Property Rights of Farmers a SOAR Subject

In Napa County, a squabble over a pumpkin patch prompted a countywide election.

Why? Because the produce stand violated Napa’s tough growth-control law--the same law SOAR activists are proposing for Ventura County in what has become the hottest political issue here this fall.

To opponents of the Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources measures, the likelihood of such seemingly ridiculous ballot battles occurring in Ventura County is just one reason voters should shoot SOAR down Nov. 3.

The measures, they argue, would trample landowners’ rights to exercise reasonable control over their property--and get out of farming if they decide it is no longer in their best interest.

“SOAR takes away the choice of whether you want to stay in farming,” said former rancher Bruce Strathearn, a member of the anti-SOAR Coalition for Community Planning. “What if you’re looking at estate taxes? What if your children don’t want to farm?”

SOAR backers, who have already seen a similar measure passed in Ventura amid the same criticism, ridicule inferences that the measures tread on property rights.

SOAR, they say, merely forces landowners to abide by the zoning called for in existing growth blueprints unless voters decide otherwise. They also say SOAR contains exemptions for farmers who can show their land is no longer fit to grow crops.

“A farmer has no more right to develop his property than I have to build a McDonalds on my front yard,” said SOAR leader Steve Bennett, repeating one of the campaign’s more popular sound bites.

A countywide SOAR measure would prevent--through 2020--farmland and open space outside cities from being rezoned for development without voters’ approval. Ballot measures in Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, Camarillo, Oxnard and Santa Paula would bar the cities from expanding beyond a set of designated borders unless voters agreed. Another city measure will go before Moorpark voters in January.

One look at SOAR’s Napa County forerunner suggests Ventura County landowners would encounter a new set of zoning challenges if the measures become law--not just the ranchers and agribusiness giants, but the little guys as well.

It also suggests the growth-control effort seems to accomplish what it sets out to do--limiting urban sprawl--even if it appears saddled with costly consequences for the Will Wilcoxsons of the world.

A retired schoolteacher, Wilcoxson sells fruits and vegetables to tourists in Napa’s wine country. Around Halloween, he gives pumpkins to schools, veterans’ homes and poor kids from Oakland.

To Napa County planners, however, Wilcoxson might as well have been a big-time builder bent on paving over wine-making paradise.

Because his Stanly Lane Pumpkin Patch sold produce not cultivated on-site, officials said it broke a Napa County growth-control law that only permits such “commercial” land uses outside cities if voters say so.

Wilcoxson had two choices: run an election campaign to save the stand or shut it down. He chose an election, and won--but the campaign cost him $50,000.

“If you want to build a winery around here, it’s no problem,” Wilcoxson said, still bitter over his election experience two years earlier. “But try to run a pumpkin patch, and you get a political war.”

But SOAR supporters draw a different lesson from Napa’s experience.

Since voters there approved their landmark measure in 1990, there have been only five initiative drives challenging the logic of keeping urbanization inside the cities of the tourist region.

Only two initiative drives were successful. And the only building plan--a Texas developer’s proposal to build 1,700 homes, a resort and an office park near Lake Berryessa--was crushed at the polls, garnering just 15% of the vote.

Landowners Paying for Others’ Pretty Views?

“We have basically removed the ability of local governments in this state to raise taxes without voter approval,” said Volker Eisele, a former Berkeley sociologist who became a wine grower and spawned the Napa measure. “Why not limit their ability to make land-use decisions? It’s just as important.”

Many Ventura County landowners, though strongly condemning that rationale, say growth-control measures such as SOAR force property owners to pay for everyone else’s pretty views.

Although Strathearn’s family sold its 12,000 acres of cattle-grazing land to several groups--including the developer of Moorpark’s controversial, 3,221-home Hidden Creek Ranch proposal--more than two decades ago, he still takes offense to SOAR.

“If you have a city that needs to annex your property to provide more jobs and housing for people, why shouldn’t that be OK?” he said. “I don’t think 3% of the population--the landowners--should carry the load for the rest. That’s not fair. I will fight SOAR to the death.”

Most farm leaders and large-scale farmers in the county, however, insist the SOAR measures do more to hurt the county’s agriculture industry than to help it.

They say existing growth policies have largely done a good job of stopping urban sprawl without discriminating against farmers.

“I believe this is a very thinly veiled no-growth initiative that has wrapped itself around an industry without consulting the people who work in it,” said Pierre Tada, president of Santa Paula-based lemon titan Limoneira Inc. “It’s hard to argue with the idea of saving farmland--I fully support it--but this is about something completely different.”

By virtually taking away the speculative value of agricultural land, SOAR would drastically reduce farmers’ property values, thereby lowering the amount a farmer can borrow based on his farm, they say.

Some farm leaders also argue SOAR would prevent farmers from putting up barns or greenhouses without holding an election, thereby limiting the ability of agribusiness to compete in the global marketplace.

“Of course, there is a lot of concern within the agricultural community that people would not be able to sell their land for nonagricultural uses if this passed,” said Rob Roy, president and general counsel of the Ventura County Agricultural Assn. “But there is equal concern that they will not be able to build actual agriculture buildings. That rubs against the basic nature of most farmers, and most Americans, to do what they want with their properties.”

County planning officials dispute that claim, saying any type of farm building now allowed under agricultural zoning would still be allowed under SOAR.

A handful of farmers favor SOAR, arguing existing growth-control policies are failing to protect farm and grazing land from urban pressures.

The problem is not with the policies themselves, these landowners say, but with the planners and politicians who are increasingly ignoring them.

“I’m not going to sell out,” said strawberry farm owner Fred Rosenmund, who read in a newspaper last year that the farm between his property and the Oxnard city limits was the site of a proposed agricultural theme park. The plan was later shelved because of community opposition.

“But I’m right across the street from the boundary,” he added. “If this farm in front of me goes, the domino effect is just going to roll me over.”

Others find themselves confused by the rhetoric and unsure of whether SOAR would improve or worsen their chances of survival.

Thursel Roatcap, owner of the Windmill Christmas Tree Farm just outside Santa Paula, is concerned that the urbanization that overtook her family’s Chatsworth farm is headed toward the rural Santa Clara Valley.

With the Newhall Land & Farming Co. planning a massive minicity just across the Los Angeles County line, she believes it is only a matter of time before development pressures reach her farm. She wants to do whatever possible to keep those forces at bay.

“We keep moving out,” said Roatcap, who lives in a cabin near Mt. Pinos with her husband, Ralph. “We’re tired of moving.”

At the same time, however, she worries SOAR--which would place the Santa Paula boundary across the street from her property--would actually bring those urban forces to her backyard faster, and possibly prevent her from getting out of the Christmas tree business without losing money.

“We’re not a big farm,” Roatcap said. “We’re not Limoneira. We don’t have a lot of money. We don’t know what this would do to us. We’re on the fence.”

Giving Farmers a New Set of Hoops

Indisputably, SOAR would require landowners to go through a new set of hoops to convert property zoned as farmland and open space to another use--ending with an election.

For instance, if a Somis farmer wanted to convert his avocado grove into a housing tract, the issue would no longer be decided by the county Board of Supervisors.

Instead, the board could hold at least one public hearing on the landowner’s application for a zoning change. If it made a finding that the development complies with the California Environmental Quality Act, the board could then place the issue before voters for approval.

The landowner could also avoid that process altogether--including the environmental requirements--and still receive the zoning change by raising signatures and placing an initiative on the ballot.

That, SOAR opponents say, amounts to an invitation for well-heeled developers to run slick election campaigns in Ventura County. With the money traditionally spent on environmental and planning studies to appease bureaucrats, developers would instead woo impressionable voters, SOAR foes say.

SOAR leader Richard Francis concedes builders could try to manipulate the initiative process to their benefit in the future--but he says developers can do that now, without SOAR.

“If that was such a big loophole, I don’t think the developers would be fighting this as hard as they are,” Francis quipped. “Sure, maybe developers will come in and try to buy elections in Ventura County. But that hasn’t really happened in Napa County, and I don’t think it will happen here.”

What has happened in Napa County on a handful of occasions are pricey elections to settle the silliest of local land-use disputes.

Take the case of Don Giovanni, a trendy-looking Italian restaurant nestled among the picturesque vineyards between Napa and St. Helena.

Owner Giovanni Scala needed room for his growing clientele, so he built a large, stylish wooden deck behind the eatery.

But he forgot to check with county officials before building his addition. As he soon learned, the “expansion” violated Measure J, the same Napa County zoning law that tripped up Wilcoxson.

County officials informed Scala he did not have to tear the deck down, but ordered him not to seat patrons on it. Furious, he took his case to Napa voters--and won.

County Planner Jeff Redding, who supports Napa’s law, said the hidden downside to it is not the election costs private individuals have to incur, but the fact that it spurs individuals such as Scala and Wilcoxson to override planning laws by holding election campaigns.

“It’s important to keep in mind that these were illegal operations that would have been shut down and are now operating thanks to the voters,” Redding said.

“I think those people took advantage of popular sentiment that Measure J was hurting the little guy. It’s a fabulous restaurant, Don Giovanni,” Redding added. “I eat there whenever I can. And let me tell you, I sit out on the deck.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Farmland’s Future

Ventura County’s fertile soil and mild climate help about 2,200 local farmers generate about $1.2 billion a year in sales and 18,000 local jobs on some of the most productive farmland in the world. California is the food basket of the nation, and Ventura County ranks among the state’s leading counties in the production of 10 crops, including nearly half of all the lemons in the United States. But 900 acres of cropland are being converted to urban uses each year, and slow-growth activists say it is time to take zoning power away from politicians to save the county’s farm industry.

Greenbelts

Efforts are underway to put teeth into the nonbinding city-county agreements that have created six greenbelts spanning 83,000 acres since 1967. The county Farm Bureau has recommended a seventh greenbelt east of Fillmore. A variety of interests also favor making city boundaries permanent. But as these efforts move forward, Oxnard and Santa Paula are considering annexation of greenbelt lands.

*--*

Greenbelt Established Acres 1 Ventura/Santa Paula 1967 8,300 2 Santa Paula/Fillmore 1980 34,200 3 Camarillo/Oxnard 1982 27,300 4 Tierra Rejada 1982 2,700 5 Santa Rosa Valley 1985 6,200 6 Ventura/Oxnard 1993 4,600

*--*

*

City Limits/Spheres of Influence

Under the county Guidelines for Orderly Development, created in 1969, urban development should take place within cities. Spheres of influence indicate the probable future boundaries of each city. These spheres are created by the Local Agency Formation Commission, which must approve all annexations. About 5,000 acres of undeveloped farmland remain in the spheres of five cities, with two-thirds in Oxnard and Ventura.

*

Map Key

* Green belts * Sphere of Influence * City Limits

*

Farmland Facts

* Industry: Agriculture is still the No. 1 county industry, producing 8% of jobs and 8% of personal income.

* Value: Sales, production and processing contribute $1.2 billion to the local economy.

* Productivity: The county’s irrigated cropland is about three times more productive than statewide average: about $6,700 per acre compared with $2,200.

* Ownership: Most of the 2,195 local farms are owned by individuals or families.

* Size: Farms average 146 acres, compared with 373 acres statewide.

* Harvested Acres: About 125,000. Total double-counts acres where there are two plantings a year.

* Irrigated Acres: About 105,000.

* Cropland Loss: County population has grown 5 1/2 times since 1950. A farmland study predicts that if development continues at historical levels, 10,000 acres of irrigated cropland will be lost to city expansion by 2010.

*

Map Key

* Prime Farmland * Other Important Farmland * City Limits

*

Farmland Economics

Main Crops Total (1997 value, in millions)

Lemons: $217

Strawberries: 144

Nursery products: 95

Celery: 94

Valencia oranges: 70

Avocados: $61

Cut flowers: 44

Lettuce: 26

Broccoli: 23

Peppers: 17

Crop Value (in millions)

1988: $786

1989: $806

1990: $853

1991: $910

1992: $722

1993: $848

1994: $852

1995: $922

1996: $852

1997: $942

Agricultural Land Lost (Net, in acres)

1986-88: 2,641

1988-90: 2,906

1990-92: 1,230

1992-94: 1,032

1994-96: 1,383

Total: 9,192

Sources: 1995 annual crop report, Ventura County Agriculture Dept.; Ventura County Planning Dept.; The Value of Agriculture to Ventura County: An Economic Analysis.

About This Series

County Report: The SOAR Debate is a four-part series examining the consequences of the Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources initiatives on the fall ballot across Ventura County. Today’s story looks at the effect the growth control measures could have on landowners, particularly farmers. Next week’s story will explore SOAR’s impact on county politics. Past stories have detailed the effect on housing prices and the arguments for and against the measures.