I found the Council's actions last night both mystifying and comical. While I completely disagree with VCORD's proposal (and have from the start), I think the Council may have succeeded only in further muddying the waters with their counter proposal.

I think this could likely result in one of two outcomes:

1. The community will see the Council's plan as merely an effort to derail or nullify VCORD's ballot measure and will thus come out more strongly in favor of the VCORD measure in November 2009.

2. The community will be confused by the competing measures and will reject both of them, if, in fact, they both appear on the ballot together.

I had to laugh at the ludicrous micro-managing that was going on at the Council meeting where individual Council members were tweaking the language of the "Fulton/Summers Doctrine" before our very eyes (right down to crossing the "t's" and dotting the "i's"). Their selection of the committee to draft the plan was also another classic excercise in micro-management and government overreach.

The pieste resistance was when the City Attorney declared that Deputy Mayor Fulton had a potential conflict of interest as co-author of the height limit action item and recommended shutting down further deliberations as a result. Did Calonne not read the item before it got placed on the agenda? It seemed like this just occurred to him during the proceedings. Hilarious...

No wonder the public are so rapidly losing faith in government.

What is the big urgency to reduce building heights in the City anyway? It seems to be only an issue for a select few vocal citizens that managed to qualify a silly measure on the ballot. Let it go!

With some good, reasoned counter arguments, presented intelligently, it can still be defeated on the ballot. For one thing, it is overly restrictive on private property rights. Does the Council not have the faith that the public will recognize this and vote against it?

Marie,

Welcome back from vacation!

Protecting viewsheds and solar access is part of our General Plan. The decision was made to give our Planning Department direction in this regard now, rather than later, while our neighborhood plans are being written.

What if VCORD's initiative did pass? (Note: it will be sitting out there with the anti-Wal-Mart initiative, too.)

Their initiative has several legal flaws that could be challenged in court, according to our city attorney. If it passes, it could be held up in court proceedings which our city attorney would have the duty to defend and there goes our tax dollars, too.

If VCORD's special-interest appointed board comes up with a view protection ordinance that the Council is not agreeable to, it will go to the voters. Then it gets in more trouble because state law spells out timeframes for the initiative process. If the committee takes too long, the city could be forced to violate the initiative to make state law.

It's bad public policy. This is not personal for me. I just think the initiative was poorly written and is fraught with problems. It has to stay on the ballot, but if the public thinks it's moot, maybe they won't vote for it.

VCORD should be really happy that they forced the city's hand on this. I would celebrate if I were them.

Marie,

I didn't see much celebrating by VCORD last night. More like digging their heels in.

I see some of your points, but I still think it makes the City look foolish. Some will undoubtedly view it as the City trying to subvert the democratic process and political manipulation, as I'm sure VCORD will cast it in their editorials and letters.

It's going to be ugly any way you look at it and Summers is going to suffer much of the political fallout, since he's up for reelection at the same time.

BTW, what do you think the anti-WalMart initiative's chances are?

The anti-Wal-Mart folks will get their initiative on the ballot in 2009. I'm certain of that. It will pass, too.

I truly think this is the best shot VCORD has of getting their goals in place quickly. I wish they could understand this.

I think their initiative, if it passed, would be challenged legally. I also think a ton of money would be spent trying to defeat it. A lot of people are unhappy with the way it was written. I wonder if VCORD has the stomach for it.

Ed is a moderate on the council and as the only one with any financial acumen, needs to stay.

Good points on the VCORD stuff. Should be interesting.

I'm not completely sold that the WalMart measure will pass, but certainly its got the passion behind it. That usually makes a big difference. We'll see how the campaign plays out.

Summers does have a good grasp on the financial stuff, but so does Andrews. I just think he's going to get caught up in the VCORD initiative fallout and all the fee increases, which he supported one and all.

Mongo, all local cities are increasing some fees right now. Surely you read things from outside Ventura. Some are going to the ballot with sales tax increases. L.A. trash fees have gone up exponentially, etc.

What cities are trying to do is recover their real costs for services.

What I would like to see us do is work to make sure our local businesses are thriving and generating tax dollars. We really need to encourage the business sector as much as we can right now. Measures like VCORD's with its moratorium have a chilling effect on economic development.

Marie,

That is just not true. Not all cities are increasing their fees, much less imposing new, creative fees (like a 911 tax).

Joe Howry made some real good points about fees in an editorial he wrote earlier this week. It talked about the damaging effect of fees on residents and the local economy, especially during tough economic times.

He used the City of Ventura's 14% recent increase in water and sewer fees as an example. The main point being that when we, as private citizens, see our household incomes fall, we make adjustments in our expenditures. Maybe we don't trim that tree in the backyard that is well overgrown. Maybe we delay repairing the roof for another year and do some temporary patching to get by for while longer.

The point is that the City needs to get real. Deferred maintenance is one way to cut expenses. Another way is to hold off on pay increases, or consider things like mandatory/unpaid furloughs for employees (personnel costs are the City's highest expense).

I am not sure you can compare trimming a tree to the problems of dealing with a combination of the new pricey state water quality mandates coming down the pipeline and a very old infrastructure. If a pipe bursts in the middle of a road, you have to fix it. If it bursts in front of a home and floods it, you have to fix it. If you look at the city's CIP list, you will see dozens of unfunded projects that could impact the quality of life for our citizens if they fail.

It's a double whammy. We're a very old city, as far as California goes.

At some point in a crummy economy with costs also rising for cities, you have to acknowledge that government needs revenue to keep us whole.

After driving on Costa Rica's unimproved roads, I have new and profound respect for what we enjoy in the U.S.

Why doesn't somebody ask Howry why the Star's ad rates have gone up so much, why the newspaper is smaller and why the business section is almost non-existent?

Readers,

If you are a reader of the Star, you would know the answer to your question as the Star has published articles detailing their own budget cuts and staff lay-offs. This isn't just a problem with the Star but most Newspapers across the Country are experiencing the same thing. It starts with our overall economy. I'm sure you've read something about how tough it is out there with higher fuel and commodity prices as well as a weak dollar and the foreclosure mess (maybe not in this paper unless you turn to the back of section A). Yes, Newspapers feel it too.

That being said, I am at a loss as to why they would cut back the Business section. It seems like if they'd like to find a solution to this economic mess, the Star would invest in Business and subsidize something like the Calendar section, in the hopes our future leaders might just take a little interest in solving the Trillion dollar dilemma.

Readers, here's the article that the Star posted and should offer you an answer.

www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/jun/30/star-introduces-changes-to-paper-today/

Marie,

My comparison to tree trimming was an attempt to put the issue in the context of something the average person can relate to. Granted, if the water or sewer lines rupture, the City has to repair them immediately. The same is true for an individual if the roof on their house starts leaking at the first rain. Of course, they're going to have to repair it somehow.

My whole point was that there are other options for the City to look at before jumping to raise fees each and every time an issue comes up. They never do this though. They take the easy way out every time.

Did you conveniently forget about the $4 million they just trimmed out of next fiscal year's budget? Then there was the $3 million in mid year cuts.

That was hardly the easy way out.

Marie,

I didn't forget about anything. The budget cuts you mentioned were absolutely necessary. I totally concur with the need to do them and congratulate the City Council for taking pro-active measures to deal with declining revenues.

This is how the private sector does it every day. I'm surprised it took the City so long to catch on.

Still, this does not justify penalizing the taxpayers of this community for the normal economic cycles that we experience as a State and a nation. They should instead be looking at other alternatives for reducing expenditures before they come running to the taxpayers every time to close the holes in the budget.

I have made some suggestions here, which, although painful in the short-term, would pay enormous dividends in the long-run to save the City money and be responsive to its main constituents (the taxpayers, not the labor organizations).

You're "surprised it took the City so long to catch on"? Unlike the state, they must balance their budget and they have been very conservative in their approach to fiscal solvency all along.

I will repeat what I said earlier, fees are going up all over the county right now:

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/apr/23/water-rate-increases-expected-to-continue-piru/

Two of our sister cities, Oxnard and Port Hueneme, are looking at raising sales taxes.

I think the City is doing the right thing with their proposal on the "view" ordinance affair.

With regards to chanes in fees etc, as with the water/sewer rates, this is how life is now after Prop 13.

Sales and income taxes and fees are what drives the economy of cities in this county. It's should come as no surprise that cities propose sales tax increases and raise fees. Frankly I'm surprised cities/counties haven't considered city income taxes.

There's not much to be done about new State/Federal mandates for clean water, and I think not replacing pipes for 70-100 years is postponement a plenty!

Marie,

The difference, of course, being that Oxnard and Port Hueneme are letting the voters decide if they want additional sales taxes, as opposed to back-dooring them in like Ventura did with the 911 tax - shameful.

Tom,

I disagree with your comment about how life is after Prop. 13. You're saying that Prop. 13 is an excuse for cities to raise fees and impose new taxes? What kind of twisted logic is that? That was the very reason Prop. 13 came about. Too much government and too many fees.

I don't think the 911 fee was particularly well handled, but before proposing it to the Council they did do polling on it and most folks felt it was OK. A dozen or so other cities and counties have this fee so it is not unique to ours. It was upheld as lawful by one appeals court and disallowed by another. The final say will likely have to come from the State Supreme Court.

Bill Fulton had a good op-ed piece today on the city's view task force:

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/jul/27/new-ventura-task-force-set-to-protect-public/

Mongo: I think you misunderstood me. Prop 13 left counties and cities in particular with an unreliable funding mechanism. Property taxes are relatively stable sources of income for government.

Don't get me wrong, there were pre-13 things that needed fixing.

What I'm saying is that the post-13 world left cities in particular with sales taxes and the rest of government with fees and income tax. as revenue sources that they can address.

Why did Ventura and Oxnard fight so hard about the "Mall Wars"? Sales tax. Why so many Auto Malls, and "Big Box Stores"...sales tax.

Why did Ventura try, and Oxnard propose changes to sales taxes? Why did Ventura do that 911 fee thing and now the water/sewer rate change? Why have minor and major traffic/parking citation fees skyrocketed?

It's all part of the post-13 world. One source off revenue choked off....they got creative is all.

Tom,

I guess "they got creative" is one way to look at it. Unfortunately, the thing they got creative with was getting at our pocketbooks.

The larger message of Prop. 13 was for government to figure out better/more efficient ways of doing business. They have avoided doing this (Ventura is a prime culprit) and instead have tried to figure out better ways to raise taxes and fees. We've had to initiate measures since Prop. 13 passed to prevent them from doing this randomly (Prop. 218, for example).

Getting back to the focus of the post ... There is a segment of the population who screams about new taxes and fees and there is an equally vocal segment who howls about the economic development which generates new tax revenue in this post-Prop. 13 world.

Then there are the folks who want the city to pay for everything with no cuts to service in an economic downturn.

No matter what city governments do, someone will be unhappy.

Did you see the story today on your beloved Wal-Mart, Mongo?

I told you they had the signatures. It will be on the ballot in 2009 for sure.

I'm not sure a vocal pro-Wal-Mart candidate for City Council will do very well with that on the ballot drawing attention.

Marie,

I did see the article. It was no surprise to me that the measure qualified. It's got a vocal group behind it (just like the VCORD measure did) and, as often is the case with these ballot measures, there were a lot of false proclamations about what it would do and wouldn't do at the supermarkets and other locations where signatures were being gathered.

I see you categorize me as a "Wal-Mart proponent." What I'm really a proponent of though is not prohibiting the free market from operating as it should be allowed to in our City. Frankly, I don't care if a Wal-Mart goes in at the K-Mart site. As long as something goes in there. The City needs the tax revenue and consumers need choices. I think we agree conceptually here, yes Marie?

I will have to review the proposed measure in more detail before drawing any final conclusions, but my understanding is that it would restrict development of certain sized big box stores in the City. This may result in tossing out the baby with the bath water, if the intent is simply to block a Wal-Mart from coming in. It could also prevent IKEA, Costco, Bass Pro Shop, and other higher quality "big boxes." Do we really want to hamstring ourselves like this? My sense is that we don't.

Here's my original post on Wal-Mart with the ballot initiative linked to it. You can click on the link and download a pdf of the initiative.

http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/mlakin/archives/2008/01/ventura-group-gives-walmart-a.html

The ordinance would prevent a major retail project that sells goods and merchandise -- primarily for personal or household use -- and whose total sales floor area exceeds 90,000 square feet and which devotes more than three percent of the sales floor area to the sale of non-taxable merchandise such as food.

So IKEA could come here, but not in the Victoria corridor, as our city's own General Plan discourages such large development. But it could go elsewhere.

Wal-Mart could also choose to move into the existing K-Mart building (and not take over the adjacent empty space) and not add any square footage and only have a small food section. Then the initiative wouldn't affect them unless they wanted to add on. They couldn't.

Thanks, Marie. I will definitely check it out and give you my read on it.

Just as an aside, what I think would be a perfect fit for the K-Mart site is a super-Trader Joe's. What do you think? The one that's there now is always packed and there is clearly a demand for the kinds of products it sells in the community. If they stuck to the same footprint as the old K-Mart building, a larger-sized Trader Joe's could really be successful at this location.

Mongo, much as I like it, I doubt TJ's would go for a "big box" concept. It's my understanding that the Ventura store (along with Camarillo) are amongst the largest in the chain.

My own thoughts on the former K-Mart site is to not put any kind of big box store there at all. Think about this...

Bill Fulton on the council more or less took a lead on how to change the Victoria corridor. Get people out of cars, make a pedestrian kind of neighborhood. Problem is, no one exactly lives there...just far enough away for it to be a hassle to walk anywhere.

Why not change from relying on a big box, to another sort of "commercial below, residential above" building concept. I can't imagine the a 2 to 3 story building here would be a "view" problem, and it would change the character of the Victoria coorridor by injecting more people into the corridor.

Oh...of course housing does not generate sales tax revenue for cities does it? Th't's another discussion! LOL!

Tom,

Actually, Trader Joe's has already built a few larger stores. I wouldn't exactly call them big boxes, but they are certainly much larger than the smaller stores you're probably more familiar with.

BTW, I was one of the biggest opponents of Fulton's Victoria Corridor/Parisian Boulevard plan. Sorry about that, but I thought the idea was totally stupid (and I'm not the only one who felt that way).

I'm not opposed to the mixed-use concept you're describing here, but I just don't know if it would work that well on Victoria. I think it's usually more successful in a higher density area (like downtown, for example).

I think what many people have in mind for the Victoria area is new space for high-value, high-wage jobs. It's a perfect spot for that and the Victoria corridor is one of the few areas exempt from the 26-foot interim height moratorium VCORD's measure would impose.

I talked to Trader Joe's awhile back about moving into that bigger K-Mart space and they did not seem so inclined.

I'd like to see something else which sells higher-end merchandise in there. We've got TWO Targets within just a few miles of that area already. I think Wal-Mart is redundant.

Mongo, you seem to have mellowed on Wal-Mart. What gives? You used to be a rabid fan.

I didn't know about the bigger TJ's...

I didn't like Fulton's Folly either, BUT if you were to go with that concept...here is an opportunity to bring the people to the shopping/work 'eh?

I agree, it is generally more successful in higher density areas...but how do you create the density? This is more about creating a neighborhood than it is about reviving it.

It would be in walking distance to most shopping needs, grocery (TJ's and Ralph's, Drug/Variety stores (Long's) even garden and a handful of restaurants (not all "fast food" either).

It would be risky, but might attract seniors, and workers (albeit, mostly County gov't) who live near by.

Problem is, the area IS a corridor...here is the chance to plop some mixed use in the middle of it. Worth a thought at least I think.

Hey Tom,
I just thought I'd quickly tell you how much I appreciate it when you jump in here. Your thoughts are always very well taken.

Thanks.

Marie,

I had an opportunity to read (actually re-read) the proposed big box ballot measure and it really just reinforces my previous comments here on the notion of interfering with the free market system. Clearly, this measure is targeting Wal-Mart, but the restrictions it imposes could result in unintended consequences in terms of other large retailers that might otherwise consider Ventura as a location.

Additionally, it sets a precedent and sends a clear message to the retail and development communities that Ventura, as a city, does not provide a welcoming environment for new businesses. It is bad public policy, pure and simple. It limits the ability of the free market to provide opportunities and choices for consumers and, on this basis alone, I have to stand in strong opposition to this measure.

If Wal-Mart was such a horrible, evil, exploitative, scourge on local communities (as the measure's authors have tried to portray it), it would have failed long ago as a corporation based on its patrons recognition of this. Actually, quite the opposite has occurred. It has flourished as a business entity, creating job opportunties and discount retail products for consumers to "choose" to buy.

Some of the premises mentioned in the text of the initiative, like "preventing the closure of small businesses, financial degradation and blight, degrading the quality of life, increasing the demands for affordable housing, etc." are all just political hyperbole (fantasies really) that have no basis in reality.

Other communities where Wal-Mart exists already (Oxnard & Simi Valley) have refuted all of these alleged negative consequences on the local community time and again. They are just not believable.

Having said all of this, keeping a Wal-Mart out of Ventura is certainly not the highest priority issue for the City of Ventura in the next election. There are many other issues that rise way above this one in terms of their importance to the future of the community and its economic health (job creation, quality economic development, affordable housing, City budget issues/fee and tax increases, to name just a few).

So, my "mellowing" on the Wal-Mart question is more a realization that this is not the most important issue the City is currently facing and that Wal-Mart should not really be the center of the debate, but, rather, limiting the free market to function in a community. Wal-Mart is just a symbolic representation of this and has unfortunately become the sacrificial lamb.

I suppose to find out definitively whether a big box ordinance really kills business in a town you would need to look at other towns where they are in place.

It would've prevented our new Target had it been in place. I'm not a fan of the new Target anyway.

I really miss my Robinson's May.

I have not read the complete "big box" ordinance I have to say, I probably should....

I have to wonder about a few things though...

How will Wal-Mart get a 150K square foot building in there and provide the parking? Multi-stories? Some underground?

Tha Wal-Mart is a fairly predatory company is pretty well established, and the antipathy to unions in particular is a problem for me personally. It is fair to point out that Wal-Mart does allow unions in some stores, those being in Communist China where the unions a strictly supervised. That's a curious thing 'eh?

But..Mongo, as to it's "interfering with the free market system", well yes it does. You are quite right.

But then, so do zoning laws. So do open-space laws. For that matter so do child labor laws, and OSHA saftey laws. Ditto energy conservation, required posting of Federal Labor Laws, requiring adequate parking and then consideration for traffic mitigation. Add in fuel efficiency standards, bottle recycling, soon bas on plastic grocery bags. Kids under certain ages can't buy guns, porn, tobacco, or alcohol. They can't gamble either and it's hard for adults around here, they need to go the Chumash or whatever. You can't sell bogus drugs, designer handbags, or certain technology overseas.

It goes on and on.

The value of all that, well, that could be debated, and frequently is and often around here.

Folks who claim we have a "free market" though, or that this or that "big box" initiative somehow impinges on the "free market" miss the point.

The "market" ain't free, and has not been for some time, in fact it's been regulated for a very long time. This or that thing might make some folks unhappy, but most of want, even require it.

I seriously doubt you'd find any majority at any one at any time willing to allow a TOTALLY "free" market.

So...as an argument against the Ventura "big box" initiative....jeeze Mongo, I'd say the cow is not only out of the barn...ol' Bossie is MILES away by now!

This initiative is being sponsored by folks who claim to be supporting fair wages for low income people when, in fact, they're nothing but a bunch of elitist, extremist, NIMBY's who fear that Wal-Mart will bring the riff-raff into Ventura.

I actually attended a couple of the meetings put on by the anti-Wal-Mart folks and some of the side comments I heard were flat-out racist. "We don't want all the Mexicans flooding into Ventura," was one direct quote I recall. There were others too, equally as offensive. Nobody talks about this aspect of the initiative, but I sure as hell plan on bringing it into the light.

Rather than standing up for low income people, I think the anti-Wal-Mart group is actually working against their quality of life by eliminating lower priced shopping alternatives for them.

God knows, the price of food and other goods has gone through the roof. Do you know that the average person considered to be at the poverty level is currently spending as much as 50% of their income on energy costs (gas to get to work, electricity to light their homes, etc.)? This is shameful, in my opinion, and these yahoos are just making it more difficult for them with their elitist, protectionist, racist attitudes.

Mongo,

I have been to three of those meetings as a member of the press and I have never once heard anything remotely like the "Mexican" comment you say you heard. Anyone who said something like that would be pilloried in that crowd.

It seems as if Camille Harris is getting her two cents in way more than once every 30 days. Is this just my imagination?

Marie,

I'm telling you, I heard it with my own two little ears. Nan Waltman and Das Williams were both within earshot too.

Mongo: There's always one bad apple in every crowd, but I can assure you in that room of true progressives it is not a common sentiment. Trust me there! And obviously, then, it was not a public comment.

Katie: Yes, I noticed that, too. It certainly has been less than 30 days between letters. She was wrong about the city's proposed task force being developer heavy. By all accounts, as amended, it was one developer interest and one from the Chamber, if that counts, out of 15 members. That seems weighted the other way.

Having her special interest group appoint the committee violates our city's charter.

There was lots of racist badgering at the anti-Tobacco rally outside of Mitt Romney's recent appearance. Ferial Masry was call a "terrorist" and someone stated repeated he was called a "N" by the anti-tobacco people. Some of this happened, some of this didn't.

As Marie said, there is one bad apple in every crowd.

Katie is right. Assembly candidate Ferial Masry was indeed called a terrorist at the anti-tobacco rally in front of Tony Strickland's fund-raiser. Ferial told me that herself.

Actually, there were several bad apples in the Strickland VCRCC crowd that day. One, Audra Strickland's chief of staff, has had a criminal complaint filed against him for battery.

Mongo, how hard is it to drive 10 minutes from the K-Mart site and go to Wal-Mart in Oxnard?

Marie,

Just to clarify, it was more than "one" bad apple. There was a group of four individuals standing there discussing Wal-Mart, quite loudly, I might add, when the "Mexicans" comment came out and all four of them were in complete agreement that this would be a negative consequence of Wal-Mart coming to Ventura. I certainly wouldn't describe these folks as "progressives." More like "regressives." It was very offensive.

Regarding your comment on going to the Wal-Mart in Oxnard instead, I agree this is an option for some people. But there are many who shop at Wal-Mart regularly don't even own cars. Plus, with the current price of gas, this makes it even more difficult.

Again, I'm not totally adamant about putting a Wal-Mart in the K-Mart center. There are other options, for sure. I'm just opposed to the idea of a small band of yahoo elitists dictating the shopping decisions for the rest of us Venturans, particularly low income individuals and families who would see a Wal-Mart as a huge convenience for them in meeting their shopping needs (just as K-Mart did previously).

Are Wal-Mart's prices really that much lower than the two Targets, Smart & Final, 99 Cents stores and BIG Lots, all easily accessible by the city's bus routes?

The selections, choices of products, and, in some cases, prices at Wal-Mart are much better than the other stores mentioned - even Target.