Moorpark’s Timing on SOAR May Prove Costly

Taxpayers will likely have to foot the bill for a special election because city officials waited until after a county deadline to submit signatures for a local SOAR initiative proposed for the November ballot.

What is worse, the special election could come only a few weeks after the Nov. 3 general election.

Members of the Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources campaign chastised Moorpark officials for waiting until Monday to turn SOAR petition signatures over to the county, accusing them of dragging their feet in response to pressure from the City Council. The deadline was Aug. 7.

They charge that the council wants so badly to proceed with the massive Hidden Creek Ranch housing development that it will do everything possible to derail the SOAR initiative--even if it means spending an extra $20,000 of taxpayer money on a special election.

The Moorpark SOAR initiative would prevent the city from growing beyond a designated boundary without approval from voters. The proposed SOAR boundary does not include Hidden Creek Ranch, which would increase the city’s size by one-third.

In fact, the initiative includes language that seeks to undo the council’s approval of the project.

“Isn’t it ironic?” SOAR leader Richard Francis said jokingly of Moorpark’s timing. “It’s just too late. I hate ascribing bad motives to our honorable public officials, but it seems rather obvious what they were doing.”

Moorpark officials rejected the contention that they deliberately prevented the city SOAR initiative from making the November ballot by submitting petition signatures after the county’s deadline. They said there is no requirement to turn in the signatures on the day they are received, in this case July 27.

Councilman Chris Evans countered that SOAR proponents only want to push their initiative through as fast as possible so they can block Hidden Creek Ranch, whose builder has already secured a development agreement from the city.

Stopping the project now would only entangle Moorpark in costly, time-consuming lawsuits, Evans said.

“If it [SOAR’s initiative] becomes law, the attorney fees for probably a month will be more than the expenses for a special election,” Evans said.

Moorpark’s city clerk needed time to review the petitions to avoid a lawsuit such as the one that followed the first Moorpark SOAR measure, said Councilman John Wozniak.

“The city clerk probably has taken a little bit of a cautious step to make sure it’s done correctly and everything is verified,” Wozniak said, “rather than trying to speed it through to make it on the ballot.”

The original effort to qualify SOAR for the ballot in Moorpark fizzled out after a lawsuit by the Ventura County Libertarian Party threatened the validity of the signatures.

The county and the five other cities with SOAR measures sidestepped the suit by placing the initiative on the November ballot independent of the signatures.

But Moorpark council members refused to do so, and SOAR leaders immediately started a second initiative drive after a judge threw out their first effort because of a technicality.

SOAR backers need 2,400 valid signatures on their petition to force a special election. Because they turned in 3,337 signatures July 27, they had little time to make the Aug. 7 deadline for the Nov. 3 general election.

If there are enough valid signatures on the new petition to force a special election, Moorpark voters could be deciding the SOAR issue as early as November--two weeks after the regular election--and no later than December, Francis said.

That is because Moorpark leaders, by law, would have only about 90 days to call a special election if the signatures are validated.

But Evans said SOAR backers shouldn’t be surprised if the measure doesn’t make it on the ballot by December.

During the initial attempt to place the SOAR initiative before Moorpark voters, the city did not conduct a study on how the ballot measure could financially affect the city. But this time around, Evans said, the city may exercise its right to ask for a 30-day review.

“I think their idea of having an election in November or December is exceedingly optimistic,” Evans said. “There is no need to push it for November or December. We should move forward at an adequate pace that allows us to make intelligent decisions.”

The election-date scrap is only the latest skirmish between SOAR backers and Moorpark leaders. Last week, attorneys for Moorpark failed to persuade a judge to throw out the ballot arguments opposing a city alternative to the SOAR measure because they described the council as “pro-growth,” among other things.

The city’s alternative measure, which will appear on the November ballot, would allow Hidden Creek Ranch to move forward.

Bustillo is a Times staff writer and Hong is a correspondent for Times Community News.