Development Interests Fuel Misinformation and Political Attacks, Community Leaders Claim

In a dramatic shift in local politics, San Benito County’s development interests are fighting back against elected officials who favor slower housing growth, according to County Supervisor Kollin Kosmicki. The ongoing conflict has escalated to include recall efforts, public criticism, and what Kosmicki describes as a coordinated misinformation campaign.

The controversy stems from the county Board of Supervisors’ changing composition after the 2024 election, which altered the balance of power away from pro-development interests. Supervisor Ignacio Velazquez defeated former Supervisor Bea Gonzales in March 2024, creating what Kosmicki calls a new majority focused on “prioritizing infrastructure improvements over more rural housing development.”

According to Kosmicki, a vocal group of development supporters began planning recall efforts against Velazquez even before he officially took office in January 2025. Eventually, these efforts expanded to target both Velazquez and Kosmicki himself.

“They strategically waited a few short months to fabricate a narrative about public safety to formally launch recall efforts,” Kosmicki stated, arguing that the timing reveals the recalls’ true motivation: to restore pro-development control of the board.

Kosmicki identifies several key figures behind these efforts, all of whom he characterizes as supporters of major housing growth in rural San Benito County. The list includes former Hollister Mayor Mia Casey and former Councilman Rick Perez, both of whom lost elections in 2024, as well as unsuccessful supervisorial candidates Elia Salinas and Stacie McGrady. He also points to campaign advisers and anonymous social media accounts as part of this coalition.

The supervisor argues that these recall efforts constitute an abuse of the democratic process that will cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars and establish a troubling precedent – especially in Velazquez’s case, since the recall targets an official who has barely taken office.

Meanwhile, Kosmicki defends the current board’s record, highlighting several policy achievements. The board has implemented reforms to limit housing sprawl while encouraging affordable housing near existing services. He also points to increased road repaving projects, additional funding for the sheriff’s office and fire protection, and new initiatives focused on tourism, job creation, and revenue generation.

The supervisor frames the conflict as a fundamental choice about San Benito County’s future development patterns. “Does our community want developers and their friends to take over local politics again and dictate how we grow for generations to come?” Kosmicki asks.

This political struggle reflects broader tensions in many California communities where development interests and slow-growth advocates frequently clash over land use policy. Such conflicts often involve questions about housing affordability, environmental protection, infrastructure capacity, and the preservation of agricultural lands.

In San Benito County’s case, the debate appears particularly focused on rural development. Kosmicki notes that the previous pro-development coalition supported expanding Hollister by 3,000 acres “over prime farmland” and generally favored what he terms “sprawl” development in rural areas.

The June election will likely serve as a referendum on these competing visions for the county’s future, with voters deciding whether to maintain the current board’s slow-growth approach or return to policies more favorable to development interests.

For now, the political environment remains contentious, with Kosmicki urging residents to consider the motivations behind what he characterizes as a “barrage of misinformation” from development advocates leading up to the election.