SOAR, Measure B

No doubt I will not be able to persuade SOAR opponents to vote in favor of Measure B in Ventura County and Measure B in Thousand Oaks. But for those who are undecided, consider this: SOAR would expire in 2021. It can be viewed as an experiment that could be easily changed if it is found to have problems. The opposite is not true. Unbridled development is not reversible.

Am I mistaken or is traffic almost to the point of gridlock? Per capita taxes are increasing to provide the infrastructure needed to support more growth. Recent examples are sewer rate increases and a large school bond. Not that I am arguing against these things; they are necessary to keep up with growth. The rate of tax increases will follow the rate of growth, Stream and ocean pollution from street runoff is getting worse and only the surfers really seem to care. Fortunately for us, our increasingly polluted air blows inland to others.

With all the great places to live in our U.S. of A., why do we have to crowd in a disproportionate share? Vote yes on measures B and P. Remember “beautiful” and “pretty.”

BURT ELLIOTT, Thousand Oaks

*

It is extremely ironic that the very farmland conversion referred to in a recent letter is the inevitable outcome of the proposed SOAR ordinances. SOAR and its related CURBs, or city urban restriction boundaries, are the greatest threat to prime agricultural land within our cities.

The notion of establishing such boundaries may seem a comfortable solution to a set of complex problems. But the devil is in the details and containing all future development within rigid boundaries puts at risk more than 1,200 acres of irrigated farmland in Camarillo.

Further, the proposed Camarillo CURB expands beyond the existing sphere of influence to [put] another 450 acres of prime farmland into that boundary.

In Oxnard, 465 acres of open space and farmland is added to the CURB and 581 acres of production agriculture in Santa Paula. Does this sound like protecting agriculture to you?

When land in the unincorporated area is no longer available under SOAR, future development will indeed result in conversion of valuable agricultural land in our cities.

CHRIS DEARDORFF, Deardorff / Jackson Farms, Camarillo

*

Thank you for your extensive interviews, analyses and letters on the SOAR initiatives. There are enough opinions and assertions to befuddle the average voter. The challenge is not seeing the forest for the trees in this watershed issue.

The forest is the political method by which our elected officials approve developments. The landscape of Southern California stands as testimony to business-as-usual development, a common result of political favoritism.

SOAR began in the city of Ventura because developments were being considered by our City Council without regard to supporting infrastructure. Our concerns about crowded schools, increasing traffic, declining air quality and loss of greenbelt seemed strangely unimportant among those on their hidden agenda.

This relentlessly repeating scenario has led independent citizens to qualify SOAR initiatives for the ballot throughout Ventura County. To these volunteers, an initiative to enforce their city’s General Plan and the county’s land-use agreements is the only sure way to protect their quality of life from business-as-usual development.

This is a citizens movement. As during the campaign for Proposition 13, those opposed will predict the end of the world or say the public can’t be trusted to make good decisions. History has proved them wrong.

SOAR has grown into the forum of the ballot box because its time has come. Business-as-usual development has failed and will continue to. You have a right to protect your quality of life and you must now vote to do it.

RONALD S. KOPP, Ventura