You can thank both greediness and the failed policies of the Bush administration for this economic meltdown.

More poor financial decisions by the City Council. Yikes! Where does it end?

I saw where the City is spending $100,000 to hire a design consultant to help develop the new building height limit guidelines. Is this a wise expenditure of funds given all the other priorities the City has and the budget reductions they have made already?

First of all, I think it was silly for the City to head off on its own and develop these guidelines, presumably to try and preempt what the VCORD ballot measure will do if it passes. To me, this is nothing more than retaliatory politics at its worst. Something smells really bad here.

The City is looking at at least one lawsuit that will be coming its way to overturn the 911 fee it imposed without going to the voters, as it should have. If successful, it will mean a significant loss in revenue (up to $2.6 million annually, I believe) that was to be used to hire additional police officers and firefighters.

Again, poor decision-making and lack of forethought on the part of the City Council.

All our investments have tanked. Mine, too. I don't think you can blame anybody but failed economic policies on the federal level for this one.

So, the City Council gets a free pass on this, huh? I was under the impression that they're the ones who ultimately decide where to invest the City's funds, but I may be wrong on this.

If you're saying the City Council isn't responsible for investment losses, then, by extension, how can you blame the federal government for the mortgage loan meltdown and its impact on the financial markets?

Hey Gibby - thought you liked the 911 fee? See link above.

Mongo, did you watch the Council meeting last night? No? I didn't think so. The investment situation was thoroughly explained by Jay Panzica, who I think is really on top of his game. The city is required to invest only in bonds with A or above ratings, which Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros. were.

Now Washington Mutual has fallen in its ratings, so they are watching it carefully.

This is one thing you can't pin on the Council, although I know it's your mission to blame them for everything from global warming (wait, you don't believe in that) to the high price of peanut butter.

I support the plan to move forward with the new view guidelines. If we don't, we will be stymied in all our community plans. Waiting to see if VCORD's proposal passes and then waiting for them to assemble a view committee and come up with a plan that either the council or voters will approve will take an eternity. You are the one who wants to jumpstart development here. Do you want to wait that long?

Marie,

No, I didn't get a chance to tune in to the meeting last night. I was busy helping a friend out with his campaign.

Now, now, Marie. Wasn't it Harry Truman who said the buck stops here? I think you're a fan, yes? Well, the Council can't relegate the blame to the Finance Director or City Treasurer's Office, can they? Sorry, but I'm not buying it (forgive the pun). They have to accept responsibility, just as we all like to blame Bush for the national economic downturn, right?

On the viewshed issue, I'm opposed to spending $100K from our scarce City budget dollars on yet another consultant to do yet another study that our City planning staff could do just as easily. Although I've always been against VCORD's proposal, I just don't think there is a real urgency to try and subvert it at this time. Development is in a major lull right now anyway because of the economy and the real estate market. What's the rush?

Marie:
"I support the plan to move forward with the new view guidelines. If we don't, we will be stymied in all our community plans."

Mongo:
"On the viewshed issue, I'm opposed to spending $100K from our scarce City budget dollars on yet another consultant to do yet another study that our City planning staff could do just as easily. Although I've always been against VCORD's proposal, I just don't think there is a real urgency to try and subvert it at this time. Development is in a major lull right now anyway because of the economy and the real estate market. What's the rush"

Meanwhile.....
At 5 point in Midtown Ventura, (the corner of Main/Thompson/Telegraph) there are two vacant lots. One of them the result of the arson fire that took out Cartwright's Hot Dog stand, the other an abandonded gas station (not a used car lot as reported in the Star - although it was used as a car lot once). The owner of the car wash next door to the old gas station wants to expand and open a oil change place in that space. With that would come more jobs and more tax revenue for the city. Seems like a former gas station would make a perfect place for a auto service establishment.

The city council (or planning department) nixed that idea because it doesn't fit the 'new' general plan for the area. So what do we get? Two vacant lots waiting for some developer to come to our rescue. But as you can all see, those developers aren't waiting in line at the planning desk. Meanwhile we get two empty lots generating no jobs, no sales tax revenue for the city and only minimal property tax from the county.

I've got $100 that says nothing will be done on those two lots for 10 years. Meanwhile the oil change place could be up and running by the end of the year generating revenue for the city.

Are the members of the city council and planning department all blind to economics?

The new code doesn’t allow certain uses — car lube is one of them. This case hasn’t come to the Council, but it could be brought to them as an appeal.

The goal of the new code was to change the character of Main and Thompson, from auto-oriented past uses (car washes, gas stations, motels, car dealers, etc.) to more neighborhood, pedestrian-friendly future uses.

This case does bring up an important question — where DO we want these types of uses? People still drive cars and need lube jobs. It merits some more discussion.

In response to Mongo:

The council authorized up to $100,000 but left it up to the committee to decide whether they needed the help. The council isn’t hiring a consultant — they’re giving the citizens the option of using one or not.

Or I suppose the city GIS folks could just spend a half-day whipping up some sketches, then all the answers will be obvious and the citizens will need no technical help.

I am sure that it would be no problem for the GIS folks to create models of all possible development at all possible heights in all possible locations at all possible angles, and once that’s done the committee will easily whip through the task of deciding what the view ordinance should be.

Marie: "The goal of the new code was to change the character of Main and Thompson, from auto-oriented past uses (car washes, gas stations, motels, car dealers, etc.) to more neighborhood, pedestrian-friendly future uses."

So we get empty lots (and no revenue generation) until some developer decides that an odd shaped lot (with limited parking nearby) is a great place for his new office building or "pedestrian-friendly" business. And, in the future (maybe in my lifetime) that hole intersection will become a traffic circle/round-about (which is the only way it will become "pedestrian-friendly").

While the design/planning committee's intentions may be good, the truth is that looking at the big picture doesn't seem to be working. Yes it would be great if some developer decided that an office building (hopefully with tenants) would fit, but look at the old Ban-Dar space. Been empty for how many years now? How long has the 'coming soon' sign been there?

My point is that the car wash owner is ready to pull the trigger and go NOW. Generate more revenue for the City NOW. Not in the future. Not hoping someone will come in and build. He is ready NOW.

If it were up to me, I'd let the owner build now, with the condition that in 20 or 30 years he may have to be evicted and a new office building will be erected. That way the city gets 20 - 30 years of tax revenue, the owner gets to hire people for 20-30 years, and makes some money for 20-30 years.

My $100 is still on the fact that within 10 years nothing will happen to that lot (or the Cartwrights lot either).

If this appeal comes to City Council, you should speak on it.

Remember that VERY nearby, the hospital will be expanding outward that way with a tree-lined pedestrian walkway, roundabout drop-off, etc. I would tend to think that many businesses would want to locate next to this area to pick up traffic from hospital visitors and employees.

Have you seen CMH's new plan?

Marie,

Do you think the committee is actually going to turn down a $100,000 gift from the City to hire a consultant? Not likely.

I still believe the City can do the work in-house for much less than $100,000. GIS planning/modeling software has advanced enormously over the past 5 years. I'm sure the City's capable planning staff could put together some scenarios with the information and technology that is already at their disposal.

First of all, the decision is up to the citizen committee. Second, the staff is at capacity. That was made very clear at the meeting where this was decided. Third, they priced out the costs of doing this in other cities with view ordinances and it was between $35,000 and $200,000.

The citizen group, at its own choosing, can spend up to $100,000.

John Doe - I thought the car wash/oil change place was in Oxnard.

Marie,

So, the City Council relegates a decision on whether to spend $100,000 in taxpayer funds to an appointed committee? That's foolhardy and reckless in terms of a decision about how our hard-earned tax dollars are spent, wouldn't you say? This just reinforces my earlier comments on the Council's record of poor decision-making.

What do you think about the lawsuit (at least one, so far) that the City is facing over the 911 tax? Isn't that yet another example of putting the public's dollars in jeopardy. Hell, they can't even figure out how to correctly bill out the charges.

Sorry, but my confidence level is at an all-time low with this bunch.

Did you see who was on the committee? These are not just random citizens. This is a highly involved, intelligent, and skilled bunch of folks from every facet of the community. It may be that they don't spend even close to that amount. I think that will be the case. But don't you want decisions that will affect properties throughout the entire city made with the best help possible? I do!

Would you prefer VCORD's hand-picked committee instead, at a date far, far off in the future? If you owned property in this town, wouldn't you want to know sooner, rather than later, what you could do with it?

I would.

I think the 911 fee was crafted in such a way as to be pretty bullet proof. Don't forget that The County of Santa Cruz's 911 fee was upheld by the 6th District Court of Appeal.

Katie Teague: "I thought the car wash/oil change place was in Oxnard."

Nope. Right here in Ventura. The design/planning committee has decided that a business owner (who, since he isn't the LAND owner didn't get notified of zoning changes or meetings about zoning changes) who is ready and willing and able to INCREASE tax revenue, PROVIDE JOBS for Ventura residents, and PUT VACANT LAND TO USE NOW (not in the future, not after hiring consultants to determine if his business is viable) was told, sorry but we don't want your kind here.

This decision really irks me because of its implications. What does it tell businesses who may want to come to Ventura? What does it tell EXISTING business owners who want to expand (expanding tax revenue as well)? What does it tell business owners who JUMP THROUGH HOOPS only to find out at the last minute that their plans won't fly? I know what it tells me. It tells me that it is time once again to remember on election day 2009 to vote out the incumbents who are doing NOTHING to increase tax revenue and it seems everything they can to DECREASE tax revenue.

I'm with Mongo, but my confidence level is at an all-time low with this bunch as well.

The Midtown Corridors Plan was developed after numerous public workshops and extensive notice. It's too bad the property owner did not notify his tenant about any of this. The Planning Commission was following the guidelines set for the area. But this business owner can still appeal to the Council.

John Doe, do you live in Midtown? Did you come to any of the Midtown charettes where the plan for Midtown was being formulated?

How about the General Plan workshops? There is also a part of the General Plan which directs the city to “promote higher density housing as part of mixed-use developments along parts of Thompson Boulevard and Main Street in Midtown Ventura.�

The Planning Commission was following directions established by these very public-driven documents. I know you want a Wal-Mart Supercenter in the K-Mart building, too. Again, a Supercenter does not fit in the guidelines established by the General Plan. The Planning Commission is appointed, not elected, and everything goes through this body first.

Do you agree with the idea of establishing zoning and planning guidelines? Once they are established, should they be followed?

We are radically off topic, but I will let it go.

Marie: "John Doe, do you live in Midtown? Did you come to any of the Midtown charettes where the plan for Midtown was being formulated? "

I do live in Mid-Town and was aware of the charettes happening but did not participate.

"How about the General Plan workshops? There is also a part of the General Plan which directs the city to “promote higher density housing as part of mixed-use developments along parts of Thompson Boulevard and Main Street in Midtown Ventura.�"

I did not particpate in GP workshops. I have seen the result of In-Fill housing downtown. The big ugly building across from City Hall (which block views from City Hall). And the large 3 story housing buildings on Thompson. And the 4 (FOUR) 2 story houses built on a former gas station lot on Thompson and Emma. All of them have provided housing and TRAFFIC to the area.

"The Planning Commission was following directions established by these very public-driven documents."

Yes. I understand that. My point is that here is a former gas station that has been there for a very long time and a local business owner wants to use it to generate revenue for himself and the (cash strapped) city. Because of the planning committee changes, we now have to wait for some developer to decide to build a 'pedestrian friendly' building on the site. How long will that lot be vacant? How long has the Ban-Dar lot been vacant? How long has the Cartwright's lot been vacant? If this were such hot property you would think that developers would be lining up to build. They apparently aren't. Or they are lined up, but can't get anything approved through this planning commission. A guy with a car wash who wants to expand is ready to go though.....

"I know you want a Wal-Mart Supercenter in the K-Mart building, too. "

I don't believe I have ever endorsed the Supercenter concept. I have endorsed letting Wal-Mart come into that location and re-build (with under building parking) to increase sales tax revenue for the city abd increase CUSTOMERS for the surrounding businesses.

"Again, a Supercenter does not fit in the guidelines established by the General Plan. The Planning Commission is appointed, not elected, and everything goes through this body first."

Yes, because the planners understand that successful retail creates traffic. So they would rather mitigate traffic (and sales tax revenue) to make things easier for the residents. Is this a result of seeing what happened across the street when the city allowed Ralphs/Longs/24hr fitness to open? I don't remember people complaining about that development and the traffic it would create. What this does of course is to limit sales tax revenue production.

"Do you agree with the idea of establishing zoning and planning guidelines? Once they are established, should they be followed?"

Why yes I do. The K-Mart site is zoned as retail. The gas station (once) was zoned for the (current) intended use. But the planning 'gurus' think that to make things 'prettier' and 'easier' (traffic) we should re-zone these places.

It just annoys me that these empty lots in Mid-town 5 points are going unused and vacant because this 'appointed, not elected' group of people has decided to change things. My biggest beef is with the former gas station and the car wash owner basically being told: "We don't want to increase tax revenue to the city so you can't do what you had planned to do (even though we took your planning money and let you jump through a bunch of hoops before we told you no)."

Yes, he can appeal. That will only cost him another $900.

Something stinks, and it's City Government.

I think you are missing my point entirely. The Planning Commission is following the guidelines set up by two citizen-driven documents. This is the direction these documents set out.

I wish people would attend the many charettes and public meetings and also attend planning commission and city council meetings and speak at them rather than complaining afterward about decisions made.

If you are not an involved part of your community, you are letting others make decisions for you. Get involved. Right now they are airing the plans for the CMH expansion. It was sparsely attended, from what I was told.

I did go and listen to the CMH folks talk at the Midtown Community Council, though. And I live in East Ventura, which is not affected at all by these plans (which are great, by the way and should really improve the area)

You should at least attend Midtown Council meetings.

I do appreciate your comments, though. You've been a great contributor here.

Yes, I should be more involved, but I don't/can't find the time with my other community service committments.

"The Planning Commission is appointed, not elected". And who appoints them? City Council? City Staff?

Someone is greasing wheels to get on that commission.

Anyone can apply to be on the Planning Commission, but obviously you need some really solid planning background to be considered a good candidate.

You fill out an application and then are interviewed by a panel of three City Council members. This duty rotates among them. They recommend the selections and then they are voted on by the entire council.

I went through this process for the Cultural Affairs Commission.

I wouldn't say it is greased. But insiders do apply, that's for sure. People who are known and already active in their communities are generally the favored candidates.

Thanks John Doe - I remember reading about it but I was thinking of the 5 points in Oxnard.

John Doe,

Marie correctly laid out the selection process for Planning Commissioners. Rest assured though that the City Council's Appointments Committee has some preconceived ideas about the type of person they want and don't want as an appointee to the Planning Commission.

They would never select me, for example. I'm much too opinionated, independent, and self-confident. They want folks that they can manipulate and convince that the "New Urbanism" concepts espoused by Rick Cole, Carl Morehouse, Bill Fulton, and Christy Weir are the end all and be all for the City and that all land use policy should revolve around them.

The current Planning Commission is a mirror image of the City Council, as far as reflecting their philosophies and ideas about urban design, growth, development, building design, architectural styles, etc. Not to say that this is uncommon or unusual, but it would seem to me that a more diverse representation of the entire community on an important body like this would result in healthier debates about issues like growth, economic development, design standards, etc. Right now, it's a rubber stamp process.

Mongo,

Don't be so sure. They've recently made some appointments to the various commissions in order to "shake things up."

Marie,

Do you have any examples? Of late, I'm just seeing the same people getting appointed over and over again to these boards and commissions.

But, if the Council is trying to emulate John McCain by making some bold appointments, I'm all ears.

Yes, I do. I can't really name people on this blog, though. If you want to email me again, I can tell you my thoughts about that.

Notwithstanding the Ventura City Council's oversight of the mortgage debacle, let’s be clear where the blame must go! First and foremost the blame goes to the Bush Administration and their stupid irresponsible fiscal policies. Just one example is the idea to privatize everyone’s social security accounts. Imagine how that would look now.
Second blame can be put at the gridlock between extreme fiscal conservatives like Tony Strickland/Tom McClintock right here in California. These public officials set the agenda for financial markets. Shame on them.

Oh, c'mon now, Helen. If you're going to pin the mortgage meltdown and its impact on the financial markets on the Bush Administration, how can you give the Ventura City Council a free pass on its investment decisions?

$10 million with Bear Stearns and another $5 million with Lehman Brothers, both of whom sought government bail-outs when their portfolios went into the toilet. Who knows what else is on the horizon out there. Washington Mutual is teetering on the edge too (another firm that the City has money invested with).

All I'm saying is let's be a little fair-minded here before throwing stones in a certain direction. What's good for the goose should be equally good for the gander...

As I explained to you earlier, these bonds were Aa rated. I know a lot of regular folks who got caught up in this as well.

I do believe that some federal policies may have contributed to the decline. I don't think the SEC has been as proactive as it could have been. I have linked to something above about "naked short selling" which I think has contributed to the volatility. They could have been on top of that sooner.

This was where I was going with the original post. I get too wonkish sometimes. I admit it.

I like the fact that the Republicans bash the Democrats for handing out money to welfare recipients but turn around and bail out the idiots running the large financial houses.

I'm putting all of my money in my mattress

1. The carwash owner at Five Points was offerred his plan check fee back ( he spent thousands on his app'n to the city ). He is appealing. The city failed to inform him they were changing the rules mid-stream. The city has no justifiable legal reason for preventing him from opening his lube place, as long as he does not change the footprint.
2.The design firm receiving the $100,000.00 fee should be named ( one of the DRC members is the relative of a local architect - another DRC member is a principal in a local architectural firm ). There is absolutely no need for a design firm to be engaged in this matter. The DRC could handle it if there were enough competent people on DRC - however, at least one member is not a design professional, is absent half the time, and spends most of every meeting on a Blackberry - but the Council likes this person, who is also on the planning commission. The DRC has been short one member since March, when one very competent member quit in disgust over attitude issues from city staff. People are not exactly standing in line to be on this committee.
3. Community Development is given design decision authority over matters which it has no professional authority to evaluate - example,
a.the entrance sign at the city-owned golf course
(where the golfer statue is has a sign plastered on the stone base below - the sign lettering and the stone are the same color - you cannot read the sign - another Community Development decision).
b. The new commercial facility at Telephone @ Petit was re-designed three times - most recently by approvals from Community Development, which permitted a new stairwell to be added which ends with a glass wall at the top of a set of stairs which deviated from the original plan. That center has never had tenants enough to prosper because too many people were allowed to make design decisions and it looks really bad.
c. A recent replacement of multiple trash enclosures at one housing project circumvented any mandated design review processing as well as any kind of conformance as required by current wastewater mandates within the city guidelines because the Asst. Community Development Director made it his business to break each of these enclosures up into a separate construction project, utilizing separate permits, thus allowing the entire project to avoid the scrutiny it required - the project is still not fully completed some six months later. It was permitted without suitable plans. The city signed ity off when it was incomplete
d. Community Development seems to glaze over when the concept of sufficient parking is under consideration for some new projects. Rick Cole's and Communit Development's apparent idea is that when a single family site suddenly becomes a 10-unit site, then the need for extra parking is justification for the unparked to take public transportation. The new project on Main across from the high school has 44 double-parked parking spaces permitted on the 18' wide alley behind - wait till you see this one completed. The new project approved next to the Sidecar is exactly the same - way too few parking spaces - but Comm. Devel. doesn't fully address the matter.

Q: When Carl Morehouse was a county planner, he must have been aware of the new county hospital going up in Ventura eventually. How come he never, as a councilman later, had the matter agendized on DRC - the federally-funded VA retirement home was so agendized, so the excuse that it was outside city jurisdiction does not wash.

A good example of how the city addressed a potential design issue without spending one cent of taxpayer money on design consultants was the very project which Rick Cole features on his own blog site: where it shows before and after shots of the Ring project in the harbor. At the time, local architects were oogling for a contract to " supervise" the re-design of the project. Interestingly, a decision was made to have the original architect re-design the plans - which he did over several visits to the DRC until a very satisfactory result was achieved and the project was approved last year.

Juandeveras,

Great examples of how the City's development review process is still very much broken, despite the City Council's efforts (on paper, at least) to fix them.

Rick Cole has far too much involvement in reviewing and micro-managing development projects. As City Manager, one would think he would have more important things to do, like providing oversight and direction on overall City policy matters instead of involving himself in the details of decisions that should be left to planning staffing, DRC, and Planning Commission.

I don't think Rick has the time to micromanage the DRC.

Anecdotally, I have heard about several projects in town that were hung up by this entity -- projects I wanted very much to move along quickly.

Juandeveras, thank you for your input here. I appreciate it.

Marie,

C'mon now, you and I both know that Rick has to have his fingerprints on any significant development projects in the City. It's very important for him and his legacy. I know developers who have had to have personal meetings with him to get approval to move forward with certain aspects of their projects.

That is very unusual. Most city managers would have neither the time, nor the inclination, to be involved in community workshops that deal with development. Most rely on their community development directors and planning staff to perform this role. The Community Memorial Hospital expansion is a classic example of this.

Of course he's looking at developments. But I think micromanaging is too strong of a word. Look, I'm agreeing with you that things take too long and get picked apart. I know people it's happened to.

I'm getting ready to put something up on the Hansen project.

The 200 plus new homes (including 25-50 low income units - the words "low income housing" makes Mr. Cole salivate) that were going to be built on the north end of Ventura Ave. would have gone thru after several years of process had it not been for a last-minute lawsuit threat by the "save-the-old-house-with-the-sliding-glass-doors" crowd. Why didn't Cole try to save it? The project got sold to another developer. Simultaneously, Cole recently offerred up a cool $5,000,000.00 to $7,000,000.00 to re-start construction and generate more low income housing at the new Renaissance Square ( the old school offices) project on Thompson being built by the Olsen Co. but stopped due to economic conditions. In addition, he recently forgave $495,000.00 owed the city taxpayers by the local Housing Authority; possibly so they could maintain a higher credit rating. Another matter: the WAV project, set to cost $57 million ( whose tax money ?) and to be inhabited by several hundred selected (art city) "artists" at $600-$1200 per month and some 13 very wealthy condo owners. It is a VERY big deal to Cole. Where's the explanation as to the funding on that one? The GC building it is neither local nor cheap. Notice they have even dug up the street adjacent to it ( salad bowl curve). Again, it will not have anywhere near enough parking for all of the future residents (25 spaces).

Re. the WAV project. If you research the "owner/developer" of this project, you will find it is the very first project ever for a very young male/female pair from some place like Milwaukee. It apparently never went out to bid, but I may be wrong.

I believe the WAV was the second project for Chris Velasco of PLACE and the company is based in Minneapolis. The financing was cobbled together with a $1 million loan out of the public art fund, which will be paid back with interest, and about $19 million in federal affordable housing grants, and RDA money, among other things. And of course the market-rate condos will pay for this as well. I think the city put up some money for start-up costs, too. Somebody can come on here and correct me if I'm off somewhere.

I like the WAV project a lot. It's really going to add a unique vibrancy to the area with a 99-seat theater, artists' galleries, cafes and retail businesses.

Juan, is there a project in town you are happy with?

We are mandated by the state to add a certain number of affordable housing projects to the city.

In response to juandevera's posts above, I asked around.

The two firms under consideration for the view board were named in the staff report and are both already under contract with the city and they have passed conflict clearance.

On the North Avenue project, the staff recommended approval and the City Council approved the project 6-1. The council then was sued by the historic preservationists and reached a settlement forcing the redesign. I don't see how any of this is Cole's fault.

As to the Olson project, Cole was simply speculating as to what it would take to get that project built now. No offer has been made and, so far as anyone knows, no discussions are occurring.

I am very happy with the Ring project in the harbor and the Renaissance Place project which is now a hole in the ground on Thompson. It is Santa Barbara Spanish. A couple of the new projects set for Thompson I like very much. I am very pleased with the WAV project. The other Olsen project of a couple of hundred homes was quite successful. I was very happy with the 200-plus home project on North Ventura Ave. that got re-sold recently prior to ground-breaking. I have been very happy with some of the new storefronts downtown. Re. the North Ventura Ave. project, the project had already been designed to the max prior to the preservationists' move, which I felt should have occurred at least a couple of years earlier instead of after all the multiple revisions had occurred - I find most of the live/work projects do not really "work" in the truest sense - and that is true in other cities as well. There is an attractive new live/work project on Thompson right next to the freeway downtown which is quite attractive - nobody has moved in. The new red Salzer building I like. The new Hyatt hotel plans I like. The new Embassy Suites plan has merit. The project proposed behind the Von's on Ventura Ave. has a lot of potential, as does the proposed project designed by Main St. Arch's across Ventura Ave. from it. Altyhough there are a lot of great new projects, I suggest that the matter of color has not been fully addressed in many of these projects - so you get marginal color schemes like the one on the Mission style condos near the post office.

The WSJ piece in today's WSJ suggesting that the Freddie and Fannie push for "affordable housing" loans directly led to the current meltdown and the Democrats' failure to support a bill in 2005 to regulate it, makes me wonder why the word "affordable housing" is also a mantra for Rick Cole during the same time. Is the WAV project being underpinned by an " affordable housing" grant ?

Ah, another Rick Cole conspiracy theorist has entered our midst. A convenient scapegoat for all the world's problems. If you can't blame a Clinton for something, try blaming Cole.

Hey buddy, weren't the Rethugs in control of Congress in 2005?

I like all Mark Hartley's projects Downtown. The condos across the street from the Vons on Telephone were attractively designed with beautiful landscaped setbacks. I am looking forward to the new Embassy Suites.

Not so great: The retail area on Petit and Telephone where the Quizno's is, the senior project next to the Chapel Lane homes, all of the retail area on Johnson which includes Toys R Us.

Skip,

Why, how dismissive of you. I'll bet you would be quick to lend credence to some of these comments if they were about Bush or Cheney.

Petit and Telephone

This project went through several reviews at DRC. The process did not work very well on this project:
1. A presentation was made with one footprint of bldgs./patios for outdoor dining,signage,colors. Comments were made and not fully heard and/or addressed.
2. Second and third presentations were made with yet more building/patio configurations. The pursuit of more interior rentable square footage took precedent over the combination of interior space and outdoor dining area. The project suffered.
3. After the DRC approval, the developer went over the head of DRC to Planning and got them to approve yet more changes, resulting in a new entry stairway that goes up and then faces a glass wall.
4. Though colors were presented and "approved", they were never fully addressed in a meaningful way - the details were never really required or presented.
5. Neighbors had many objections to this project both before and after it was built. The developer suffered because the project was not reviewed and processed with a strong hand and he now has very little rent coming in. This project could still be saved in my opinion with attn. to multiple details. There are too many cooks involved. I would say the same happenewd on the Ventura Ave. live/work condos near the Vons Shopping Center - The one painted mustard color. The reason they haven't sold as well is directly related to the lack of certain design details npot having been addressed in a compleat manner. I suggest that attn. to color combinations in detail is a seriously-lacking component in the design review process in Ventura.

Chapel Lane

To its credit, DRC reversed itself on Chapel Lane and changed the bright exterior color to something more subdued. Also, changes were made in the concrete slab coloring. This was a city-sponsored project.

Juan, do you know anything about the earlier plans for Royal Bakery to take over that spot on Petit and Telephone? I know they were in negotiations and it fell through. It was supposed to have a drive-through coffee kiosk.

Also, why was Jimmy's Slice held up so long? I heard it was something about paint colors...

Heaven forbid we have color in our buildings.....
Personally I was appalled at the DRC reversing itself on the Chapel Lane project. I saw it. I loved it. The colors were vibrant and the building is functional. Too many drab buildings make for a boring city.

Take a moment and google "Colorful Buildings" and view the images that show up. It is too bad that Ventura has to be so bland.

Marie

I do not know the answer to the questions you posed re. Petit and Telephone. I only know that the developers were seemingly making constant attempts to change the footprint, the elevations, the color combinations, and the signage locations in order to seemingly maximize rentable square footage - at the expense of amenities which would have attracted customers - like patios, drive-thru's etc. In my opinion it blew up in their and the city's face. I once received a call from a councilperson to evaluate the matter ( the council had received a lot of complaints). I gave my frank opinion, but nothing was changed. In my opinion this a case study in all of the possible ways that the combination of Planning, DRC, City Council and everyone else that "runs" this city created a perfect storm. The irony is that, despite all of the neighborhood whining and complaining before this place got designed and built, it actually came out worse than they ever could have imagined, in spite of all their whining and complaining. A major problem with these matters is: The architecture profession and the Planning Department. I have noted there is a quiet elitist understanding between the architecture profession and the Planning group within the city planning department. When we see letters to the Star putting down the VCORD people ( I am not a VCORD person ), they are generally from members of the architecture profession whoxe plans exceed VCORD's proposed height restriction ideas. They tend to discourage the Council from being privy to all of their thinking. I sense Cole is very aware of all of this interaction. He thinks he's an expert in planning/architecture yet is marginally so; he runs around being "asked" to speak on "new Urbanism" yet is not a trained expert in this area. He seems to be a perpetual resume-padder as he uses his blog etc. to promote himself. The so-called "form-based" code that the Council and others espouse is viewed with major derison when you ask senior planners at the City of LA what their take on it is. It is an untested concept. It is perhaps the visceral reaction by citizens to this shove-down-the-citizens-throats attempt by the Council to enforce this new code (which includes a taking of certain property rights by fiat) which spawned the VCORD agenda on bldg. heights.Now the Council wants to respond to VCORD and have its own "view committee" to short circuit VCORD. It also wants to spend $100,000.00 of taxpayer money for hiring "experts" to guide this committee. Recently the Council decided to recall $70,000.00 it approved for a re-design of Cemetery Part due to a cash "shortage". Now they want to spend $100,000.00 to oversee and gain a desired result over another design project they and their city attorney want to achieve in order to enforec the form-based code even before it is approved. In my mind, there is an inherent conflict of interest in the Council promoting both the form-based code and the "view committee" as a device to enforce it. I doubt if even the selected committee members have figured this out. In addressing a separate matter, few architects, in my opinion, have the ability to design a commercial project that really works ( this is evident all over Ventura in certained failed designs - look at south Johnson Drive, for example ). You will notice that some of the most successful retail projects in So. Calif. have been built by developers like Rick Caruso, who has done successful projects in places like Thousand Oaks & Calabasas. One local project that seems to work is the new Affinity Bank/Starbucks project in front of Lowes and designed by Scott Boydstun of Rasmussen Associates, current chair of the DRC. The DRC took great pains to detail all elements of that project - including sign criteria. The architect/developer combination at Petit and Telephone should have been given much stronger enforceable direction from DRC than it received, as the players were floundering along the way, and Planning, which has not one design professional or staff person who knows anything about design, is allowed to make design decisions frequently to the taxpayers' detriment ( the developers took advantage of this at Telephone and Petit). On yet another matter, if you have an opinion about the color of the Crown Plaza, this was a failure by the Planning Department to even demand a complete appliocation. The applicant failed to fill out and to address at least one-half of the requested information on the City's application form, which included a request for proper rendered elevations of the building, causing members of the DRC to have to bring paint samples from a local paint store - not a very good method - after three attempts by DRC to elicit the required information from Planning and the applicant. As a result, the existing colors of the Crown Plaza are from 1.5" paint chip samples brought by a DRC member. This was a Planning Department task which was not completed and only one example of stuff which goes on and which the public has no way of knowing about. It was not the task of DRC to be placed in this position. Planning gets to hide behind being called "staff", yet the sometime arrogance of a department with many capable people on board, costs us all time and money and creates a city less visually appealing to those who pay for it.

Juan, Did you see the legal analysis of the VCORD measure?

The city attorney's analysis of this measure can be viewed here: Download file

It's fraught with problems. I would rather the city take up view protection now and get it done right.

Have you taken a look at AB 375? That will force cities to consider the concepts of New Urbanism. I saw Fran Pavley at a luncheon yesterday and she said she is not sure if Schwarzenegger is going to sign it or not. I am going to put up a blog on it if he does; it's about half written.

Thanks for posting. I appreciate it.

The summary, drafted by our $200 grand per year city attorney who threatened to kick his elderly female Boulder neighbor's "a--" if she did anything to his dog who was on her lawn - just before he departed for Ventura after having reportedly begged the Council for the job - as reported in the Star's sister paper there and one local councilperson here ( his office having been responsible for drafting and enforcing the most stringent dog ordinance perhaps in this hemisphere ):

On page 3 it would appear the "conflict" and "ambiguities" with the City Charter and state law would be relatively negligible and negotiable issues. He further notes on the same page that 93% of all city parcels would be affected ( while his confused footnote at the bottom appears to refer to 93% of the relevant 93% - ? ), that figure seems exquisitely high and not within the spirit of what VCORD is attempting to achieve. The issue about lack of protocol for "public hearings" seems a canard. The superceding power inherent in the people's inherent initiative process would appear to be controlling . The elephant in the room appears to be whether the city has fully explained what the "taking" of citizens' property rights in any of these form-based code and "charter" notions is. The explanations have been presented in coded planner-speak. My take is that VCORD is verbalizing from only one perspective ( the "view" issue ) what citizens about to be confronted by this "charter" should be addressing concerning all elements of Ventura's visuals. The city of Coronado set out over a multi-year period to engage its citizens in a very successful conversation about how they wanted their city to look - in great detail. I think the VCORD people would welcome the use of the trem "conversation" in this context. You can visit it on the internet. I think the mayor should visit Coronado and speak with its leaders. They seem to be a friendly and creative bunch. The Old Town sector of Pasadena, where Rick Cole used to hang out, and where he has taken credit for more than I think he is entitled, has wonderful detailing about all its visual elements defined in its design nomenclature - it even allows old buildings to have storefronts on four sides - facing alleys, facing city parks and wonderfully-detailed walks through downtown city blocks. This is of no interest to those in our "Community Development Dept."

AB375 is any local community's worst nightmare - a bill put together by a bunch of bureaucrat/planner types without bothering to ask the local citizenry what they think ( they know better than the folks ) . It purports to link transportation funding with urban planning and CO2 reduction goals. So I guess if I stop breathing that will count as a CO2 reduction. Then global warming, one of the most intellectually dishonest concepts in history, is thrown into the mix. It allows planning to occur at the regional level - kind of like the AQMD - an agency accountable only to other "local" agencies - not to the citizenry. If the guv signs it he should be Terminated.

OK, say what you will about Calonne but I like him. That's the journalist in me talking. He's always good for a helluva quote and I think he's pretty savvy, too. The VCORD measure has a specific legal problem that will likely violate state election law in addition to violating our city charter.

I don't want a special interest group appointing a board which will make planning decisions for the city. The 93 percent figure came from the overlay map of the VCORD area. I think it's accurate.

Note the respect for the provision that any citizen or group of citizens may protest the actions of any governmental body in this manner. Even Calonne understands this. This group, and he acknmowledges this in his comments, has jsut as much right to pursue its POV as the council does if it follows protocol.

Marie,

Surprised to hear you using the word "savvy" and Calonne in the same sentence. I think you already know how I feel about this guy. If he was so savvy, I don't think he would have recommended that the City Council keep fighting to keep the 911 tax. This is going to be their undoing. Mark my words on that.

Mr. Calonne, part Turkish, part Iranian, grew up in Mar Vista, according to his web site. I do not know whether he has ever tried a case. It seems he left Palo Alto having generated a pair of lawsuits resulting from someone complaining about the quality of his legal advice to the city ( the city settled out of court apparently ). He left Boulder under a cloud referred to as "deferred prosecution" ( after the run-in with his neighbor ). Yet Marie, here, thinks he makes good copy and therefore qualifies as a worthy member of the community, known alternatively as " Bakersfield-by-the-Sea". I agree that the 911 matter will prove a burden for which this community will eventually pay a heavy price. Someone will die as a result of a goofy 911 call denial because their monthly fee was improper.

The financial world has gone to hell in a handbasket thanks to the highest levels of corporate greed and incompetency and Mongo is still complaining about the $1.49 a month that pays for School Resource Officers and other public safety folks. If you noticed, few people opted out, me included. I have no trouble funding intervention and safety programs for kids. It's money well spent and it's a pittance.

Do you realize how much you're spending each year to pay for the enormous deficits run up by Bush I, Bush II and Reagan?

And you scream about your $1.49.

Calonne has been extremely honest and upfront in my dealings with him and I appreciate that. I am not buying into the smearing that is going on here. I think I have two bloggers with personal axes to grind.

But thank you for posting.

Marie,

To use your own words, "people aren't always who you think they are." As juandeveras has so astutely pointed out, this guy's past precedes him. His adamant defense of the 911 tax is going to drag some folks down with him as well.

FYI, I don't pay the $1.49 monthly charge. I was one of the smart ones who opted out. However, I'm still expecting it to mysteriously show up on my phone bill one day, as it has for many others, including a friend of mine who lives in Camarillo.

Marie,
I have served on a city committee. I have seen how things work within the city. You suggest that you are a journalist. Journalists are (were) trained to report just the facts. Facts are not always politically correct. Fact: There are 71 different telephone companies attempting to plug their respective systems into Ventura's new 911 system. It will possibly prove constitutionally invalid - because it will be ruled a tax - but only after Calonne has possibly spent more city dollars defending it on appeal than the city has reaped. Fact: It is a diversionary tactic created by the fire/police establishment to get their blooming raises that the cditizens voted against on a ballot measure. I think men understand men - as women understand women. Mongo and I are apparently both male and understand this situation possibly differently than you do. How many sitting city attorneys in this entire country are in their respective positions while under a cloud referred to as "deferred prosecution"? If it was not deferred, he would possibly be convicted of something which very possibly would prevent him from holding either his last job or his current job.

I am currently serving on a city commission as well as numerous boards around the city and I am very plugged into what goes on down there. I resent your insinuation that only males understand certain situations.

I see people with honor who are working very, very hard under difficult circumstances at City Hall. There is a hiring freeze and many of them are doing more than twice the work they signed on to do. I honestly don't see evil around every corner like you two do. Is everything perfect? No.

Do I think the opt-out provision was handled particularly well? Once again, no. But I don't mind paying the 911 fee because I know it will go to a top-priority item for me: public safety. The city did polling before they went ahead with this and the majority of citizens responded favorably.

The fee is currently in at least 14 other communities. The County of Santa Cruz's 911 fee was challenged in court but upheld by the 6th District Court of Appeal. So we have two appeals courts who have issued contrary rulings on the matter.

For the record, I supported the Public Safety Initiative. I always support our police and firefighters. They put their lives on the line every day for us.

My perspective is this one: the fee is a pittance and it goes toward keeping us safe. There are many issues which are far more important to me than this.

Marie is correct. The City did do some "push polling" for the 911 tax before they rolled it out. I'm not sure what the response level was for this survey, but it couldn't have been very high because everyone is in an uproar about it now. Just read all the letters to the editor. They're 20-1 against it.

Mark my words, this thing will go down in flames and the City Council will be highly discredited for it. I predict it will not withstand the legal challenge that is in the works.

It's not the amount of the fee that I objected to so much as the way in which it was implemented. Horrible planning by the City from the git go. But, again, this is old territory for me.

Here are the actual questions and answers from the survey itself. Draw your own conclusions. There were two questions.

The first one was: To help improve public safety in the City of Ventura, including
• Hiring six additional police officers
• Hiring three additional firefighter paramedics
• Ensuring faster response times to emergencies
• And improving 911 services
Would you support or oppose a fee of $1.75 per month on business, cellular, and residential phone lines in the City?

Definitely Support 41%
Probably Support 25%
Probably Oppose 9%
Definitely Oppose 21%
Not sure 4%

The second one was asked only of those who said they were opposed or not sure. (This was 34% of all respondents, so the total below will only add up to 34%.)

If you knew that
• Because of falling home prices, there is no other way to add police and firefighters without cutting other cities services
• And the additional police officers and firefighters will help reduce gang activity in Ventura and improve the City’s ability to respond quickly to a major emergency or natural disaster
Would you support or oppose a fee of $1.l75 per month on business, cellular, and residential phone lines in the City?

Definitely Support 1%
Probably Support 5%
Probably Oppose 6%
Definitely Oppose 22%
Not sure 1%

The entire survey, which asked a wide range of questions on a wide variety of topics, is available at http://www.ci.ventura.ca.us/depts/civic_engagement/

Ariel Calonne is just doing the job he was hired to do - it isn't a male thing or a female thing (if you really want to revisit the 80's) or a journalist thing or any kind of thing. It is strictly his job and damn the torpedoes. Look at Boulder CO. (where Calonne last worked) if you want to know where we are headed.

"I resent your insinuation that only males understand certain situations".

Give it a rest, Marie. It's funny, but my wife, who is a 60's feminist with a master's degree ( and was a client of Hannah-Beth Jackson once ), understands what I meant by my comment above - you obviously do not - it has nothing whatsoever to do with "sexism" - it has solely to do with the fact that there are differences between the sexes as to how they look at certain things - as the French say, viva la differance - apparently you and/or your generation of women has unilaterally re-defined that fact in your own terms; resulting in a generation of apparently wimpy men - like Colmes, as you noted above, and incomplete women. Your comment reveals a certain naivete about history, human nature and is a definite conversation-stopper. But then women who make comments such as you have made tend to be more interested in controlling the agenda as opposed to exchanging ideas. All the best on all of your multiple committees.

The trouble with blogging anonymously, and blogging in general, is that you can get misunderstood. Now I'm sure you explained very well what you meant to your wife. But reading your words I was only left with one thing: that I cannot possibly understand the situation you are referring to because I am female.

And I had several friends read what you wrote and they came away with the same reaction I did.

Now if we were talking about our reactions to a film or a novel or something with some subjective bent to it, then I would agree. But we're talking about city politics which would not necessarily lend itself easily to gender bias. Quite frankly, it wasn't even relevant to the conversation at all.

The men of my generation are not wimpy and I feel pretty complete myself.

But thank you for posting.

You give it a rest, Juan Deveras. You were putting in a little dig to our blog moderator with that remark and it wasn't too subtle either. Yeah, she likes to control the conversation but it's her blog and if she felt insulted you might wise up and realize you're coming across as a bitter windbag obsessed with paint chips and the nefarious Mr. Cole. Not on that committee any more and not happy about it apparently.

Well, you can always count on Skippy to throw his two cents in to a conversation that he knows nothing about. Even if he is a day late and a dollar short most of the time.

I notice you're quick to criticize Juandeveras for using pseudonym, but you do the very same thing, Skiparooney, right? Back to your hole in the ground, Skip. Your viewpoints reflect your vision from there.

Another bitter windbag heard from. Lamo why bother with your pseudonym at all? We all know who is behind the man in the mask. Unlike you Lamo I have a life and don't have the time to post here very often. But maybe I will make some more time in the near future. It's always so fun to take you apart.

If that's taking me apart, forgive me while I put myself together again like the scarecrow in "The Wizard of Oz." Bwah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah!!!

Skip-to-my-loo, you never fail to provide me with side-splitting entertainment on this blog. I truly miss you when you're gone because no one provides me with better target practice than you. Your lack of wit is so apparent that it's like shooting at fish in a barrel. Keep 'em coming brother, I'll just keep knocking them out of the ballpark.

Scarecrow, Lamo? Yes, you've always been grasping at straws.

Well, at least I have the guts to grasp at something, Skippy. You're only contributions here seem to be put-downs and lame attempts at humor.

Well, I'll let you get back to watching "Jerry Springer's Greatest Moments" now.

You've been the master at that one, Mongrel. This blog has turned into a place where burned out rightwingers go to gripe.

You must be speaking of another blog, Skipped English in School. I'd probably be the only one who could be considered right wing (in your limited view of the world) on this blog. Since you consistently fail to discuss the issues and your sole purpose in life seems to be to try and antagonize me (which isn't working, by the way), it appears you're the only one suffering from burn-out.

Now, go ahead, pop another beer, and focus your attention back on that midget wrestling match you were so engrossed in earlier.

Midget wresting is what I do here with you, Lamo. Have a particular issue you want to discuss?

Sure, how about the 19th Senate District race? I see on the other thread that you're supporting Jackson because you like her commercial. Way to be tuned into things, Skippo.

Certainly not just for that reason. The Stricklands just occupy office space. Don't do much. Don't know much. Run phony campaigns. Voters are smarter than they think they are.

So, you're going to support Jackson, huh? I hope you're ready to open your wallet, my friend. She's got lots of plans on how she's going to spend all those additional taxes you'll be paying if she gets elected. Oh, but I forgot, you're totally fine with the government charging higher taxes and fees. You're a big fan of the City of Ventura's illegal 911 tax, as I recall.

That's incorrect, Mongo.

I heard her say at the forum and I quote -- since I was taking very good notes -- "I have no interest and will not support a middle class tax increase."

She only talked about ending tax loopholes for multinational corporations that send jobs out of the country and adding oil extraction taxes, like all the other oil-producing states do.

I know Strickland is pushing this line but it just isn't so.

Which, of course, begs the question -- Who does she consider the middle class? This is a classic line for politicians, but the devil, as always, is in the details behind the comment.

I think she would not consider Exxon, who gives Strickland buckets of money, middle class.

Forgetting taxes for a moment, since Hannah-Beth refuses to be specific on who she would or wouldn't raise taxes on, I am still left with the distinct impression that she believes government needs to be more involved in our daily lives, that they can solve many of our problems, and that the size of government and its regulatory powers were the sole cause of the financial meltdown on Wall Street.

So, it sounds like both her and Obama want to take us back to a time when government loomed large over our daily affairs. I just think that's taking an enormous step backwards.

She WAS specific. She mentioned two places that she would look to generate revenue, if necessary.

What do you feel the government's role in our lives should be? I want to know about Mongo's perfect world. Here's your chance.

Marie,

Thanks for writing an entry about the VP debate on my blog.

http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/dennert/archives/2008/10/guest-blog-w-ma.html#comments

Well, Marie, of course I realize we don't live in a perfect world and my notion of a perfect world may be someone else's idea of a disaster zone, but I do have some sense of what I believe the priorities of government's should be.

- National defense and security
- Public health & safety and emergency services (primarily police & fire services)
- Public infrastructure (streets & roads, bridges & highways, public utilities, etc.)
- Stewardship of public lands

Beyond that, the myriad of other things government does may fit into some of these broad categories, but some of the other stuff I think is completely unecessary and goes beyond the mandate of government.

For example, helmet regulations, no smoking laws in vehicles, listing calorie counts on menus, banning trans fats in restaurants, cell phone use laws, and a lot of the other silly nanny laws that are on the books are prime examples of government overreach that, I believe, intrude on personal liberties and freedom. They are purely intended as resume-building devices for legislators who can then point to them as things they've done to assist and protect their constituents.

What do you feel the government's role in regulating business should be?

Marie, let's cut to the chase here. The SEC was asleep at the wheel in its obligations to monitor & regulate Wall Street trading and investment practices. You won't get any arguments from me on that.

However, when you look at some of the land use policies and regulations perpetrated by the City of Ventura that stifle quality development and business growth in the City, that is an example of overegulation of business to the detriment of the community, IMHO.

How do you feel about this particular law? See below:

Loans secured by real property.

Existing law provides for regulation of banks and savings
associations by the Department of Financial Institutions. Existing
law provides for regulation of real estate brokers by the Department
of Real Estate. Existing law provides for regulation of finance
lenders and residential mortgage lenders by the Department of
Corporations. Existing law provides that willful violations of
provisions governing savings associations, real estate brokers, and
residential mortgage lenders are crimes.
This bill would impose various requirements on consumer loans
secured by specified real property, defined as "covered loans." The
bill would prohibit various acts in making covered loans, including
the following: failing to consider the financial ability of a
borrower to repay the loan, financing specified types of credit
insurance into a consumer loan transaction, recommending or
encouraging a consumer to default on an existing consumer loan in
order to solicit or make a covered loan that refinances the consumer
loan, and making a covered loan without providing the consumer a
specified disclosure. The bill would provide that a violation of its
provisions would be subject to a civil penalty.

It sounds like it provides some much needed protection for consumers from predatory lending practices, which, as we're finding out now, were rampant during the so-called real estate boom.

I think there is some shared responsibility on the part of consumers too. Let's face it, a lot of folks got into mortgage loans that were far beyond their ability to repay and a lot of them were fully aware of this going in. They were under the false impression that the party was going to continue and home values would continue to soar; therefore, giving them the ability to flip the home at a big profit in a year or two. Of course, the bubble burst and everything went south and a lot of these folks are the ones who ended up defaulting on their loans.

So, there was a lot of speculative buying going on out there that the banks were faclilitating, of course, by giving anyone with a pulse a mortgage loan.

This bill which you say provides "much needed protection for consumers from predatory lending practices" is AB489, which was passed and enacted into law in 2001.

Your pal Tony Strickland voted against it. With Strickland's support, the big banks watered the legislation down to the point that it protected almost no one. Meanwhile Strickland took $47,575 from the banking industry.

Looks like Mongo just got caught by a predatory blogger.

Good job Marie!

Well, what can I say? You got me, Marie. I had the feeling I was walking into something, but I still I took the bait.

Anyway, do you not agree though that the consumer shares some of the responsibility for this fiasco? I mean, some of these people who signed on the dotted line knew they were getting in over their heads. Does personal responsibility not come into play at all?

Skippy, back to your midget wrestling tournament. You just missed a good take down by Vern Troyer.

:-)

Oh my, that was fun! And you say I don't have a sense of humor!

Yes, I blame greed on every level for our financial woes.