WHAT WILL Ventura County be like in the year 2035 with an estimated 200,000 more people and how can we start planning for it today?
That is the task participants were charged with last week at the first of Compact for a Sustainable Ventura County's citizen workshops. The Compact is a broad partnership of the 10 cities, the county and various agencies, along with the Southern California Association of Governments, which funded the exercise.
The workshop was led by Ted Knowlton of the Planning Center who ran through a series of questions for the group before we began a mapping exercise. The consensus? Most of us felt with that with 200,000 more people, the quality of our lives would likely suffer.
According to baseline projections for 2035 on the group's website, the hours lost to traffic congestion will increase by 166 percent and carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles will go up 129 percent. We'll need almost $1 billion in new local infrastructure projects to handle the population.
And so we began in small groups to tackle the task of what urban planners should do to make life in the future comfortable for residents.
With a map of the county spread out before us which tracked where development and protected open space lies, we were given paper tokens for future housing and commercial areas, along with colored tapes for transit, freeways and hiking trails.
OUR GROUP decided to invest in more mass transit opportunities with town centers situated near transit stations. These areas would encompass living, shopping and high-wage centers in one spot. To do this we had to trade in most of our single-family home tokens, a decision that didn't sit well with everyone in the group. We didn't add major highways, but added connector roads instead to alleviate congestion on major thoroughfares and freeways.
The exercise was a bit like playing Monopoly and just like that drawn-out game, we didn't quite get finished before it was our time to present.
Our Ventura workshop was just one of several scheduled throughout the county last week and next. Our input will be compiled and will help shape future planning decisions. It was a good learning experience for everyone.
What is apparent is that our single-car commuter lifestyle is not sustainable. New federal and state laws will also change the way we plan. And the sooner we change our existing mindset the better.
Marie, where did you get your statistics that indicate we have to have 200,000 more residents in Ventura by 2035?? Were these by chance compiled during the Real Estate boom and before the economic recession in late 2008? If so, they are leading you to make invalid conclusions. The housing downturn and economic downturn, and resulting loss of jobs, has led to much less immigration and constrained population growth. I question your data models! Instead of doing all this work based on incorrect data, why not concentrate on how NOT to have that kind of growth? Water is perhaps not even available for such growth. You seem to just accept ruination of our town without trying to prevent that obscene growth in a city of our limited size. Seems VCOOL and groups like that have an agenda where they want such growth because they can make themselves "feel better" by pushing for big increases in "affordable housing"! It appears that is the pipe dream they want to see realized. Be green by NOT growing that much instead of planning to accept it like automotons without any creative ideas to head off that sad fate!
Uh Rob.
This is a forecast provided for the entire county by the Southern California Association of Governments. I left you the link above. You can find more on the SCAG website.
You're up late.
Kelley, make him go to bed! :-)
I went through a similar exercise, the Monopolization of Ventura, last time. I had no idea what to do, so I jumped in on the game to see what I would learn. I learned what is important to me in this city and it was not a surprise to me. It was NOT affordable housing, yet housing that PEOPLE can AFFORD to live in! Where was it included in this process? No icons…..Next, I looked for the icons for the childcare businesses. There were no cut out icons for childcare! Will the people in 2035 have any children! As parents ride the much improved mass transit to and fro, where will the preschoolers spend their day? I was told by the facilitors of this game that there is no point system for childcare, I can go ahead and use the small icons yet my team would get no points for it, like I otherwise would for a multi-use/storefront/living-space/high-rise-condo/hotel-space, which allowed me hundreds of points. My competitive spirit thought about jumping in at that time, however, I decided it was not worth it. I planted several childcare icons on the board, I could feel the soft choir of our future children singing above the Crown Plaza!
One woman arrived late to the room and asked, "What the heck is this? What is going on in here?" I answered, "Oh, you know. We are doing this so in 2030 the complainers will be silenced........ because we can tell them that back in 2007, we had a community Monopoly Game and "This Plan" is what we came up with. Too bad you weren't there. See what happens when you do not participate." This woman and her husband tried to join in on this imaginary process and observed the room for at least 30 minutes. They could take it no more and left shaking their heads.
I proceeded to have fun, my favorite past time. WHERE IS THE DETOX FACILITY! No chips on that one either. I want fiberglass cubicles for our homeless people with mental illness and addictions, since obviously by 2035,the number of people who started out in their teens or 20's........just having a partying ball.........end up with an "ism" or a "ness" they knew nothing about at the time.....this cost us plenty in the way of immense hospital/emergency room costs and a diminished quality of life for us all. We create what we envision and the Southern California Association of Governments is shooting the arrow then moving the target to fit their forecast, a technique I've used often to accomplish success.
I wonder where the archives of these recent Monopoly games are kept. I want to check on my comments about childcare, shelters and detox facilities. I hope my input lasts until 2035; I will be 80 years old by then. Will I still be heard? Will we have planned for our most cherished citizens? In my vision they are the ones with "no Points". I call them the "points of the heart" people. Rob, let's create our own vision board game and ask our SC Association of Gov's. to archive our results in the same vault! Surely our conscious perceptions matter as well. And next time, Rob, I will include the group I will proudly join in the future….Senior Care!
Somewhere out there, between the perceptions of right and wrong..........there is a field.........I'll meet you there. Bting your icons!
Marie, I did read those links in your article. As I expected, the "Compact" and others are from 2007 and early 2008. Well before the housing and economic collapse. I just read an article that came out yesterday talking about how the "Sunshine States" of Florida and California are experiencing an exodus of population. I am sure that will be disappointing to all these people who are anxious to have rampant new development so they can try to implement their "Monopoly game" visions in Ventura. Without all that new development, they don't get to build their Utopia here, where anyone can afford to live here. Kind of like that VCOOL lady who bounced into Ventura from other States, and likely can't afford to buy here, so is now pushing "affordable housing" creation, under the guise of "being green", so she can afford to remain here. Either that or these type of groups are people who can't be content improving what we have....they need a giant expansion of Ventura to implement their "social equality" concepts. I saw in the links above, frequent mention of comments like how their plans will "enhance social equity". "Equity" in housing was one of their main goals.
This sounds more like a grandiose social experiment to me, rather than a true plan to handle development. Why don't these people look at Lancaster, California, as an example of such failed "social experimentation" gone awry? Congestion, "affordable housing" developments (they even did enticements to get inner-city families to move out there). Lancaster went from a peaceful, relatively quiet town (like Ventura still is) to a crime-ridden, gang-infested, dangerous place to live, with all property values deflated. And, unlike VCCOOL out-of-state newbies telling us how to now live here, I used to go to Lancaster in the 1960s, know many people currently there, and have seen first-hand such failed "socio-economic housing pipedreams" as proposed in this Ventura "Compact".
If I spent 30 years working hard, trying to invest properly so I could finally live in Ventura, why do others get a subsidized handout where they get to move here and get cheap housing? Of course, it is in the name of "equity"?? Hey, Marie, tell that group pushing all this "planned future" for Ventura, that after they ruin things here, I would like subsidized housing so I can move into Pacific Palisades or Bel Air!! I say get the social equality experimentation out of these futuristic Ventura plans, and let the Real Estate market naturally set prices and housing needs!
I was considering voting "Yes" on Measure A, but after reading the things these futurists want for Ventura, I am going to vote "No", so they don't have any extra money to push their social equality agenda and "affordable housing" tracts on us. I will vote "Yes" on Measure B to try and thwart their rampant high-density development ideas, and will vote for candidates like Camille Harris who want "responsible development" based on our sense of place, rather than some idealistic, guilt-ridden dreamers like your article mentions. If the local Democrat party groups support this line of thinking your article touts, then I will change parties and vote against all of them whenever they run!
The Compact for a Sustainable Ventura County is a broad partnership of the 10 cities and Ventura County, The Ventura Council of Governments, Ventura County Transportation Commission, the Ventura County Civic Alliance, Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, and the Southern California Association of Governments.
The data came directly from the SCAG website and 2008 is as fresh as it gets with data like this.
You are completely misunderstanding the intent. Population growth is inevitable here unless you want to tell people to quit having babies.
So this is about planning wisely for natural population expansion, not rampant growth for growth's sake.
VCCOOL is a great group and works on global warming and transportation issues. They have nothing to do with Measure A or city planning issues.
The Compact exercise was focused on COUNTYWIDE issues.
Marie, you seriously think Ventura's population is going to triple from births in 25 years?? If so, you are drinking too much VCOOL-AID! They want massive "affordable housing" and "housing equity" sponsored growth. It is clearly evident in what they both say! Compact also wants that so those types can feel they are helping "better society". Leave the social engineering out of growth and let Real Estate market naturally evolve. If VCOOL and SCAG want to live in subsidized housing areas, let them go live in Lancaster for awhile. They will change their tune fast! I think most Venturans are too smart to buy into these group's BS, so they will never see their "dream society" realized. Quit trying to force the rest of us to live as YOU see fit! You will shortly have all sorts of "affordable housing" near you with that recently approved big East Ventura development, which our Mayor even opposed. Please write a column AFTER you see how that works out, and you get first-hand experience with the results! I have seen many such debacles. By then, the VCOOL'ers will have moved up the coast somewhere else to try to force their agenda on others who may initially buy into their "green" recommendations....
Marie, just to clarify...my point was SCAG and VCCOOL both accept that a huge increase in population is "inevitable" in Ventura, and that we should all just accept that. Your article above agrees and says our current lifestyle here is "not sustainable". Unlike these groups, I don't want to accept such a future, while we still have time to prevent that. I am upset with all these groups, and their supporters, because they will implement these plans and steer a course for a self-fullfilling prophecy.
I will now be vigilant to vote out incumbent Council members, and anyone else, who will not work to save our current lifestyle in Ventura. It is also disturbing that they want this growth combined with "social equity" and a constant supply of "affordable housing". I do not think birth rates (whether City, State or National) will force our population to triple here in 20-25 years, unless we DO build large "affordable housing" tracts to attract more people. Like in "Field of Dreams", if you build it, they will come! My view is, if we don't build it, they will not come!
That is why I tied in Measure A. While I support some of the items it will provide funds for, the overall City itself is more important to me. One way to try and prevent this doomsday, over-crowded high-density future for Ventura, is to restrict funds where possible. The State is broke and will not have extra money for ages. The City (and County) are also facing severe financial challenges. By voting Measure A down, the City will hopefully be too financially limited to actually implement their grandiose development plans that will make our current lifestyle "unsustainable".
I am upset with the local Democratic Party because I attended one of their meetings and saw VCCOOL's bleak future being embraced. The VCCOOL rep also went out of her way to try to overturn Demo endorsement of Measure B. The VCCOOL lady does not want any measures that will help counteract high, dense development, which their whole mantra is based on. I was repulsed by the defeatist outlook I saw there and will therefore end my lifetime Democrat Pary affiliation and turn Independent. I will now vote only for people who actually have ideas and solutions to prevent the Ventura future your article above says is "inevitable". The more I see of our City politics, the more I come to understand why groups like VCORD were founded. They at least are trying to prevent the bleak City future you, VCCOOL and SCAG are promoting!
May not mean much since people cast their votes for any number of rationales, but Measure A will not provide "extra money to push their social equality agenda and 'affordable housing' tracts on us" as Rob worries. The actual spending plan is online at:
http://www.cityofventura.net/measurea#plan
and in your voter guide.
Rick Cole
Rick, you misunderstood my point. Measure A will relieve some regular budget pressure on the City by helping cover those items specified in its spending plan. I am going to encourage everyone I know to not do anything to give the City any funds, no matter what they target, until we get leaders that want to work to maintain our current lifestyle, rather than eliminate it with excessive development based on a "social equity" agenda. I am also in favor of not having such a high paid City Planner who feels obligated to change Ventura. Regular City Planning staff can fill your job, since most of us do not support massive changes to our lifestyle. Then, divide your $250K salary among the City Council members. They should be paid more than $600 per month.
Again, Rob, this is a countywide assessment and you are stuck on Ventura.
Do you know about AB 375 and its impacts on planning statewide? Look it up. How about the countywide SOAR initiative? Both these voter-approved measures work against your vision of sprawl.
I don't want sprawl, just modest development in our exisiting areas, without high rises that block our views. Financial constraints will hopefully limit some of this future development. No wonder houses are selling so fast in my Zip Code...it is already built out. Seems some people are already trying to move away from where all that "affordable, equitable housing" is coming. Out near you, Marie! I would not want to be living anywhere with buildable space around me right now. I know about AB375 and make an effort to drive less. However, you seem to accept we have to endlessly develop here. I am actually more "green" as I am in favor of not building here anymore, just do height-restricted infill and do not cause our population here to explode. I would recommend you buy a "Road bike", Marie. It will enable you to easily ride around all those "subsidized housing" areas they are putting in out near you. Will be interesting to see how you view this after you experience the effects first hand. But, from what you write in your article above, it seems you have already "rolled over" and willingly gave up maintaining your current quality of life.
Ventura City Manager Rick Cole wants us to look at the 'actual spending plan' on line.
Nowhere in the wording of Measure A does it LEGALLY BIND the city to this plan.
That means that if the voters are gullible enough to give the city even more money to mis-manange, then once it starts rolling in the city can use it any way they want to. Including providing for "extra money to push their social equality agenda and 'affordable housing' tracts on us"
Marie says that the SOAR initiative works against sprawl. That only works if the farm land that the measure was voted on to protect is actually zoned as farmland. It apparently is NOT going to stop a massive development on the east end (in a large 'farm')
Exactly, JD, the City uses popular "spending plan" items to get the public to vote for the Measure A tax increase. Then they can be creative and decide they need to use the revenue for more "pressing needs", like their coveted development projects. I did want to qualify that I am not against ALL incumbent City Council members up for re-election. Jim Monahan has my support as he seems to genuinely care about our community and the people who live here NOW. He supports second unit "Grandfathering", which can help satisfy homeless/affordable housing needs (like Ojai does). He also supports Measure B, to protect our views from over-development. So, let's re-elect Mr. Monahan, get new blood like Camille Harris, and Brian Lee Rencher on the Council. Then, next election, get rid of those incumbents who come up for re-election. Perhaps then, we can get the Council votes needed to remove Rick Cole and his "new urbanist" development ideas. I am hopeful there is still time to save Ventura! I also have heard of possible legislative efforts, at State level, to exempt geographically constrained cities, like Ventura, from some of these futurist development requirements. The water demands alone may ultimately prevent excessive development here. Even AB375 is based on outdated population models, so will need revisions. So, I am energized as I think when the public "wakes up" to what your monopoly game types (mentioned above) are planning for them, serious "push back" will mount against them!
Hey Rob,
as a long-time Ventura resident, let me tell you how it works around here. Most of us are aware the City Council is predominantly owned by either Developers or liberal socialist types. When they push the City residents too far, we will vote them out. Some incumbents should be swept out this year, although it is a minimally interested electorate this 'go-round. That may spare some...but we will get them out eventually. Everyone I know is angry like you are.
Just so you know, Lakin is a far-left liberal. There is not a left-wing cause in town she does not support. Monahan is a good soul, so gets reelected each time. The others only get reelected when no one cares. In this current climate, CHANGE will be made if people make the effort to vote. Otherwise you must wait until next goround to get the bums out.
Mike Gibson is a Walmart Republican. That's not the change Ventura is looking for.
Marie Lakin is a hero to the community. She isn’t paid with money. She is paid with good schools, safe neighborhoods, and living in a great city. Whatever money she is receiving now can never repay her for her lifetime of contributions.
If Marie Lakin is endorsing someone it tells me they are a quality candidate and they put the city of Ventura first.
Some of these comments - especially Rob's smack of NIMBYish at its worst. Its really frightening to think you would deny all affordable housing to your communities. I've got my slice of heaven you say and now everyone else can go away. Is this Camille Harrris and Jim Monahans vision? You say you support them. Rencher? We all know Camille is the NIMBY queen. Not buying what she's selling.
I am not a "NIMBY" at all, Caroline. All I want is a level playing field. Let the free market set prices and we all pay the same, accordingly. I would have liked a subsidized handout to live here, but I guess I don't qualify because I had to actually work and save 30 years to get here. I also did not qualify for any tax-payer subsidized mortgage bailout help. I made the mistake of actually doing the math in advance, paying my bills and knowing how to live within my means!
Yes, I do support Monahan, Rencher and Harris. They seem to want responsible growth, not "affordable housing" barrios. They also seem to want to preserve our hill and ocean views, rather than block them out with high rise, low income housing. I also like their call for increased fiscal discipline by the Council. I bet you are a NIMBY, Caroline! Bet you will not be living in any "affordable housing" developments you support. You will be the first to call the Police to complain about the increased crime. Did you read about the stabbing at the Pier last night? Did you read the comments below the Star article about that "affordable housing" development the Council just approved? If not, check it out. There are MANY of us that just want every person treated equally. No government handouts to subsidize people. If I could not afford to live here, I would live where I could afford to buy. Rather simple, actually.
Maybe you could take your "affordable housing" vision to Pacific Palisades and get me subsidized housing there, Caroline?? I can't afford to live there, nor in Santa Barbara. But I would like to. How do I get this subsidized help??
I am just shocked that this attitude exists now especially in this economy. How selfish.
Caroline, people with your social driven "guilt" are the ones that pushed for all that housing to be given to people who could not afford it during the housing boom. We know how that turned out! It caused housing prices to collapse and contributed to our recent economic collapse. Now, you people come out of the woodwork again and start pushing the same flawed agenda. Calling people "selfish" who just ask for a level playing field sounds like something Hugo Chavez would be saying in Venezuela. You do not feel sorry for any of us that lost our investments due to such misguided social agendas, do you?? Yeah, you probably think we were being "selfish" for even having some modest investments, since the low income people didn't. Extremists like you are why I am leaving the Democratic Party. It is a party hijacked by social extremists. When Centrists like myself are being driven away by your socialist agenda, you will see California finally turn into a "Red State". People like you are making Republicans sound like a better alternative!
Hey Caroline, why don't you check out the "Comments" in this recent Star article about "affordable housing". There a MANY of us who do not want your vision:
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2009/sep/29/ventura-council-oks-bonds-for-affordable-housing/
I would not use the Star comments section as any standard to hold myself to. Disgraceful. Bet you don't use your own name here and they don't either. Sad world we live in.
Here are the Myths and Facts on Measure B
https://vcord.org/B_MYTHS_DISPELLED.html