‘Toss a Nickel Out the Window’

The view looking out of a greenbelt is much different than the one from the outside looking in. If everyone who enjoyed the view driving by our property would toss a nickel out the window, I probably wouldn’t feel the need to address you today.

As I’m sure you are well aware, in the mid-1980s the county and the cities of Moorpark, Thousand Oaks and Simi Valley designated approximately 2,200 acres as a greenbelt. Landowners were not participants or signatories to this agreement. Zoning was imposed that restricts maximum “development” on our property to one residence per 40 acres. This action has had a devastating impact on land values, reducing them by at least 75% compared to similarly situated land across the street in Thousand Oaks or in unincorporated Santa Rosa Valley.

Of even greater concern is the fact that the economic viability of agriculture has been severely affected in recent years by falling prices, increasing costs and exotic pests imported by an increasingly mobile urban population.

Farming is, after all, a business. It is not fair or reasonable to force a property owner to operate a farm at his or her own expense, no matter what the circumstances--any more than it is fair to force someone to manufacture buggy whips in the 1990s.

We are not and never have been land developers or speculators. But we have hopes and aspirations to provide for our families, pay college tuitions and save for retirement just like any other family. We feel blessed to be able to live in this beautiful area and certainly do not wish the ills of Los Angeles or Santa Clara County to befall this county.

But if indeed the public determines that this or any other greenbelt is vitally necessary to the well-being of the community, then it is only fair that some mechanism be found to compensate the landowners for providing the scenery and open space that the community so fervently desires.

This has happened in other places. Sonoma County taxpayers, for example, imposed upon themselves a half-cent sales tax to buy open space and development rights. Organizations such as the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and the Nature Conservancy recognize the importance and validity of private property rights by paying owners for their land.

I doubt that any homeowner would willingly accept the proposition that the public has designated his or her house desirable for scenic pleasure and therefore it could not be altered or remodeled for the next 30 years without a majority vote of the people. He or she would say, “If you like it and want it, then buy it.”

It is disingenuous of those in the urban community to vote to restrict and essentially take private property because they like the way it looks or feels without stepping up to the responsibility of fairly compensating the landowners.

I hope the task force will address this basic principle of fairness that exists as a result of policies already in place today.

I also believe that there are legitimate alternative uses of greenbelt lands that should be considered appropriate, especially if they involve public use and enjoyment and don’t significantly alter the character of the land. Golf courses, equestrian facilities and similar recreational uses could be economically viable and compatible with the desire to maintain a visual buffer zone between urban areas.

I wish you well in your discussions and deliberations and thank you for the opportunity to present my views.

Three more town hall forums on farmland policy are scheduled: Tuesday, Camarillo City Hall; Wednesday, Simi and Conejo Valley session at Reagan Library; Feb. 3, Ojai City Hall. All run from 6:45 to 9 p.m.