Crucial Issues

By Diane M. Underhill

Growth, Fiscally Responsible Spending, & City Empolyee Morale

1. GROWTH Growth rate - we are a built up City any growth now must be slow and careful or our quality of life will be diminished.

Does Soar = Higher Density? No. Some argue voters' passage of SOAR is an affirmation they want Ventura to be a high density city. I believe the voters passed Soar simply to protect open spaces and prevent overcrowding, and that this did not affect their desire that Ventura remain a predominantly low-density, slow-growth city. Some might use that tired developer's argument that whether we build homes for them or not, people will come and if these needs are ignored (the 9/26 LA Times Editorial Adhere to Housing Goals stated: "prices for existing homes would continue to rise until fewer and fewer people could afford them. Those who couldn't would survive however they could, by crowding several families into space designed for one or living illegally in garages, tool sheds or campgrounds. This is already happening in many parts of the county."

That last sentence invalidates the argument. If they are doing it now, here in this county, there is no reason to believe that in the future if we have higher-density (presumably lower-cost) housing, that they would not continue this living style. Open any Sunday Real Estate section, there are presently rooms, apartments, condos, houses, for rent, lease, or sale in every price range. There are HUD programs to help the very poor... This argument just doesn't work. We are a City of unique geographical topography, the borders are fairly distinct, if we adopt a policy of trying to house all comers, where do we stop? We can't possibly house everyone who has the desire to live in Ventura, no more than any major university could take and effectively teach every student who applied. Limits must be set for the good of all. Some people will have to be on Ventura's "waiting list" for housing. They can move here when a spot opens up through attrition or new housing is built under our current RGMP.

Our present RGMP has a good mix of housing densities. I noticed in the above quoted editorial, that Ventura didn't fall into the cities-that-were-lagging-behind-their-low-income-housing-goals category, nor did it make the list of cities-that-already-have-more-than-their-fair-share. This demonstrates Ventura's land use policies are balanced. There are already appropriate areas in the City, like the downtown area, that are zoned for higher density at 54 units per acre. We need to stay our course, we need to adhere to our present RGMP and stick to our current Comprehensive Plan policies of slow, careful growth. At an estimated 119,000 pop. in the year 2010, we will have done our part, while still not overwhelming our water resources or putting lives at risk by having more population density than our city' earthquake prone land should handle.

Which brings up the point, public services must increase with the population. We have the approximately the same number of sworn police officers today for a pop. of 102,000 as we did at a pop. of just 65,000. This bring us to the second crucial issue...

2. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY My platform states Back to Basics spending - by that I mean as long as our resources are limited, we need to prioritize our spending so that essential services are funded first, and other non-essential niceties are paid for only after these essential items have been fully funded. Government exists to provide public safety, as such, police and fire protection must be funded first. Safely maintained public streets and sidewalks are also a must. As a good mother would make sure her children have food and shelter before she buys toys, it is only after all the essential items have been addressed that the City should consider money for "fun" items.

We need to be fiscally responsible in maintaining our infrastructure, the city's streets, sidewalks, and trees set the tone for the City. Even with good ongoing private improvements, it is difficult to achieve a beautiful city when the largest features, the public thoroughfares, are neglected and in disrepair.

We need to stop the give away of public funds. We have an amateur City Council - they are out gunned making deals with multi-million dollar national chain corporations and are making bad deals with taxpayer money.

The City is spending money out of our CIP budget to build roads to access undeveloped land. In many cities, landowners who want these type of improvements (so they can subdivide and develop their properties) are required to pay for them out of their own funds. In Ventura our Council is repeatedly giving away our tax money and improvement incentives, for private gain.

Ventura is a built up City, land is now a precious commodity. Developers growth costs should take into consideration things like schools, roads, water and sewer infrastructure, added burden to water resources, traffic (and air quality) mitigation fees, costs of added public services, police, fire, road repair...We should not be giving any public money incentives to developers to develop our city--you don't have to pay someone to dance with the prettiest girl at the party.

Stop wasteful spending: The City has paid millions on consultants and studies that were unnecessary. A small example is the Nov. 1998 Demographic Survey that cost the taxpayers $18,000 for 400 random phone calls to learn citizens satisfaction level and shopping habits.

or

3. CITY EMPLOYEE MORALE We need to get staffing levels at City Hall, police and fire departments up to acceptable levels. At City Hall: There are presently unfilled positions at City Hall forcing city employees shoulder additional work and driving down morale. At Police: At a population of 65,000 we had 125 sworn officers at a pop. of 102,000 we have 122 to 127 sworn My point is with a increase in pop. of nearly 40K our police force has remained substantially unchanged. At Fire Dept: There is a Federal Law commonly known as "2 in 2 out" it states that a minimum of 4 firefighters per engine are needed to enter a burning building, Ventura's policy is 3 men per engine which means the men must wait for 2nd truck to arrive before entering to fight the fire. This eliminates the fastest most effective "quick attack" method of fire fighting possibly endangering more lives and property.(Also, a issue that has many seniors particularly concerned is the County's fairly recent shut down of our firefighter paramedic transport services - I'm told this service had documented faster response times than the current private provider, (when minutes could mean lives) at less cost to the public (flat fee as opposed to per service fee) and was , after the initial equipment payoff, operating at no cost to the City's General fund. We need to get this service back. We need to lobby to change the legislation at the state level so that the County cannot dictate our city's right to quality public services.)

All of the items listed above affect city employee morale. Understaffing is reaching serious levels.

Employees are a valuable resource. Look at current successful businesses - locally at Kinkos and Patagonia or more broadly at Hewlett Packard or Microsoft or Cisco - all have a pro-employee management style.

We need to: Empower line level employee to properly and fully utilize resource that they are; End the micromanaging style coming down from City Hall and creating inter-departmental stress; Stop alienating valuable employees. [The recent public departure of our assistant City Manager, Steve Chase, says volumes in this regard. You might remember he left decrying the charade (his word not mine) that he was being forced to particpate in, and resigned abruptly the night that the Council accepted the Zucker Study. (The $104,000 Employee Morale / Land Use Study)]

The point is losing employees to early retirement from stress or alienation, (or to other cities), costs our city money through more training, through pensions being paid longer, and through losing valuable experience and knowledge. We need to change the City's management style and keep our valuable employees.