Let me be clear about where I was coming from on Monday night regarding the Victoria Corridor Plan.

I oppose as a matter of principle the abuse of land use regulation to achieve goals not related to land use. (In this case, the goals in question serve the interests of a specific labor union and a few competing food store chains that want to restrict competition from a proposed Wal-Mart store in Ventura and who just happen to have a few academics who produced – surprise, surprise— a “scientific research “ paper “proving� that Wal-Mart destroys other local businesses and jobs whenever they come to town – a paper that even the Ventura County Star’s Pa Ventura discounts as a hack job.)

Further, I oppose generally the use of unnecessarily broad and restrictive regulations that reduce individual freedoms and diminish individual property rights when a perfectly reasonable procedure exists to permit the application of discretionary regulatory power to individual development projects and provides the flexibility to pragmatically evaluate the particular circumstances and conditions applicable to the project in question.

Banning a project arbitrarily because it would exceed 100,000 square feet, whether you use the pejorative term “big box� or not, is precisely such an abuse of land use regulation and a violation of individual property rights, without provision of an opportunity for the property owner to present a case for an alternate decision.

Thus I argued, rather than simply ban all potential 100,000 sq. ft. commercial projects (of which there is really only one at this moment – Wal-Mart) and, in doing so, set a terrible precedent for the abuse of land use regulation, let’s look at the specific project proposal and evaluate it on its merits. If the project provides a physically attractive building or complex of buildings, reasonably mitigates any negative consequences related to its construction, and otherwise generally serves the broad interests of the majority of Venturans, then , why should we stand in its way.

If it does not survive that evaluation, fine.

To try to disguise this issue as a traffic control measure, as some are wont to do, is a bit disingenuous. The fact is that the City proposed plan already provides for a number of measures that mitigate any undue traffic impact, including an intrusion into the property by 46 feet to provide for traffic slip lanes, wide and pleasantly landscaped pedestrian walkways, safe bike and alternate transport lanes, diagonal parking and protected and well-designed bus transit stops. Moreover, I am certain we would add additional mitigation measures, if appropriate, should a Wal-Mart proposal be brought forward.

Further, the traffic problems of the Victoria-101 area have been specifically condoned and approved by the Council, against the objection of Mr. Monahan and myself, on the assumption that the congestion there is “acceptable� as a matter of policy (i.e. we shouldn’t expend any City resources to resolve or mitigate it) and under the apparent theory that making traffic worse in the City will encourage automobile owners to resort to public transportation or to walking or riding bicycles.

Those are indeed worthy goals, but neither Mr. Monahan nor I believe you can or should deliberately adopt a public policy that imposes great inconvenience on our citizens, radically interferes with their normal means of getting to and from important daily destinations, and is inconsistent with the current state of transportation services in our community. Give me a break!

The fact is that we rely upon automobiles because we do not have adequate public mass transit systems in this City, because the automobile is vital to our everyday lives, and because we want and value the personal freedom, convenience and flexibility the automobile has provided to us.

Let’s not lose sight of the simple fact that we are facing a terrible fiscal crisis in this City, as in the State and Nation. It looks very much like we may have to cut as much as 15% from our expenditures on customary public services to achieve a balanced budget next year.

As Chairman of the City Finance Committee, I am doing everything in my power to find ways to preserve those vital services (including the Wright Library and our recently restored School Resource Officers, among others), to save the jobs of dedicated and productive employees, to rectify the years of reckless and irresponsible policy decisions that have exacerbated the problems we face, and to restore fiscal integrity to our City government.

The Wal-Mart project offers the potential to bring as much as a million dollars net added revenue to the City annually. I believe we should do everything we can in this time of great travail to bring such revenue to our community, not to mention the potential economic benefits to our less affluent residents who desperately need ready access to lower priced goods and services.

(I am aware that the City Manager and some of our Council Members disagree with my calculus of the net fiscal impact of adding a major Wal-Mart store to the Victoria corridor, but in its waning years just before it closed, K-Mart – a failing enterprise – was still producing about $275,000 in sales tax revenue annually, and stimulating as much as $450,000 in gross sales tax revenue from the over-all site with the business it helped attract to other stores in the complex it served as anchor. K-Mart is now gone, and every day that property lies vacant, we are losing at least $275,000 annually to the City. Moreover, we are seeing at least 20% of the current Wal-Mart business in the Oxnard store bleeding out from Ventura, not to mention those that travel through Ventura from Santa Paula, Fillmore or Ojai to go to the Oxnard store. Wal-Mart is easily three to four times the business generator as K-Mart was. I can only say I have confidence in my numbers, once a Wal-Mart becomes fully operational and has established its presence in our market.)

A million dollars buys a lot of police and fire protection. When we lost K-Mart we lost the capability to pay for at least a couple of cops. Let’s not make the greater mistake of throwing away the opportunity to keep seven or eight more of our public safety officers by arbitrarily rejecting the opportunity to earn a million bucks for our City – all in the name of some brand of New Urbanist purity. Give me a break!

Mr. Cole last Monday also challenged me with respect to the matter of what exactly the General Plan called for with respect to the Victoria Corridor. I think we were both actually a little wrong,

He or someone on staff had referred to the Plan as “discouraging� big box stores, and I had responded that “discouraging� was not equivalent to “prohibiting.� He subsequently chided me by noting that the General Plan actually said that we should “eliminate� Big Box stores on the Victoria Corridor.

Here is what the Plan actually says:
“By eliminating "big box", mega-block, auto-oriented strip development, and the traffic patterns it generates, Victoria Avenue could create tremendous opportunity for healthy economic investment in walkable blocks, connected to better serve surrounding neighborhoods.�

The fact is the General Plan doesn’t mandate eliminating “big box� stores at all. It just observes that if they were eliminated, something pretty desirable might happen. I agree. It might well be where we should try to get the City to evolve to over the next few decades. It just isn’t realistic today.

We should also note that the very same General Plan says that a town center zone, the exact zone description the Victoria Corridor Plan gives to the K-mart site, is defined as follows:
“Commerce – (T4 General Urban through T6 Urban Core, neighborhood center downtown, regional center, town center or village center) encourages a wide range of building types of anywhere from two to six stories (depending on neighborhood characteristics) that house a mix of functions, including commercial, entertainment, office and housing.�

Note there is no reference to 100,000 sq. ft. and the height limits far exceed what is proposed as a limitation on this site. Can you imagine what a six story building would look like at less than 100,000 sq. ft. Think pencil!

The problem here is that no one is thinking.

Neal Andrews

No problem!!! I'll just keep driving to Oxnard's Wal-mart and Home Depot (Another store stopped by the idiots of Ventura's government then puts in a Lowe's, I wonder who got paid off for that one) All I can say is I'm Making Oxnard rich with all those tax dollars...

Thanks, Neal. My question would be how much additional sales tax a supercenter would generate over a traditional store since the expanded area of a supercenter is devoted to non-taxable groceries.

I have a copy of the Wal-Mart study and a biography of the two academics involved in the research and they are both accomplished. I am not so quick to dismiss their work. "Pa Ventura" is hardly an arbiter of correct information, as it is ghost written frequently by a certain Star columnist who is known to get his facts wrong on occasion. (But don't get me started on that one!)

However, as a frequent Trader Joe's customer, I am not looking forward to the crowded parking lot a Wal-Mart will bring. I did like the idea of the underground parking in the original proposal from Wal-Mart. But I am not a Wal-mart shopper and won't spend money there if it goes in. I am also not convinced their prices are any lower than Target's. Target has two stores here and their sale items are very cheap.

In the end, even if the Council were to lift the 100,000-square-foot moratorium, the voters may very well put it back in.

Thank you Mr. Andrews for putting into words what I have been thinking all along.

The Victoria Corridor didn't become congested overnight. When Ralph's and Longs moved in across the street from K-Mart, where was the outrage over traffic? Where was the city trying to stop the development?

With his clear thinking and detailed explanations (and opposition to the 911 TAX), Mr. Andrews has earned my vote if and when he comes up for re-election.

The jury is still out on the rest of the "let's see what we can do to discourage business in Ventura" City Council.

Marie says:
"I have a copy of the Wal-Mart study and a biography of the two academics involved in the research and they are both accomplished"

Yes and they were both bought and paid for by the Grocers Union. That is why the study is suspect.

"I am also not convinced their prices are any lower than Target's. Target has two stores here and their sale items are very cheap"

Since you are not a Wal*Mart shopper how would you know?

I can tell you that there are certain disposable items that NO local store stocks with any regularity and I am forced to go to Wal*Mart in Oxnard to purchase these items. I would much rather leave my sales tax revenue here in Ventura, but Target/Toys'R'Us/Grocery Stores/Drug Stores/ don't regulary stock these items. I have also done price comparisons and while items may be pennies cheaper at Wal*MArt compared to Target, pennies have a way of adding up.

I am surprised that Trader Joes hasn't pushed the city into action. I would think that if a developer came in and tore down and rebuilt a building then the parking issues go away because of the city's insistence on underground parking. Then even MORE people come to the center and see Trader Joes and shop there. Even if 0.1% of new Wal*Mart shoppers enter Trader Joes you have an increase in customer traffic. I'm no retail expert, but increased customer traffic seems like a good thing.

I guess the City knows better. Better to leave a gaping hole/dilapidated building then to move forward with an economic solution.

Sir, you are a hypocrite. You begin your diatribe with the statement that you oppose using land use regulations “to achieve goals not related to land use�. You then make the argument that land use regulations should allow Wal-Mart because it will generate tax dollars. The generation of tax dollars IS NOT A GOAL OF LAND USE. Nor should it be. The fiscalization of land use, of which you are obviously a proponent, results in poor planning.

In addition, your support of Wal-Mart is short sighted. Our city’s fiscal situation is temporary. A Wal-Mart is not. Please do not try to use our current financial crisis to manipulate people into thinking that a Wal-Mart is a good thing solely because of tax dollars.

Stop mischaracterizing the use of land use controls as “abuse� simply because you do not agree with the outcome. The power to regulate land use is one of the police powers granted to cities by the state constitution. Exercising that right is not abuse any more than is a city adopting and enforcing local laws, another right given to cities by the state. Land use limitations are a fundamental way to shape the urban environment. Your fiscalization of land use is a poor way to plan our city.

Also, you claim that the opposition to Wal-Mart is from a labor union and food stores that would be competing against it. You conveniently ignore the many thousands of Ventura residents who do not want a Wal-Mart at this location. Your flippant dismissal is belittling to these residents and their valid concerns.

The city is not losing money by preventing Wal-Mart from occupying the site, as you claim. Wal-Mart is not generating any money there. You cannot lose something that doesn’t exist. To talk as if this tax money is already available and paying for cops is asinine and misleading. Under your misguided rational, every vacant piece of property in and around the city is losing tax money and, under your thinking, should be immediately developed for tax revenue, good planning be damned. Furthermore, your argument is not be a valid justification of Wal-Mart. Many other businesses can occupy the site and generate tax revenue.

The problem here is that the people who elected you were not thinking.

John Doe,

I've read a lot of studies that say Wal-Mart's "always the low price" mantra is more spin than truth. I don't like the one in Oxnard but have gone shopping with relatives who live in other cities and who have supercenters in their towns.

One blog idea I was mulling is making a list of the items I buy regularly at Target and looking to see if they are available at Wal-Mart and doing a price comparison. This is hardly scientific and would only be valid in my particular case, but I am curious.

Fin says:
"Many other businesses can occupy the site and generate tax revenue."

Great! Where are these businesses? Are they all lining up to establish a Ventura presence? No. They are not. One reason may be that the City Council and Planning Department have made it known that Ventura isn't really friendly to businesses unless they provide "high paying jobs"

"The city is not losing money by preventing Wal-Mart from occupying the site"
Correct. The city is losing money based on K-Mart closing. The city is losing money based on the building standing dormant. And yes, other empty buildings should be developed as well. I'd much rather see empty buildings re-purposed/developed than to have NEW buildings built in the City's quest of in-fill. There is a multi-use building on Loma Vista near the hospital whose first floor retail shops stand empty. Someone was in the process of opening a Quizno's but that went bust and all shops are empty. The sign says that space is available at 'greatly reduced' rates.

Mid-town has plenty of empty storefronts. But when a businessman wanted to open a Karate studio in one of them (creating jobs and generating tax revenue) the City said no. A car wash owner wanted to convert an abandonded gas station into a Quick Oil Change place (creating jobs and generating tax revenue) and the city said no. There has been a sign on the vacant lot where the Ban-Dar used to be promising a new building for years. My guess is that it will remain in place for years to come with no progress.

So should we continue down the path of so called 'good planning' and continue to slash the budget or should we as a City step back, take a look around and realize that without cash (tax revenue) we are all doomed.

"Also, you claim that the opposition to Wal-Mart is from a labor union and food stores that would be competing against it. You conveniently ignore the many thousands of Ventura residents who do not want a Wal-Mart at this location. Your flippant dismissal is belittling to these residents and their valid concerns."

It is known that the Grocers Union has been very public about supporting a ban on Wal*Mart. Certainly there are others in the community that don't want Wal*Mart either. On the other hand, a re-development of the shopping center on Victoria may be a GOOD thing if it improves traffic flow and increases revenue for the city. Is it possible that "the many thousands of Ventura residents who do not want a Wal-Mart at this location" don't have the whole story or wouldn't want Wal*Mart ANYWHERE in the city? They don't want to lose that small artistic beach city feeling. Laguna Niguel is a small artistic beach city with a Wal*Mart. It is possible to have both.

Like I said earlier, I guess the City knows better. Better to leave a gaping hole/dilapidated building then to move forward with an economic solution.

Disingenuous Neal ? Not in the least bit as I have no interest in any other local businesses a WalMart would harm, rather, I do travel that corridor many times a day & your traffic slip lanes is a poor excuse of a solution to the traffic down an already congested Victoria Ave. !

I also take issue with the poor employee practices, & the FLSA, amongst other issues re: the health care coverage, or lack thereof in many, many cases, the fact that their Chinese plants are not run well at all, from at least an employee standpoint, etc.

But far be it from common sense & a pragmatic thought process, re: Traffic, Parking & substandard employee practices, that would force the likes of John Doe to actually driving all of a few miles to shop. And why not Target ? There are 2 John, there is Kmart right off 126 in Santa Paula, a slew of stores in the Mall as well as many that could use your business down on old Mainstreet.

John, I have (window)shopped at WalMart & trust me, the prices do even out across the board so that argument does not exist.

I agree, Fin & it's always businessmen, no matter the store, no matter the mitigating factors, that want more business here. So Neal, you take John & move to Los Angeles, where you can shop at all the WalMarts, etc. & leave us slow growth folks here, where we like it. This community is very unique, geographically, in that we can only grow so much as we have the sea to the West, only so much room between here & Santa Paula, the hills & mountains to the NE, ever expanding Oxnard to the South & the concrete jungle creeping up the other side of the Grade, so we need to preserve what we have & not try & crowd in a WalMart & other 100,000'+ stores into the heart of this city.

I'm curious too Marie as I just Posted that my many, many trips to window shop have proven worthelss as the prices all even out. But if John Doe, Neal & others think they are getting a bargain, then fine, they can drive to Oxnard!

Apparently NatureMuzic missed (one of) my points:
"I can tell you that there are certain disposable items that NO local store stocks with any regularity and I am forced to go to Wal*Mart in Oxnard to purchase these items. I would much rather leave my sales tax revenue here in Ventura, but Target/Toys'R'Us/Grocery Stores/Drug Stores/ don't regulary stock these items. I have also done price comparisons and while items may be pennies cheaper at Wal*MArt compared to Target, pennies have a way of adding up."

So, I should take my tax revenue to Oxnard. You (and all of the other Anti-Business people) are OK with that. You are OK with Ventura LOSING money to Oxnard or Santa Paula as long as your precious little city doesn't become more congested or become less 'quaint'

People complain about Wal*Mart's employee practices as a reason to keep them out. Have any of you asked about the employee practices at Target or K-Mart? You think that Target employees are all working full time, 40/hr weeks with full health care? Think again. And of course Target sells Chinese stuff as well. My point is that while we have 2 Targets in town, neither of them meet my need for certain items. Wal*Mart does and I'd much rather leave my tax revenue in my city.

I am much more upset that Oxnard got the Frys. We go there all the time. We do not have an electronics store here. I'd rather spend my money on electronics in my own town, thank you very much. I heard Oxnard lured Frys there by lots of redevelopment money?

John Doe, how much revenue does Oxnard earn from your few disposable items?

We need an electronics store! We need another furniture store! Think big bucks items! Not ticky tacky Walmart toilet paper!

John, I apologize as I did miss that you feel the need to buy that one disposable item. Have you asked Target & others to stock it ? When you go to WalMart, do you buy only that one item ? And I would argue there are many items that WalMart may not have, that Target & other businesses here do have. So that's not even an argument of merit.

And, I care about the integrity of this city & adding a huge traffic, parking nightmare will go a long way in destroying this integrity.

I have done a lot of research re: the employment practices, using the Web, News Articles, & have eben asked many at all stores you mention & you may be blind to it, by choice or otherwise, but the issues are real & do exist.

First, I am not Anti Business, per your assumption, rather, I amk for slow, controlled, pragmatic growth.
Second, I agree w/ Caroline; The city of Ventura does NOT need a WalMart, per the exisiting options, but we do need an electronics store. Maybe a Fry's, or even a BestBuy, as neither would attract the crowds that WalMart would but would still provided revenue, but at perhaps another location, along Johnson, etc.

In times of financial crises, it is amazing that the City Council is busy getting in the way of business and dreaming up ways for us to okay a tax increase.

They should reduce the cost of government and encourage business. Victoria Avenue is busy because it provides services and products we want and which, by the way, create revenue. Why turn it into a pretty walkway that forces people in that area to drive further (Oxnard?) to get what they need/want?

NatureMuzic says:
"And, I care about the integrity of this city & adding a huge traffic, parking nightmare will go a long way in destroying this integrity"

And were you this outraged when Ralph's gave up a perfectly good building and moved down the street? I don't remember this much ire over traffic back then.

Is it possible that whatever ends up in the K-Mart site will add new turn lanes to alleviate your traffic nightmare?

Is it possible that whatever ends up in the K-Mart site wiull have underground parking alleviating your parking nightmare?

Is it possible that there are thousands of Ventura residents that DO want a Wal*Mart in town?

Two large electronics stores closed in Ventura. Why? Did we not support them with enough customer traffic? Did their corporate structure cause this? Do you really think that BestBuy would even consider coming to Ventura when they already have a presence in Oxnard? By looking at their store locator it appears that they believe that they have Ventura County covered with Oxnard, Thousand Oaks, and Simi Valley (as well as Woodland Hills and Porter Ranch).

What this city needs is REVENUE. What this city needs is a city council that doesn't scare away business owners. That is what this city needs.

If the city council puts a half-cent sales tax on the ballot I guarantee that it will fail. Voters are not going to be in the mood for more taxes after the state already increased the sales tax, personal income tax, and doubled vehicle registration fees. People are losing their jobs, their homes, and losing more of their hard-earned income to taxation. The city is dreaming if they think they can tax their way out of this problem. Like it or not, the city needs revenues, and their best option is to become more business friendly and attract large retailers like Walmart. They need to stop listening to all the anti-business, anti-growth narcissists, who care more about their own narrow self interests and viewshed than in the diverse needs of the community.

The important thing to remember is that the recommendation to place it on the ballot is being made by a citizens' committee and then will be voted on by our citizens. If they vote to tax themselves, then you cannot complain, can you?

The question I posed above has gone unanswered. Will we gain significant tax revenue with a supercenter over what could be gained through a regular Wal-Mart store? The greater portion of a supercenter is comprised of non-taxable items.

According to our city manager, Wal-Mart has indicated they would be willing to go into the existing space.

Also, what would the net revenue gain be if people stopped shopping at our TWO Targets and went to Wal-Mart instead?

But I admit I do like the idea of underground parking. Parking at Trader Joe's will be a nightmare

I appreciate the views of Mr. Andrews on this thread, especially as it relates to mobility.

Oh John, poor poor John.
One, I said a maybe on Best Buy & if you believe your own theory, the same can be said of WalMart staying put!

Next, Slip lanes will not ease the traffic as they will back up into the exisitng lanes - don't get out much, do ya.

I didn't even know of this Blog back when Ralphs moved, but since they did, that will only hurt ther traffic issues if WalMart was to come in.

And it seems that yes, some do want WalMart, but over the years, the Slow(not No) growth advocates have spoken, as the votes clearly suggest.

John, you failed to answer a few queries I rasied, tho' not surprised.

Lastly, the reason GoodGuys closed, was very simple as they outpriced themselves, long before this mess started; same with Circuits City ! The reason they closed again, at the Oxnard iste is the overall economy - has nothing at all to do with what we're speaking of.

And Elaine, Victoira corridor IS busy & with a WalMart, it onlt gets far worse, not only from our resident, but those from Santa Barbara. Also, I don't recall reading anyone here suggesting a "pretty walkway". And since the prices are even over the course of time & a purchase, just what does WalMart have you cannot live without ? And if Target & various other local stores don't have it, do you buy the 1 o2 2 items, then come back to shop here ? Like John, I am guessing neither of you do, regardless of what you may say.

Just what are all these mystery-cannot-live-without items you & others must get at WalMart ?

Great point Marie as those that want to shop there, use the tax revenue as their, ahem, argument as you are spot on as all the food is non taxable & with about 10 major grocery stores here in the city, not counting the food sections at Target, a WalMart's grocery items do nothing for the revenue.

Thanks for the update. This is typical Walmart trick. Blackmail the broke city. No, no, no to Walmart.

NatureMuzic says:
"John, you failed to answer a few queries I rasied, tho' not
surprised."
OK, here you go:
"Have you asked Target & others to stock it?"
No I haven't. There is usually a space for the item, but every time I
go Target is sold out.

"When you go to WalMart, do you buy only that one item?"
Not usually. Since I'm there I look and buy other things as well
(leaving my tax revenue in Oxnard).

"Next, Slip lanes will not ease the traffic as they will back up into
the exisitng lanes"

OK. Let's think this through. Say you have 4 lanes heading south and
at an intersection you now have 5 lanes because a left turn slip lane
has been added. Does the traffic back up because of the left turn
lane? Should we do away with left turn lanes as well? What happens to
those 4 lanes when a 5th lane is introduced 100-200 yards from the
intersection for right turns? Now you have 6 lanes at the intersection
with 2 of them devoted to turning traffic. How is that worse than 4
lanes only with 2 of them filled with people wanting to turn?

Marie says:
"The important thing to remember is that the recommendation to place it
on the ballot is being made by a citizens' committee and then will be
voted on by our citizens. If they vote to tax themselves, then you
cannot complain, can you?"
The citizen's committee has some very familiar names on it. It seems
to me a sham.

But......the City knows better. Better to leave a gaping
hole/dilapidated building then to move forward with an economic
solution.

Some of the thinking coming out of Ventura's planning process has not
always been in the best interest of retail business ( or the city):

a. So-called "live/work" projects, such as the vacant retail spaces
noted above on Loma Vista, the new retail units on Ventura Ave. behind
Von's, the new retail spaces which used to be the site of the old movie
theatre downtown, the new retail units across from the WAV project, the
future retail spaces to be next to the Sidecar, the retail spaces to
be across from the High School ( this one will have 42 double-parked
parking spaces at a 20' wide alley ) - they are all ( or will be )
empty because the concept does not work well for retail - none have
adequate parking - the city manager says " let them take the bus".
However (unelected) planners continue to go to planners' conventions
and promote this garbage among themselves. Even on Bunker Hill in LA
this concept hasn't worked.

b. Small retail projects such as the multi-store project at Telephone
and Petit are monuments to the inability of the city planning process
in Ventura to come up with viable retail projects: it has the same sad
result as the one on Loma Vista - mostly vacant. Yet both projects
should have worked - but there was too much tinkering at the Planning
Dept. There is, for example, a stairway which elevates to a plate glass
window - not a door - approved by Planning.

c. Certain city leaders continue to think "Fresh and Easy" will be a
welcome addition to the market mix - yet their sales among new stores
opened within the US are down something like 70% from projections.

d. Instead of erecting a 100' high new sign at the car dealer area next
to the freeway, why not consider a southbound access road from the
freeway or Victoria ?

e. If WalMart wants to build a large store in Ventura, let 'em - they
know a heck of a lot more about the demographics than any of the
bloggers present. Also, be advised Trader Joe's is waiting to put in a
store in downtown Ventura.

f. Target has already been approved to remodel their store on Main St.
Obviously WalMart knows this and it will presumably result in a better
Walmart result ( by the way, fans, Trader Joe's is non-union as well,
so what gives with the selective outrage ? )

g. Even the retail spaces in the WAV project are ill-conceived. The
areas where cute restaurants are to be located have no ducting to allow
exhaust to exit the buildings. They have no parking. The aesthetics at
street level are way overscale and imposing.

h. Planning failed to handle to new county hospital building issue
well. Even the Federal Government's old soldiers home in the county
made it to the DRC for review - but not the county hospital.

The process has broken down, in my opinion, because city planners do
not understand the retail business and/or certain
residential/commercial guidelines which they generated ( in our
family's case, Planning did not even understand or enforce their own
mandatory rules about residential trash enclosures in Ventura - they
approved 14 trash enclosure remodels and 162 condo parking/garden areas
at our location without any plans or adherence to their own mandatory
guidelines - they told us to contact our HOA); the Design Review
Committee approves projects in a manner too general for many of these
projects to be effective aesthetically as well as functionally ( the
DRC is constrained by the way these matters are presented for approval
by the Planning Department - which has far too much control over this
process - there are no aesthetically-trained or architecturally-trained
members of the Planning staff ). The city turned down an oil change
project next to the car wash on Main St. because no one on the city
staff had the imagination to conceptualize how such a facility could
look good at a location they deemed worthy of a Cartier store ( or
whatever ). They city blew off an owner ( he owns the car wash next
door ) and lost revenue. So this space, the K-Mart space and a number
of car sales locations remain non-cash-generating sites, while Whole
Foods Market is opening with 30 other new stores on River Walk in
Oxnard.

I quit the DRC last year after 5 years ( I was very committed, but felt
led to make a statement about these very issues within the Planning
Dept.) because Planning failed to follow its own guidelines as they
affected our property and, when it was pointed out to them, simply
ignored our concerns. The city lost a committed committee member.

My point about traffic is that adding lanes will help allevieate the
problem.
Adding turn lanes will NOT create more traffic.

What is sad is that with today's news about Wal*Mart coming into the
existing building is that the existing parking lot will remain the
same. If the city leaders had any brains they would have Wal*Mart tear
down the building so that increased parking could be created.

That's too bad, John S. We need all the city volunteers we can get right
now.

Question: In your opinion, why do you think the live/work model has
been a failure here?

Why "live/work" a failure ?
1. In most live/work set-ups, the separations between the various leasehold or condo sections are divided individually from top to street level.

A. The "work" area on the street level is usually useless because 1. either too small in square footage to be much more than a small office; and 2. too small to serve as any kind of retail space. 3. Whereas the initial idea was to create a vibrant retail-looking "store" at street level, one ends up with a series of curtains over windows and/or empty spaces and no co-ordinated signage program, both of which which might contribute toward "activating" the street.
B. However, when the street level is separated from the upper levels in terms of available leasehold area, then one can create more viable ( flexible ) retail space on the street level. Only one project so far has suggested that latter approach: the one across from the High School ( not built yet ).
2. The color/signage schemes on these projects never seem to be able to decide how they want to address the first floor retail area. 
A. The signage is always an afterthought, thereby contributing to an overall disfunctional ragtag look.
B. Variation in exterior color is never discussed at street level because the whole building is always treated as one entity visually so that an appproval can be obtained under current guidelines - the Loma Vista building, for example, as well as the WAV project, have no individual distinguishing visual features at street level separate and distinctive from the rest of the building - there should be a method of visually indicating that these are individually distinct retail operations. Hope that helps a little.

A good example of a well-co-ordinated ( though not a "live/work" setup ) new retail/signage application to a group of new stores is the building in front of Lowe's ( with "Chipotle", "Affinity Bank", etc.), designed by the DRC chairman. Special conditions were put in place to address the street level issues, including very specific signage criteria.

John Stewart: What role does the high price of the live/work units play
in their lack of success? I am thinking of the Mayfair in particular.

What is your opinion of the Kohl's center? I view that as a very
successful and well-designed retail area.

Bubba: This is Ventura's second attempt at a sales tax measure.
Included on the citizens' committee are the leaders of the group which
worked very hard to defeat the last one, P6. I plan on attending at
least one of these meetings.

To Wal-Mart representatives (if you are perchance reading this): It may
be undoable, but I would take a long look at the now-vacant Mervyns
building. Much more parking. Not in the Victoria Corridor.

Marie, whether or not a tax initiative is recommended will most likely dependent on the make up of the committee members than anything else. I think your City Council is looking for some sort of cover to justify a 3rd attempt at a local tax hike. This way they can say that the idea was recommended to them by a citizen committee instead of taking sole responsibility for the idea. Hey, who appoints these committee members? In my experience these types of committees are appointed by local city councils, which results in members who have opinions that typically reflect the same views as those who appointed them.
But I don't have a problem if a tax initiative goes to the ballot. It doesn't get much more democratic than that. I still stand by my prediction that it will fail, especially in the current political and economic climate. However, if your citizens are willing to continue to raise taxes on themselves they can certainly elect to do so. They can also choose to ban supercenters, or whatever other policies the majority wants to put into place. I'm not saying these are smart ideas, but hey, we live in a democracy.
Regarding the supercenter, I haven't studied the issue close enough to know whether it will result in a significant net increase in tax revenues. I thought that Neal Andrews provided some very good information that makes a pretty compelling case for allowing a supercenter, and I'm inclined to agree with his arguments more than those who are opposed, but resort to emotional arguments instead of offering real data to back up their positions. Any revenue projections are always going to be a guess based on certain assumptions. Though I do think that your city is most certainly losing a significant amount of tax revenues from local citizens shopping in neighboring cities.
Walmart is the largest retailer in the nation and lots of people like to go there. I don't personally shop there, but when I pass by our local Walmart the parking lot is always full. I think that many shoppers, like myself, have preferences in the store they choose to frequent. Some people like Target, some like Walmart, some like Vons, some like Trader Joe's. The best approach is to give as much variety as possible to local shoppers and let them decide where they want to spend their money. It results in healthy competition and keeps shoppers local. The consumers will then decide where they want to spend their money.
Simi Valley had the same issue for decades with local citizens doing much of their shopping in places like Thousand Oaks because of our lack of a local mall. There was a lot of opposition over the years to building our own mall, but I've spoken with many people who originally opposed the idea who now confess that they regularly shop there and really enjoy it. In these tough economic times it is nice to have those additional revenues to shore up our local budget. I think our more business friendly environment has made SV more fiscally stable, and even in these tough times we seem to be getting by just fine without a need for a local sales tax increase.

Sadly, you're correct Bubba as a Sales Tax hike will fail; why ? The same people that voted against the minute, 1/4 of 1cent tax for fire & police, will shoot this down as well. They all want something for nothing! Then the city council came up with a miserable attempt via the 911 fee.
You made my point to John D as WalMart IS always packed & that is precisely why we don't need their lare container "store" on the busiest street in all of Ventura ! That & it's poor employee practices.
Again, it seems a very few are miffed as they must drive all of 4 miles or so to get the mysterious items that no other store in all of Ventura stocks. HOwever, tyhe majority of this city have no issue with driving to shop at WalMart as they have made it clear to their CouncilMembers & via the ballot box, we don't want such a store, at that location; my God, TJ's parking is already a nightmare!
This I know, if these items are so crucial to their daily lives, then simply get in the car & drive. I mean, depending upon where one lives, I could live in the West end & jump on 101 S. & be at WalMart before I can drive thru town to get to a much busier Victoria Ave. if a new WalMart was put in. And yes, John D. you get better gas mileage on 101 than all the stop & go's thru the city's stop lights & traffic, so there's more than your few pennies that add up.

Thanks for your honesty JD, re: my queries. 
As far as the item at target that is always sold out, you may ask them what days do they get their stock delivered, esp. your item & try & be there that day. Or ask the Manager, not a floor level employee, but ask him to set the item aside for you, as it forces you to drive out of town. I was in Retail for over 9 years & we did that sort of thing, if only we knew. 
Next, isn't it hypocritical to complain we need a WalMart for tax revenue, then while at WalMart, you shop for other items & leave your taxes there ? If you really wanted to help this city, you'd go to WalMart, if you cannot get the item here, then come back & do your shopping.
As far as the lanes go, by adding a slip lane, it can be that long, therefore, all those that want to get into WalMart, will nw be backing up into the normal thru lanes of traffic. It is a conundrum because if you don't make a turn only lane, then those that may want to get into said parking lot & store, are now wating thru 1-2 red lights as there may be 1 car not wanting to turn, yet is in that lane at a red light, not allowing the vehicles that want to turn in to do so; case in point, the lane set up at Victoria S. & Kmart/T/J's entrance. I have had to wait upwards of 4-5 minutes, at certian times of day as you want to run in from Southbound Victoria, but many vehicles are going straight & are in the RH lane & one can't get in. Ideally, this would be say down around Ventura Blvd. & Johnson, where new lanes can be added, but it can't happen on Victoria the way it now exists.

Marie,
1. I cannot respond intelligently re. the "high price" vis a vis the "lack of success" of the "work" part at Mayfair. I do have a few observations, however:

a. Obviously, the price of each unit is figured at least to some degree on the overall cost of the project - including the "work" space.
To the extent the "work" portion is mandated for the project to be approved by the city, it becomes a cost of doing business and raises the cost to that extent.
Secondarily, any hoped-for income from the "work" portion would seem to be disproportionately minimal compared to the overal project cost.
b. I address "success" as a combination of the overall aesthetic appeal of the project as well as to the functionality of the project.

As to the Mayfair, the exterior aesthetics have been compromised by such things as choice of gate design pattern (doesn't work), ceramic tile selection (could have been much better),street level door and window detailing, choice of colors ( could have been more upbeat and could have been detailed much better ), and a non-existent signage program . The rear gate proposed to exit was deleted in lieu of a wall, the stairs to upper levels are way too long for such a facility, the surfaces of the internal parking area are very very uneven. One must assume this project became unwieldy at some point, though I do not know the facts.
2. Kohl Center: This center works quite well, though Applebee's closed and Linens and Things did as well. I don't think location had much to do with either closing - both were chainwide. Ventura's "sign ordinance" precluded the tenants from having any meaningful sign program - there was a lot of discussion in DRC meetings about local sign ordinances - they need a lot of discussion. I do not feel the current sign ordinances make much sense in many ways from a marketing point of view. Regards,

I only asked because I have a friend who really wanted to buy in the Mayfair and open a small salon in the retail area, but it was just too expensive for her to swing. She's renting space elsewhere.

Sorry John Doe, but you're dead wrong; trust me as I had driven trucks/deliveries for many years. They want you think it works without a hitch, but that's all a part of the Sell.
I just don't see WalMart coming in as the majority of the people will not back it, esp. on Victoria Ave.
Don't you feel it's hypocritical on your part, John, to buy not only your item there, but buy other items as well ? It seemed by your posts, you are all about keeping the money here in Ventura.
Just asking....

My point about traffic is that adding lanes will help allevieate the problem.
Adding turn lanes will NOT create more traffic.
What is sad is that with today's news about Wal*Mart coming into the existing building is that the existing parking lot will remain the same. If the city leaders had any brains they would have Wal*Mart tear down the building so that increased parking could be created.

We had an issue with the Star blogs overnight and I had to rebuild recent comments from backup. If yours is missing or out of order here, my apologies.

My Post of of 1:10 PM was actually after & in response to John Doe's; just a point of reference.
Thanks for taking care of it.

Marie, I was just reading the paper this morning about the budget problems in Ventura. So far it looks like the public employee unions aren't serious about wanting to be part of the solution (as I predicted). So far all we have on the table are closing VACANT positions, and early retirement offers that actually BOOST retirement benefits as an incentive to retire. I'm still waiting for real concessions.

Also note how police and fire are making their "cuts" in vacation pay and deferred pay or benefit increases. A deferral is not a cut, as they are not really giving anything up, only postponing when they receive it. Here the city gave firefighters a 50% increase in their pension benefits and the best they can offer in return during a budget crisis is to defer it for one year? Not good enough.

I also love how the unions are offering to work fewer hours instead of lowering wages. Again, where is the cut? Of course the president of the SEIU is more interested in pursuing options that include their "offer to help increase revenue".

Let me give you my predictions for your city, that way we can track whether I am right or I am wrong:

1. The federal bailout will not offer any long term help
2. The 1/2 cent sales tax proposal will not pass
3. Property tax revenue will continue to plummet due to reassessments. (BTW, current assessments are based on 1/1/2008 valuations, which means they are headed dramatically lower next year and beyond).
4. The economy will continue to worsen in 2009, leading to even lower tax revenues than currently projected (statewide unemployment just hit 10.1%).
5. Public employee pension costs will explode because of losses in the stock market, consuming much larger portions of the city budget than anticipated.
6. The current $12 million deficit projection is too low, the actual deficit will be much higher and will continue to grow substantially in the coming years.

Your city is headed for a fiscal meltdown, so the city leaders better start cutting quick. They need to get serious about these cuts and they need to find ways of shoring up revenues without general tax increases. You may not believe me now, but time will tell if what I say comes to pass.

Based on all of the above, maybe your city should also get a little more business friendly since they certainly won't be able to tax their way to prosperity.

Why thank you for the apocalyptic vision, Bubba. It's just what I needed to hear after helping our educational foundation raise more than $50,000 last night to help them plug a few holes in the Ventura Unified School District's own $10 million budget gap over the next few years. We raised more than $100,000 altogether in the last year.

Will you and your Four Horsemen also ride over to your neck of the woods and spread gloom and doom throughout Simi Valley? Then ride up to Santa Barbara, too, and tell them what to do with their $9 million gap.

We are cutting as fast as our little scissors can cut, Bubba. Our Budgeting for Outcomes teams have been busy and will hand in their work very soon. $12 million in cuts for the 2-year plan. It will be approved by our Council in April.

The firefighters will not accept their pension boost until the economy is better, from what I have heard. Union negotiations are continuing. You know that's tough.

Our Council is being very cautious before deciding what to do with these midyear cuts. I think it's wise to consider the list of proposals handed to them at the last meeting by our rank and file.

In the mean time, I have been VERY busy working to figure out a way to fund some of our city's cultural activities privately after they get whacked. And pay privately for the development of Grant Park. So, you see, Bubba, some of us are working to get the money in other ways. If the voters here decide they want to be taxed, that is their decision. It is Democracy. I believe it is irresponsible to not at least ask what they want to do.

The fact is our citizens are not particularly business friendly when it comes to development. We have two pretty clear anti-development measures on the ballot this fall and have passed two other ones recently. There have been others. This town has a long history of this. Through citizen action, we lost a chance at getting a university here, too.

But, through all this, Standard & Poor's just upped our city's credit rating. We are now rated higher than Oxnard, which just passed a sales tax measure.

I think we'll get through this OK. I trust Venturans. We're a good bunch of folks.

Aww Marie, you know better than I, it's just Bubba being Bubba. For the few months I have been here, I see a man from another city, coming here to Post, & the majority of what I have seen from him is negative; he's just a downer - that's who he is.

Bubba, how about your city ? Do you post in a city Blog there ? Why do you come here to rag on our city ?

Seems you & aww shucks just don't like law enforcement & firefighters; technically, it's not a cut for them, but if they were expecting it, then in essence, it is. Again, we are diametrically on different sides of the fence when it comes to these hard working, life saving employees & why you are so down on them is beyond me & am sure most others in here.

And according to your prognostications, we may as well fold up our collective tents & move to, well, your city ?! What an attitude Bubba!

As far as the SEIU(of whom represented me) & other unions go, less hours means less wages - what don't you get about that ?! Prior to working at the County, I was represented by another union & we had volunteer furloughs & as I recall, I did not make as much money when I did work less hours; I considred that a cut.

Sadly, I agree the economy will be awhile getting back on track, what with the Neo Cons, the president of the US lying to the American People about WMD's, & his own Admin's practices that have us all seeing red(anger AND the accounting term)!

But cheer up Bubba, when Ventura slides into the financial sea, as you claim, we'll all be over to your city & live in cardboard boxes on your streets, beg at your grocery stores, get emergency care at your hospitals, & yes, even pray in your churches & synagogues; so batten down your hatches, bar your doors, lock away your daughters, as we're already packing....

I'm just trying to give you the truth about what is coming. You may choose to put your head into the sand and pretend that all of this will magically go away, but that is simply not the case. It's not that I wish for these things to happen, quite the contrary. But I have also spoken out for years against fiscal irresponsibility. The upcoming fiscal meltdown is not much different than the real estate meltdown. At first everybody was optimistic and spending money like there was no tomorrow, then when things started to slow they assured us that everything was still OK, then they said that the market would be in for a soft landing, then they said that the sharp downturn would be brief and quickly stabilize. Meanwhile, everything keeps getting worse than anybody ever imagined.

The bottom line is that we have been living in a bubble economy, first with the dot com bubble, then the real estate bubble. Government expanded, added new programs, and handed out lucrative pay raises and benefit increases to unions, all based on bubble revenues. Now we have a full decade of paper wealth that has evaporated, yet the size of government is still based on the bubble. I've been telling you over and over again that the government cannot afford to pay six figure salaries and 90% pensions to public employees because the money simply doesn't exist. You might call that pessimistic, but I call it the truth.

What has happened to the homeowners who over extended themselves, taking out loans that they could not afford to pay back? Now we look back and say, how could these people be so stupid? Yet our government has been doing the same, spending more money than it had during the good years, and now during the lean years they have already maxed out the credit card.

I've also been just as critical of my own city, as I believe that most cities will fall on hard times, and many will go bankrupt. But I have spoken out against Ventura because they are still handing out massive pension increases even after it is obvious to everyone that the bubble has burst. Your city has been hostile to business and overly generous to organized labor, and you are soon going to pay the price for your lack for fiscal discipline. Unless they make serious cuts now your city will be insolvent in a few years.

BTW, the next fiscal nightmare for your school district will be the pension and healthcare timebombs. The exploding costs for these guaranteed benefits will cost your local district millions, and there will be no way to close the budget gap without a combination of drastic cuts or large tax increases. You are fooling yourselves if you think that the stock market and real estate market will magically recover since the former valuations were based on bubbles. Property tax revenues will continue sharp declines, pension and healthcare costs will rise dramatically, and there will be no way to make up the difference during the worst economic downturn since the great depression.

I'm telling you the truth. Your reaction is no different that those who thought the real estate bubble would last forever and laughed at anybody who said otherwise. But time will tell who is right and who is wrong. I'm going on record with my predictions. Let's keep discussing this topic to see who is more accurate.

Sorry, Bubba, just not in the mood to be Negative Nelly today. Some days the Land of Denial is quite pleasant.

We will likely have to go to a two-tier system for new hires in the future. Hate to say it, but we will need to do it. What a can of worms that will be.

I AM seeing a spirit of cooperation here and that is always a good sign.

But I do disagree that we've been overly generous to organized labor. The fact is our pay is behind every other comparable city in the area.

Suggest you all might wish to review an article entitled "The Next Catastrophe" concerning the diminution of "defined benefit" funds for gev't employees such as CalPERS at Reason.com.

Here is a link to the article cited by Mr. Stewart. It is worth a read. I've shared the same concerns in the past about pension fund activism and social investing. The politicizing of the management of our large public employee pension funds has led to destructive decisions that have destroyed wealth, and will result in a large burden on taxpayers who will have to pay billions of dollars to cover investment losses and lost opportunity costs. It is effectively gambling with pension fund assets, with all of the risk being borne by taxpayers.

Another contributor has been the steady increase in promised benefits to public employee during the boom years, with the failure of governments to adequately fund those promises. Like the housing market, the return on investment assumptions were overly optimistic. During the dot com bubble many state and local governments increased benefits while simultaneously cutting contributions when pension funds became super-funded. The assumption was that the increased benefits would be covered by high stock market returns. Many governments stopped contributing to their pension funds during those years because investment returns were so strong. But would be like insurance companies increasing earthquake coverage while slashing premiums just because there hasn't been a major quake in 15 years.

Now we have the perfect storm of huge investment losses, a weak economy, and aging baby boomers heading toward retirement. Meanwhile, 12 years investment returns have been wiped out in just the past year. Which means that all that underfunding and promised benefits were based on paper profits that just vaporized. Now comes the bill.

Marie, you may believe that your city has not been overly generous to organized labor, but the fact is that your city leaders have been making commitments with money that doesn't exist. A great example is the recent 50% increase in pension benefits to firefighters during a fiscal crisis and economic downturn. The justification for this decision was based on comparisons with the compensation being offered by other cities, all of whom have been jacking up pay and benefits dramatically for the past decade. But like the housing bubble, if you blindly follow the pack you are headed toward financial disaster. You may choose to ignore reality, but it doesn't make it any less real. False optimism will only make things worse because it will result in putting off painful decision that are necessary in the short term.

I'm predicting right now that your city's finances will continue to deteriorate, and that the deficits you face today are nothing compared to what you will be facing in the next couple of years. Even if you pass the local 1/2 cent sales tax it won't be nearly enough to stop the bleeding. Sorry if that is being a "Negative Nelly", but if you really care about your city you would share in my concern.

I definitely don't think it's a bad thing to prepare for the worst and to be knowledgeable about looking for potential risks on the horizon as Bubba is doing.

A lot of decisions appear to get made for short term benefit, but have longer term consequences.

We have a state budget passed in the short term, but there are consequences coming down the road we are ignoring such as the continuing decline in revenue due to joblessness and business contraction.

Being forward thinking isn't easy, but a lot of times the impending disasters have signs leader's don't see or ignore because it is unrelated to being re-elected in the short term. (Check the link)

There has been a lot of discussion about the appropriate size of government or getting government to work. My big issue that I'd personally like to see leaders address is appropriately evaluating the available evidence and mitigating tomorrow's risks to the public.

There are a lot of signs of pension investment losses up ahead. Should we curse people who bring it up as being negative?

There are a lot of signs we are in for a longer term economic downturn, property value declines and business contraction that will blow a hole in budget revenue estimates. Is it negative to talk about it?

I think the more important question is what are we doing today to prepare for these impending challenges?

Bubba, you need to get over the pension benefit increase to firefighters. They've given it back for the foreseeable future. It's a done deal. Not on the table any more. And our city remains behind our peer cities in compensation. They are negotiating in good faith a 5 percent reduction in take-home pay or equivalent benefits with all employees.

I posted above what needs to be done eventually about benefits.

But blaming unions for the entirety of the fiscal crisis is absurd. We all know that decisions and lack of regulatory oversight at the federal level contributed just as much to this meltdown and nobody can predict the future with absolute clarity.