ELECTIONS VENTURA CITY COUNCIL : Ballot Crowded by Pro-Growth Candidates

As Ventura City Council candidates map the battlefield for November’s election, the terrain looks much as it did in the 1989 campaign, centered on one question: How should Ventura grow?

The rival forces also have a familiar look to them--advocates of slow growth preparing to cross swords again with pro-growth supporters.

But there the similarities end.

In 1989, three candidates backed by an alliance of slow-growth groups crushed pro-growth candidates by a vote margin of nearly 2 to 1.

The election of Cathy Bean, Todd Collart and Gary Tuttle--and lone pro-growther James Monahan--tipped the City Council toward a slow-growth majority.

This year the ballot for three City Council vacancies is top-heavy with pro-growth candidates, many of whom say the past two years of a slow-growth City Council have left Ventura economically stagnant.

And political activists on both sides agree that the pro-growth forces have the early momentum in the race over slow-growth advocates who were caught ill-prepared for a backlash to their policies by two factors:

Slow-growth Mayor Richard Francis and moderate Councilman John McWherter decided not to run, and several slow-growth candidates backed out of the campaign at the last minute.

Now, only two candidates claim to support the slow-growth cause: incumbent Deputy Mayor Donald Villeneuve and write-in candidate Steve Bennett.

Meanwhile, several pro-growth political action committees (PACs) have already united in their endorsement of one slate: labor attorney Tom Buford, nursery owner Greg Carson and personnel consultant Jack Tingstrom.

But slow-growth PACs are still polling candidates--and still reeling from internal squabbles that splintered a major contributor to their 1989 victory, the Alliance for Ventura’s Future.

This time around, PACs on both sides are girding for a more complex debate than in 1989.

The politicians say the main campaign question is no longer “To grow or not to grow?” but, “What will happen to Ventura’s growth when the city starts solving its water problems?”

“I do think that this election is pivotal,” said Jerry Sortomme, chairman of the Council for a Quality Ventura, a slow-growth group that split off from the Alliance for Ventura’s Future.

“In 1992, almost all of the very important water studies that are out there are going to dovetail,” Sortomme said. “And the council in power at the time is going to have to make some important decisions, probably as important as any that are made for the city.”

“The issues are very, very complex when it comes to water,” said Mel Sheeler, political action committee chairman for the Ventura Chamber of Commerce.

“Do you limit water so you can say there’s no growth, or do you supply water to the people who live here?” Sheeler said. “No one in Ventura wants to see the population explode like in Orange County. We enjoy our greenbelts. I’d like to see the perception of our City Council be one that recognizes that some growth is imminent, but it must be planned.”

Sheeler also criticized the council’s decision to increase water rates to offset the cost of running the system with less revenue as a result of mandatory water rationing enacted last year.

“Water bills are increasing from lack of use, as much as from use,” Sheeler said.

“There are a few obvious litmus tests” for candidates, said Kevin Sweeney, spokesman for clothing manufacturer Patagonia Inc., which threw considerable weight behind the slow-growth slate in 1989.

“And one is, ‘Are you for, or against, state water?’ ”

Bennett, head of the Alliance for Ventura’s Future and a committee member for the Voters Coalition of Ventura, was cautious in defining the issues.

“The issues are water--how do you get new supplies and still be sure we don’t lead to rampant development--and to what degree will we embrace slow growth?” Bennett said. “That leads to a third issue--can we have economic vitality without rapid development? . . . I think we can.”

Carolyn Leavens, a spokeswoman for Venturans for Responsible Government, also sought to temper her group’s pro-growth stance.

“We don’t want Ventura to be another San Fernando Valley. None of us would want unbridled growth, it would ruin Ventura,” Leavens said.

“But people are going to keep coming, despite any growth limits they put on,” she said. “When you have a town that does not have a lively business community, you have a town that’s dying, and we feel the present City Council is fiscally responsible.”

Sweeney said much of the slow-growth/pro-growth debate is pointing this year to the performance of the slow-growth City Council over the past two years.

“One candidate says he ‘wants to bring common sense back to the City Council,’ ” Sweeney noted, referring to Greg Carson. “If the debate is to be a success this year, the failure of the City Council I think is a fine debate.”

Leavens said the council’s slow-growth policies have caused some businesses to move out of Ventura, contributing to the vacancy of more than 70 buildings on Main Street and Thompson Boulevard.

“They’re running the city like a businessman who’s living on his assets,” Leavens said.

But Sortomme, of the Council for a Quality Ventura, said the council has diligently studied the city’s future in hammering out the city’s Comprehensive Plan for development.

“That’s the real power of the City Council: who they put on committees, how they study the issues, whether it’s thorough or conveniently limited,” Sortomme said. “And I think this council has been really, really interested in knowing all the facts.”

However, pro-growth PACs and candidates have also criticized the council’s decision last spring to charge more money for development, increasing fees for everything from sign applications to zoning changes.

The fees have given the council’s image an anti-business tinge that foils the city’s growth, said the Chamber of Commerce’s Sheeler.

Sheeler said businessmen hoping to set up shop in Ventura have brought him “horror stories” from the city planning department, where the permit process is slow, complex and expensive. Some throw up their hands in frustration and settle elsewhere, he said.

“The town has to grow,” Sheeler said. “If you don’t grow, you stagnate. We want the quality of life to be the best it can, but it takes money to exist. . . . We need to draw a plan to allow this city to grow in a very organized and prudent manner within the guidelines as set down under the General Plan.”

One thing both sides agree on is that this year’s battle for control of the City Council will be fought in the streets, on the cheap.

“Money is very hard to come by this year for anything,” said Leavens, of Venturans for a Responsible Government. “I think it’s going to be a people-power campaign.”

Of the slow-growth advocates, Sweeney said, “They need to knock on 10,000 doors and have 10,000 conversations with 10,000 people. If (Bennett) can get several thousand votes, it shows that even if a bunch of other candidates win, it’s an example of the slow-growth movement’s support.”

Sweeney said Patagonia has not decided whether to endorse candidates this year as it did in 1989.

“I want to make sure the company’s activity is unpredictable and valued,” he said. “If we play Bigfoot, people are going to get tired of us. Some would say this election was won or lost before filing day. If Villeneuve gets elected, we still win, it’s still 4-3 on the City Council.”