Thousand Oaks Issue Vote on Jungleland Project?

The $63-million project would convert the Jungleland site into a civic centerpiece in Thousand Oaks. The city has approved Civic Center plans, but a disagreement over the

price of the land and an attempt to place the matter before voters persist. Proponents and opponents of the project both claim that a 1986 ballot measure backed their views.

Dick Booker Activist My answer is definitely yes. The public should be allowed to vote on a project of that magnitude. It is my understanding the cost will be far greater than $63 million, because that figure does not include the cost of the land. That could, I am told, run as high as $25 million. When you include the debt service for the bonds the city sold to finance Jungleland the total cost to the public could be in excess of $100 million. I do know that a lot of people in the community have been offended by Jungleland. The proposed project was turned down twice. In 1984 and in 1986 the voters rejected it. They were advisory issues so the city was able to ignore them. Certainly the people have expressed their views on this project. This is a private/public joint venture and they propose to build a hotel, office building and retail businesses on the site and they intend to subsidize them with public money. Alex Fiore Thousand Oaks mayor I think it’s an unfair question. If the issue were simple enough to require a yes or no answer, then it would be put on the ballot. In fact, it was on the ballot and it was passed. Measure B, three or four years ago and it passed--a 60/40 margin. But the question is more complicated now. It’s the location, the size, the traffic. You see the committee is not asking one question on this whole complex, they’re asking many questions and that’s the only way to get a consensus and the only way to satisfy everyone. It’s like a cafeteria type of proposition. Do you want a 200-room hotel? A 1,400-seat auditorium? A 30-room hotel? How much office space do you want? It is very complicated. You could put thousands of questions on the ballot. We’ve had citizen input committees giving us opinions on what we’re doing and what they wanted. We had a Jungleland committee composed of 21 citizens. Seven gave us input on the park, seven on the auditorium and seven on the conference center they are thinking about. We’ve taken all that input and we’re putting it on the project. We’ve had literally dozens of meetings. The opposition is strictly political, and people are having a difficult time seeing through that.

Larry Horner Thousand Oaks city councilman Over the last couple of years when I was mayor, I had highly recommended that. Because of the magnitude of the project and because of the uncertainty of the lawsuit that’s pending on the land issue and because of the overall relative cost, the residents should have an opportunity to vote on it. . . . There were two petitions passed around a little over a year ago where 10,000 resident voters said they would like to have the issue placed on the ballot and 10,000 people from various and sundry places, not necessarily residents, said they did not want the issue on the ballot. Because of a technicality, the City Council chose not to put the issue on. . . . Another consideration is the fact that the developers of the hotel, the Lowe Corp., have asked the city to advance them on a loan basis $2 million start-up money. I voted against that. . . . I am favorably supportive of a civic auditorium that we can afford, and I’m working to help achieve that. My feeling is we better stop now, take the loss, regroup and then come back in with something more acceptable to the vast majority of the people.

Steve Rubenstein Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce president Now that the entire plan has presented itself, the electorate has enough information to make an intelligent decision. The various items could be presented on a ballot. For example, the public portion of the project versus the private portion of it. Or there could be a question on the visual impact. The chamber does support the public portion of the Jungleland project. We’re not in support of the current plan where the city would subsidize the private portion because that’s government taxpayer money supporting competition in the private sector. . . . This is taxpayer money. The free enterprise system says you’re free to go out, take money and take a risk. And in this particular instance there is no risk. It would be guaranteed to succeed because it would be a public entity that is competing with the private sector. . . . If a group of investors got together to build the hotel, and they were not going to get special consideration, we would have no problem with it whatsoever. A properly worded ballot initiative would allow citizens to vote on all or part of the project. I don’t know why they’re pushing so hard. And I’m wondering if the hotel is the right thing to be there for a well-rounded project.

Madge L. Schaefer Ventura County supervisor The issue was put on the ballot twice before, and the council ignored the result, based on a technicality, and I think that’s really regrettable. They ignored the result because they didn’t get the answer they wanted. I don’t think it is too late to stop the project. The ground hasn’t been broken, and the price hasn’t even been established on the property. My concern has been the size of it and I would have been supportive of having, for instance, smaller auditoriums, one built at the high school and perhaps a larger civic auditorium. But this has become a very grand scheme, a very expensive project. I’ve become involved with the Alliance for the Arts because it looks like the majority of the council is determined that they’re going ahead with this regardless of the consequences, and so the Alliance for the Arts would provide subsidies that would allow local groups to use the facility. The plans for the auditorium are so large, local groups would be precluded from using it just because of cost. And so in essence what you’re doing is using public tax dollars to subsidize production companies, and I just don’t see that as an appropriate role for government. This kind of facility should not be heavily subsidized.