Moorpark Growth Initiative Qualifies for Special Election

It took two tries--and without the help of City Hall--but proponents of a local SOAR growth-control initiative have finally succeeded in their quest to put it before voters.

County elections officials determined this week that the Moorpark version of the Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources initiative easily qualified for a special election after an attempt to get it on the November ballot was derailed by a legal technicality.

Of the 3,368 signatures collected to put Moorpark SOAR to a public vote, 2,829--or 84%--were validated by county officials. SOAR backers needed approval from 15% of city voters--2,401 signatures--to force a special election.

The Moorpark measure would prevent the city from expanding its borders without voter approval. The measure also contains language that would force a public vote on any development that did not obtain final approval before the start of this year.

The obvious target of the measure is the 3,221-home Hidden Creek Ranch, one of the largest developments in county history.

But because Hidden Creek Ranch received final approval before voters had a chance to consider the Moorpark SOAR initiative, opponents this week resorted to a referendum to block it. The Committee to Qualify Hidden Creek Ranch Referendum, almost entirely made up of SOAR proponents, is set to begin gathering signatures today to get the referendum on a future ballot.

Moorpark City Clerk Deborah Tarffenstedt said Friday the results of the Moorpark SOAR initiative drive will most likely go before the City Council Sept. 16.

*

Council members will then have three options: schedule an election between 88 and 103 days, study the effects of the measure for no more than 30 days and then call an election within the same time frame, or adopt SOAR as law effective immediately.

The council is expected to pursue the second option, placing the date of the election in January.

SOAR leader Richard Francis--who repeatedly criticized Moorpark leaders for what he saw as blatant ploys to stall the Moorpark SOAR effort--said it was obvious the measure had the public’s support all along.

“I, frankly, find it sad,” Francis said when asked about the lengths needed to get the initiative on the ballot. “The system should not be that difficult to work through. Fortunately, the political system in California gives the people the ultimate power. If elected leaders are acting like jerks, we can do something about it.”

Councilman Chris Evans said he will invoke the city’s right to call for the 30-day review of the SOAR measure to determine the financial impact it would pose for Moorpark.

“I believe that’s crucial for putting anything on the ballot,” Evans said. “We should give people all the information. Nobody’s ever had a problem with knowing too much.”

He added that he never had a problem with the Moorpark SOAR measure being on the ballot.

“It can’t hurt,” Evans said. “It’s fine. I’ve never been opposed to putting it on the ballot. The only thing is the half-truths told to collect the signatures. I still feel most of the people signing the petitions were only given a portion of the truth.”

*

SOAR backers have now succeeded in placing seven growth-control initiatives before county voters this year or early next year.

A countywide SOAR measure would prevent development on unincorporated farmland and open space without voter approval, while city measures in Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, Camarillo, Oxnard, Santa Paula and Moorpark would prevent development beyond designated boundaries unless voters signed off on it first.

SOAR backers had initially gathered enough signatures to place their Moorpark initiative before voters in the November general election.

But the Moorpark initiative, as other SOAR initiatives around the county, became the subject of a lawsuit by the Ventura County Libertarian Party, which challenged the validity of the signatures used to place it before voters.

Conceding SOAR represented the will of the people, elected leaders from the county and the five cities placed measures on the ballot independent of the signatures to avoid the legal threat.

Moorpark, however, refused to do so, and a judge threw the local SOAR initiative off the fall ballot, forcing SOAR organizers to gather signatures for a special election that will cost taxpayers an extra $20,000.

And SOAR backers did so--even faster than the first time, with nearly the same percentage of valid signatures as the original 85%.

“I think this shows that the signatures were good the first time, and this legal issue was not an issue,” said Moorpark SOAR leader RoseannMikos, a council candidate. “I would expect them to delay as long as they can, because that has been their pattern.”

*

Moorpark council members Debbie Teasley and John Wozniak said the city’s watered-down version of the Moorpark SOAR initiative, which will appear on the November ballot, is fairer than the Moorpark SOAR measure that qualified for the special election--especially for farmers whose land it would affect.

Teasley said the city’s measure is binding for 10 years, whereas the Moorpark SOAR version headed for the special election would last 20 years. Wozniak said Moorpark residents need to carefully consider what SOAR means by open space.

“That property belongs to someone else,” Wozniak said. “You may buy the picture frame, but you may not own what’s in it.”

The city’s version of SOAR, Wozniak added, is fairer because it allows people to purchase the greenery and space they treasure.

Mikos said she hoped Moorpark leaders should stop what she sees as efforts to scuttle the public’s desire to directly decide important issues.

*

But she expects business as usual, she said.

“If they want to continue denying the public their right to vote on SOAR and Hidden Creek Ranch, they can continue to do so,” Mikos said. “But it’s going to happen sooner or later. We’re not going to go away.”

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