This opinion was contributed by Former Hollister Mayor Mia Casey. The opinions expressed do not necessarily represent BenitoLink or other affiliated contributors. Lea este artículo en español aqui.
I’ve been thinking a lot about Hollister’s future. About the community we’re becoming, and whether today’s decisions are taking us somewhere we never intended to go.
Growth is like a flowing river. You can guide and manage it. But putting up artificial barriers doesn’t stop the water. It finds another way, often with consequences worse than the problems you hoped to solve.
I believe that is what’s happening in Hollister.
For years, we’ve been told stopping outward growth will preserve small-town character, protect farmland, and solve traffic and infrastructure problems.
It sounds wonderful. Who wouldn’t want that?
But stopping outward growth doesn’t stop growth. It changes where growth goes, what it looks like, and who pays the price.
I’m concerned policies promoted to protect Hollister may actually threaten its future.
Preserving our small town future:
Think about the Hollister we love: homes with backyards, kids playing outside, local businesses, open spaces, and a sense of community.
Now imagine restricting our land-use choices for 30 years.
California still requires housing. People still need homes. And we have limited undeveloped land inside city limits. So where does growth go?
Up, instead of out.
Higher-density apartments and condominiums. More people, smaller spaces. More cars on already congested streets. Big condo and townhome projects across from our High School!
Restricting developable land can cause serious rise in home prices, making homeownership harder for local families.
Will our children and grandchildren still be able to afford homes here, with backyards for their kids? Or will they have to leave the community where they grew up?
What are we preserving if the next generation can’t afford to stay?
Something does not add up:
Here’s where slow-growth planning raises serious questions.
The state required San Benito County to plan for 750 homes. Yet our slow-growth Board of Supervisors approved zoning for 4000 homes. Why plan for 500% more than required?
And much of that zoning is unincorporated county pockets inside Hollister, which places county infrastructure demands and costs onto a city already struggling financially.
Meanwhile, Hollister’s slow-growth City Council zoned for roughly 8,000 homes, nearly double its required 4,163 housing units.
Together, these ‘slow growth leaders’ planned zoning for over 12,000 homes in and around a city which has roughly 12,000 existing homes. So Hollister will double in size?
How is that slow growth? Why concentrate all this extra housing inside Hollister?
We need affordable housing, apartments, and housing choices. But we also need balance, infrastructure, and understanding of how these decisions change our community.
Are we creating the increasingly crowded, dense urban city these advocates claimed they would prevent?
Housing alone does not sustain a community:
Hollister has struggled for years to generate revenue to support essential services. We’re witnessing financial instability, borrowing funds, threatened layoffs, and uncertainty about future public safety and infrastructure.
My focus has always been to strengthen our local economy through new businesses, industry, and good-paying jobs.
Yet political fighting and restrictive land-use policies make these goals harder to achieve.
Measure A already restricts business development opportunities in the county. Now Hollister Guardian activists are advancing a 30-year Urban Growth Boundary.
What will these overlapping restrictions mean for bringing jobs, business investment, infrastructure, and creating revenue needed in our community?
What about Highway 25?
Traffic congestion is a big reason people want slow growth. Yet thousands of homes, even inside the city, brings more commuters. A growth boundary doesn’t magically solve congestion, especially when residents must travel elsewhere for jobs.
We cannot keep planning rooftops without equally serious plans for jobs, roads, and infrastructure.
Before locking Hollister into 30 years of restrictions, shouldn’t we understand the economic and financial consequences?
Will Hollister voters be bypassed again:
Hollister Guardian activists submitted their Urban Growth Boundary petition. Why the urgency to move forward now right after election, a few weeks before the City Council changes?
I’m concerned they may urge council to adopt this initiative outright, without allowing Hollister residents to vote. Why do I suspect that?
Because it has happened before.
After the last election, activists that had substantially supported three successful council candidates urged council to adopt their measure overturning Hollister’s General Plan, with no vote of the people. And the council did. Four years of planning and over $1 million in taxpayer investment were thrown out, with no vote by Hollister residents. That decision created serious financial and planning consequences.
Now this new Urban Growth Boundary initiative could shape Hollister’s future for 30 years.
Mayor Stephens and Councilmembers Resendiz, DeAnda, and Picha have political connections to this activist movement. With two councilmembers leaving soon, the timing raises serious questions.
Is their urgency about securing another outright decision and hijacking voter rights again, before a change of council?
Hollister’s future belongs to its people:
Protecting farmland and small-town character matters. So does keeping Hollister affordable, financially healthy, and capable of providing essential services. Those goals should work together, not against each other. We need thoughtful planning that protects farmland, supports local jobs, accommodates housing, and preserves options as our community’s needs change.
The question isn’t whether to protect Hollister. It’s whether these policies deliver the future we were promised.
I urge residents to contact the City Council. Demand an independent economic and fiscal analysis be done so we know the financial impacts to Hollister. And insist this 30-year Urban Growth Boundary be put to a vote by Hollister residents.
No political maneuvering. No shortcuts. No adoption behind voters’ backs.
Hollister residents deserve to understand the consequences and make this decision themselves.
These activists call this a Voter Empowerment Initiative; and their mantra has been “Let the Voters Decide.” Shouldn’t they practice what they preach here, and let Hollister residents’ vote and decide?
BenitoLink invites all community members to share their ideas and opinions. By registering as a BenitoLink user in the top right corner of our home page and agreeing to follow our Terms of Use, you can write counter opinions or share your insights on current issues.