Farmland Initiative

* Re “Flynn and Schillo Align to Back Farmland Initiative,” March 3.

I commend Ventura County Supervisors [Frank] Schillo and [John K.] Flynn for endorsing the Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources initiative. Preservation of open space is very important to the citizens of this county.

I am confused, however, by their suggestion that taxpayers should purchase “development rights” to agricultural lands. Are the taxpayers going to purchase the commercial development rights to my residential property? I think not. The fact that my property would be worth more with an office building on it does not entitle me to a check from the government.

The same goes for agricultural lands. Many farmland owners, especially the speculators who own much of the county’s ag land, might be salivating over the windfall they expect to come their way when they get their properties rezoned. However, they have no inherent right to a strip mall or subdivision on land zoned as agriculture.

Incidentally, SOAR would remove a lot of the artificial inflation of farmland prices due to speculation by developers. SOAR would make it easier for those who truly want to farm to purchase agricultural land in Ventura County.

SOAR wouldn’t change the zoning designation of property or make it impossible to have property rezoned. What SOAR would do is take that decision out of the hands of politicians and put it in the hands of the people. That is the most sure way of ensuring that the development of the county reflects our desires.

KATE FAULKNER

Ventura

*

* Re Times interview with Richard Francis and Steve Bennett on SOAR / CURB initiatives, Feb. 22.

Mr. Bennett and Mr. Francis just don’t get it. The SOAR / CURB initiatives do indeed violate property rights. Mr. Bennett raises the tired analogy of building a McDonald’s in his front yard but this is an apples and oranges comparison. Rezoning agricultural land for residential or commercial development does not interfere with neighboring farms. If anything it increases the value of surrounding agricultural land.

They have subverted the initiative process in cities, such as Camarillo, where council members agreed to enact CURB without an election if enough signatures are collected to put it on the ballot. This means that a mere 3,400 signatures in a city of 59,000 will accomplish their dirty work, rather than a majority vote in a fair election. People sign petitions even when they don’t agree or haven’t decided, just to further the democratic process. Will these signers even be informed that this so-called election was rigged from the start?

If the SOAR proponents are so concerned about the loss of farmland or open space, then they should find a solution that will help, not devastate, the very people they claim to be helping (farmers). The obvious solution is for them to band together as a group and purchase development rights or land that they feel is threatened. The land could then be rented or leased back consistent with their vision. There are groups that do similar things with respect to environmental issues.

Above all, any such transactions must be free and open, privately funded and without the extortion of eminent domain or other governmental mandates.

The bottom line to Mr. Bennett, Mr. Francis and others who would use political force to extort land and land-use rights: Put your money where your mouth is. If you want to control the land then buy it, don’t steal it!

RAYMOND F. IRVINE

Camarillo

*

* Re “Two Officials Faulted for Endorsing SOAR Plan,” March 4.

There’s an old joke that if you ask a surgeon for an opinion, the surgeon will recommend surgery.

Why is it any surprise, then, that when you ask a “committee of farmers, building industry representatives, planners and politicians” that they will recommend more land rights, developer rights, additional planning and politics?

There was a time when this worked. We used to be able to trust our farmers, builders and politicians. Unfortunately with “farmers” like Steve Maulhardt (former Oxnard farmer now developer and Camarillo resident), “builders” like Home Savings of America (Ahmanson Ranch, no county resident officers), planners like Tony Boden (Camarillo planner during the 28,000 to 72,000 population explosion) and politicians like Kathy Long and Judy Mikels we have more than enough information to decide that land-use decisions are best returned to the general populace.

Long and Mikels are upset that Supervisors Frank Schillo and John Flynn have “taken an easy way out.” For individuals irrevocably wedded to development special interests it may seem this way but to the general public it appears to be an act of leadership.

The main contention seems to be the expected “recommendations” of the Ag Policy Working Group. Long and Mikels are upset because they already know the results and know they are contrary to the intentions of the SOAR initiative.

Having attended the so-called consensus and scoping meetings, let me tell you the real agenda. Four visions for the future were presented outlining either more growth and higher density, more growth and same density (with more sprawl), same growth and higher density or finally higher density or more sprawl.

Well, duh, we are back to the old surgeon joke. How much more development and density do you want--a lot more or a whole lot more?

SOAR is a reaction to disingenuous political promises from the likes of Long and Mikels. Supervisors Schillo and Flynn are to be applauded for their uncommon courage to defy politics and support the public’s greater interests.

ROBERT COTE

Camarillo