentation — of the company’s motivations. Second, the strategy of chastising neighbors who supported Measure A-24 alienated many voters who were undecided but concerned about Morro Bay’s future land use. Instead of fostering constructive dialogue, opponents’ criticisms came across as divisive and dismissive of legitimate concerns about large-scale developments in a sensitive coastal environment.
Ultimately, this approach backfired. The lack of clear evidence tying Measure A-24 to Vistra’s decision undermined opponents’ credibility. Furthermore, their aggressive tone alienated community members who might have been open to hearing more nuanced arguments against Measure A-24. By focusing on vilifying proponents instead of addressing the measure’s actual implications, they inadvertently strengthened the grassroots resolve behind the initiative.
Conclusion
The passage of Measure A-24 marks a pivotal moment for Morro Bay, reinforcing the community’s desire for direct involvement in land use decisions that affect their environment and quality of life. The election results serve as a reminder of the importance of transparent, respectful discourse in public policy debates and the effectiveness of grassroots movements in enacting change.
For more political analysis and insights, visit my website or read my columns in the New Times.