Supervisors: 1st District

Questionnaires were distributed to candidates last month. Answers have been edited to fit the available space.

Why Run?

Q. Why do you want to be a Ventura County supervisor?

Lacey: As we face trying economic times, we must work together to revitalize our county’s traditionally strong, diversified economy. It is imperative that the public and private sectors continue to work together. We must also make certain that our commitment to a clean, healthy environment remains strong. Finally, we must make certain that compassion remains at the core of county government. I remain committed to Ventura County’s leadership with regard to the mentally ill, the elderly, the disabled, families and children.

Massa: The three incumbents running for reelection, including Mrs. Lacey, have been in office for 12 years and have done little, if anything, to solve the issues and problems your questions address. To coin a phrase--government is too important for career politicians, whose only purpose and goal is to get reelected. We need leaders and decision makers, not fence walkers, who will make decisions no matter how hard or politically damaging they may be. We need people with management skills who know how to and are not afraid to manage. Managing Ventura County is what the Board of Supervisors is supposed to do, and, frankly, the current board is doing a terrible job.

Stafford: There are many reasons why I have put myself up for office, not the least of which is the Weldon Canyon issue. While Susan Lacey has not been a bad supervisor, she has not provided the leadership in this and in several other areas. I also believe that if an elected official has not done in two or three terms what he or she has set out to do, then it is time to let someone else take a stab at it. Public office is a trust, not a sinecure.

Steele: Our economy is in serious trouble and I can no longer sit on the sidelines while knowing full well that I’ve got the skills to help improve the business climate and provide jobs.

Williams: I believe the office I seek is a public office. What do I mean by that? I mean it exists now like a private office. A poorly managed private office. I can--I will--change that condition created by Susan K. Lacey.

Goals

Q. If you are elected, what specific changes in county government would you make?

Lacey: We must continue to develop cooperative public-private programs. We must work from our strengths to develop relationships which support the needs of tomorrow. It also means listening and responding to our citizens who believe the bureaucracy is too complex.

Massa: The size of county government has grown at a rate that far exceeds the population growth of Ventura County. The pay scale, perks and benefits our county’s top management receives far exceed the same level in the private sector. Just one example is the six weeks of paid annual leave the first year on the job, that grows to more than 11 weeks of paid annual leave, for our county’s top-level managers. These benefits need to be brought back in line with those received in the private sector.

Stafford: The triple theme of my campaign is Conservation, Cooperation and Communication. County government should be the leader in conservation. There has to be a lot more cooperation and communication between the various departments and branches of the county government to prevent duplication of services and empire building. I will hold frequent public meetings at times when the public can attend, support and reinvigorate the MACs in my district, attending at least one each month, and provide occasions when people from various interest groups can get together and talk out their problems. I would demand government in the sunshine except for those times specifically forbidden by law.

Steele: The Board of Supervisors is going to have to change first. The board is going to have to end making back-room deals before the public has a chance to comment on proposals.

Williams: I have a vision, a very clear vision. I envision a county which has an elected public official who adheres to the spirit of public office. Susan K. Lacey cannot and will not adhere to the spirit of public office.

Weldon Canyon Landfill

Q. Should the Board of Supervisors approve construction of Waste Management of California’s proposed landfill at Weldon Canyon between Ventura and Ojai?

Lacey: At the recent Board of Supervisors’ hearing on the Weldon Canyon EIR, the board supported my motion to study new air pollution mitigation measures, additional alternative sites, and rail-hauling wastes to a functioning landfill in Utah. Until the results of these studies are available, and public hearings have been held, it would be improper for an elected official who must decide this issue to state her opinion. It would be like a judge or jury announcing a verdict before the trial was over.

Massa: After eight years our current Board of Supervisors has not made a decision on Weldon Canyon and, indeed, recently put the decision off for yet another year. In all of that time Mrs. Lacey has never met with Waste Management Inc. On this issue our Board of Supervisors has let Weldon Canyon become a political football and has failed to make a decision because of the potential political ramifications and the votes that decision might cost them. I don’t know if Weldon Canyon is the proper place for a new landfill. The staff reports on Weldon or any of the other proposed locations are not available to me.

Stafford: Absolutely not! It comes as no great surprise that the district attorney in San Diego issued a report detailing the fines and settlements paid by the company for “environmental misdeeds and bad business practices.” That report also suggested that Waste Management Inc. tries to “gain undue influence over local government officials” in areas where it has projects pending. Previous reports such as those done by Greenpeace and the city of Seattle made similar finding. In my opinion, Waste Management is not a company with which we should be doing business. On its own merit, Weldon Canyon is not the best site available.

Steele: No. Rail haul out of the county might make more sense than a new large landfill and this would be possible if a large recycling facility was built next to a rail line quickly.

Williams: A cloud of dust hangs over this proposal.

Ahmanson Ranch

Q. Should the Board of Supervisors allow construction of a 3,100-dwelling community at Ahmanson Ranch near Simi Valley as part of a deal that would turn 10,000 acres of open space into public parkland?

Lacey: I have consistently voted against the separate Ahmanson and Jordan Ranch projects. Since the combining of the two projects, and the proposal to sell to the public large areas of open space for $20 million, I have been willing to take another look. Generally, I still believe that, if this much extra growth is to occur in the county, it should occur within cities, and the open space areas should remain undeveloped. However, I will remain open-minded until the environmental impact report is available.

Massa: As with Weldon Canyon and for the same reasons, I can’t give a definitive answer on Ahmanson Ranch. On the surface, this looks like a good project, but I have not seen the staff reports which will tell me: How much will this project tax our available water supply? How will it affect our freeways? How much traffic and air pollution will be created and on and on? But, also as with Weldon, a decision needs to be made, and once given the information, I will make a decision, which is much more than our current board has done.

Stafford: My immediate response is a declarative “No!” but there are aspects which need a lot more looking into. The question really is, why the rush? Why does this need to be fast-tracked? The only answer that comes to mind is the profits that would be garnered by the applicant. The land, surely, is going nowhere. If nothing at all is built, no one or nothing will be hurt by it. Let’s slow the process down and take a careful look at it.

Steele: No. Before development of Ahmanson Ranch is considered, impacts on surrounding communities and the entire county should be considered. What will be the impact on air quality? Will it pay its own way for all public services or end up costing us?

Williams: They already have.

New Jail

Q. Should Ventura County build a new jail at the Todd Road site near Santa Paula?

Lacey: Yes. Our sheriff, the district attorney and all law enforcement agencies agree that public safety requires the new jail. The Todd Road site was selected after a thorough comparison of alternative sites, and was determined to be the best location when balancing the full range of considerations. I will stand firm to ensure that no additional development is allowed to occur in the area as a result of jail development, and that the surrounding greenbelt is fully protected.

Massa: This is now a moot point. Thanks to the potential loss of state funding, our Board of Supervisors was forced to make a decision. Unfortunately, last minute decisions are generally forced, wrong and expensive.

Stafford: To operate a jail miles from the courts is government waste on a grand scale! The waste in transportation costs, staffing and maintenance alone will far exceed any claimed savings. These costs will continue as long as the jail is in service. Where is the $14 million per year that it would cost to operate an entirely separate facility? The space for a new addition at the present jail site at Government Center that was called for in the original plans is still available.

Steele: Yes. The board just approved a new jail, but where is the money going to come from to operate it? I will not support increasing the sales tax to pay for it or taking money from other critical areas such as the county hospital.

Williams: Yes.

Population Growth

Q. Ventura County grew 26% during the last decade. Do you favor continued growth at this pace?

Lacey: No. This county cannot sustain this rate of growth without severely damaging our air quality, overloading our transportation and education systems, and generally degrading our standard of living. I do believe that growth should continue in this county in order to meet the needs for housing and jobs for our children, but this growth should occur at a slower rate. The growth which does occur should occur in concentrated areas, such as existing cities.

Massa: This is a skewed number. Most of this growth was in the early part of the decade, and most was in the eastern part of the county. The growth rate over the last five years has been much less than 26%. I favor controlled growth that is carefully planned so that our very limited resources will not be taxed. However, since most of us would like to have our children and grandchildren live in Ventura County, we have to have some growth, so we will not force our children to move away.

Stafford: Again, a definite NO! In fact, there ought to be a moratorium on growth until we can make an accurate evaluation of the state of our present resources, our needs and the quality of life of those who are here now. This should be a time of conservation, adjustment and reevaluation. If we continue at our present pace, we will become nothing more than Los Angeles, North.

Steele: No. I plan to place much more emphasis on improving the business climate and employment base for people already here than focusing on the growth rate. I favor growing within our limits to sustain growth with adequate water, air quality and jobs.

Williams: No.

Fee, Tax Reduction

Q. Should county supervisors reduce license fees and taxes on businesses to help the economy rebound from the recession?

Lacey: No. First, the county business license program only applies to businesses operating in the unincorporated territory--a small percent of total county businesses. Second, the rates are comparable to the business license rates already charged by the larger cities. Third, the county rate averages only one-tenth of 1% of business revenues, and 40% of county businesses are paying the minimum fee of $35 per year. These amounts shouldn’t render solvent businesses insolvent, and eliminating these fees would not likely have a measurable effect upon the county economy. Eliminating this program would, however, definitely affect county government’s ability to provide services.

Massa: Yes. But more importantly they should help by supporting local businesses. Every dollar our county spends outside of Ventura County is lost forever. The sales tax revenue that dollar would produce is lost. The job that dollar would help create is gone. The trickle-down effect that dollar would have on our economy is lost. We must create and enforce policies to support our local businesses, or like Everest & Jennings and countless others, they will leave Ventura County, taking our tax dollars and our jobs with them.

Stafford: I do not accept the premise that such a reduction would, in fact, help the economy, so I cannot give a definitive Yes or No. In general, cutting back the tax base is rarely a good idea. We are in bad enough financial straits as it is. Some would argue that such a cutback would either promote new business or induce those already here to stay. I reject that argument. There are still sufficient inducements in this area to attract those who like our quality of life.

Steele: Yes. In principle the local, state and federal tax burden should be reduced and I would favor reducing fees and taxes on businesses as long as county expenses are cut on an equal basis.

Williams: Yes. county government is out of control. Citizen politicians need to be elected. Our present supervisor, Susan K. Lacey, is not doing the job she was elected to do. I have proven it.

Sales Tax Increase

Q. Would you support a countywide sales tax increase to pay for transportation improvements? If so, for what projects?

Lacey: Yes, but only under certain circumstances and only if the tax increase is submitted to the voters for approval. First, I would only support such a measure once we’re well on our way out of the recession. Second, any such ballot measure must specify specific projects and the date for eliminating the tax. Third, road projects should be limited to congestion management measures as specified in the Ventura County Congestion Management Plan, or projects to alleviate severe safety problems. Fourth, significant resources must be allocated to other congestion relief measures and quality-of-life enhancements, such as public transit and bicycle trails.

Massa: No. Our people are not going to stand for many more taxes, and I can’t blame them. Our taxes are high enough, and I believe we have plenty of money to do what is necessary without raising taxes. We simply need to stop wasting the money we have. We need to make government more efficient. Going back to one of my original questions, why is it necessary for government to grow at a rate that far exceeds the population growth rate of our county? Since there is no logical explanation for this, the first thing to do is to get our government under control.

Stafford: I am basically opposed to raising taxes, especially at this time. I would be more inclined toward a bond issue to help build a comprehensive inter- and intracity public transportation system. Coupled with county leadership in the use of carpools, alternative fuels and a lessening dependence on the individual, fossil-fueled vehicle, in 10 years or less we would have a dependable system. On this note, I would have every county employee, including the supervisors and management at all levels, who have no absolute need for a privately assigned vehicle, use the county’s car pool.

Steele: No. The sales tax is already too high and any increase would hurt retail businesses even more. Funding for major road improvements should be captured from the peace dividend and the county should lobby hard for its share to complete needed freeway interchanges.

Williams: Question just too general.

Term Limits

Q. Do you support term limits for the Board of Supervisors?

Lacey: No. I keep close contact with my constituents and know that Ventura County voters are capable of choosing the supervisor who best serves their interests. As long as a supervisor is doing a good job and has the support of her constituents, that supervisor should be able to seek reelection, and the people should be able to vote for her.

Massa: Yes. In fact I would champion a change from a four-year term to a six-year term without the ability to succeed yourself.

Stafford: Yes! There was a time when I did not believe in term limits but I am becoming more convinced as I grow older that too many politicians grow comfortable in an office and begin to regard it as a sinecure. This same is true of at least three of or supervisors; they have been there too long and the job has become too comfortable.

Steele: Yes. I support a two-term limit as a way of bringing fresh ideas to the board. Currently we have 12-year incumbents trying for 16 years and this is why back room deals are increasing, stagnation has resulted and the public feels locked out.

Williams: Yes.

Increased Crime

Q. Crime is increasing in Ventura County. How should county officials respond?

Lacey: The most aggressive step the county supervisors have taken was to approve construction of a new county jail. Without sufficient jail capacity, our ability to contend with increasing crime would be severely hampered. During recent budget cuts, I, and the rest of the board, voted to give law enforcement the smallest cuts of all county departments. Other actions I have supported are coordinated anti-gang and anti-drug programs which combine the efforts of the county, cities, school districts and nonprofit agencies. We must also develop more prevention/intervention programs to give youths alternatives to gangs and drugs.

Massa: The first thing our officials have to do is admit that increasing crime is a problem. Only four or five years ago Mrs. Lacey, among others, said there wasn’t a gang problem in Ventura County. Now we all know that there is a gang problem and that it is getting worse every day. I’ve talked to the cops on the street, and they say the best way to address the crime problem is to get tough and be visible. We also need to develop alternatives to the street gangs for our children--alternatives that are appealing to our kids and that are constructive.

Stafford: The question is, why is crime increasing? That’s what needs to be addressed rather than just responding to each new crisis. Our attitude toward the sanctity of property over the sanctity of life is what needs to be changed. Instead of worrying so much about increasing our tax base, we need to start worrying about our citizens, especially those who are in need.

Steele: Compared with similar sized counties, Ventura has a low crime rate. County officials should keep working on the root causes of crime by continuing drug awareness and alcohol dependency programs, improving job creation programs and including rehabilitation programs in the new jail.

Williams: Your newspaper reported we live in the safest county.

Budget Cuts

Q. The Board of Supervisors has cut 10% from budgets during the last two years because county revenues are down sharply. Should the board continue to cut all programs equally or, instead, eliminate some services altogether? Which programs would you eliminate?

Lacey: I favor strategic budget cuts of selected programs over across-the-board cuts, and voted to use a case-by-case approach during last year’s budget process. Even though “across the board” cuts were made, the board imposed a smaller percentage reduction in the areas of criminal justice. If we must eliminate some services, the highest priority should be placed on preserving basic health and safety services.

Massa: Again, this is a question that cannot be answered without all of the facts. It is impossible to get all of the data the incumbents have, which, I assume, is one of the ways they have created to give themselves an unfair advantage in an election. If challengers answer questions without all of the facts, we take a chance of the incumbent making us look foolish. If we don’t, we take the chance that your paper will claim we are uninformed.

Stafford: A 10% cut across the board sounds very good, until one realizes that all programs are not created equal. There would have to be a careful study of all programs before any decision could be made regarding cutting or eliminating services. My bias would be to leave alone those programs having to do with people, such as health care, social services, police, fire, and the like, and go after the fat in programs that do not deal directly with people, such as building maintenance, licensing, planning. Any cut in salaries should begin at the very top and be graduated downward. As supervisor, I would take the first and highest cut.

Steele: As a stopgap measure, I would eliminate all bonuses for supervisors and top management until they implement ways to increase income from the state and federal governments. Bonuses should remain cut until local business activities increase, thus resulting in increasing local revenues without increasing tax rates and fees.

Williams: Question too general.

Water Shortage

Q. Although Ventura County has had plentiful rains this season, the county faces a long-term water shortage. How should the county and local cities respond? a) Put a dam on Sespe Creek. b) Build a desalination plant to convert ocean water. c) Build a new pipeline to import more water from Northern California. d) Impose permanent water rationing. e) Restrict construction of new housing and industry.

Lacey: First, I voted against damming the Sespe. I believe this is not an appropriate option for Ventura County, and diverts attention from more realistic water sources. Second, I believe developing new water sources is preferable to permanently stopping housing and business development, or permanently rationing water. However, I also believe everyone should conserve water as the first priority. Reclamation of waste water should also receive a high priority. Since the county is not a water purveying agency in western Ventura County, this decision is not within the authority of the Board of Supervisors.

Massa: a) No. b) Build a desalination plant to convert ocean water? Yes. c) Build a new pipeline to import more water from Northern California? Yes. d) Impose permanent water rationing? No. e) Restrict construction on new housing and industry? No. We must do everything we can to provide a more reliable source of water. However, we must be very careful that by providing more water we do not open the “floodgates” to uncontrolled growth. Simply stated, more available water, without proper controls on development will simply mean another round of growth until we again stretch the available water to its limit. We cannot permit this.

Stafford: a) No. People keep wanting to dam the last wild river in Southern California. b) No. Desalination is prohibitively expensive, environmentally damaging and growth encouraging. c) No. Like desalination, that would only encourage more growth. d) Yes, although I prefer the term conservation to water rationing. e) A moratorium on development might not be such a bad idea, especially in regard to large, expensive tract homes, gigantic malls that take away business from local firms and large industries that are prone to pollution.

Steele: Each water supply area should be managed so that demand does not exceed supply on a safe-yield basis. The choice of building a pipeline or desalination plant should be put before the voters as soon as possible.

Williams: B and D.

CONTENDERS

Susan K. Lacey, 50, has been a full-time county supervisor since 1980. She is a 20-year Ventura resident, a former special education teacher and was a Ventura Unified School District board member for seven years.

Richard F. Massa, 51, is the owner of a small Ventura medical supply business and has lived in the city for 20 years. He was the spokesman for a Ventura Keys homeowners group that sued the city over waterway dredging.

Thomas G. Stafford, 58, of Ojai is a substitute school teacher. He is a former meter reader, truck driver, probation officer, salesman and free-lance writer. He organized the Ojai Valley Greens environmental group in 1988.

Ralph J. Steele, 51, of Mira Monte has been a government planner in Ventura County since 1969 and was city planning director in Santa Paula and Ojai. An Oxnard city planner, he now specializes on Bailard Landfill issues.

Carroll Dean Williams, 49, of Ventura is unemployed. He worked for 23 years for an offshore drilling equipment manufacturer and has also been an industrial arts instructor at Oxnard College.