Ventura City Manager Blog

Sleeping in cars . . . an issue to rally for or against?

2009-07-06T10:04:00.000-07:00

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Written today, we'd substitute "people" for "men," but these words from the Declaration of Independence remain central to our public lives, not just on the Fourth of July holiday.

They were divisive words then and they remain so today. Historians guesstimate that only about a third of the colonists supported independence and a good third remained loyal to the British crown (presumably the remainder would have told the pollsters of the day, "Put me down as 'undecided.'") In our time, one set of patriots invoke the Declaration to protest taxation while waving teabags at the County Government Center while other sets of patriots use the same words in support of government intervention to further a wide range of "rights," from healthcare to full employment.

In a democratic society, clashes over "rights" are common. And too often divisive.

One may be brewing for next Monday at Ventura City Hall.

One group gearing up to arrive in force are citizens committed to humane treatment of the homeless -- and to the long-run goal of ending homelessness in our community. They converged on the City Council back in May to insist on prompt action on a variety of concerns, including a demand to "decriminalize" sleeping in cars.

Another group that is equally determined to be heard are demanding a "clean and safe town for our families and visitors." They are fed up with what one described as "being overrun by panhandling, petty crime, public toiletry and the other symptoms that go along with the problem."

These two concerns are not mutually contradictory -- and in fact could be completely compatible. But when rhetoric heats up, they might run right into each other -- to the detriment of both causes.

The issue at the bottom of all this commotion is a narrow, but potentially contentious one.

For years, under the Ventura Municipal Code it is illegal for anyone to sleep in a car for more than four hours on public or private property, except in case of emergency. It's not an unusual law. It is not a criminal matter -- violations are handled administratively with fines. In the past seventeen months, only ten citations have been issued, all the result of citizen complaints that brought the Police to the scene.

But for those advocating on behalf of the homeless in these tough economic times, that is ten too many. They equate enforcement of the law against sleeping overnight in cars with "criminalizing" homelessness.

Back in May, the Council agreed unanimously to review the statute -- as well as explore whether some sort of supervised alternative might make sense for homeless people to sleep safely overnight in their cars. Some communities have adopted this approach, including nearby Santa Barbara. The Council asked staff to research the issue and return with recommendations -- which are coming on Monday.

The staff are indeed recommending some changes. We offer the alternative of carving a narrow exemption in the ban to allow private property owners such as churches to provide space for homeless people with cars to stay overnight -- as long as we can establish rules to keep this from becoming a public nuisance. It's not clear whether any institution will step forward to undertake such a pilot, but experience in other communities gives us the opportunity to draft the rules to ensure a program that works and avoid significant problems. We are also recommending restoring $22,000 of the $50,000 cut in homeless prevention grant funding as part of this year's budget balancing effort. These funds could help underwrite such a pilot program -- or go to other worthwhile homeless prevention efforts. To read the actual report to the City Council, go here and click on Agenda Item 10.

Reasonable people can disagree, of course, that this recommendation either goes too far -- or not far enough. But it would be a shame if it became a symbolic battleground between those who want a humane Ventura and those that want a safe one, especially since almost everyone wants both.

Fortunately, besides lining up of supporters, leaders in both groups are talking to each other. There is less disagreement that meets the eye. There is a chance that Monday will give everyone a chance to be heard without damaging the spirit of collaboration necessary to successfully work on both concerns.

Ultimately, the City Council (and the City Manager, City Attorney and Police Chief) understand that the "buck stops here" when it comes to local laws and their enforcement. But it is also important to understand that all the issues raised by homelessness are not resolvable with a vote of the City Council -- or the long arm of the law.

Keeping Downtown safe and reducing and preventing homelessness are both vital issues. But they are not primarily political ones. No matter how many people show up at City Hall or how eloquent their pleas, the most important work to be done is not there. It is continuing to work together as a community to make progress where we agree and find ways to resolve differences where we don't.

July in Ventura . . . wish you were here

2009-07-03T11:12:00.001-07:00

The weather today is gorgeous, my kids are spending their last morning at surf camp and Ventura is featured on Virgin Airlines recently revamped web site as "California's Last Best Beach Town." Travel writer Maryann Hammers says, "Ventura would never be described as 'tragically hip'. There are no budding starlets, no paparazzi, no designer stores nor celebrity chefs. That's what's so great about it." To read the whole story, click here.

Like residents of most great towns, Venturans tend to be ambivilent about tourists. We certainly aren't overrun with them as parts of Santa Barbara seem to be. But most locals prefer the undiscovered charm of the place. They are proud of the revival of the historic Downtown, but suspicious of national chains locating there, even though we are happy to shop at big stores elsewhere in town.

Yet there is also a recognition that without visitors, we couldn't maintain the lively arts and culture scene in town -- and we welcome the economic benefit they bring to businesses and public services.

Some people wax enthusiastic about capitalizing on our location -- the first sight of blue water for the millions of annual travellers coming from the south on the 101, where all the green Caltrans signs say "Ventura," starting in Pasadena. The recently approved Hyatt Regency -- along with the spuced up Marriott and Crowne Plaza -- are making Ventura more attractive as a travel destination.

For more about Ventura as a place to go this summer, check out our Visitor's Bureau web site here. You can even send free e-postcards featuring gorgeous shots of Ventura landmarks. And even locals will enjoy the Virtual Ventura eye-popping eye-candy that takes you on a dizzying virtual tour inside local spots from the high-end Watermark to the funky Bank of Books. Finally, there's also great info on our Downtown on the website for the Downtown Ventura Organization.

No State budget today . . .

2009-07-01T09:50:00.000-07:00

Despite working late into the night, our elected State leaders remain deadlocked on bridging the $24 billion budget gap, the product of both years of polarized partisan zealotry and the international fiscal crisis.

In Ventura, the City Council adopted a balanced budget back in March, reducing spending by $11 million. We made the hard choices. We are not spending money we don’t have. Barring further deep declines in the economy, we will be able to live within our means for the next two years.

City leaders around the State remain mystified and angry at the continuing resort by State leaders to diverting local revenues to patch the State's budget deficit. San Luis Obispo citizens, for example, three years ago voted a sales tax increase and have responsibly managed their resources to protect their public safety, quality of life and standard of living. Their City Manager, Ken Hampian, yesterday wrote to the Governor:

Governor, as a City Manager, I know that there is great urgency when it comes to the State budget. Here in San Luis Obispo, our City Council recently closed a projected $11.3 million budget gap by doing the hard work of fiscal stewardship – looking people in the eye and making very tough cuts (cuts composed 80% of our gap closing actions), securing “zero year” employee concessions from every bargaining group, raising some revenues, and strategically using our rainy day fund.

While our Council is “non-partisan”, it is composed of Democrats and Republicans and yet these political differences did not stop them from doing what they had to do for the greater good of the community that they represent. When we look toward Sacramento, we see nothing that resembles responsibility stewardship and political compromise for “the greater good.” Instead, we see an endless death spiral of increasingly irresponsible, dogmatic behavior that is driving California (and its communities) off the cliff.

We are a national embarrassment. If we saw a shred of hope from our elected officials in Sacramento, we might suggest triggering Proposition 1A. However, borrowing or seizing local government revenues to close a budget gap that has been festering for years due to a completely dysfunctional system of governance is just bad fiscal policy. Based on the lack of political courage in Sacramento, we really have no reason to believe that the State would fulfill its commitment to pay back Proposition 1A funds plus interest, when it matures in three years. And, of course, we have no evidence that the State can afford to do so, even if it wanted to meet its debt obligations.

California needs an honest budget based on integrity not budget gimmicks, which will only threaten investor confidence. I am respectfully asking you to put an end to gimmicks including borrowing or seizing local revenues.

We live in an incredibly diverse State. So the scale of problems is daunting. But isn't it about time that we get leadership from both parties to do what city leaders from both parties are doing all across California? Now is the time to find a way to bridge the partisan gap and balance competing priorities. It's incredibly difficult work. But it's July 1 and the time for excuses, delays or gimmicks has long since passed.

Just the facts . . . a straight-forward primer on taxes

2009-06-30T09:52:00.000-07:00

Councilmember Carl Morehouse never tires of trying to explain the facts of (fiscal) life. He's used poker chips and jars of penny, held up dollar bills and lectured and written extensively to simplify the complicated maze of munipal finance.

It's not that cities want to make things complicated. They were once much simpler. But thirty years of voters and politicians tinkering at the State and local levels to try to keep taxes low and services high have made California budgets very, very confusing. Only a few people really understand how government services are funded -- and they have long since given up on explaining it to the public. Except Councilmember Morehouse.

His latest effort is a remarkable primer available at CAPS-TV. Sitting at a simple table, Morehouse spends 24 minutes breaking down where your taxes go and how they are spent. He starts with the Federal and State taxes and then brings it all home to Ventura. He then succinctly reviews the sources and uses of tax funds -- and along the way deals with a number of controversial issues and widely cited misconceptions.

In a second, related video, Carl takes a dispassionate look at the contrasting perspectives that often shape public debate on the role of government.

Together, they are a great introduction to the realities of local government -- fiscal and philosophical. If more of our public officials at all levels took a step back from the debates of the day to look at the big picture, perhaps we'd have a better informed and more civil discourse!

Check out Carl's videos here. On the same page are some valuable interview shows produced by the Chamber of Commerce on local topics from a business perspective. Check them out as well.

Code enforcement: setting the record straight

2009-06-29T15:12:00.000-07:00

On his Facebook account, Councilmember Neal Andrews has posted thoughtful background on Ventura's code enforcement effort, rebutting the scare talk about people losing their homes for failing to get permits to replace a water heater:

A few skillful political agitators are actively promoting the notion that the City is going to force little old grandmothers into homelessness by sending its jack-booted “Nazi code enforcers” out to harass innocent homeowners, who unwittingly and innocently bought or built illegal dwelling units within the City. They say these are really safe and affordable housing units that we need desperately to preserve. They say this is all about the greedy City searching for new sources of money. They say the building and safety codes haven’t been enforced for “a hundred years”, so why now in these troubling economic times, when affordable housing is in short supply, should we suddenly begin to enforce these laws. And, naturally, they always point to the darkest and worst possible reasons.

Here are the facts.

City code enforcement officers have an important public function to perform. They are enforcement officers. The City has a responsibility to enforce laws duly enacted, mostly by the State, to ensure that housing within the City is safe and meets basic construction standards. These are laws, for example, that ensure that your electrical wiring is properly installed, so you won’t be electrocuted or your house will not burn down because of a short-circuit in the system.

Code enforcement officers also have the obligation to enforce codes that protect you from health and sanitation hazards. These are laws, for example, that make certain your plumbing is installed correctly so that the germs in the sewer system cannot find their way back up the sewer pipes into your home and that your pipes bringing your drinking water to your tap don’t contain illegal lead that will retard the brain development of your children.

Code enforcement is obligated to enforce the laws that you and your elected representatives have enacted to preserve the quality of life in our community as well – laws that, for the sake of ensuring reasonable privacy, require a certain distance between your home and the new rental unit that your neighbor wants to build behind his house, or that prevent a garage from being converted to a spare room while a neighbor then parks his cars on the street where your visitors would have been able to park as intended, but now can’t find space, or laws that simply prohibit your neighbor from destroying the property values of your entire neighborhood because they think they should be able to “store” their junk cars or appliances in their front yard.

The scare talk began when the Council voted to shift resources to preventing slum conditions rather than simply responding to complaints, since so often renters are understandly reluctant to complain. In shifting to a "pro-active" enforcement effort, however, it became clear that many rentals, although illegal or substandard, do not pose a health and safety hazard. As a result, next month staff is bringing to the City Council a proposal for a one-year amnesty program to promote voluntary compliance. Everyone recognizes that there are real differences between conditions like a garage recently converted into a living unit for a family and a small guest house built decades ago without recorded permits. Here are some simple answers to questions that have been raised:

Q: When an individual has a home that was constructed many years ago, does the City require them to bring it up to current code when no other work is being done?

A: No. The State and City Building Standards are very clear about this. Only damage repair, voluntary alterations and additions must meet current code requirements.

Q: On an older home, if a property owner comes in for a permit for improvements, will the inspector use that opportunity to "hunt" for other violations such as an unpermitted water heater?

A: Staff reviews the property records to confirm that what is shown on a plan as "existing" has been permitted and approved. When discrepancies are identified, the owner can provide the following information to substantiate their position that the construction legally exists:

County Assessor inspection records that show the use/structure was on the tax role before the property was annexed
Executed Real Estate Documents
Executed Lease Agreements
MLS Listings
Signed Affidavit from Prior Property Owner

If and owner has installed a water heater (or made other changes) without a permit, they will be required to obtain the permit required by the State of California. The State gives staff zero discretion in this matter. In fact, any inspector (or other City staff person) that knowingly allows work to proceed, or exist, without required permits is both personally and professionally liable.

Housing code enforcement, like traffic law enforcement, is inherently controversial. No one in their right mind would favor eliminating enforcement of such laws, but anyone who has ever gotten a traffic or building code citation has opinions about the "fairness" of enforcement. We continue to work hard to tackle enforcing State and local laws evenly, sensibly and cost-effectively. Not an easy task, but we can all agree, someone has to do it.

Volunteers pitch in giving 42,000 hours

2009-06-25T12:41:00.000-07:00

Everyone knows we are in tough times. Now more than ever, we need to build partnerships to meet the needs of our community.

Every day, volunteers step in to help. On Wednesday, the City of Ventura honored the hundreds of local citizens who pitch in -- and last year contributed 42,000 hours of volunteer service to the community. Mayor Weir and Councilmembers Andrews, Morehouse and Summers all participated in paying tribute to Ventura's volunteer spirit.

Some wear uniforms, like our Volunteers in Policing (VIP) who provide a vital personal touch to everything from routine patrol along the beachfront promenade to assisting crime victims. Some keep a regular schedule, like Margie DeYoung, an 89 year old City Hall Ambassador who greets visitors at the front door all day every Tuesday with a smile and help at finding what they need. Some provide specialized services, like Bruce James, a professional photographer who assists the Fire Department with all the new digital tools that can help them do their jobs. Many, many just pitch in wherever and whenever they are needed, from cleaning beaches to organizing Neighborhood Watch.

Their contribution enhances our community at a time when the City Council has balanced our budget by making $11 million in cuts. Their service enriches our community by making a heartfelt commitment to what they do. Their volunteer spirit ennobles our community by demonstrating the unselfish love people have for Ventura.

Of course there are thousands more volunteers who give their time to civic, youth, cultural, environmental, religious and other organizations and causes in our city. All make a contribution to our quality of life and sense of place.

In fact, Ventura is a special place, in great part due to those efforts. Nationally, an authoritative study puts volunteer participation at 29% of adults. Our annual local citizen survey put it at 50% in Ventura.

There are lots of opportunities to not only serve the community, but to gain new skills and personal satisfaction as well. If you'd like to find out more about volunteer opportunities click here.

A quiet hero

2009-06-24T10:40:00.000-07:00

We live in a time of rising frustration and anger. People are looking for someone to blame for the grim headlines of jobs lost, homes foreclosed, public budgets cut and taxes being raised.

Too often we overlook the other side of the story. The people who quietly go about their jobs, who go the extra mile to keep costs down and deliver quality results to improve the safety and quality of life of others.

John Schoof was that kind of man. The Wastewater Manager for the City of Santa Barbara lived here in Ventura with his wife Mary Walsh Schoof, Ventura's Deputy City Manager and their son Will, a sophomore at Villanova High.

John died at 48 after a courageous battle with heart disease. On Monday, 400 family, friends and colleagues paid tribute to his short and well-lived life.

John spent 20 years serving the City of Santa Barbara. At work, he was entrusted with sheparding the big projects with a quiet skill and patient assurance that there was no obstacle that couldn’t be overcome. John was project Manager the construction or refurbishment of Santa Barbara’s Granada Garage, Los Banos Pool, Railroad Depot, McKinley Park, and the Waterfront Offices. During his twenty years with the City of Santa Barbara, he supervised Wastewater; Streets; Land development; Real Property; Contract and construction Engineering and Inspection; Waterfront and Airport Engineering; GIS; Capital Improvement Programming; and Environmental Programs.

Recognized with six “Project of the Year” awards from the American Public Works Assn. and the American Society of Civil Engineers, he was honored as Maintenance Superintendent of the Year for Southern California. He was exacting in giving his best to others and kind in inspiring the best in others. His intuition and ability to read people earned him distinction as a beloved Little League Coach and a stand-out leader in his profession.

Both the Ventura and Santa Barbara City Councils adjourned their meetings this week in memory of John Schoof. Here is what Santa Barbara Mayor Marty Blum had to say about his public service there:

“I want to close tonight’s meeting in memory of John Schoof, who was our engineer in the Public Works Department, who we lost this last week. He was an asset to any public works project. I have never seen a person who was so even tempered—I’d like to think that I am pretty even tempered, but he was truly amazing. He was a real problem-solver and a very, very kind person."

Ray LaHood: A Second Look

2009-06-22T10:08:00.001-07:00

When the Cabinet line-up was announced, I wondered why a relatively obscure downstate Illinois Republican Congressman with shallow background in transportation ended up being tapped as Secretary of Transportation. But in a relatively short amount of time (let's remember the Obama administration is barely five months old), Ray LaHood is proving to be an outspoken and highly visible advocate for transportation reform.

National transportation policy used to revolve around highway spending and aviation policy. But there is a new sheriff in town:

"What we’ve talked about is getting to a concept that we call livable communities, where people don’t have to get in a car every day. You can use light rail, you can use buses, you can use walking paths, you can use your bike."

The quote comes from an irreverent interview in the New York Times Magazine on Sunday. He stresses repair of America's crumbling transportation infrastructure -- and making new investments, including high speed rail.

He also stresses his role in the larger Obama team. One of the most promising hallmarks of the new administration is the vocal commitment to better coordination between the disparate Federal departments and agencies.

To paraphrase Obama's most memorable lines from his 2004 convention keynote address: rebuilding the economy is not confined to the Treasury Department, confronting climate change is not confined to the EPA and reducing dependence on foreign oil is not confined to the Department of Energy -- they are all challenges for the United States of America. Every one of them involves a key role for the Department of Transportation. And it appears we have a Secretary who understands this.

How bad is it in retail?

2009-06-19T10:53:00.000-07:00

Nationwide, there is a 16.2 percent in vacancy rate, up 43% from just a year ago. Construction of new retail has fallen by half and rents are down 5 percent from last year. Although the wave of bankruptcies that were feared after retail's dismal Christmas season hasn't occurred, there is talk of "zombie" chains kept alive by the cash flow from money-losing sales. Our team at the giant International Council of Shopping Centers trade show in Las Vegas had no trouble making appointments -- attendance was cut in half by the recession.

It's not just that consumer spending is down because of rising joblessness. Consumers are saddled with debt that they must work to retire now that home equity has disappeared as a source of financing debt. And more and more shoppers are hitting the web, looking for bargains. This may mean a long-term shrinkage in "brick and mortar" sales -- and the stores that provide them.

America's long shopping binge fueled a remarkable boom in store construction. According to the New York Times, "In 1986, the United States had about 15 square feet of retail space per person in shopping centers. That was already a world-leading figure, but by 2003 it had increased by a third, to 20 square feet. The next countries on the list are Canada (13 square feet per person) and Australia (6.5 square feet); the highest figure in Europe is in Sweden, with 3 square feet per person."

A couple of years ago, the Riverpark Shopping Center looked like a formidable new entrant in the crowded Ventura County marketplace. The developers had signed up one of the hottest retailers in Whole Foods, plus a new multiplex and REI, the outdoor sporting goods chain. But there has been no major tenants signings announced since -- and construction has noticeably slowed on the shopping center.

On this side of the river, the Pacific View Mall is weathering the storm with tenant resignings, but has not been able to close the deal with tenants to redo the vacant buildings at the north end of the mall behind the new Target. Retailers across the nation are insisting on bargain leases -- leaving shopping center owners with the harsh choice of accepting unfavorable terms or leaving stores vacant.

Of course, this has a big impact on local governments. Citizens in many communities have happily supported retail expansions -- and even tolerated big subsidies to developers and retailers to provide sales tax revenue to support local services. But now, as auto malls and shopping centers struggle, the reliance on the revenue they provide is proving to be unsustainable.

Many hope the downturn's slowing portends a turn-around by the end of the year. But robust consumer sales and new retail developments are years away. The largest mall owner in the nation is in bankruptcy and Wall Street financing has virtually disappeared.

That poses a number of challenges locally, not only in funding vital public safety and community services, but also in providing local jobs and economic activity. It will leave vacant stores and empty streets in many parts of local towns. It will discourage the kind of mixed-use projects that seemed so promising in bringing back vitality to neglected areas. And it will pose tough choices to local City Councils as they struggle to maintain the stores they have -- and are pressed to subsidize any new ones they want to attract.

Saving local libraries

2009-06-08T13:24:00.000-07:00

Amidst all the clamor about the State budget meltdown, there is more bad news for Ventura County libraries.

In the first round of cuts prompted by State cutbacks, County Library Director Jackie Griffin recommended consolidating Wright Library on the Ventura College campus with the downtown E.P. Foster Library. That remains the default option, although it has been put off by the "Save Wright Library" fundraising campaign mounted by the Friends of the San Buenaventura Library.

Now comes three more pieces of bad news. First, local property tax revenue is down more than originally anticipated by the County. Second, what little State library aid remained after the first proposed cuts may be eliminated altogether. Finally, the Governor's proposal to force "borrowing" of local property tax revenue would directly hit the County Library system.

The news puts even more pressure on an underfunded system. The City of Camarillo has been providing substantial supplemental funding to operate their brand-new library facility. They've liberally endowed the new book collection there. But, of course, the whole system benefits since those new materials are available for anyone to request any item be shipped to their home library for pick up. Libraries in smaller communities already operate with minimal hours. There isn't much room left for trimming -- again, whole libraries would have to come under scrutiny for consolidation/closure.

Complicating all this is the recommendation from the County Library Commission to stop paying Thousand Oaks nearly $200,000 to serve nearby residents of the County. Although that agreement is subject to cancellation, city leaders in Thousand Oaks are hurt and angry at the loss of revenue for their city library.

Support for libraries, though, remains strong. Unfortunately, translating that support into funding remains a challenge. Local leaders of the Friends of the San Buenaventura Library complain that their successful fund raising effort dried up after the City Council offered to make a "bridge loan" to keep the Library open through March of next year. Unfortunately, a loan only works if the fundraising keeps up so it can be paid back.

Meanwhile, tonight the City Council gives further consideration to the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Citizens Budget Committee that they place a half cent sales tax before voters in November. One of the Committee's recommendations was that libraries get additional funding through the measure.

The battle over Cemetery Memorial Park

2009-06-04T08:26:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: Prior to the issue returning to the City Council for a vote, the Parks and Recreation Commission will be holding another discussion, this one focused on the "scaled-down" alternative(s). For the agenda and staff report for that June 17 meeting, go here and click on Agenda Item Four.

It is one of the most beautiful spots in Ventura. It has a rich history. It is much beloved. And it is the topic of emotional debate.

Cemetery Memorial Park is the site of 3,000 graves, buried in several adjacent cemeteries dating back at least to 1862. By the Thirties, the cemeteries were no long active. Neglect and vandalism prompted the Planning Commission to begin discussions for converting the cemetery into a park. That plan was ultimately adopted in the early Sixties. Remaining headstones were removed and a "parklike" setting was installed.

A movement spearheaded by Steve Schleder began five years ago to reverse that decision. He's been a persistent and passionate critic, arguing that Ventura not only dishonored those buried on the seven acre site, but violated the law. A Grand Jury investigation failed to confirm his legal arguments, but they did recommend the City do a better job of respecting the nature of the site.

In the years since, the City Council has heard from a shifting chorus of voices on what should -- or should not -- be done. At times, the passion and numbers have favored those demanding the City do more to honor the historic graves -- if not to fully restore the Cemetery, at least to put a name above each of the graves. Lately, the more numerous voices have been arguing that the City should essentially leave the site alone.

What brought the debate front and center again was a plan developed over the past two years to implement the Council's direction to do a better job of balancing the many aspects of the park -- as an historic site, as a cemetery and as a public park. Elaborate public input led to an ambitious -- and controversial -- plan. With a long-term price tag of $4 million, it made an easy target for neighbors and park users to lampoon City government for contemplating changes that no one wants at a cost that no one can afford.

The critics have a point -- up to a point. Instead of working from a realistic budget, the firm hired to assist in park planning designed a master plan that assumed that over the next two decades, private fundraising and park grant funding could pay for a park make-over. Some objected to removal of the parking lot; others to the placing of individual grave markers over all the remains; and others just griped about the whole package as an absurd waste of money in a down economy. As an alternative, staff placed before the City Council a much scaled-down version more in keeping with the original intent to address deferred maintenance and install some kind of appropriate memorial monument.

But the volunteer citizens who serve on our Parks and Recreation Commission, who held a series of meetings leading up to their approval of the plan, represent a different community perspective. They saw the plan as a visionary way of making the park truly a majestic destination that celebrated the legacy of Ventura's history, honored the departed and yet made the park a welcoming place for neighbors and visitors. They realized that it would take decades for that vision to unfold, but obviously the site has undergone a great many changes already in its 150 year history. Right now, the park is primarily used neighborhood strollers and dog owners, most of whom ignore the ban on unleashed dogs in the park. The Commission anticipated the park becoming a more unique and appealing setting to understand and appreciate our city's unique history and beauty.

After hearing from public speakers, the City Council ran out of time to adequately discuss and resolve the competing views. The topic is due to come back to the City Council -- but first the Parks and Recreation Commission will review again their recommendation -- and the scaled-down alternative.

Era of limits

2009-06-01T08:36:00.000-07:00

To balance this year's budget, the City Council established a clear set of principles, starting with this overview:

To ensure increasingly limited resources are allocated to what matters most in achieving the General Plan Strategic Vision, the Council recognizes that tough choices will need to be made and that its emphasis will be placed on eliminating, reducing or restructuring lower-priority programs and expenses rather than compromising the success of high-priority efforts by inadequate funding.

Difficult and painful as it was, focusing on "what matters most" made it possible to reduce spending by $11 million. What it forces, however, is greater discipline about what we undertake because we have slashed capacity for taking on worthwhile additional work. There are 40 less people working for the city, but expectations remain high.

There was an old cartoon strip that ran for many years called, "There Ought to Be a Law." It was a send-up of the idea that for every problem, there was a legislative solution. The comic strip is long gone, but the impulse continues.

So the stream of well-intentioned citizen requests continues unabated, despite -- and in some cases, because of -- the economic reckoning we are enduring. One irate citizen demands the City put more emphasis on compliance with (and enforcement of) the Americans With Disabilities Act. Another frequent critic offers an ordinance from another city to ensure banks maintain foreclosed homes. A tireless citizen activist insists we come up with an amnesty program for illegal second-units. An advocate for marijuana access prods us to forge rules for implementing Proposition 215. A thoughtful fiscal conservative urges us to tackle the huge issue of local government pension reform.

All of these are legitimate concerns. So are the new mandates from other levels of government: the Regional Water Quality Board imposing a new and expensive permit to clean up stormwater run-off on all the cities in Ventura; the new regional planning framework imposed by SB 375; and the opportunities for securing competitive grants for Stimulus funding from the Federal government in everything from public safety to energy conservation.

The only hitch is: who is going to do all these things? Fiscal conservatives have a quick answer: nobody. Stick to the basics. Live within your means! Of course, like the old joke ("A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged), finding true fiscal conservatives is not so easy. People are often fiscal conservatives until you talk about cutting spending that affects their neighborhood, business or pet cause. I often hear, Cut out all that unnecessary 'stuff' . . . but don't cut out the arts or pay for dredging the Keys or help out Mrs. Yunker or whatever they don't individually see as 'unnecessary.' With 106,000 citizens, it turns out that there is a wide range of opinion on what is and is not 'unnecessary.'

Then there are others, fairly numerous in our community, who cheerfully acknowledge they understand we have limited resources and volunteer they'd be happy to pay 'a little more' so the city could do more on the homeless issue or code enforcement or protecting the hillsides or save a County library or . . . except that without a majority (or even 2/3rds vote) we don't actually have those additional resources to address their concerns.

So, how in an era of limits, do we balance the very real constraints on our staff time and financial resources?

There are two paths open. One is to stick with "what matters most" and let people know that their concerns will have to wait until we have the staff and resources to devote to them. The other is to give the voters an opportunity to restore some of the capacity we've lost as revenue has fallen.

What we can't do is what the State has done -- try to be all things to all people and duck hard choices.

Contrary to some stereotypes, politicians and bureaucrats aren't cursed with a character failing of spending like drunken sailors. But almost everyone drawn to local public service wants to solve problems and improve their community. Now is a challenging time. The number one problem we face is ensuring we don't spend money we don't have. That isn't a happy message to convey. But it is a message most people will understand, even if they aren't happy about it.

As our Police Chief Pat Miller reminds me, "We can do anything. We just can't do everything." Or as my great grandmother used to tell me, "If it is worth doing at all, it is worth doing right." We can't provide every taxpayer a solution to their problems. Instead, if we don't spread ourselves too thin, we can provide every taxpayer with value for their dollar.

State "Borrowing" from cities: Robbing Peter to pay Paul

2009-05-29T09:11:00.000-07:00

Facing a huge deficit, Governor Schwarzenegger is proposing to "borrow" two billion dollars from cities and counties. Of course, cities and counties are up in arms. Faced with their own revenue shortfalls, they are already making deep cuts in local services. Facing the third raid on local revenues in twenty years, they are appealing to voter anger against Sacramento politicians.

Ventura would lose $2.8 million in property tax revenue. Our city has already reducing spending on services by $11 million because of the economic crisis. Nearly 40 jobs have been eliminated and all staff are taking at least a 5% cut in compensation.

The League of California Cities has a new web site called "Save Your City" that allows residents to enter their zip code and hear a video from a local official or community leader blasting the State plan. You can also join the coalition to oppose the forced "borrowing."

Understandably, the argument is aimed at protecting local services -- the police, fire, libraries and parks that local residents rely on. But there is an even more powerful, if less emotional, reason to oppose the State plan: it only makes California's fiscal problem worse.

Of course, the State government has few options. The complicated and sloppy set of propositions designed to reduce the gap went down in flames. The Governor is now saying he must do what prior to the election he said he couldn't do -- balance the budget solely with cuts. Every day brings more news about just how difficult that will be.

But whether you think the State budget challenge is a "revenue problem," "a spending problem" or both, borrowing won't fix it. Postponing the problem only intensifies it.

Ventura has taken a different path. As difficult as it was to stop planting trees and fixing parks, to cut out Downtown foot patrol and reduce street maintenance, to cut beach lifeguards and cancel community events -- we had to balance our budget. The City Council did just that.

In life, my mother told me, you don't always get what you pay for, but you always pay for what you get. It's a useful point to remember. Plenty of people would like government not only to continue what it does today but to do more. There's a way to do that: pay for it. There's a way not to do it. Borrow from someone else with no plan for repaying it. That's what the State is proposing. It makes no sense. We will all be hurt if they go ahead with it.

City blogs: vital tool or faddish vanity?

2009-05-28T09:47:00.000-07:00

How valuable is a blog for city officials? Are they eclipsing newspapers as up-to-the-minute sources of news and commentary -- or a faddish vanity that only a handful of digital fanatics actually read?

That was the lively topic of discussion yesterday at a crowded session of a San Diego conference for mayors and councilmembers put on by the League of California Cities.

Mike Madrid, who publishes the widely-followed California City News provided an overview how cities are adapting to rapidly morphing field of "social media" including blogs, Facebook, Linkedin and Twitter. Some cities are embracing the new communication tools, while most lag far behind.

Art Pedroza is a Santa Ana political activist who has turned his Orangejuice round up of news and views in Orange County into the third highest read political blogsite in California. With rapid-fire delivery that mirrors his around-the-clock posting of the latest in hot news and gossip, he described the way in which the Internet and smart phones have opened up political dialogue far beyond the old-fashioned cycle of a news article followed several days later by a letter to the editor, followed by a response days after that. Now news pings around the world in a flash, accompanied by UTube videos and 140 character Twitter blasts.

As one of the handful of city managers in California with a blog, I was asked to provide some insight and I outlined the broader canvas of civic engagement. I was inspired to begin this blog by the example of my Santa Paula colleague, Wally Bobkiewicz. If a blog is to be more than a trendy toy, it has to fit into a larger commitment to healthy dialogue that engages citizens, not just in government decision-making, but in real partnership in achieving the community's future goals and vision. That means community gatherings like our recent Economic Summit, that means face-to-face informal opportunties like our periodic "Taking it to the Streets" neighborhood open houses, that means lively involvement of citizen advisory commissions and task forces like the View Protection Task Force and Citizen Budget Ad Hoc Committee and that means a spirit of mutual respect between elected officials, public servants and the public we all serve.

Of course, the digital frontier can also seem like the wild west. I talked about three troubling aspects that I have no solution for, but believe we need to address as we operate in this new territory. First is the sometimes poisonous atmosphere that's fostered by anonymity. That's hardly new to American democracy -- in the founding days of the republic, anonymous pamphlets were frequently full of scurrilous vitriol. But for the same reason newspapers ultimately decided not to publish anonymous letters, we may need to move away from the lack of accountability that comes with "screen names" and anonymous posting.

The second is the isolation of the virtual world. Yes, there are intense exchanges in cyberspace, but they are often disconnected from the larger dialogues a community needs. Pedroza cited the 1/9/90 rule -- for every 100 netizens, one is a blogger, nine read and make comments and 90 are silent. The 90 need to be drawn into the mix.

Finally, there is the intense self-selection that comes with billions of web site choices. I'm not sure about the reliability of this figure, but one study found that 94% of blog readers regularly read only blogs they agree with. This is not a good sign for inclusive discourse.

Although no Ventura elected officials attended the conference, there was a diverse group from around the State with a fascination with the new digital world we are entering. Some people's old habits die hard -- some of us worry about going out to the driveway in the not too distant future and not finding a daily newspaper. Others could care less -- they are already hurtling down the Information Superhighway. To draw on a different metaphor, it is easy to lose sight of the forest for the trees. Cities and city officials are not in the digital business, we are not in the blog business -- we are in the governance arena. These new communication tools are increasingly vital avenues to travel -- but the goal is not measured in either "web page hits" or being first on your block with the latest technology. It is putting new technology to work on one of the oldest challenges of civilization: how to promote self-government that promotes the common good, not just the narrow and often selfish needs of a powerful and/or vocal few.

Aftermath

2009-05-20T15:50:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, California voters had their say, turning thumbs down on five of six propositions put on the ballot by the Governor and Legislature. The only one approved was a "punish the politicians" measure that will have little impact.

Although we had early morning cloud cover in Ventura, it does not appear that the sky has fallen. Passage of the messy package of borrowings, diversions and spending formulas would have only reduced the State's looming fiscal train wreck from a $21 billion fiasco to a $15 billion crisis. But the fed-up voters have sent an overwhelming message to Sacramento. The problem is: what is the message?

We've already heard from an organized email campaign today that voters were saying: NO NEW TAXES!!! But in fact, there were no new taxes on the ballot yesterday. The closest was a future extension of the recently imposed sales tax increase -- and that was tied into a complex spending limitation measure imposed by the Governor and the handful of Republican legislators that agreed to the current State budget. What went down to defeat was a messy package of borrowings, diversions and the spending limit spilling out of the budget "compromise" that barely cleared the Legislature last fall.

So what were California voters really saying?

"We hate you, but we keep electing you!" is a pretty murky message. "Don't raise taxes and don't cut spending!" is pretty clear, but pretty unrealistic. "Go back and try again!" sounds reasonable, except that the ugly compromises in the ballot measures can now only get uglier as the Governor seeks alternatives that can get two-thirds approval in the Legislature.

Voter John Brockage spoke for the disgruntled majority in a newspaper story this morning. "We have a dope for a governor and the legislature is completely incompetent," he told Reuters. "I voted 'no' on all of them." Like most California voters, he rejects responsibility for the mess we find ourselves in. How could voters be blamed for electing a governor with no grander vision than his own political career - and then recalling him and replacing him with a foreign-born movie star? But if we elect dopes and incompetents - what exactly does that make us?

The road ahead is not promising. The State will run out of cash again this summer - unless the Governor and the Legislature can go back and come up with a new package of really horrible decisions - emptying out prisons, slashing public school funding, hiking college tuition, borrowing money from local governments that they have no realistic source of repaying etc. There are better alternatives, but no political support for pursuing the difficult, fundamental and long-term changes our state needs to restore the California dream.

The State's stalemate will have a direct impact on us. Cities and counties are howling, but it will be hard to stop the State from exercising its constitutional right to "borrow" 8% of our local property tax revenue next year. For Ventura, that is more than $2.6 million. Having already cut $11 million, chopping another $2.6 million would trigger drastic service and job losses. But that makes no sense. The "least worst" alternative will be to muddle through by borrowing from our reserves and waiting for the State to figure out how they will ever meet their constitutional obligation to pay us back within three years.

What is less certain is the impact of all this on local voters. Will it make them more or less supportive of a local sales tax, like the one recently passed in Oxnard? At least they would know that all the money generated would stay here - but whether the desire to punish politicians applies locally, who knows? All this must be weighed by the City Council as it weighs the wisdom of placing a measure on the November ballot.

Fire next time?

2009-05-14T09:30:00.000-07:00

Earlier this week, I accompanied Ventura Assistant Fire Chief Kevin Renne and Battalion Chief Don McPherson on an inspection of the still-smoldering ash-covered Santa Barbara hillsides. McPherson commanded five engines for a 32 hour shift on the day where a wind-whipped firestorm trapped three Ventura County firefighters on the next ridge over from McPherson's strike team.

Living where we do, wildland fire is part of our lives, like tornadoes in the Midwest and Hurricanes on the Gulf Coast. I've lived near California's tinderbox foothills nearly all my life. I remember being evacuated from Sierra Madre Elementary School under a purple and orange sky. As a city official I've dealt with at least a dozen major blazes in three cities.

Yet I continue to be amazed -- at both the horrific power of wind-driven flames to create a moonscape and the extraordinary ingenuity of firefighters as they somehow manage to protect hillside homes as flames roar around them.

As part of the network of mutual aid that can mobilize thousands of firefighters from around the state, our Battalion Chief McPherson and his strike team had been assigned to defend a ridgeline full of homes strung along a web of narrow roads and lanes with only one fire hydrant. After sleeping in their trucks Tuesday night, his strike team was deployed early Wednesday morning. They did their best to prepare for the predicted "sun-downer" winds that can suddenly gust to 50 miles an hour. But within minutes of their arrival, the hillsides exploded with flame, forcing two of his crews to temporarily take cover.

In the end, some homes were scarcely touched while others were left with only a blackened chimney -- with each telling a unique story of how location, landscaping, luck and the heroic efforts of a handful of firefighters dictated their fate.

But taking a step back from the dramatic stories of homes saved and homes lost, you have to wonder about the sanity of building deep in the foothills. Yes, the roads could be wider and there could be more fire hydrants and water dropping helicopters. Yes, a better job could have been done in clearing brush around homes and preparing the kind of contingency plans we have for our hillside fire deployments. But the prospect of having more staff and more money to throw at protecting our hillsides seems bleakly remote for a long time, if ever.

Of course, most of the building in the Santa Barbara hills, like the building in the Ventura hills, took place decades ago when we more often thought of "conquering nature" than we did of "living in harmony with our environment." We know better how to build in what we today call the "urban/wildland interface." In most places, including Ventura, we are far more cautious about venturing out into brushlands and flood plains. But where we've already allowed building, it is hard to resist the continued incremental encroachment of bigger houses built on steeper lots -- or the rebuilding of bigger houses where ones have just burned down.

It's beautiful living up there in hills with gorgeous views and intimate contact with wildlands. But the danger and foolishness isn't obvious until the humidity drops near zero and the devil winds sweep away a lifetime of memories and sometimes lives themselves. It cost a cool ten million dollars to battle the Jesusita fire and it destroyed more than ten times that in expensive homes. The value of what else was put at risk during those fiery days and nights -- the lives of thousands of residents and firefighters -- is far beyond that. It's something to keep in mind the next time someone wants to build yet another dream home on stilts in our foothills.

We have met the enemy . . .

2009-05-12T07:53:00.000-07:00

. . . and he is us, as Pogo used to joke.

Those "fools" and "thieves" and "clowns" in Sacramento are the people we elected.

California's dysfunctional thicket of constitutional restrictions and ballot box budgeting is the haphazard result of our short-sighted embrace of countless numbered propositions (13, 218, 98, 10 etc.) that just don't add up.

The partisan gridlock has festered because the vast majority of sensible Californians have turned away in cynicism and disgust from the circus of stupid, negative campaigns fueled by floods of special interest money.

Now look what we've come to.

Here's the Public Policy Institute's poll numbers on the ballot measures promoted by our Governor and Legislature:

Proposition 1A - 52% no, 35% yes, 13% don't know

Proposition 1B - 47% no, 40% yes, 13% don't know

Proposition 1C - 58% no, 32% yes, 10% don't know

Proposition 1D - 45% no, 43% yes, 12% don't know

Proposition 1E - 48% no, 41% yes, 11% don't know

Proposition 1F - 73% yes, 24% no, 3% don't know

Since many absentee votes have already been cast, the looming failure of 1A-1E means our State government will be short $21.3 billion between now and next July. But even more dismal is that even if by some miracle they all passed, we'll still be short $15.4 billion.

There is no quick fix. The Democrats are not going to shake off their short-sighted fixation on how to spend money nor are the Republicans going to abandon their obsession with holding down taxes. The Governor is not going to successfully reinvent himself yet again, nor does it make any sense to recall him.

As President Obama said during his campaign, we are the ones we have been waiting for.

Millions of Californians are going to have to start paying attention to substantive news, stop blaming other people for the mess we are in and work together to find answers. Oddly enough, given the magnitude of the crisis, the best place to start is at home in California's nearly 500 cities and towns.

Some years ago, a small group of thoughtful and idealistic activists from both parties (and independents) saw this trainwreck coming. They began meeting and tossing around ideas for heading it off. They adopted the name "Common Sense California." At first, they aimed to "reform" Sacramento. They had sensible ideas, like Redistricting reform to blunt the partisan stranglehold (an idea voters have adopted, but is still years from implementation.) Ultimately, however, they came to the conclusion that democracy needs to be reborn at the local level before we can fix Sacramento.

They call it civic engagement and they've drawn on promising models from around the globe and around our state to get people to take a healthy interest in the vital public issues that shape our private quality of life and standard of living. Last week, they highlighted Ventura's Economic Summit as the kind of "town hall" endeavor that can overcome the deep divisions that keep us from working together on solutions. They preach a simple, sensible message: we are going to fix our monumental self-induced problems only by changing from a "take no prisoners" activism that punishes moderation to an inclusive dialogue that seeks win-win consensus. Common Sense California doesn't claim we can solve our budget, transportation, economic and environmental challenges with a three point panacea. Their mission is "to help solve California's public problems by promoting citizens' participation in governance. We work with city governments, school districts, regional governance associations, and non-profit organizations to both support and promote legitimate civic involvement."

It is a long way from the digital OK Corral of virtual bloggers who never listen because they have all the answers. Which is why a revival of healthy civic involvement is so promising. Click here to learn more.

Winston Churchill said it best: "Americans will always do the right thing, after they've exhausted all the alternatives." Californians have zealously passed initiatives, recalled officials, ousted judges and ranted about the futility of it all. Now it is time to get serious and work together to put our State back on the right track.

Landmark Stormwater Permit Means Cleaner Water, Higher Costs

2009-05-07T08:08:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: Yesterday, eleven hours after the hearing began, the Regional Water Quality Board voted 5-1 to approve the new permit. In the end, the majority chose the alternative crafted by the permitees and the environmental advocates. While that option was endorsed by the US Environmental Protection Agency, it was strongly opposed by the Building Industry Association.

After four years, today is the day the LA/Ventura County Regional Water Quality Board holds its final hearing on the landmark permit renewal for Ventura County. The hearing, expected to go all day, starts at 9 AM at the Ventura County Government Center, 800 S. Victoria Avenue.

The last permit five-year permit for the County and its ten cities was granted in 2000. Our County's pro-active program won a national award from the Environmental Protection Agency in 2003 and earned us recognition for the cleanest beaches in Southern California.

Nonetheless, when the Regional Board staff brought forth their proposed new permit in 2006, its 118 pages contained the most stringent stormwater regulations ever proposed. Although cities produce almost none of the pollution that washes through our stormdrains, for the first time in the nation, local government would be responsible for monitoring and correcting infinitesimal traces of copper, lead, zinc, cadmium, nitrogen, bacteria and other impurities - or face huge daily fines. The permittees estimated the cost to comply with the proposal was over $600 for every household in Ventura County.

The reaction was shock, frustration and anger from Ventura County city, business and community leaders. But the staff for the Regional Board essentially ignored the outcry through their third draft of the permit issued in early 2008.

Beginning in 2007, the city managers of the ten cities and the county manager organized a working group that has held weekly meetings and conference calls to organize a strategy to force the Regional Board to change course. Chaired by Thousand Oaks City Manager Scott Mitnick, the group has worked diligently to persuade the Board staff to take a more reasonable approach.

For a long time, this made little headway. So after the third draft was issued showing little progress, the City Managers working group decided to follow up on preliminary discussions with the two main environmental groups closely watching the permit: Heal the Bay and the Natural Resources Defense Council. Three City Managers (Oxnard's Ed Sotelo; Simi Valley's Mike Sedell and me) and the County Stormwater Protection District Director Jeff Pratt were given the challenge of finding common ground as an alternative way of shifting the momentum.

What resulted was nine months of increasingly intense negotiations, finally leading to a remarkable joint agreement between the two environmental groups and all eleven Ventura County permittees. A joint letter of consensus on several key points was submitted by the environmental groups and the County and cities -- a unique and remarkable collaboration effort.

Ironically, even as we were making progress with the environmental groups, our sustained efforts finally achieved a similar breakthrough with the Board staff. The fourth draft of the permit (a "Tentative Order") was released in February and dramatically reduced the financial impact - from $600 per household to a newly estimated $50-75 a household. (To read the Tentative Order and the Board staff report, along with comments by various groups and agencies, click here.)

Now, more than three years after the old permit expired, we are one day from the Board voting on the new one. The effort devoted to getting us here has been intense on all sides. To give a glimpse of just how many parties have been involved, the Regional Board lists in their staff report the following:

The Regional Water Board staff has conducted meetings from October 2005 through January 2009, with permittees their representatives (Larry Walker and Associations, and Somach, Simmons & Dunn), and various stakeholders (Building Industry Association of Southern California/ Greater Los Angeles Ventura Chapter (BIAGLA/ VC), California State Dept. of Health Services, Calleguas Water District, California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), City of Downey, City of Los Angeles-EMD, Collation for Practical Regulation (CPR), Construction Industry Coalition on Water Quality (CICWQ), County of Orange, Geosyntec Consultants, Golden State, Heal The Bay; Local Government Commission, Los Angeles City; Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Los Angeles County-SD, Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, Metropolitan Water District, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Richard Watson Association, San Bernardino Flood Control District, Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission, Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, University of California Sea Grant, Ventura CoastKeeper, and Charles Abbott Associates. On April 5, 2007, September 20, 2007, and July 10, 2008 the Regional Water Board conducted workshops to discuss drafts of the NPDES Order and received input from the permittees and the public regarding proposed changes.

For all the work that went into this, the real challenges lie ahead. The new permit doubles the costs to Ventura and other communities and imposes very significant new requirements and policies that must be sorted out and implemented. We have no new money in our budget in the coming year to cover the new costs. But we have built a remarkably solid regional partnership, a newly collaborative relationship with environmental groups and a far more sophisticated capacity for tackling the issue of water quality. Our own Deputy Public Works Director Vicki Musgrove has emerged as one of the most influential, trusted and respected experts in stormwater management and her tireless and constructive approach to the issue has been key to our progress on all fronts.

Perhaps the most significant element of this effort has been the success of a truly regional effort. Very few of our challenges - the economy, crime, transportation, the environment, homelessness, etc. - are strictly local. Working across city and county borders and jurisdictions is a very promising opportunity for the future. The intense energy and effort that has gone into the stormwater effort lays the foundation for a much broader blueprint for Ventura governments to work together.

Economic Summit focuses on sustainable prosperity

2009-05-01T09:14:00.000-07:00

The free-spending consumer boom of the past 25 years led many to confuse prosperity with spending money. Nowhere has this delusion been more acute than amongst California municipalities.

In 1978, California voters revolted against a property tax system that drove taxes skyhigh when real estate values ballooned. They slashed the property tax by nearly two-thirds and permanently capped increases to 2% a year. Rather than develop a reasonable and fair alternative for financing local government services, then Governor Jerry Brown “bailed out” counties and cities with the State’s surplus (yes, in those days California State government had billions in the bank).

The surplus ran out. What the vast majority of cities eventually turned to as an alternative was the sales tax. For the last 25 years, cities have relentlessly, creatively and often foolishly pursued sales tax generating businesses. It has become the most important single measure of success for city governments.

So, for example, Camarillo declared its freeway adjacent strawberry fields “blighted,” clearing the way for “redevelopment” to subsidize building theaters, restaurants, big box retailers and an outlet mall that has grown into the biggest in the State. They outwrestled adjacent Oxnard in the outlet war (as Ventura outwrestled Oxnard in the mall war). As a result, Camarillo boasts a healthy budget and a beautiful new library full of new books and patrons.

But is Camarillo really more prosperous because there are lots of entry-level jobs at restaurants and retailers? Is such “prosperity” sustainable in the decades ahead?

For those who didn’t think much about a day of reckoning, such concerns seemed misplaced. So what if fat subsidies were being handed out to major corporations and well-placed developers in cities across California? So what if those interests poured back large heapings of cash into local City Council campaigns? So what if wealth-generating businesses were ignored or even discouraged in favor of auto dealerships and megamalls? So what if sensible land use planning was prostituted at the cost of traffic jams, polluted run-off and devastated downtowns and local businesses?

There are still many people who think that this downturn is just a cyclical adjustment and that we should be getting ready for the next big round of sales tax piracy. But more realistic voices are finally being heard that prosperity is based on high-wage, high value jobs that come from companies that provide value-added goods and services. Consumption is a product of prosperity, not a short-cut to prosperity.

That conversation needs to happen. The idea for an economic summit originated with Councilmember Ed Summers and the Chamber of Commerce embraced the idea. Mayor Christy Weir and Chamber Liaison Jim Monahan have also helped with planning the event. On Saturday, the community is invited to take a fresh look at prosperity in the 21st Century. Should we put all our focus on chasing real estate deals - or should we be asking how to improve the business climate for less glamorous producers of real wealth, the small to medium companies in engineering, light manufacturing, technology and other businesses struggling to make a profit in a high cost environment like coastal California? How can we be on the leading edge of the greening of America’s economy not only because it is a good fit with community values, but because it provides competitive advantage in the 21st Century?

The City of Ventura and the Ventura Chamber of Commerce are partnering to hold this important event in the Council Chambers at Ventura City Hall, this Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Sign up to attend here.

Local business owners, community leaders and economic experts are being invited to participate alongside Ventura City Councilmembers in strategizing a vibrant and sustainable economy for Ventura's future. Principal speaker, Bill Watkins, Economist with the newly formed forecasting and research center at Cal Lutheran University, will set the stage for serious conversations in five break-out sessions for attendees:

Improving the City's Bottom Line and Fiscal Health
Fostering Smart Growth
Greening Ventura's Economy
Retaining/Expanding Jobs and Businesses
Enhancing our Business Climate

Immediately following the breakout sessions, each group will report their recommendations to the City Council that afternoon. Based on the reports, City Council will direct staff and assign action items for a 90-day, 1-year and 5-year work plan.

A single day will not dramatically revamp our priorities or bring instant success. Nor should it. Promoting prosperity is a long-term endeavor. But this Saturday is an important and highly visible opportunity to talk about what matters most - and help forge a community consensus for what we can be actively doing today to create sustainable prosperity for Ventura in the decades to come.

Finding the Wright answer

2009-04-28T08:28:00.000-07:00

Alternatives to the closure of the Wright Library on the Ventura College campus were presented to the City Council last night. The City Council had asked the city's Library Advisory Commission to come up with ideas and their report sparked a new round of speakers opposing the original recommendation of County Library Director Jackie Griffin that Wright and the downtown Foster Library be consolidated as part of closing the County library budget gap.

Public participation was better informed and less emotional than the outpouring of shock and anger that first greeted the threatened loss of Wright. Almost everyone now has a better understanding of the complex "confederacy" that holds together a system that serves most of the cities and all the unincorporated area of Ventura County -- and the inadequate funding for libraries in today's economic situation. There were, of course, many passionate and sentimenal arguments for why libraries are good for kids, communities and civilization, but many speakers acknowledged much more realistic assessment of the very difficult challenges to keep Ventura's three libraries open in the face of deep cuts in State aid to local libraries.

There were some silly ideas, like the library patron who suggested the County Library system save money by having the County Library Director work out of a home office (was she really serious?) Some speakers demanded the City simply "reorder its priorities" in order find money to restore the loss in State aid and property tax revenue to the County system. But those who know the City has just been through a very painful "reordering of priorities" to slash spending by $11 million next year took a different tack. Perhaps the most compelling speaker was young Esther Gonzalez, a senior at Foothill High who will attend Wellesley next fall. Suggesting corporate sponsorship be explored for the libraries, she concluded: "I am an idealist at heart, but you have to come up with real solutions. I realize that the City Council is in a tough spot because I'm sure you all love libraries, but economically how are you going to solve this issue?"

Currently, the only stable source of funding is a share of property taxes from both the City and its surrounding unincorporated County areas. Without additional State aid, Ventura can't afford to keep its two major libraries open (the third library, a small branch on Ventura Avenue, is almost entirely funded from Federal grants allocated to low-income neighborhoods.) Library Commission chair Marianne Coffey put the issue succinctly: "We need a community dialogue. With the evaporation of State aid, Ventura libraries need a permanent source of adequate funding."

One option advocated by Friends of the Library president Will Thompson is a share of the proposed half cent sales tax recommended for the November ballot by the Blue Ribbon Citizens Budget Committee. There are, however, three obstacles in the way: the Council has not decided whether to place such a measure on the ballot; any tax increase in this economic climate faces an uphill battle to win voter approval; and by law the Council cannot guarantee a portion of the funding would always go to the libraries without raising the requirement for approval from majority vote to two-thirds approval.

So in the meantime, Wright remains endangered. The Library Advisory Commission's best alternative to closing Wright was to alternate days of service between Wright and Foster, an awkward and inefficient stopgap measure at best. The Friends of the Library have done a heroic job of rallying public support and raising $70,000 for their "Save Wright Library" effort. Last night, the Council voted unanimously to use reserves for a loan to the Friends to keep both Wright and Foster open until March 15 of next year. Whether the Friends can raise the remaining $130,000 to meet that goal is uncertain -- so if they fall more than two months behind in reaching that goal, the issue will come back to the Council.

So the future of Wright and the future of libraries in Ventura remains clouded. But the fundraising by the Friends has bought time to continue the "community dialogue." Now is the time to seize that time and find "real solutions" that will ensure that young people like Esther Gonzalez have libraries to help them reach their dreams.

Not the last chapter in Ventura's Walmart saga

2009-04-21T08:10:00.000-07:00

Walmart representatives didn't show last night as the City Council wrapped up the Victoria Corridor code, but they were on everyone's mind.

Walmart critics filled the City Council Chambers and more than 20 speakers castigated the world's largest retailer, imploring the Council to prohibit them from opening a store on Victoria Avenue. Only a handful spoke in favor of Walmart coming to town.

At issue were changes to the proposed Victoria Corridor code that would allow new loading docks, energy-saving design features and other minor additions to existing buildings that don't conform to the strict rules of the new code. While the language dealt with the scope of the restrictions and the exceptions for all properties, Walmart opponents branded these provisions as "special privileges" for the retail giant to occupy the now vacant former K-Mart on Victoria.

It was nearly midnight when the Council voted 5-2 for an amendment by Councilmember Neal Andrews giving property owners flexibility for making such changes for the first ten years of the plan. Deputy Mayor Bill Fulton and Councilmember Brian Brennan were on the short end of the vote.

It has been four years since Walmart first expressed interest in replacing K-Mart when their lease expired -- and almost four years since the City Council uanimously approved the 2005 General Plan that called for transforming Victoria's eight lane arterial into "a regional thoroughfare of great and sophisticated diversity" by "eliminating 'big box,' mega-block auto-oriented strip development and the traffic patterns it generates." The General Plan language was clear: "all new commercial development within the Victoria Avenue Corridor must follow this approach."

The vision for revitalizing the corridor has consistently been overshadowed by the controversy over Walmart. On one side have been free market advocates and those who accuse the Council of adding to the City's fiscal woes by discouraging business growth. On the other side have been Walmart opponents who want the City Council to do everything possible to keep the company out of Ventura. For four years, the Council has consistently taken a middle path and it did so again last night.

The City's position has always been that Walmart (or any other legal business) was welcome to build a new store on Victoria, but only if it conformed to the General Plan's vision for Ventura's most congested corridor: "walkable blocks" that are compatible with a business district that targets the kind of high value jobs that Ventura wants to retain and attract. Alternatively, like any other retailer, they were welcome to simply occupy the old K-Mart as a "non-conforming" use.

This has not satisfied either side. The owners of the existing commercial centers have dismissed the new vision for Victoria as impractical and many community voices have called for the City to actively pursue any large business that can bring in additional sales tax revenue. On the other side, the national and local movements that have targeted Walmart insist that the company despoils the environment, crushes local competitors, underpays its workers, frequently engages in illegal practices and outsources American jobs in favor of global sweatshops -- and should be stopped at all costs.

The four year battle is not over. Walmart opponents have qualified an initiative for Ventura's November ballot that bans any store over 90,000 square feet with more than 3% of total square footage devoted to "non-taxable items" (food.) One of the many ironies and ambiguities in this long fight is the "Stop Walmart" ballot measure never mentions Walmart. It would have banned the new Target that has opened in the mall and wouldn't stop Walmart from occupying the old K-Mart store as long as they limited food offerings.

The next move, however, appears to be up to Walmart. They can limit their store to 100,000 square feet under the new Victoria Corridor code and apply to upgrade the old loading docks, add skylights and improve the front entrance to the old K-Mart store. They can go to court to challenge the new rules. They can bust out the existing interior walls on the K-Mart building and occupy the entire 130,000 square foot building -- but under the rules passed by the Council, they are then forbidden from any exterior upgrades. They can also bide their time and wait to see what happens with the voters in November.

The one option that may offer the best solution is unfortunately one that few expect Walmart to embrace. They could "walk the walk" of their new talk about being "sustainable" and build a model new store that conforms to the new Victoria Corridor rules. “At Walmart, we are accelerating and broadening our commitment to bring Earth-friendly living to everyday life, and recognize the importance of offering these choices at budget-friendly prices,” boasts Matt Kistler, senior vice president of sustainability at Walmart. “At a time when shoppers around the world are watching every penny, this is the time to save money and save the planet – two goals that work together.” For more on Walmart's claims to promote "sustainability" check out their website here.

What's been missing so far is the company's commitment to do that in Ventura. At one point they hired a LEED certified architect to work up a new store concept without any surface parking with an ample green space in front of their store and a model "green store." That was contingent, however, on the City Council giving them the go-ahead for a huge Superstore of more than 140,000 square feet, completely out of scale with the "walkable blocks" part of the Victoria vision.

Downsizing that concept to fit the rules adopted last night by the Council would break the mold of auto-oriented "big boxes" and set a new, higher standard for green building in Ventura. Of course, it wouldn't fix Walmart's much-maligned labor practices, nor reverse the damaging impact of the global supply chain for their products (although they have been in serious dialogue on that issue with Patagonia's visionary environmental leader Yvon Chouinard -- paying multiple visit's to the company's Ventura headquarters to learn more about fundamentally shifting their purchasing practices.) For a revealing view on whether Walmart is serious about changing its ways, see this article in Fast Company: Patagonia Values.

But while it wouldn't overcome every perceived defect, abiding by Ventura's standards with a new "green" version of Walmart would offer tangible evidence that the world's largest retailer is serious about change. It would be a far better response to their critics than slick ads and "public relations." Right now, the silence from Walmart is deafening.

Walmart, are you listening?

Opening Up Opportunities and Overcoming Obstacles

2009-04-16T11:45:00.000-07:00

Recently, having lunch downtown, I ran into Mike McGuire, CEO of Affinity Bank. We commiserated on the current economy and the challenges the crisis poses for both the bank and the city.

“The heart of the problem,” he told me, “is we have to return to a time when consumer spending made up no more than around 60% of the economy. We’d actually gotten to the place where it was up over 70%. That’s not sustainable.”

President Obama made similar points in his speech on the economy at Georgetown University in Washington:

“We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand. We must build our house upon a rock. We must lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity -- a foundation that will move us from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest; where we consume less at home and send more exports abroad.”

The common message is a sobering one: work harder, spend less. But it is the foundation for ensuring future prosperity, nationally and here in Ventura.

On May 2, the Economic Summit we are co-sponsoring with the Ventura Chamber of Commerce will help us update our local strategy. Ventura is currently guided by a 2005-10 Economic Development Strategy (which is posted here on our web site.) Many of the goals have already been reached and new thinking is necessary in the new era we find ourselves in.

Focusing on “Opening Up Opportunities and Overcoming Obstacles,” the Economic Summit will be held at City Hall from 9 AM until 1 PM. After an opening briefing, participants will engage in active discussions around five themes, with the goal of coming up with consensus recommendations for 90 day, 1 year and 5 year strategies around the following five themes:

Improving the City’s Bottom Line and Fiscal Health

Fostering Smart Growth

Greening Ventura’s Economy

Retaining/Expanding Jobs and Business

Enhancing our Business Climate

This is an opportunity for a fresh start. There are innumerable definitions of “economic development” and dozens of ideas about how to improve our business climate. There are also stale debates and misleading perceptions that hold us back from working together effectively. The focus on May 2 will be to look ahead - to build on solid rock and “lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity.”

Ventura Economic Summit

2009-04-09T08:24:00.000-07:00

The City Council will hold an Economic Summit next month in partnership with the Ventura Chamber of Commerce. The location is being finalized, but the time is set—from 9:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. on Saturday, May 2.

The goal is to update our current 2005-10 Economic Development Strategy and work to restore prosperity locally by more aggressive action. The current Economic Development Strategy focused on six areas:

Auto Center: In the past five years, we successfully regained parity with Oxnard’s auto mall, but the entire industry is now contracting. The next stage for this area is completion of the long-planned Olivas Drive extension to open up major retail opportunities. This month, the Council will also be taking a look at future development along Johnson Drive on the other side of the freeway.

McGrath Property: This was the only one of the “expansion areas” incorporated into our 2005 General Plan and we are moving forward in an active public-private partnership with developers Investec to create a new 80- acre jobs campus in the most job-rich part of our city.

Westside: The bright promise of Westside revitalization has not yet materialized despite a number of positive developments, like Bell Arts factory, new housing and undergrounding of utility lines.

Upper North Avenue: This area is slated for annexation and redevelopment, but the effort has not yet moved forward. It is slated to be launched later this year.

Downtown: Despite some new vacancies in a tough economy, Downtown is probably the biggest success story of the past five years, with strong new tenants continuing to sign leases, an active Downtown Ventura Organization pushing a business improvement district and a new downtown office tower and the WAV project nearing completion. Later this month, the Council is expected to approve a new high-end hotel on the Promenade, part of an accelerating effort to link downtown to the beach, including an ambitious vision of capping the 101 Freeway.

Anticipate our Future: This looked forward to the emerging new economy, but it’s been challenging focusing on tangible targets. This thrust represents the most exciting opportunity for us to deliver on the General Plan’s emphasis on “high value, high wage jobs.” Our incubator and foray into venture capital investment earned us ranking as #61 on Fortune Small Business’ list of cities “to live and launch.” With America going green, our area is primed to be a center of green business. Last year, our own Patagonia made the cover of Fortune Magazine as “The Coolest Company on the Planet.” While our location on the Central Coast makes us a higher cost place to do business, it also earns us a higher quality of life rating, which is important to green entrepreneurs. All businesses will be increasingly focusing on sustainability strategies.

These six elements by no means exhaust our opportunities. Our Visitor Bureau actively promotes tourism opportunities, not only downtown, but also at the harbor and as part of the larger regional draws in Ventura County and the Central Coast. Pacific View Mall continues to be our number one tax generator and we continue to pursue development of the eyesore at the north end of the mall. The bankruptcies of national retailers like Mervyn’s and Linens ‘n’ Things leave both empty storefronts and opportunities to attract national retailers like Best Buy.

And then there is the complex and emotion-laden issue of Walmart.

What’s critical, however, is that we refocus on what matters most and the upcoming Economic Summit is a major step in charting the strategy for the next five years. Old dividing lines are increasingly irrelevant in the new economy. The Council will be discussing staff’s recommended redesign of our Economic Development thrust as part of their follow-up to the recently completed budget discussions. We’ve done our share of cutting. Now we must look forward to protecting, strengthening and expanding the economic and revenue base of our community and city government. Opportunities often come disguised as problems. This economic downturn is one of those.

A strong turn-out is important not only from business interests, but other elements of the community as well. We not only need an Economic Development Strategy that makes sense for today’s challenges, but one with strong support throughout Ventura. Stay tuned for more details as we get closer to the May 2 date.

Sustainability

2009-04-07T09:47:00.000-07:00

How easy is it to start a successful restaurant? A friend of mine who pioneered fine dining in Old Pasadena shared with me a this Persian proverb: "The first hundred years are the hardest."

What if you set out not only to make your customers happy, but to be a model for serving delicious, healthy, local food?

That's the challenge for Main Course California, a brand new Ventura business tucked into a business park on Donlon behind the Main Street Target.

Founders Rachel Main and Robert Jacobi boast superb credentials. Rachel has been an executive chef to a billionaire, founded a private high school culinary program and honed her skills in the kitchens of prestigious restaurants. Robert is certified in Hospitality Management by the legendary Le Cordon Bleu, living and working in France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Greece, with an impressive list of hotels and restaurants on his resume.

Yet their goals are down to earth: serve food with all the flavor and environmental appeal of this slice of paradise we call Ventura County. Right now, Main Course California is a growing catering and modest take-out operation with maybe four tables all told. But in a tough economy, they are doing what is so desperately needed, putting people to work providing long-term value.

As Mayor Weir noted in this year's State of the City talk, we all "must look beyond our reduced 'financial portfolio' to an expanded 'life portfolio' of stronger family, friends, business and government relationships." It turns out that the churning drive to meet Wall Street's quarterly expectations produced a heady, but phony prosperity.

It was not sustainable.

Now more and more individuals, families, businesses and governments are digging in. No more junk bonds or junk food. Turning to back yard gardens, going to Farmer's Markets, appreciating the flavors produced by local soils and our local seasons.

There will always be glitz and froth and get rich quick schemes -- overnight sensations that make a big splash and then fizzle. But whether it is launching business or living a meaningful life, there really are no shortcuts. And there are no guarantees the world will reward you with wealth and recognition. Virtues like hard work, rock solid values and a generous heart are their own reward.

Just do it, but do it my way!

2009-03-30T10:31:00.000-07:00

I appreciate citizens who take an interest in local government. I know the vast majority of citizens don't. Still, it is hard not to sigh when I see the Council get messages like this one they received today:

"Please do not cut a single cent from the arts! We’re supposed to develop the arts!"

I don't mean to pick on this particular person or this particular opinion. It is precisely because that kind of sentiment is so widespread that I cite it:

Don't raise my taxes! Don't cut a penny from my favorite cause or program! Don't charge any more stupid fees!

These sentiments are not confined to citizens. We also have some employees who insist that it's the public who should bear all the costs of the economic downturn and just leave my job, pay and benefits alone!

It's a free country. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But you have to wonder: how exactly does the Council satisfy all these voices clamoring for having it their way?