It is a shame that the beachfront homeowners whose homes need immediate repair and that need the sand (that is clearly on City property) moved away from their homes have to resort to filing a lawsuit to get action. I would be embarrassed if I were the City and the Coastal Commission. Yes, the City will be wasting my taxpayer money to fight something that should not have to be fought. Even more ludicrious is that these homeowners will not only be footing the bill for the lawsuit but also paying for a portion of the City's expenses since they too are taxpayers. This is not rocket science even though the authors of the Sand Management Plan would lead you to believe that it is. Its a sad day.

It is my understanding from one of the meetings that the homeowners can't even move the sand on their own dime. I don't blame them for sueing - they have tried and tried to get something done through the "proper" channels. Meanwhile the sand continues to build up.

One homeowner did move the sand and got his own permits, etc. But he then filed a suit against the city, too, to recover costs. I don't believe he was required to do the type of mitigation that is being asked in the new Sand Management Plan (create dunes with plantings, etc.)

This is a bureaucratic nightmare with three agencies -- the city, state parks and the Coastal Commission weighing in. And nobody wants to pay for it.

These homeowners were backed into a corner and this was their only alternative. The money the city will pay to deal with this could have paid for school books, street repair or even some of those new "fee-based" 911 calls. I realize that the Mayor/CC members receive little financial compensation for their service, however, as they say, "you get what you pay for." No bargain here - they dropped the ball and it's going to cost taxpayers some big money.

Yes, Marie, I agree completely. This is a solution searching for a problem. We homeowners knew full well what we were getting into when we bought down at the beach. These malcontents have too much time and money on their hands, apparently. They need to get a freakin' life, get real, and stop whining to the world about the fact that sand is now accumulating in front of their homes. Duh!!!

I have a beach front house valued at over $5 million down at Pierpont and, if I have a problem with sand piling up against my property, I simply hire a contractor and have him move it and repair any damage to my property that has occurred. The rest of these ninnies could easily do the same thing. They just want someone else to pay for their extravagant lifestyles. Well, not me. I've made my bed and am fully content to lie in it.

Obviously you are the fake sandman because no beachfront home has ever sold in Pierpont for over $2.5 million. You truly have to much time on your hands. Also, if you knew your facts you would know that you cannot move sand on Pierpont Beach without a permit from the City and the Coastal Commission. And if you want to get a permit expect to wait nine months. Grow up. You are not a beachfront homeowner and probably don't even live in Pierpont. If you are going to make things up and be believable you might try at least following the issues in the newspapers...i.e..the Ventura County Star, the Ventura County Reporter and the Breeze.

What is happening that makes so many Venturans wanting their way, like now?

Are these L.A. transplants who have come to Ventura ready to roar down the road and cut us off?

As I was listening to Pierpont residents (who seem to have a bad case of Malibu envy), it seemed that they moved to Ventura to get away from the ills of the large L.A. population but wanted to get all the benefits of being able to tap into a large tax base.

Folks: Yes, L.A. flattens their beaches but there is a trade-off: have you driven Pacific Coast Highway on a regular basis? Let's build enough so we have the tax base to flatten our beaches and take care of the natural debris from our two rivers on a regular basis?

Ventura has a slower pace of life: most of us prefer to exercise patience and develop better and sustainable practices rather than
live in a culture of constant complaining.

Is it really fair for all of us to pay to have our city to litigate lawsuits brought by impatient, I-want-it-now-I-don't-care-what- else-is-going-on mentality?

We live in a buy-now-pay-later, fast-food, Kinko-24/7, info-at-our-fingertips-wiki-age, so why not be able to order the city and the state to give us our views back NOW at everyone else's expense?

Why not pay thousands, again, to fight another lawsuit? Maybe we will have another chance to vote for another "view" initiative during the '09 election.

Is there a pattern here? Leave L.A. crowds but bring its 'tude here? Lawsuit = our neighbors' !#&* you.

In response to Publius Venturae:
I personally know 6 beachfront homeowners who have owned their property for at least 30 years - L.A. transplants? To insinuate that these individuals are impatient and demanding types is flat-out wrong. These folks have been quietly watching this problem grow for years with little or no action from their local government. The problem is not the homeowners, but rather a city government which, lacking anything approaching leadership, is only reactive. In this case the only way to get them to do something is through legal action. Certainly it's fun to hate the rich guy and label successful individuals as aggressive "L.A. types." But if you're going to live in Fantasyland, at least take a look at your city leaders and see just how many were born and raised here.

Stop whining, Fake Sand Man, that's all I'm saying. Stop whining. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps and do something instead of your pathetic crying to the City Council and anyone else who will listen.

Sand Man, the beach homeowners have a legitimate complaint. Why must you resort to fallacious posts and name calling? It seems to be a weak effort to stop discussion and progress. If you must be counterproductive, at least don't hide behind a fake screen name.

Bill: Your point re: the over-generalization of my last entry well taken. There are lots of L.A. transplants who don't come with an attitude that I described. There are those who have grown up in Ventura and don't want anything to change ever, and there are those who see in Ventura the potential to make lots of money in development because of the lack of comparable population here versus L.A. And it seems that our city council and staff are working through all the push-and-shove of these competing interests.

As I have been following what has been happening . . . this issue has been around for years, it seems that the city had to make priorities regarding: 1. what they had the most control over; 2. what funds were available to effect improvement and to have the funds to sustain that improvement; and 3. which improvements benefited Venturans most and why.

I don't see the city council being outrageously "reactive," although Rick Cole was gracious enough to take some of the hit.

Pierpont residents have become quite loud and persistent, and now the city has taken on this time-consuming, difficult process, with all the complications involved. In the end, with the other priorities in place and the sources of funding for this and other expenses limited, I don't see how or why this problem should be a case for the courts.

It remains a waste of our money for impatient residents who want there way now.

I am wondering if the property owners who have owned these properties for thirty years had them as second investments? Our city has a variety of complex/competing needs and have worked to prioritize them in a transparent and accessible process. From what has been said, it seems the Pierpont residents have been waiting quite awhile, so please let us know:

Whose priorities do the Pierpont residents see as less important than theirs?

When could the city have addressed this problem earlier?

What should have not been funded during the time they wanted their problem addressed before?

Publius Venturae:
We're obviously on two different pages. I've personally known 4 individuals each of whom, on an individual basis, tried to get results for this problem since 1999(!) Complaints were voiced to the Coastal Comm., a State Congressman and our State Parks system. Each time the response was "we'd like to help, but you really have to deal with the City of Ventura." The City did nothing but waste taxpayer funds on endless labor/equipment crews constantly fighting the sand build-up and futilly attempting to keep the drains clear. As an example, here on our lane they cleaned the stairs/drains on Thursday (03/13.) This time they removed an abnormally large amount of sand from the top of the stairs (did they smell a lawsuit?) Well, as you know, we're having strong onshore winds today. All of that time and effort - 5 city workers, 2 dump trucks and a bulldozer - is "blowing in the wind." This is sheer stupidity and a blatant waste of taxpayer's money.
As for prioritizing funding, I'd say that property damage to homes, liability for dangerous city-owned stairs, storm-drain maintenance and pump repair, etc. are issues far more serious than golf courses, expansion of selected city parks or specific public art projects (& yes, I'm referring to the "circus is in town/McDonald's playground" bus station at the mall.)
Additionally, (and this is critical to an honest assessment of the problem) whether the homeowners are multi-billionaires or welfare recipients makes absolutely no difference to the arguement. This is a case of the City shirking its resoponsibility to maintain its property and to represent it's taxpayers when situations with the State and Coastal Comm. arise. Taxpayers shouldn't have to bring legal action against their local gov't. to get them to merely fullfill their responsibilities.

Please, help me understand how we are on separate pages if the city, according to your account "did nothing but waste taxpayer funds on endless labor/equipment crews constantly fighting the sand build-up and futilly attempting to keep the drains clear." Doesn't that show the city was trying to solve the problem but it wasn't working to yours or others' satisfaction, so now the city is trying to solve it in another, possibly more effective, manner?

Again, it seems you are deliberately disregarding the city's effort to work on this difficult problem. They are now working to create a sustainable plan with the Coastal Commission. Isn't that reasonable?

What is the plan that the residents want? Are they willing to have Venturans look at their plan as critically as they are asking us to be critical of the city? Please provide us with "the Pierpont Residents' Plan." How much must Ventura taxpayers pay? How much will it cost on a yearly basis? How much are the Pierpont residents willing to pay? Let us weigh in on it.

In terms of the golf course, are you arguing that we should close our golf course? Our local public schools and community college students use them; it also provides year-round recreation to Ventura County and neighboring residents. I believe the city hopes that profits can be used to increase access to youth and adults to healthy outdoor activities that supplements beach recreation. The profits may also provide funding for the maintenance for our other public parks. Are you saying that these are not worthwhile endeavors? Ventura's public parks are as important as the value of some three dozen homes on the beachfront, I would argue.

I, too, am not a fan of BusHome. d. shep on the Public Art entry likens it to the Eiffel Tower, a common reference among its fans. It is a misapplied. Eiffel Tower was panned by art critics and the art community but EMBRACED by Parisians. The opposite for BusHome. I think most Venturans would agree that the effort and money to build it was not a success.

Having said that, I support the Public Arts Program. I think it entirely proper for Venturans to invest in Public Parks, Public Art, Public Works, etc to improve our quality of life, to improve the cultural, artistic, intellectual, political, social, natural/ physical life of Venturans. That includes the beaches, for public benefit.

I believe we are on the same page. We have different readings.

Any new pages to add? The residents' plans? Their differences with the city councils?

Publius Venturae: I'll clarify a few of my remarks. First, the city took the easy way out in fear of the almighty Coastal Comm. Example: Let's say your home is directly downstream of a City-owned lake. The lake is continually overflowing and ruining your home's foundation. You've repeatedly approached them, but they just respond that there's nothing they can do, because that water comes from a higher supply source owned by the State. Do you: (a.)seek legal representation to force them to find a solution or (b.) just stand there filling buckets and pouring it back into the overflowing lake? Our city took option (b.)
After seemingly endless discussion and debate, we now have:
Well paid City workers clearing stairways/drains while sand dunes (really sand drifts) immediately and continuously collapse on their work before they can get their brooms back in their truck and scoot on out of there.
An absolutely meaningless Sand Management Plan (written by biologists) which, at best, represents a costly experiment in controlling fluid sand dunes.
A city government that doesn’t really know if it owns a plotted, recorded street. Maybe they own it, maybe just the easement, maybe half of it, maybe there’s no street down there - anything to tiptoe around liability issues.
The only thing that hasn’t changed is the fact that the sand continues to encroach on the beachfront properties with the promise of structural damage and personal injury due to unsafe stairway/wall conditions.
The above-listed situations represent wasted public funds when other options existed (including Level I recreational status for our beach.) Years ago, the City should have filed legal action against the State and Costal Comm. since it was their property and policies directly responsible for the “downstream� problems. Difficult? Certainly. Impossible? No. We pay senior commercial airline pilots and top surgeons great amounts of money not for the typical landing or boiler-plate operation. They’re paid to make immediate and correct decisions when something out of the ordinary occurs. Judged against these standards, our city officials have failed us.
To address your other comments: I certainly don’t support the closing of the Olivas golf course (that would assure us of getting absolutely no return on a multi-million dollar investment that every golfer I know never asked for.) Also, I support various cultural and recreational programs WHEN THERE’S MONEY TO FUND THEM. Currently, the City is faced with substantial cut-backs. In good times, when property and business tax revenues are up, we can certainly afford the optional programs. However, when public money gets tight, we have to prioritize our spending. Free 911 emergency calls or a new addition to a city park? You know which one I'll opt for.

Bill: You make some glaring assumptions about the motivation of our City staff.

1. That our City is "in fear" of Coastal Commission.

There is communication between our City and the Coastal Commission. The Coastal Commission has power, and they act to protect public access (preventing the privatizing of our public beaches).

2. The lake analogy.

That they are trying to pass the buck. Your example of what they have been trying to do undermines that assumption.

Actually, our family has a home on a lake in Minnesota. We are responsible to make sure our levy is high enough and our house is far from the lake's shore. Many lakefront homes have large expanses of lawn between the dock and shoreline to insure that overflow does not damage the foundation.

To compare the power of an ocean, the wind forces in our area, and our two rivers to the conditions that lakeside residents find themselves is inappropriate. The scale is very different.

3. That the residents HAD TO TAKE legal action to get relief.

That assumes that our City is not trying to solve this problem in the best manner as possible and that the relief that the residents are seeking is reasonable. I still believe our City is working to balance the needs of multiple Venturan interests, not just the desires of 3 dozen or so beachfront homeowners.

4. Comparing our City's management to Pilots and Surgeons.

Both Pilots and Surgeons make mistakes everyday. Sometimes, it is egregious enough that lives are lost. Often the surgeon does her best but lives are still lost. Sometimes the weather conditions are so bad that the flight does not make its intended destination on time. In the cockpit and in the surgery room, pilots and surgeons learn and correct their mistakes privately and without the glare of multiple interest-groups questioning every move they make.

If every action a pilot or a surgeon made were open to the kind of self-righteous "experts" our City management must address on a daily basis, how effective do you think pilots and surgeons would be?

It seems that the only remedy that the residents see as workable is to re-establish the road. That would be the buffer? That does not solve the build up of dunes that would happen on the other side of the road. Basically, then, the Residents are asking Venturans to pay for them to have additional beachfront property to protect the beachfront property they already own?

Sorry, don't see that as fair. As I currently understand of this proposal, I don't think Venturans need that road for access to the beach or for Public Works to maintain the beach.

Being fair doesn't seem to be what the Residents want.

You make a point that our City should have sued a long time ago. I disagree. I think the current course of action needs to be followed through.

This situation is difficult, and you have outlined the actions our City has taken:

1. Public Works keep the stairwell clean;

2. They are taking steps with the Coastal Commission to solve the problem and won't unduly burden the rest of us;

3. They have hired (or is that a Coastal Commission expense) a biologist to help create a sustainable solution (has the Pierpont resident hired a biologist to work with our City's or Coastal Commission's biologist . . . might be better more effective than hiring a lawyer and suing);

4. They held meetings and will continue to hold meetings to work to resolve this problem.

I'm proud that in the midst of all this criticism that our City still works to make our local government accessible.

Finally, regarding the golf course. I am a golfer. The new design of the course is fantastic. It's not Pebble Beach but it is challenging and very well designed. It has won widespread praise from professional golf and municipal organizations.

The grass hasn't taken hold yet because we have had unseasonably cold weather. It will eventually; it is just taking longer than hoped for. I, too, have been frustrated because one of the pleasures of golfing is being on the GREEN. It is a Florida grass that is more salt-tolerant and can be watered using re-claimed water. That will reduce the cost of maintaining it in the long-run.
I and other golfers are enjoying the challenge of the new design.

Publius Venturae:
I’ll address each of your posted points.

1.That our City is "in fear" of Coastal Commission: At the recent City Council meetings, every time someone suggested that the City take action against the Coastal Comm. it was met with replies such as “other cities have tried, but I don’t think we stand much of a chance.� Years ago, I had a legal situation involving a business I owned in L.A. My attorney, skilled as he was, failed to find a solution and referred me to some attorneys who specialized in areas of the law pertinent to my case. One was out of Univ. of Chicago, the other two from Columbia Law. On one of their desks was a small sign which read “expect the impossible.� I did, and, expensive as they were, they delivered. This is the type of heads we need in our city government – the “make it happen� types.

2.The lake analogy: It was only an example not to be taken literally. You can substitute the terms lake and water with piles of beans or mounds of falling gravel – whatever makes the example understandable. (As an aside, I’m glad that you enjoy your lake home in Minnesota – but it has little if any relevance to this discussion.)

3.“That the residents HAD TO TAKE legal action to get relief.� I’ll let my original comments stand.

4.“Comparing our City's management to Pilots and Surgeons.� I’ll let my original comments stand.

5.“Finally, regarding the golf course…The grass hasn't taken hold yet because we have had unseasonably cold weather. It will eventually; it is just taking longer than hoped for…..� Please see my response to #2 above re: Minn. lake home.

And, finally:“I'm proud that in the midst of all this criticism that our City still works to make our local government accessible. “ Proud that our City Government remains accessible? To expect anything less directly contradicts the principles of our democracy.

I understand you been runnin' from a man who goes by the name of the Sand Man. He flies the sky like an eagle in the eye of a hurricane that's abandoned.

Bill: Replies don't address any of the underlying issues. Our city is working with the Coastal Commission. Property owners need to protect their properties and continue to work with our city and coastal commission for a sustainable solution.

I am still dreaming of your ghost, lonely and living on the west coast...

BTW, I am the only one who thinks that Pete La Follette is the spitting image of David Byrne with the Talking Heads?

I am still dreaming of your face, like someone living in a new place...

La, la, la, la, la, la, la...

Great series of nonsensical posts, Mongo. Are you bored? Nothing good on TV tonight?

Marie:
This is his way of sitting at the "grown-ups table" but he just can't come up with the proper words to express even basic thoughts, so he relies on the lyrics of others. He should take off the headset, set down that little pipe and get out into the real world where, evidently, he's ready to make his mark on the fast food industry.
Even though I continually disagree with Publius Venturae on this thread, I have the greatest respect for those who express an interest in current issues. “Not Sand Man� represents the other end of the social awareness spectrum and we taxpayers will be helping him out, one way or another, for the foreseeable future.

I suspect it's my regular blog "grump," Mongo, who's hiding behind another name on this thread, and likes to stir the pot a bit.

He's not always interested in good dialogue, only in provoking responses.

You have really helped further the dialogue on this issue, Bill, and I appreciate your contributions.

Who's Mongo, Marie? I have never met Mongo, but I'll tell you this, he's twice the man you are...

Blog moderators know all! :-) Do you know what IP addresses are? Study up!

Aha, so you're bragging on the fact that you control the flow of free expression and dialogue on your blog. You and Castro would get along famously, Marie.

No, not at all. What I'm telling you is that I can see IP addresses that come in with the posts. So if somebody from one IP address is posting under multiple names, it is obvious to me that it is all coming from one person.

However, if you violate my blog rules, I WILL pull your posts. Maybe now is a handy time to post that again:

I don't allow the following:
- Comments that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
- Overly disparaging remarks, abusive language or obscene comments.
- Threats, whether obvious or veiled.

And, Marie, please be so kind as to tell me which of your blog abuse rules did my previous posts violate?

I haven't pulled any posts from "Not Sand Man." Mongo and Skip have had a few bloopers.

So, you're saying the 3 of us are the same person, Marie? I think you need to put down the crack pipe.

Two of you are the same person.

Mongo/Sandman/NotSandman/Jill Dominique/et al - Quit derailing the posts. I enjoy hearing what other people have to say about issues that Brian and Marie bring up and I've been blogging long enough to recognize a derailer when I see one. You should have been banned along time ago.

Both Marie and Brian Dennert provide a real service to the county and should be supported. I try to support them yet politically, I disagree with them. I value what they are attempting to do.

If you want to rant and rail go to a different blog - try www.freerepublic.com - that's where the big boys go and it is for conservative Republicans. I think their smokey back room is for the right wing element.

Katie, now you're attempting to derail me. Your motivation is quite obvious. I've called you numerous times regarding your vendetta against the County Republican Party leadership because you were jilted some time ago by the Party. So, you've obviously got an axe to grind. Your rants and raves about this are infamous on the Dennert blog. The only reason you'd like to see me banned from these blogs is because I call you on the carpet when you deserve to be. That's an uncomfortable position for you to be put in, granted.

But, let me repeat myself, so this is abundantly clear. I will never, ever be intimidated from posting on this blog by you or any of your cohorts. In fact, your comments just inspire me to blog more often.

So, keep up your antagonistic comments, my lady. I've only juts begun with you...

Mongo,

Katie is a class act through and through. This blog was not set up to debate county politics. Go over to Brian's blog for that. But on both blogs you've been a bully and have posted false, defamatory, vulgar, sexist and wildly off-topic comments.

The Star's media director has asked me several times if I wanted him to ban your IP address. I have resisted because when you are behaving yourself you post intelligently and represent a certain point of view. I welcome all viewpoints.

If you are banned here, you will be banned system wide. That means you won't be able to attack Katie or me on either blog. If you want your viewpoint out there -- and it seems you do with a vengeance -- shape up.

Your identity is well known on the Dennert blog. You do yourself no favors.

I believe you are threatening me now - which is what you do when YOU are called on the carpet. I don't have a reputation for being a bully - you do.

Item 3 of the blog rules for removal.

- Threats, whether obvious or veiled.

Katie,

I left it up to prove my point.

He's been put on warning. He has a choice. He can follow the blog rules and stay on topic or he's gone. The ball is in his court.

Marie, you may not have noticed, but Katie struck first with an attack on me. I simply responded. I realize this is getting a bit out of hand; however, so I'd be glad to let sleeping dogs lie.

But, it's fair game on Dennert, Katie!

But... MOM .... she started it!
Sounds like my kids.

Marie, I believe Skip is in violation of Rule 2 - overly disparaging remarks. I call for a ban.