Supporters, Foes of Growth-Control Measure Push Their Cases

California voters are being bombarded by flashy last-minute television ads on statewide propositions. But locally, the hot issue is SOAR, and supporters and foes of the growth-control measure tried to sell their sides in an old-fashioned debate Wednesday night.

Ventura County voters will be asked Tuesday to approve or reject the strictest set of growth-control measures ever proposed in Southern California. These ballot initiatives aim to stop urban sprawl by transferring development decisions from county and city leaders to voters.

Under the countywide Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) initiative, called Measure B, farmland and open space outside city limits could not be rezoned for development without voters’ approval through 2020.

Arguing for the initiative at College United Methodist Church near Ventura College, former Ventura Councilman Steve Bennett warned that Ventura County could go the way of the San Fernando Valley and Orange County, that citrus groves could become subdivisions and strawberry fields could be turned into strip malls.

“If you think that urban sprawl is not a problem in Ventura County, if you think that the current regulations that we have are going to be adequate . . . don’t vote for Measure B,” Bennett said.

Rob Roy, president of the Ventura County Agricultural Assn., lobbied against the measure on behalf of the anti-SOAR group, Coalition for Community Planning. Roy and SOAR’s other opponents say “ballot-box zoning” measures are unnecessary because Ventura County already has the most stringent land-use policies in Southern California.

*

Citizens lack the time to study the complexities of land-use decisions and should trust their elected officials to act on their behalf--or vote them out of office, Roy said.

“We just don’t have the time to micro-manage those types of decisions,” he said.

Bennett countered that voters would merely be voting on land use when the projects in question are exceptions to existing city and county plans. Asking the public to make the final decision, he said, would be a double-check to the green light already given by politicians.

“The advantage is it will be an affirmation of the decision of the elected officials,” he said.

All of the county’s major agricultural leaders oppose SOAR, saying newcomers to the county want to keep seeing fields from their subdivision windows without having to buy the land.

Along with being an attack on property rights, farmers also argue SOAR would keep them from adjusting to the global marketplace by preventing them from building new facilities for different crops without public approval.

Roy said similar growth-control measures in Napa County, on which Ventura County’s SOAR initiative is modeled, have resulted in “absurd results” where voters are sent to the polls for such insignificant decisions as allowing a single produce stand to be built or a restaurant to expand its patios.

Roy and SOAR’s other foes also contend that based on the experience of Napa and Portland, Ore., growth restrictions in Ventura County would lead to a housing shortage and inflate home prices.

*

While Napa’s farmers largely supported growth control there, Roy said it was because of the Northern California county’s “two-horse industry” of grape-growing and wine-industry tourism. Ventura County’s economy, he argued, is more diverse than Napa’s and should not have been subjected to the same type of initiative.

Exempt from needing voter approval for rezoning are government projects, an exception Bennett, one of SOAR’s authors, said was included to bring moderation to the growth-control bill. While Bennett maintained government should be allowed to place municipal buildings, such as fire stations, on what is now open space, Roy warned that cities with more voters could gang up on the county’s smaller cities and force them to take on less desirable projects such as jails and garbage dumps.

Also at the debate Wednesday night was Gerard Kapuscik, an aide to Supervisor John Flynn, on hand to promote Measure A. That initiative is basically a poll of county voters to ask whether they support certain growth guidelines, as suggested by an agricultural committee.

If voters are going to approve Measure A, Bennett said, they should also vote for SOAR. He contended SOAR’s opponents are using Measure A to “deflect support” of Measure B.

*

Roy’s group is not taking a position on Measure A, but speaking for the farming community he urged that voters support the advisory measure over SOAR.

In addition to the countywide Measure B, voters in Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, Camarillo, Oxnard and Santa Paula will see separate SOAR measures on their ballots Tuesday. If passed, the measures would prevent city leaders from expanding city borders without a vote of the people. Moorpark voters will consider a similar measure in a special election in January.

Roy argued the city SOAR measures would force overdevelopment within the cities’ boundaries, on the most fertile farmland in the county. Ventura already has its own version of SOAR, which Bennett cited as being successful since its passage in November 1995.

The 75-minute forum allowed both sides to present their cases before being asked questions by each other, the audience of about 25 people, two local newspaper reporters and professors from Ventura College and Cal State Northridge.