Thousand Oaks City Council

The Times’ endorsement of Judy Lazar, Andy Fox and Dennis Gillette for City Council in Thousand Oaks was disappointing but hardly unexpected. The power elite always support those they have installed, even when they have to hedge their bets by chastising one of their own as having been “less successful at remaining above the gutter politics,” and (paraphrasing your editorial) whose use of campaign finance laws to continue funding his political machine was one of the major reasons why we needed a local campaign funding ordinance.

I was dismayed, though, that you accused the clean sweep candidates of offering “much negativity.” The clean sweep team has never stooped to “gutter politics,” but instead has singly and collectively been the brunt of character assassination, innuendo and illegal campaign tactics brought on by the only slate obscenely funded enough to afford this type of big-city political mudslinging: Fox, Lazar and Gillette. The clean sweep team has stuck to challenging the voting records and exposing the financial dealings and hidden political affiliations of the “developers’ dream team.” This is not negative campaigning; it is honest political dialogue, something you should be encouraging, not condemning.

I was disappointed at your claim that the clean sweep team offered “few fresh ideas or signs of leadership.” The clean sweep team specifically pledges to:

* Stop overdevelopment by: a) placing a moratorium on projects that exceed the General Plan, and b) reducing traffic and noise and establishing policies to prevent these impacts.

* Fulfill recreational needs by: a) completing “future park sites,” and b) placing ball fields and a permanent equestrian center on Broome Ranch.

* End tax-and-spend practices by: a) returning the city to a “pay-as-you-go” policy, and b) requiring developers to pay their own way.

* Reform the political process by: a) adopting term limits, b) requiring council members to disclose contributions from applicants before voting on their projects, and c) restoring the voluntary campaign spending limit, a limit that every candidate has endorsed except for Mr. Fox, who weasel-worded his way around it by saying that he had “budgeted for a $25,000 campaign.”

* Protect open space by: a) protecting ridgelines, and b) purchasing private lands that are threatened by development within the ring of open space.

* Preserving neighborhoods by: enforcing residential public nuisance codes promptly, b) stopping overcrowding, and c) reducing excessive traffic and speed in residential neighborhoods.

* Support local businesses by: a) not breaking the rules in favor of developers at the expense of local businesses, b) giving priority to existing businesses, and c) considering the economic impacts on smaller, locally owned businesses when reviewing development applications for large chain stores.

In addition, at candidate forums we have proposed:

* Establishing lobbying laws so that paid lobbyists have to register and city staff has to record all contacts with these persons.

* Revisiting the need for a separate parks and recreation district that will forever be inadequately funded to take care of neighborhood parks, and that has to allocate fully 23% of its budget to administrative overhead duplicating what the city is already spending on like functions.

* Getting tough with the Dos Vientos developers to rectify the Borchard Road “failing grade” without having the taxpayers pay for the multimillion-dollar mistake made by the current City Council majority, two of whom you have endorsed.

Perhaps even more shocking was your claim that the clean sweep team was an “attempt to pound the stake of polarization deeper into the heart of Thousand Oaks.” It was Fox and Lazar, the same two “responsible leaders” that you endorsed, and their hand-picked slate-mate, Gillette, who were behind the failed, overwhelmingly rejected and shamelessly conducted attempted recall of a public servant who was only doing what she had pledged, and the voters had elected her, to do. This abuse of the electoral process was the single greatest cause of this polarization.

WAYNE POSSEHL, Thousand Oaks