SOAR, the Process, Is Just Beginning

In the past seven months, the successful Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) initiative has had a chance settle into the mainstream. Probably the most interesting observation about SOAR now, after its overwhelming success, is how noncontroversial it has become. Although the SOAR proponents never viewed the measure as revolutionary but merely reinforcement of the existing rules, it was viewed by some as the harbinger of hell. While the long-term effects will need substantial time to play out, some preliminary truths are beginning to take shape.

First, the necessity of sprawl has fallen from the discussion table.

Although there remain SOAR-related issues to address, the SOAR-affected cities have universally adopted the ethic of relying on the space for growth within SOAR-created urban boundaries. Certainly, there are some adjustments still being made, but on the whole elected official acquiescence to the voter mandate has been impressive. With the exception of Moorpark, where some unique circumstances are driving the debate, there have been no legal challenges to the initiatives.

Second, most visible in the city of Ventura, investment in downtown cores and revitalization through private investment is improving dramatically. The recent debate over a Midtown redevelopment district in Ventura is interesting because both sides pointed to SOAR for support. The proponents argued that the government was looking to the in-fill ethic and needed the redevelopment plan to enhance that approach. The opposition, the prevailing side, argued persuasively that with SOAR in place additional governmental involvement in redevelopment was unnecessary. Redevelopment is occurring with private dollars. Such an argument is reflective of the old maxim “developers will develop.” If they are limited to the parts of town needing redevelopment, impressive things can happen.

Third, farmers have taken the mandate seriously and begun to replant. In many cases, particularly with lemons and avocados, replanting is a significant capital investment, meant to be amortized over decades. Such reinvestment in the major income-producing industry in Ventura County had been, in many cases, deferred prior to SOAR. One would not want to plant new orchards if they were to be pulled out by a developer next year. The emphasis put on urban boundaries has given farmers an incentive to reinvest. It has calmed some of the fears of farmers more remote from urban centers that the march of urbanization was inevitable and would sooner rather than later jeopardize their livelihoods.

SOAR moved Ventura County to the forefront of what is shaping up as a major national debate regarding growth. The SOAR proponents have been inundated with calls from all over the state, with considerable interest from many remote parts of the country. The vision of the Ventura County voters and their faith that the old model was not appropriate for the future has proved prophetic to others.

Neither have any of the doomsday prophesies of economic chaos started to emerge. Community savings in terms of the reduced necessity to greatly extend (and then maintain) infrastructure--roads, water lines, sewers, police and fire services--will not appear on any ledger, but those savings are occurring nonetheless.

But there is still much to be done. One of the constant refrains in the election process was that SOAR would not solve all of the problems of urban sprawl. The SOAR proponents appropriately replied that it was nonetheless an important first step.

It is often not remembered that contemporaneously with SOAR the voters approved Measure A, based on the recommendations of the blue-ribbon Agriculture Policy Working Group. It called on the Board of Supervisors to initiate better greenbelt agreements; asked that annexations be halted until urban boundary studies had been completed; recommended that farm worker housing be monitored and availability improved; proposed that a mechanism be established to acquire the most sensitive lands in the path of sprawl, and suggested that public education on the issues be an ongoing governmental task.

Although some in the SOAR camp saw the committee’s recommendations as merely a cynical attempt to divert support from SOAR, the vast majority of us saw in the recommendations a welcome vehicle to complement SOAR. The measures were not in conflict. Unfortunately, the Board of Supervisors is not implementing the working group’s recommendations. Even this newspaper’s editorial promise to hold the collective elected representatives’ feet to the fire to see that the policies of the working group were carried out has flagged.

Those of us who pushed for SOAR are gratified that we did not drop our efforts in reliance on the promise that the elected officials would stem urban sprawl through the working group’s recommendations.

Yes, there is much to be done. And the attempts to crack the lines will come more frequently. Now in Ventura, two projects attempting to break the greenbelt are making their way through the process and may be on the ballot as early as November. In Thousand Oaks, golf courses are overtaking open space. In Moorpark, litigation is the tool of choice in the battle over open space and agriculture lands. In Santa Paula, 9,000 acres are in the balance. They may all be worthy projects, but the eternal vigilance to stay educated on the issues remains a necessity.

Saving open space and agricultural resources is not done by a single election. It is an eternal process.