Diane Underhill City Council Candidate

By Diane Underhill

Positions Paper

NAME: Diane Underhill AGE: 42

OCCUPATION: Small Business Owner

Native Venturan
Stanford University Graduate
SLOW GROWTH / PUBLIC SERVICES FIRST Platform
Opponent of Midtown Redevelopment (because redevelopment, when used in
non-blighted areas, siphons public money away from important public
services.)

PRIORITES:

· Preserve small town character, quality of life, and environment.

· Manage spending so that essential public services like POLICE, FIRE, and INFRASTRUCTURE maintenance are the main priority.

· Retain knowledgeable public employees. (Properly staff departments to reduce stress and/or need for expensive out-of-town consultants.)

· Prevent growth from outstripping our local water resources. (At present growth rate costly outside water will be needed in 14 short years based on "normal" rainfall, not drought, years.)

· Prevent development from overburdening our infrastructure and schools.

· Support view protection ordinance.

· Protect Mobile-Home residents from "vacancy decontrol."

· Lobby County to allow City-run Paramedic TRANSPORT Services.

· Spearhead "Buy Ventura" campaign to keep sales tax / money in Ventura.

· Ensure equal representation for all city communities.

We need to make some proactive choices about growth--what type (I favor
quality, balanced infill) and how much more our environment, resources, and
infrastructure can reasonably sustain while still maintaining a healthy
environment and quality of life.

I pledge fair-minded commonsense leadership, to listen to citizens' concerns
and incorporate those views in addressing public policy.

ENDORSEMENTS TO DATE:

· Service Employees International Union Local 998 · Tri-Counties Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO · National Women's Political Caucus · Sierra Club

Ventura City Council Candidate: Diane Underhill

I am running for City Council because I have a strong interest in good government and good public policy. A brief biography: I am 42 years old, I am a native Venturan, a Stanford graduate, a midtown resident and small business owner. I am intelligent and fair-minded and firmly believe that I could effectively represent the City of Ventura, its workers, its businesses, and its residents.

The most significant issues facing the City of Ventura in the next few years are:

• the economy and how we can best survive a possible economic downturn;
• the city budget and how we prioritize spending so that our departments are adequately staffed, and essential services like public safety and infrastructure are protected and are made the number one concern;
• and finally, growth and how we balance our existing infrastructure, schools and resources with slow sustainable growth.

I would like to ensure the proper staffing (and retaining of staff) in our city departments so that knowledgeable city employees with a stake in our community are making important decisions about the city's future, instead of the expensive consultants who are now, often being brought in to make these decisions. Every time the city pays an out-of-town consultant or contractor for a project instead of our own city employees, the local community loses the "multiplier effect" afforded when local wages are spent with our local stores, restaurants, tradesman, healthcare or financial professionals, etc.

If we want to keep Ventura's money working for Ventura, then we need to, not only buy locally, we need to properly staff our city departments to enable the city to keep work "in house." Alternatively, if forced to contract out work, the city should consider the benefits of the "multiplier effect" and try to attract bids from local area contractors.

ON THE RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

The Residential Growth Management Program is in place to manage growth. It limits the number of housing starts allowed in the city each year. On page one of the RGMP document under "Intent and Purpose" it states:

"The program is devised, among other things, to synchronize residential growth with availability of infrastructure, resources, and municipal services, encourage provision of affordable housing and a mix of housing in furtherance of the goals of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and facilitate economic revitalization of particular areas while providing for the fiscal health of the City."

At a meeting on October 17, the committee to update the City's Comprehensive Plan voted to review the RGMP. At the suggestion of the Chamber of Commerce representative the concept was amended to review or "revoke" the RGMP.

I believe growth and growth management is a big concern for Ventura city residents. I do not think the citizens would be well served if our current RGMP was revoked. It is the only program in place for limiting growth. The only change I would support in the RGMP is a change that would limit growth even further.

ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Statistics like, only 37% of Ventura's population can afford a median priced home, are misleading. They are misleading because they fail to take into account critical data, including the fact that many retired fixed-income seniors already own their homes and do not have to afford a current-market median-priced home.

Having given the affordable housing issue considerable thought, I have come to the conclusion that one of the best ways to ensure affordable housing in our fair city is to promote home ownership. Down payment assistance through low-interest loans to first time homebuyers helps promote home ownership. This approach is effective because as the homeowner pays down the mortgage over 15, 20 or 30 years his or her earning power rises. A mortgage payment that might have been a stretch for a family in the first few years becomes ever more affordable as the family's earning capacity rises with cost of living and inflation. The result is, as homeowners approach retirement they typically find themselves making a house payment that in the current market would not even pay the rent on a one-bedroom apartment. Then in their retirement years, when their mortgage is paid off they will only be responsible for keeping current with their property taxes and basic home maintenance costs. With proposition 13 in place, they should not be taxed out of their homes. Home ownership--that is my definition of long-term affordable housing.

What on the other hand would apartment rentals have done over this same time period in a community as desirable to live in as Ventura's? Rentals would have kept pace with the market rates. Even subsidized rental housing will have kept pace with the market rates forcing both larger government subsidies and larger renter co-payments.

Of course, if the government owned some rental units or homes they could also remain affordable since they would eventually be paid off. Then the government subsidy would simply be not raising the rent to the full market rate. So if we are going to have government funded HUD programs, it would be fiscally more responsible to the taxpayers for HUD to buy some houses or complexes, rather than to continually subsidize their private owners at (or just below) the current market rate.

Keeping in mind that ownership equals long-term affordability, since Ventura is approximately 95% built-out, we do need to ensure that the remaining land-use decisions are good ones. We need to promote a healthy, balanced, mix of quality housing that will suit different income levels and that will use our existing infrastructure and water resources efficiently. (As long as Ventura plans to live within our local water resources, and not build until we have to import costly outside water, then water rates should also remain affordable.)

ON THE ARTS

Because I am vocal in my position that public safety--police, fire, and infrastructure maintenance should be funded as the city's first priority, many people think that I am against other programs such as the cultural art programs. On the contrary, I support the arts and feel that they not only contribute to our city and citizen's quality of life, but also a strong arts and cultural district can contribute to an economically viable city by attracting visitors who bring revenue generating economic activity (restaurant meals, hotel stays, shopping with local merchants, etc) which in turn ends up contributing sales tax and transient tax money to our general fund which supports our public services. Much of the arts funding distributed by our city is from state or federal arts grants and could not have gone to fund anything other than specific arts programs. I fully support our city and our city's grant writer pursuing and facilitating these types of art grants.

One of my degrees from Stanford University is a Bachelor of Arts degree from the Art Department. I am an artist myself and of course understand the benefits of the arts to a community, and especially the youth of a community. It is one of the strong reasons that I am so adamantly opposed to the misuse of redevelopment, because misusing redevelopment in non-blighted areas siphons money away from necessary public services including libraries and schools. In the last decade, we have seen dramatic cuts in funding for school arts programs. This has a detrimental effect on our children's education. Performing and visual arts contribute to social and academic skills, by cutting these art programs because of lack of funding we are depriving our children of a full and well-rounded education as well as leaving at-risk children who might have thrived in these programs more open to the influence of delinquency and gangs.

I support a strong cultural arts district in our community because it is one critical component that will allow our city to thrive economically without expanding the city's physical borders as much as an inch. We could prosper by strongly marketing Ventura as a day or weekend "getaway" for our over-stressed neighbors from over-developed areas like LA and the Valley. As long as we manage our growth and keep Ventura a charming, safe, well-maintained, unique coastal and cultural experience, we can tap into the expendable income of big city dwellers to our South and offer them a relaxing location to slip away to for the day or the weekend.

To capitalize on this goldmine to our South we must control our own growth and keep Ventura a unique and livable community. That, in conjunction with our accessible location, coastal climate, and a good marketing campaign we can ensure that Ventura will become known as getaway tourist destination for those disenfranchised with the traffic, congestion, over-crowding and over-development of places South. (This kind of short-getaway tourism is more recession proof than a longer-stay-further-away type of tourism.) We are not Santa Barbara, we are not Santa Monica, and we should not try to be. If we capitalize on what is uniquely Ventura and make sure we offer a good business environment for small unique local businesses and a unique local cultural arts district, then we will thrive. If we try to change the character of our city so that we offer only stores and amenities that you can get in any town at any mall or strip mall, then there will be no particular reason for people to choose to come here over somewhere else. It is yet another reason to protect the character and charm of our community-- economically it will serve us all well.

ON SLOW GROWTH AND LOCAL WATER RESOURCES

I am a staunch supporter of SLOW, SUSTAINABLE growth. Local area business people need to support slow growth because making sure that growth does not outstrip our local water resources or our city's infrastructure makes good fiscal sense. By managing growth, we ensure that we keep our water rates attractive for businesses and we provide a "quality of life" benefit for local employees. Ventura is now facing some tough decisions about future growth and how much we can sustain. I was shocked to learn at our present growth rate (according to our Urban Water Management Plan) we will need additional outside water sources in just 14 short years with that number based on normal rainfall years-throw in 3 to 5 years of drought conditions and we will be needing additional outside water supplies much sooner. State water is not a viable option.

California is overdrawn from the State's Colorado River allotment to the tune of 800 thousand-acre feet a year that serves 6 million people. The state is being forced to wean itself from that overdraft over the next 15 years by the six other western states whose citizens are entitled to that water. Two major problems have come up. First, the reliable yield of the Colorado River was originally overestimated and may not be capable of providing the 4.4 million acre-feet of water to which California is entitled and which a generation of urban development has been based. Second, even the partial solution to weaning California from the 800 thousand acre-feet of water by transferring Imperial Valley agriculture water to urban uses has come into question because the Salton Sea's health counts on all of the present Imperial Valley farm water run-off. Transferring the 200 thousand acre feet of Imperial Valley ag water could be an environmental disaster. Knowing that a possibly insurmountable state water shortage exists and will only get worse over the next 15 years no prudent City Council would allow the present Ventura growth rate to continue until we have used up every allotted drop of available local water. (It is also not prudent leadership at our state level for the state to keep "mandating" more housing development when there is not water available to support the growth.)

We need to stop, reassess and make some tough, but sustainable choices. We need to reduce our Residential Growth Management Plan housing allotments that are given out each year and then concentrate on meeting housing needs for our community that use our precious local water in the most efficient way. More moderately priced infill housing will use water more efficiently than high-end sprawl type developments on the hills. I support slow growth for the same reason that if I had 10 bottles of water for a desert trip that will take 10 days, I would not drink all ten bottles on the first day. We need to pace our growth slowly, and conserve our local water resources so that we will not have to depend on outside water. Having to import costly outside water would not be good for Ventura businesses or residents alike.

If we do not manage our growth so that we stay within our local water resources, the consequential water rate hikes will undoubtedly hurt local business substantially more than local residents, because not only will they be paying higher water costs, the amount of disposable income in the community will start to evaporate.

ON CURRENT POPULATION:

Although the 2000 Census population estimate for the city is 102,600 -- according to the city's Annual Review of Updated Population Data for the Residential Growth Management Program (7/01), the city planning area built and planned population as of Jan. 2001 is 108,969. That means our city's planning area population was almost 109 thousand at the beginning of this year. This included units that have received RGMP allocations but were not yet occupied. A standard of 2.5 persons per household calculated that we could build 2,726 units until April 2010 and not exceed our present Comp. Plan population cap of 115,784. We need, through our current Comp. Plan rewrite, to carefully consider what type of housing our city, its citizens and businesses most need. Given our limited local water resources it is important to give priority to infill housing-- that is, land within the city limits that presently has city zoning that currently allows the land to be developed and unincorporated land within the city limits that is already located in close proximity to infrastructure and urban services.

ON REDEVELOPMENT:

I do not like redevelopment abuses where public money is given away as incentives to private businesses for private gain in areas that do not meet the legal requirements of blight. This kind of misuse of redevelopment siphons money away from truly necessary public services like police and fire, infrastructure maintenance, schools, libraries, etc.

ON THE "LIVING WAGE"

I favor the concept of a "living wage" ordinance for employees of contractors for the city similar to legislation passed by the county. I feel firms contracting with the city for more than $25 thousand annually should be required to pay $8 per hour plus benefits or $10 an hour without benefits, because to me it is an ethical question. Government, or firms hired by government for jobs in excess of $25 thousand, should pay workers a living wage. Since the ordinance would equally affect all firms contracting with the city, it should not affect a firm's ability to place a competitive bid.

As to the argument that such an ordinance is fiscally irresponsible, driving up government costs, I would respond that we can support the workers (and their integrity and quality of life) through a living wage ordinance or we can support them through public assistance programs when they cannot make an honest living. (Again, remember, that if the firm is a local one, the city gets the benefit of these wages re-circulating in our local economy.)

POSITIONS ON RECENT LOCAL ISSUES:

Staunchly against Midtown redevelopment because using redevelopment in non-blighted areas siphons public funds away from important public services including city and county infrastructure and regular operations like police, fire, planning, healthcare, mental health, libraries, etc. it also deprives our school of their full share of these property tax funds while subsidizing private big business.

I was opposed to Measure O on much the same grounds, that is, public money should fund public services under the direction of publicly elected officials not a private entity.

I am adamantly opposed to school vouchers, because it would take public money, which is desperately needed in our public schools, and turn it over to private schools that are not held to the same level of accountability.

I voted against Proposition 187, not because I am in favor of illegal immigration, but because I come from a family of teachers and not educating illegal immigrant children is certainly not a good solution to the illegal immigration problem.

I support the County workers in their efforts to achieve a parity wage because Ventura County has a very high cost of living and the county gets the overall economic benefit from the "multiplier effect" as wages and expendable income re-circulate in our own local area economy.

I would support SB 402 giving safety personnel the right to binding arbitration on salary disputes. By law, public safety personnel are prohibited from going out on strike, because of this they do not have the same "negotiating rights" as other American workers. This is a question of fairness to our safety employees. Remember too, that arbitration is just that--a method to settle differences-- and that the arbitrator would be chosen by, and acceptable to, both parties. I also support the concept of 3 percent at 50 for public safety personnel because of the stress associated with these careers. (For example: the life expectancy of the average American male is 75 years, for the American police officer that average drops to 59 years.)

ON HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT:

I am opposed to the hillside landowners proposed development to build six housing tracts comprising 1900 homes in the hills and canyons behind the city.

I oppose this plan because we do not have the infrastructure capacity or the public services to support this kind of "sprawl" development.

I oppose this development because the traffic from these homes, an estimated 8,500 car trips a day would overburden our city streets.

I oppose this development because I feel our community and our local businesses need more moderately price homes than those being proposed.

I oppose this development on environmental grounds because its sprawling nature would significantly increase our urban runoff and adversely affect natural wildlife corridors.

I oppose this kind of development because at this stage in our city's development, the local water resources we have left should be held in reserve for infill housing that already has a "right" to be built in our city. Annexing this hillside land into the city to compete for precious water resources (and RGMP allotments) with land that is presently inside the city's existing borders does not make sense. Additionally, more moderately priced infill housing is shown to use water more efficiently and more sparingly than high-end sprawl developments.

I am opposed to the idea of building 1900 high end homes in the Ventura hills for many reasons, but especially because I do not think these high end homes meet any real housing needs in our community. We need more moderately priced homes built on land that already exists inside our city limits so that our teachers, our city employees, our firefighters, and our police officers can afford to live and be role models in our community.

Some people may extol the virtues of building on the hills as a vehicle to bring money into our community. To dispel that myth, let me site a 2000 American Farmland Trust study that showed that for every local tax dollar collected from residential land uses, local government spent $1.15 on average for provision of services. Developing these hills with 1900 homes might make fiscal sense for the developers, but it does not make fiscal sense for our community. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that residential growth does not pay, and particularly not sprawling growth--I guess if it did LA would never have budgetary problems. Given that residential growth does not pay its own way in local government finance, we should concentrate on building only the type of housing that we directly need for our own community. We need to slow our growth even further and build smart, build housing that meets needs that presently exist in our community.

(The Comprehensive Plan Update also has provided current census demographics on our population. There are 16,538 Venturans over the age of 60. Almost 13,000 of these are over the age of 65. We need affordable quality active senior and/or assisted living housing to accommodate some portion of this growing population. If we meet this need, some of our existing housing stock will come back on to the market to accommodate our young professionals and young families.)

Because of the huge impact that the proposed hillside development would have on our city and its quality of life, I support Measure P on this November's ballot. If approved by the voters, Measure P will give the voters a vote on all future hillside development proposals (including the present proposal of 1900 homes which is scheduled for a Nov. 2002 ballot.) Vote YES on Measure P if you want voter Participation, Vote yes on Measure P if you want city voters to have a voice in any hillside development project.

I support the concept of buying this property from the present landowners and conserving it for future generations. The funds could be cobbled together through non-profit conservancy fund raisers, local, state and federal grants. As open land with public access for hiking or horseback riding, nature walks, bird watching, etc. it could provide recreation not only for our own community, but also, provide another unique draw to bring visitors to Ventura to spend money in our local area establishments.

IN CLOSING:

I would be a strong spokesperson for the City, its workers, its businesses, and its residents because I am fair-minded and am willing to stand up and take action on issues if it is for the betterment of this community. Decisions that affect citizens lives should not be made lightly--I pledge to research, examine the facts, and listen to public input before taking a position. I am an unwavering supporter of slow sustainable growth, good public policy, fiscal responsibility, public safety, and keeping Ventura a livable community. It makes smart fiscal sense to keep Ventura a well-maintained, safe, water-self-reliant, unique cultural community, and if elected those are the goals that I will pursue.