NOTE: I first wrote this blog entry back in March of 2008 and my opinion has not changed. I have, however, gotten to know some of the folks involved with this measure. I think they are well intentioned, but have a measure which has some clear problems, including the overly restrictive 26-foot moratorium, which they themselves have admitted was a mistake.
I also wrote an exhaustive entry back in February on the good work the already-established View Protection Task Force has accomplished toward protecting our views.
In general, I am not a big fan of the ballot initiative process. On the state level, it has been hijacked by special interests who have tied up a good portion of the state's general fund with costly mandates which are difficult to later overturn. These measures have contributed mightily to our state's budget difficulties.
HERE IS A PORTION of my March 2008 entry on what is now known as Ventura's Measure B:
Here in a nutshell is what you'll be voting on: The establishment of a View Resources Board made up of people appointed for the most part by a special interest group, the Ventura Citizens' Organization for Responsible Development (VCORD). This group would then draft restrictions on building heights which would affect approximately 93 percent of the properties in the city. VCORD was originally set up as a watchdog group to keep buildings from springing up which block views of the hills from the bungalow homes in Midtown.
I called City Attorney Ariel Calonne and asked him to clarify the legalities of the measure. Letting the board of VCORD, a 501 (c)(4) political organization, decide who appoints the View Resources Board violates the City Charter, he said.
"I'm not for or against it," Calonne said of the measure. "I've given an opinion that a lot of it is illegal."
It's like letting the ACLU appoint judges, or letting the AFL-CIO appoint the National Labor Relations Board or ... well, you get the picture.
AND THERE'S MORE. If the initiative passes in 2009, a moratorium restricting building heights to just 26 feet will be put in place for up to 2 years until this board is appointed and drafts a view protection ordinance, with the contents still to be determined.
The ordinance is intended as a General Plan amendment, yet the process completely bypasses legally required review by the Planning Commission. Whatever the board comes up with will eventually be voted on by the City Council. If they vote it down, the measure will go to the voters in a far-off municipal election. If that fails, then what?
To their credit, VCORD has exempted a few business areas such as Downtown, Victoria Ave., and the hospital zone.
If you're looking at your property as an investment, be aware that potential buyers may be casting a wary eye your way. If the measure passes, the city's already established guidelines will then be in limbo and it could be a significant time before you will know what can be built there.
The City Council and a majority of the citizens support protecting public views and the quality of life in Ventura. But this is not the way to do it.
The city attorney's analysis of this measure can be viewed here: Download file
The Community Development Director's analysis of the measure can be found here: Download file
There is a body of work which discusses the contextual nature of how buildings within the city relate to each other, which was prepared by one or more members of the DRC/Planning bodies. A rigid height restriction of 26' is an unnecessary straight jacket and possibly unconstitutional. Comment: The building in your picture happens to be owned by the owner of the house behind it.
Marie, that building you keep showing a picture of looks a little bit too high for the surrounding area. It would blend in with its surroundings better if it were 1.5 feet shorter! I am voting "Yes" on Measure B and here are the reasons why:
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2009/oct/04/protects-citys-priceless-views-promotes-business/
Marie, that building you keep showing a picture of looks a little bit too high for the surrounding area. It would blend in with its surroundings better if it were 1.5 feet shorter! I am voting "Yes" on Measure B and here are the reasons why:
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2009/oct/04/protects-citys-priceless-views-promotes-business/
I'm voting a BIG FAT NO and here's why-
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2009/oct/04/unnecessary-and-usurps-democratic-process/
One of the many problems with Measure B is that it would let a special interest group that no one elected appoint 20 of 23 people to an impossibly large view resource board to write legislation that the city council must accept without change or submit the to voters for approval.
As Marie Lakin pointed out, ballot initiatives have not been good for the state, and this one is particularly bad for Ventura.
What's more, the two-year moratorium is laughable. First, there will be a lawsuit, which will take who knows how long. Second, if the view resource board finishes its work within one year, which is doubtful, we'll all have to pay for a special election. Third, if it doesn't get on the ballot until 2011, the views that will enjoy the most protection are the empty lots surrounded by rusty chain-link fences and littered with garbage.
It's utter nonsense. Vote no on Measure B.
We will pay for the lawsuit too. Taxpayer $$$ to defend it if it's passed.
This building did two positive things for this part of the community and one negative: 1. It covered up a hideously ugly building next to it. 2. It generated a "presence" for that intersection and block which was not there before. 3. It caused the demise of a giant Norfolk Pine which angled out over the side street half way up the hill. That tree went becaues the owner wanted it gone. He hired a B.S. landscape architect to write a paper saying it was a danger. Those trees have very deep roots and it should still be there. It was all about where that tree was on the middle of the sidewalk.
One notes the Community Devel. Dir., Nelson Hernandez, who drafted the above comments, is long gone after a very short term in that office.
Marie,
The recession has made me more receptive to removing some restrictions on building. Has it impacted your views towards new projects?
With high levels of unemployment I favor moving the pendulum in favor of getting people back to work. Arguing over a foot here or there is foolish if it ends up stopping a project.
Compromising our views using the recession as an excuse is just a greedy developer driven agenda smokescreen! People will not buy that nonsense, and will overwhelmingly Vote "Yes" on Measure B! Once our special views are lost, they will never come back. Local development will not be adversely impacted by building to the proper scale, based on neighborhood input, which Measure B will provide. Council incumbents do not want Citizen input that will moderate their grand personal schemes for Ventura! Amazing how Citizen input scares them so! Protecting our unique Ventura views helps the local economy with tourism dollars and maintains property values by saving our unique quality of life. Take a look at Oxnard/Culver City/Lancaster/Folsom/Elk Grove/Santa Clarita, etc. etc. for places where developers used scare tactics to "build and run". The poor residents there now live in congested cities with no sense-of-place! Vote "Yes" on B to keep Ventura the special place it is! The Fulton/Cole/Council incumbent crowd is running scared....
Rob,
I would accept your logic if your proposal would only cause developers to modify their proposals. But what if it causes them to think a new project is worth it? Assure me that won't happen and I can be persuaded.
Before you dismiss my concern as a smokescreen I would guess that you have a job. I do too but I am worried about our massive unemployment rate.
Oh good grief Rob. Most of the people I know aren't supporting this measure and almost none of them have ties to developers. So quit using that line of attack.
I've said from Day One it is badly written. I stand by my opinion. It is not personal. I can like the people supporting it -- even admire their activism -- and still not like the measure.
As I wrote above, I don't like ballot measures in general. Bad laws are made that way. I support very few.
Your hyperbole is showing...
Brian, I am in favor of measures to jumpstart high-wage job generation. We've got a neat high-tech job incubator program going on in the building behind City Hall and it has some impressive new tenants. I'm going to blog on it soon.
We both certainly do support change in Ventura, and responsible growth. We do like Monahan on the Council though, he is very wise and he also supports Measure B. So, we are objective, and feel Camille Harris would be a breath of fresh air on the Council. Camille won our support because she is always out, listening to the citizens, unlike the incumbents like Summers/Brennan who are beholden to special interest agendas. We volunteer, so have no financial interest, like many YOU know, Marie! Just trying to maintain our quality of life here, so it is not ruined by greed or personal ego, as has happened in so many other cities in California.
As one who got an education on the DRC for 5 years, I might suggest that the view initiative is, though well-intended, guaranteed to have unintended consequences - much as the not-heard-from-lately Form-based Code would. Both concepts have a way of setting things in concrete; social engineering with one-height-fits-all; very high-minded in theory but problematic in the execution. The intentions are good; the implementation leaves much to be desired. I was in D.C. the other day and it is impressive how there is a built-in height restriction there which keeps the tradition of the city in context - nothing higher than the Capitol bldg. I suggest that the DRC and Planning are better suited to addressing this, given a set of agreed citizen guidelines.
If Monahan is supporting Measure B he doesn't have my vote.
We already know how you dislike any Citizen input, "Mr. Morehouse"! We boot out Summers/Brennan this time, then will be coming for you next election! Save our city and Vote "Yes" on B and for Monahan and Harris for City Council. Time to finally get rid of the incumbents who only answer to their special interest backers!
Marie, you are running Ed Summers campaign even while knowing he is part of the group that threatened to close Wright Library in the first place. It is well known that the library issue was set up solely to extract more tax money from residents. Same with the sand issue in Pierpont. We have data if you want.
You make excellent points, Wendy! If you get on the Council, please apply your fiscal common-sense on the remaining incumbents and counteract the Fulton/Cole personal agendas. I will be rooting for you! We need new blood on the Council desperately to maintain our quality of life in Ventura. I agree, "No" on the Measure A tax scheme!
Wendy Halderman is brilliant and hit the nail on the head! I can't wait to vote for someone I can trust but who also has her facts straight!
Hey Wendy, long time no post.
Ed's running his own campaign. I'm helping him and Mary Haffner and Measure A (a little bit.) I helped Christy Weir with both her campaigns, too. I also helped Hannah-Beth Jackson in all her races. I also worked on Ventura's school bond measure, Measure P6 and the first test of the county-wide SOAR initiative (the Brothers of St. Joseph in Ojai)
I also do volunteer work for the Ventura County Democratic Party. I'm sure there's something I forgot. If somebody asks for help I usually don't turn them down.
I'm a community activist. It's what I do. That's why the Star asked me to write this blog. I am out there and getting things done with many organizations and groups and people.
That being said, I'm still not writing about the council or the council race here or discussing it beyond what I just said. This is an issues-based blog. The measures are fair game, though, as I've already weighed in on them in the past.
Now back to your library issue: You are very wrong about that one. I sit on the Library Plan Advisory Task Force. It was very specifically presented to us that it was a decision by the County Library Commission and the reasons were spelled out very clearly and made sense. Ventura has three libraries, unlike other cities which just have one. The County Library System needed to cut something back. Wright, while having the highest circulation, did not have the capacity to store the collection of the EP Foster Library if it was shut down, nor did it have space for the computer stations.
In the past the City of Ventura has been able to supplement the county's funding in down years. Not this year. The city has a balanced budget but had to cut nearly $17 million in the last few years and next. The state is now taking more.
Measure A is the only way to keep the funding going at Wright until the lease issue is resolved or until we decide to build a new one somewhere. It's going to take some sorting out.
The Pierpont sand issues have been going on a long time, much longer than the current council (with the exception of Monahan)
I am hoping that will be resolved soon.
Rob,
The poster "Carl" above was not Councilmember Morehouse.
Marie, I know you do a lot of good work for the community and I appreciate the opportunity to post. But I see an awful lot of misstatements, blatant spin and partisan rhetoric here.
Ventura voters are smarter than that. They care about things much bigger and much more important than petty political posturing. People I talk to are tired of being jerked around by a government that uses them as pawns.
Measure A is NOT the only way to keep Wright open. But then, you thought the 911 fee was a good idea.
Aw, Wendy you shouldn't be so hard on yourself. You don't spin that badly. :-)
But seriously, if you don't choose to believe the information presented to the good folks volunteering to work on our Library Plan Task Force, then I realize there isn't much I can do to change your mind.
But I will clarify your spin on my stance on the 911 fee. I never agreed with how it was implemented. But I didn't have a problem paying it because I knew the money would go to restore our School Resource Officer Program. $1.49 a month just wasn't a big deal to me.
911 was implemented well for the city; they kept $1 million out of the deal. Do you really believe they didn't think this strategy through ahead of time? Employees continued to get their paychecks. Private citizens, however, took a large hit by way of lost time and money.
The community should be alarmed that three out of four incumbents were in favor of an illegal tax strategy which actually endangered public safety. Shame on others who back them.
Wow what intrigue you spin Ms. Haldreman. The devastation caused by my losing $1.49 a month was truly frightening I must say. I still haven't recovered. Hype it baby you need a boost now you don't have a prayer.
Believe it or not, Skip, the ramifications for the community were a lot bigger than just YOUR 1.49/month.
No hype here. I've maintained the same position for almost two years. Unlike the council, which has a bad case of oops-I-did-it-again.
What I think is you were losing the library and sand conspiracy theory arguments and switched to a red herring beef you thought you could win.
Oh yeah, just remembered I helped my daughter with her Associated Student Body race in middle school. Knew there was some campaign activity I forgot. :-}
Skip, if you have facts and sources please cite them. I have said nothing I can't back up, so feel free to call me if you need any clarification. I care about this community, and refuse to engage in shallow partisan bickering which diverts us from real issues and is detrimental to our collective prosperity. I hope you do the same.
If Ms. Halderman had anything to back up her claims of sinister intrigue she would've posted it by now. Pollitics as usual folks. No facts. Just accusations.