The city of Dublin, California, is at the center of a heated debate over a ballot measure that could significantly impact the region's open spaces and development plans. Measure II, dubbed the "Dublin Traffic Relief, Clean Air/Open Space Preservation Measure," has sparked a fierce battle between environmentalists and pro-development advocates, with both sides raising substantial funds to sway the outcome.

Unlocking Dublin's Future: The High-Stakes Ballot Measure

The Measure's Promises and Pitfalls

If approved, Measure II would grant the city of Dublin the discretion to commercially develop 80 acres of land along the Dublin Boulevard extension up to North Canyons Parkway. Proponents argue that this development would alleviate traffic congestion, improve air quality, and generate revenue to fund necessary infrastructure improvements. However, opponents vehemently disagree, claiming that the measure is a "land grab" that would undermine the city's previous commitment to preserving open space and protecting the environment.

The Financial Tug-of-War

The battle over Measure II has become a high-stakes financial affair, with both sides raising substantial sums to fund their respective campaigns. The opposition group, Save Dublin Open Space, has raised over $136,000, while the pro-development group, Keep Dublin Moving – YES on II 2024, has amassed more than $122,000. The sheer amount of money involved in this local ballot measure is a testament to the intensity of the debate and the far-reaching implications of the outcome.

Conflicting Visions for Dublin's Future

At the heart of the debate lies a fundamental clash of priorities. The city of Dublin maintains that the proposed development would help reduce traffic, protect open space, and preserve clean air in the Tri-Valley region. However, the opposition argues that the measure is a deceptive attempt to break the previously established urban limit line, which was intended to safeguard 3,282 acres of the surrounding Doolan and Collier Canyons from commercial development.

The Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Report: A Cautionary Tale

An Alameda County Civil Grand Jury report on Measure II has further fueled the controversy. The report scored the measure a mere 2.1 out of 5 points, citing a lack of clarity on what the measure would accomplish and why it was needed. The report also criticized the measure's misleading title, suggesting that it should instead state its true intention of "Amending the existing open space initiative to allow 80 acres of open space land to be developed."

The Legal Battleground

The opposition group, Save Mount Diablo, has taken legal action, filing a lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court to block the measure from reaching the November 5th ballot. While the request was denied, the courts still have to weigh in on the legality of the city's decision to forgo an environmental review before placing the measure on the ballot.

The Endorsement Tug-of-War

Measure II has garnered support from a range of local officials, including Alameda County Supervisor David Haubert, Dublin Vice Mayor Sherry Hu, Councilwoman Jean Josey, and former Dublin Mayor Melissa Hernandez, who now sits on the BART Board of Supervisors. However, the opposition has also secured endorsements from the Alameda County Firefighters Association, the county's Deputy Sheriff's Association, and both the Alameda County Democrat and Republican parties.

The Grassroots Resistance

The opposition campaign, led by Save Mount Diablo, has positioned itself as a grassroots effort, with the majority of its funding coming from Dublin residents and community members. In contrast, the pro-development group has been accused of being "100% paid for by development interests," with significant contributions from developers and trade unions.As the November 5th election approaches, the fate of Measure II hangs in the balance, with both sides vying to shape the future of Dublin's landscape and the delicate balance between development and environmental preservation.