Hidden Creek Ranch

Re “Project’s Approval by Council Was No Rush to Judgment,” Sept. 6.

Surely, most citizens of Moorpark share Councilman Bernardo Perez’s goal to “guarantee that Moorpark never becomes another San Fernando Valley,” but I’m not so sure his claims about the Hidden Creek Ranch development provide that guarantee.

Mr. Perez and the other City Council members devoted a great deal of emotional and intellectual time and energy to this decision, but I know that Valley city council members, managers and supervisors devoted a great deal of emotional and intellectual time and energy to their decisions.

Mr. Perez enumerates the benefits Moorpark would receive from the development--none of which guarantees the difference between Moorpark and the Valley. More parks and schools will not; the Valley has lots of schools and plenty of parks and large recreational areas. Public services will not; the Valley enjoys better public services than most other areas of Los Angeles. A freeway bypass will not; the Valley has some of the best freeways in the world that very nicely keep truck traffic off Valley streets.

If schools, parks, public services, freeways and carefully considered decisions don’t constitute the difference between the Valley and Moorpark, what does?

Open space.

Mr. Perez claims that the deal with Hidden Creek’s developers would guarantee open space, but the project itself breaks another guarantee of open space--the area that separates the cities of Ventura County with open space.

Because Hidden Creek Ranch would set a precedent for annexing land for development, it would destroy the only guarantee of difference and promises instead to make Moorpark just like the San Fernando Valley.

CHRIS MOTT, Moorpark

*

I have a suggestion for the enlightened Moorpark City Council members.

Bernardo Perez, Debbie Teasley, Chris Evans and John Wozniak are overlooking a tremendous development opportunity:

The median areas of the freeways are completely bare. Why not develop them? It’s just open space, and we know how they feel about open space . . . .

They could contact their friends in development and together they could construct housing developments, strip malls and even some driving ranges right there on the freeway. Shucks, since the roads around here are already jammed solid, at least we could get out of our cars and shop or knock around a bucket of balls.

Let’s not waste a chance to pave over everything and “grow” as much as we can.

ROGER R. MORTARA, Moorpark

*

The case presented by Moorpark Councilman Bernardo Perez for the Hidden Creek Ranch project reads very persuasively but it fails to deal with two critical points.

Assuming that the project is completed as planned, will the taxes paid by its homeowners equal the cost of their upkeep? Traffic is just one consideration. Every additional demand on city services will add cost. Certainly, the rest of the residents of the city should not be asked to subsidize the existence of a built-up Hidden Creek Ranch in perpetuity in exchange for the cash promised.

Assuming that the first question receives a satisfactory answer, the second question arises. What is the financial integrity of the developer, and what is the moral integrity?

Nobody could expect any developer to proceed except on a pay-as-you-go basis. The cash discussed by Perez is not now in the bank; it is anticipated to become available as homes are sold, and that is fair enough. But what happens if something goes sour and the developer asks for concessions?

This development--and every development--should be considered in the light of a contracted marriage--without love, without romance, without stars in the eyes--but a marriage for mutual benefits, a marriage of convenience. This development should be authorized only with the equivalent of a sound prenuptial agreement.

If things go wrong, if the developer cannot comply with every dot and tittle of the agreement, that should be no responsibility of the city whatsoever. The city should be in a position where no court would permit any suit against it to go forward. There is not a hint in Perez’s article that this aspect has even been thought about, yet development after development has demonstrated how important this aspect is.

GILBERT S. BAHN, Moorpark

*

The ABCs of urban sprawl:

I like my town to be small.

I do not want my town to sprawl.

I like clean air and country fairs,

not thicker fog and city stares.

Open range and farmers’ land,

“Desirable change,” says the businessman.

Who invaded the other’s turf?

Farms and small towns were here first!

We’ll miss sunflowers and balloons afloat,

life as we know it or forgotten footnotes?

Traffic jams, cellular phones,

too busy to stop and “pick your own.”

Ranchers’ cattle, horse and saddle--

in the end a losing battle?

Hammer and nails, build more shops.

No more trails, no more crops.

Rural towns, heartland--

can growing slow be un-American?

We do not like the mess of sprawl.

Boys and girls--can you spell S-M-A-L-L?

LORI RUTTER, Moorpark