DEMOCRACY IS ALWAYS a good thing in my book and I'm a firm believer in grassroots activism. But I must admit I've been casting a wary eye on the efforts of Ventura Citizens Organization for Responsible Development (VCORD).
This group recently presented the city with a stack of petitions for a ballot measure aimed at keeping building heights in approximately 93 percent of the city at 26 feet or under. The exempt 7 percent is comprised of identified business areas and properties owned by the school district and county. VCORD claims their petitions, which the County Elections Division still needs to count, represent the will of the folks who signed them.
The measure would put a two-year moratorium on building anything over 26 feet until a view resources board, appointed by VCORD, could write a view protection ordinance. Where building heights would eventually end up is still unknown, but 26 feet appears to be the standard.
Launching a petition drive is an incredible amount of work and I salute VCORD for their tireless efforts to be a voice for the quality of their Midtown neighborhood of quaint one-story bungalows. They don't want to live next door to any large buildings which they believe will block their views of the hills.
BUT WHEN YOU CIRCUMVENT through the initiative process the studied work of the paid professionals and elected representatives of our city who have chosen a less stringent course to follow, there is always the possibility of unintended consequences.
Even initiatives which most agree were wise can have unintended costs. Let me cite an example: When SOAR was passed in 1998, preventing growth in our agricultural areas without a vote of the people, St. Joseph's, a small Catholic nursing home in Ojai, was forced to spend nearly $100,000 for an election just to cut down six acres of their own orange trees to add more beds to their facility.
What are the unintended consequences of VCORD's proposed initiative? Already it has been determined to violate portions of both the city's charter and general plan. But this could be remedied later by council action if it passes.
THE LONG-TERM PICTURE is murkier. Could it affect property values? Fewer options available to a property make it less attractive to buyers. Will the city be able to able to meet its mandated quotas for affordable housing? If they can't add additional stories to a project, construction costs may not pencil out for developers and they could walk away. What about the rights of property owners to add reasonable height to existing structures or design elements such as peaked roofs which could go higher than 26 feet? Will any developer find it economically feasible to revitalize a blighted area? Is a vacant used car lot or deserted gas station better for our city than a 28-foot mixed-use building?
These are questions to ponder.
I agree with the intent of VCORD: as we grow up, we need to protect scenic views. How those are defined is a bit tricky. To make that decision based on VCORD's ballot initiative makes defining "scenic views" a coarse process, overly restricting the possibilities of well-designed and attractive architecture.
It seems a wall of 26' buildings can be just as unattractive as a 35' or 45'. In some of our residential areas, a single story building restricts views.
It's true that VCORD does not want a blanket 26 foot height ordinance forever. The 26' height moratorium would only be in place while they establish a Viewshed Board to work out the nuances of appropriate heights for different view corridors. YET I wonder why any citizen would or should place any more credence on their judgment versus our elected officials and the professionals they hire?
If another group of citizens does not agree with what VCORD has worked out and defeat their ordinance, what then? Aren't we back to square one, going back to our elected officials to do what they have already offered to do?
There is an unsettling assumption by VCORD that the ordinance they develop will be approved by voters because somehow they are so much more in touch with the public than our elected city officials, their professional staff, the planning commission, design review, and countless other citizens who have weighed in on the development of our city.
During this process, will Venturans be offered the opportunity to weigh in on VCORD's process of creating the Viewshed Board?
The question I am most interested in discussing is: How do we shape and enhance our views of our natural environment through beautiful and well-designed architecture?
I don't want that discussion limited to a group of citizens who have usurped our city's electoral process and named themselves as the exclusive arbiter for "responsible development." Where have they had their open meetings? Invited public comment? Public scrutiny? On a regular and accessible basis?
Why didn't they offer a candidate to run for city council during the last election? Why not three years ago? five years ago?
Perhaps they have only had the time to focus on this single issue.
Does City Hall have the luxury of spending 24/7 on a single issue separate from other city responsibilities and priorities? Isn't that the underlying criticism VCORD has against the City? Is that reasonable?
Finally, it seems that VCORD has created a false sense of urgency: they want the city to take up their issue on their schedule, on their terms, regardless of how it may unnecessarily interrupt a process that might actually do a better job of their stated goal of preserving and enhancing the natural setting our of city.
This "people's movement" seems rather monolithic and deaf to the plurality of citizen views.
But what height do they ultimately want? It's 26 feet for now, but what will it be eventually? What will we be voting on? We want to add onto our house and build a another story some day. Will we be affected by this? We can't afford to move and adding on will be cheaper than moving.
East Ventura:
I agree. Is it really fair for group of vocal midtown bungalow owners to dominate the nuanced desires and needs of all homeowners?
Again, I would prefer to have the design review board engage in a continuing conversation about good designs in terms of additions, as you have mentioned, for those who plan to live here for a very long time and enhance the home they already own.
We, of course, need to be sensitive to our neighbors' desires and needs, but that should be done through an on-going process in partnership with our neighbors, city officials, and design specialists. It seems the viewshed will be evolving in a subtle manner that an ordinance, especially one passed by initiative, could not address adequately.
While certainly this issue is minor in comparison, we have seen the (un)intended consequences of the 3-strikes law, Prop. 13, and Prop 207. The consequences of a Viewshed Ordinance by initiative may just hamper the protection of views and create rules that are more annoying and ineffective than just allowing our city officials it work it out in a methodical and thoughtful manner. Let's be patient.
I'm wondering how high the larger houses are here in my neighborhood. One of my neighbors has already added on. We don't have much in the way of "views" to protect over here. Our view is in our back yard, which we have spent a lot of money on.
This type of initiative will also severely restrict the ability of the city to build affordable housing, which tends to be higher density, multi-story housing. These projects will no longer pencil out and the existing housing stock will be further strained, pricing our children out of the communities in which they grew up. It also continues the pattern of low height, low density suburban sprawl. In an era of limited open space where we are trying to be smarter about development this is the wrong direction. We want to move toward higher density development around transportation corridors in order to reduce commutes, reduce auto emissions and ease traffic congestion. We need to continue providing housing for future generations, which can only be done by using the scarce land remaining smarter. We need to be creative with all the options on the table. This includes higher densities, mixed-use housing, and adaptive reuse.
This ordinance is an arbitrary law by a bunch of NIMBYS that seeks to do nothing but restrict development. These people already own their own homes and their own piece of the American dream, but they are willing to deny it to future generations for their own selfish interests. They are also taking away the rights of private property owners in the process.
Welcome to Ventura, Bubba!
Couldn't said it better myself, Bubba. Welcome to the Lakin blog too, my friend. Bravo, Marie. Good topics, so far.
Gee, Mongo, does this mean we actually agree on something?
We do, we do. Camille Harris is the NIMBY queen and you, my dear, are the voice of reason in this dog fight!
Well excuse me as I dust myself off. I just fell out of my chair. After seven months of fighting me on the blogs, Mongo actually agrees with me on something.
I guess that answers the question as to whether hell is exothermic or endothermic.
:-)
You are really funny, Bubba. Yes, indeed, hell has frozen over.
Let's not forget the economic impacts on the City of this measure. I believe the City is endeavoring through the Mid-Town Community Plan and other efforts to encourage high quality economic development along the Main-Thompson corridor. For far too long, this area of the City has stagnated economically, with the main businesses occupying this stretch being things like used car lots, thrift stores, seedy motels, and vacant lots.
Another consequence of this measure would be to overly restrict the height of new businesses that could actually stimulate the local economy (which Ventura desperately needs right now after the message it sent to Wal-Mart recently). The City's General Plan and its design and development codes already work to protect the City from the harmful effects of development. Why is this group so intent on throwing more roadblocks in the way of progress just to advance its own narrow self-interests?
Note: A malfunction this morning caused some of the comments from this thread and others to be lost. I've replaced them from my backup, thus the close posting times. Sorry! If I've missed something, please repost!