Ventura Candidates Spell Out Views on Growth

THE QUESTION

We queried the candidates in the Nov. 5 Ventura City Council election about three key issues facing the city. Today’s responses are to question No. 3 and address the subject of growth.

Ventura’s population increased in the last decade by 24.4%, rising from 74,393 in 1980 to 92,575 in 1990. Although the city Growth Management Program seeks to cap the population at 102,941, the drought persuaded the council to impose a moratorium on new water hookups, bringing commercial and residential growth in Ventura to a virtual standstill. Are these measures too stringent? If so, what would you do as a council member to change them? If not, why should they remain in place?

STEVE BENNETT

The growth control measures now in place in Ventura are reasonable responses to the effects of overdevelopment and the drought. The people of Ventura deserve an adequate water supply. Allowing new development at this time would stretch our water supplies even thinner and cause an unnecessary hardship for residents and businesses.

When the drought is over, we can rethink the need for a moratorium. But until we have provided a permanent source of water, either through desalination or state water, I favor continuing growth controls that will stop overdevelopment and ensure that we have enough water to go around.

ALAN BERK

No, these measures are not too stringent. But we must find a better way than to use water as the mechanism to restrain growth.

We do not need new commercial hookups. There are many abandoned business buildings that are already hooked up. Until these already allocated hookups are utilized, I believe commercial hookups should be restrained. Also, until we have redeveloped and recycled our older and deteriorating residential areas, I believe residential hookups should be restrained.

DON BOYD

The moratorium is not too stringent, under the present circumstances, and should remain in place until a dependable water source is secured or the current drought ends.

TOM BUFORD

The population limits in the Comprehensive Plan were based on a full public debate in our community. I support those limits.

Future commercial growth should be planned to promote downtown revitalization, reduce reliance on the automobile and provide needed services in the East End and the Avenue. We should involve everyone in our community in planning for the location and type of future commercial growth. We must resist pressure to develop simply to balance our city’s budget.

A continued moratorium on new or expanded business, however, will have very harmful effects on our economy. Some relief must be made available.

KEITH BURNS

How large should Ventura be? Will this city follow in the overcrowded and smoggy footsteps of Los Angeles and the rest of Southern California or will the city government of Ventura keep this an oasis of quality living--clean air, polite people and a positive future?

I favor the smallest natural growth pattern as is possible to achieve, about 2% per year. The answer I would give to anyone who’d encourage unrestricted growth for Ventura is: “Can’t there be just one city in all of Southern California which is free from major pollution, overcrowding, gang warfare, social unrest, traffic stress and depression?”

GREG CARSON

The most important thing we can do is to secure a stable quality water supply. I think, in the meantime, we shouldn’t hold residents and the business community hostage. Residents should be allowed the yards and gardens that contribute to the quality of our lives here.

Prudence in allocating limited resources is commendable, but we shouldn’t be penny wise and pound foolish. Water should be invested where it will bring the greatest return to our community.

LOUIS J. CUNNINGHAM

It was not the recommendation of the WIIDRIN committee but that of the City Council to impose the moratorium on water hookups. Having served on WIIDRIN, I feel this measure was far too stringent and should be relaxed. This did not stop growth and will not in the future. With between 40,000 and 50,000 housing units and an average of 2.5 people per unit, we could already house over 125,000 people.

Water should not be used to try and control growth. By stopping construction, you not only hurt business and the economy but the schools through the loss of developer fees.

ANDREW M. HICKS

Ventura doesn’t need any more outrageously priced homes to be built. Ventura needs only low-cost housing to be built. And, all those empty business spaces must be filled before new units are built.

One can plan for the future or be unprepared for it. I prefer to plan for an increased population rather than have chaos rule.

MARCUM PATRICK

A cap on population is unrealistic. The birth rate alone far exceeds the number of deaths in Ventura. Who are we to tell anyone where they can live and raise their family?

In light of the drought, a water moratorium was quite necessary. However, once water availability is increased, we must encourage sensible growth and redevelopment of our dilapidated areas.

Sensible growth means increasing the percentage of housing starts in the downtown and Avenue areas; revitalization of our Historical District; rezoning our incompatible land uses (such as experienced on the Avenue); enforcing current rural versus developed land ratios.

BRIAN LEE RENCHER

Projections indicate Ventura’s population will grow substantially in the future. It is un-American to effectively fence newcomers and our children out, by refusing to make thoughtful, realistic plans for this anticipated growth, which will invite future unmanageable crises.

Poor resource planning will compound the problem, leading to overcrowding in available units, higher rents, homelessness and a mass exodus of local businesses due to costs.

I will foster a system that allows for expedited, less expensively permitted single-family units, “add-ons,” rezoning for individual “back yard” rental units, four-unit or less subdivisions, apartments, condominiums and additional mobile home parks.

JAMIE STEWART-BENTLEY

The population cap of 102,941 by the year 2000 is unrealistic because U.S. health figures indicate a birth rate 2.5 times the death rate and therefore the population will most minimally be an estimated 138,642, regardless of water rationing.

A city council has no right to tell families how to regulate their birth rate nor to determine if a family can accommodate an elderly relative without putting out a young family member so there will be sufficient bath, laundry and toileting facilities at water rates within the means of all. How cynical! No new hookups means death to the city and its people.

JOHN SUDAK

Let us solve our water issues first and also our severe parking problems downtown. With these issues resolved we can stop the council’s continued excuses for not addressing our rapid growing and diverse community.

Caps on population illustrate some of the lack of organization and sensible thought processes our council seems to be adhering themselves to these days.

Let us instead propose incentives for our fleeing businesses to remain in Ventura. Also we could provide a broader range of variety to our community by making Ventura a sensible town to come to and stay in with regards to business.

JACK TINGSTROM

We now know that we do not have enough water for the population as it is today, let alone what it will be by the year 2000. When we impose moratoriums, it only shows our lack of future planning. We must not hold our quality of life hostage by saying an abundance of water will bring uncontrolled growth.

Agricultural lands need water and we need to preserve this precious industry. We must be able to attract commercial projects that are sensitive to our resources. We must have a strong and healthy economic base in this city.

DONALD A. VILLENEUVE

These measures need to remain in place until there is sound evidence that there will be secure supplies of water available in the future.

As evidence becomes available, it should allow for a systematic relaxation of the emergency measures.

STAN R. WYATT

It was not the drought alone that persuaded the council to impose a moratorium on new water hookups. It was the special “no growth” interest groups that supported most of the council members at election time!

Undue concern over a manageable drought has stifled growth and fueled the recession. Stringent no-growth policies have encouraged existing business to move elsewhere. If population increased by another 25% this decade, we would only miss our year 2000 goal by about 12,000 people. I would urge removal of this moratorium and sensibly evaluate each new building application to encourage new business and jobs!

CARROLL DEAN WILLIAMS

“The drought,” “new water hookups,” 102,941 population in the year 2000. Since there are about 50,000 residential dwellings in Ventura and if three persons lived in each, that makes for a population of 150,000.

The overall view of this question can be addressed by the word “density.” If our population were 121,000, that would equal 1,138 square feet per person. That square footage is equal to the present smallest single-family residence, or an area of 114 feet by 10 feet. Honey, who shrunk our city?

BOB VAN DER VALK

The current measures imposing water rationing and the resulting building moratorium have accomplished their goals by enforcing water conservation on our citizens. It is now time to allow ourselves the opportunity to get back to some kind of normalcy.

I would recommend the abolishment of the “guilt patrol” which comes out any time you request an increase in your water allocation. Our current tiered pricing system is sufficient to maintain an acceptable rate of conservation.