By Tim Moore
teemor@got.net

City Councilman Chuck Carter got fully in bed with Fred Keeley and the other City Council members in support of the proposed new high school site at Harkins Slough. But now, since he has always considered himself sensitive to the environment and to the preservation of farm land, he is having to justify his recent and seemingly contradictory actions both to himself and to the public at large. An editorial he wrote in the April 15 edition of the Register-Pajaronian, if so intended to explain his position, falls way short of that objective in my opinion. It does, though, reveal something about his own inner conflict.

First, a brief summary of the article. Carter speaks highly of the much ballyhooed MOU which promises to limit urbanization westward. Because of the MOU, he asserts, the plans for a "desperately needed" high school can go forward. All the parties at war over growth and development have made peace with one another and can now move ahead cooperatively.

Mr. Carter then goes on to describe how a pro-new school coalition was put together under Assemblyman Fred Keeleys tutelage; how impressed the Coastal Commission was with the cooperative effort and the MOU, with the result that they gave final approval for the site. It is "a great victory for everyone," Carter enthuses.

Additionally, the Councilman points out that they got a commitment from the county to expand housing opportunities for farm workers and to put up more affordable housing. (One may wonder why the County could not afford similar opportunities in the absence of an MOU and Commission approval for a new high school. But well let that discussion alone for now.)

The remainder of Chuck Carters piece implies a puzzling link between the intended building project and the continued preservation of agricultural resources and wetland habitat; that, indeed, the school would be an environmental boon, not a bane. Beyond that he envisions that a New Millennium High, just because of its location, evidently, will result in improved student academic achievement and revitalized teaching. ( Figure that one!)

Mr. Carter closes out with the "sweet taste of victory" in his mouth.

Lets go back to an earlier op-ed piece Mr. Carter did in October, 1999 for the R/P. At that time, some six months ago, Chuck laid out the matter rather eloquently. Let me quote him in the wake of LAFCOs then denial of the Manabe-Bergstom property annexation bid:

"Annexation and development can be insidious: incrementally, slowly, piece by "justified" (his quotes) piece, farmland and environmentally sensitive areas can be irrevocably lost. And after youve paved over the farm land and filled the sloughs, and displaced the farm worker, will the problem of jobs and housing for poor be solved?.....What can be seen, however, are communities which have lost forever precious good farmland and wildlife areas in the name of the poor. They have some very well off developers, increased population from new commuter residents, and the same impoverished poor, in whose name it will all be done............"

Mr. Carter was actively supportive in the apparently successful confiscation of some 70 acres of the Edwards property to build the new high school on. "Not to have done so," declared he in his latest editorial, "would have threatened a whole generation of Watsonville youth." (Yes, Chuck, one gets much further by usurping private property in the name, and for the sake of "Watsonville youth," rather the more amorphous "impoverished poor." Good results are practically assured by making "our children" the recipients of proposed government largess.) That the majority of these kids are Hispanic does not hurt the cause either.

Oddly, in the midst of Carters paean of triumph, he delivers a couple of muted soliloquies. I think it was his troubled alter ego insisting on getting a word in edgewise. The Councilman stops gushing and high-stepping for a moment. The cheers fade. The pompoms fall from his hands . Carter then begins to reflect quietly on the obvious threats posed to safety and the environment by the intended project. Lets listen in on some of it:

"The problem was, and still is to a large extent, the site. It's in the Coastal Zone, it protrudes into the environmentally sensitive slough in several negative ways, it's close enough to the airport to cause concern, it's productive farmland, and it's beautiful open space with convenient freeway access. Growth inducement, however, was the biggest threat."

Tim Moore