Thousand Oaks Redevelopment Deal

Re “Exemplary Redevelopment,” Ventura County editorial, July 30.

I couldn’t believe my eyes when read this editorial about the [Rick J.] Caruso sweetheart deal. I am further horrified that you bought this city’s line that to oppose any of their tax-and-waste schemes is a sign of a naysayer who does not understand government accounting.

What were the issues that riled so many of us? The process is what is so important, and it was hijacked by the city. For more than a decade, we have been trying to do something positive for this extra land that the city purchased on the promise that it would sell the old city hall and this land and build a new city hall free and clear of debt. Well, instead of using their redevelopment money for helping the businesses on Thousand Oaks Boulevard, they put almost all the $40 million in 30-year bonds toward the giant and ugly city hall. So much for the promise to have a prepaid city hall!

This $12.5-million sweetheart deal is a clear breach of that pact with the voters. If this was such a great deal, why was it run through in 14 days like Israel’s iron-fist policy of yesteryear? Why was there never a discussion about the public tax giveaway in the community meetings or the City Council direction to developer Caruso in February? Why was the giveaway tucked in the Discovery Center proposition, which everyone supports?

Caruso is doing what the snake-oil salesmen tell you at 2 a.m. on the tube: Buy distressed property with zero down.

NICK E. QUIDWAI

Executive Director

Concerned Citizens of Thousand Oaks

*

I attended the meeting at which the majority of the Thousand Oaks City Council voted to approve the development agreement for the private side of the Civic Arts Plaza. The project includes a family entertainment center developed by Caruso Affiliated Holdings and the Ventura County Discovery Center--exactly what the community has asked for.

Only Council member Linda Parks declined to support the project. What is of concern is the reason and manner of Parks’ lone opposition.

To begin, it appeared that again, she had not read the staff report and either ignored or purposefully misrepresented the factual information provided during the hearing. Her main opposition was the financial aspect of the project. Admittedly it is a complex document. However, our elected representatives are expected to take time to read and understand complex issues. That’s their job.

What is more troubling is Parks’ assertion that the property is worth $3 million and the city should just “sell” the property. This is where her apparent willingness to misrepresent the facts to support her personal political agenda is revealed.

Yes, according to the consultant who did the financial analysis, the land is potentially worth $3 million with unrestricted use. That means big-box high-density development, not the low-density project that the majority of the council supports. Parks was told this several times during the hearing but chose to ignoring professionals and residents alike and instead listened to a developer who was involved in a personal dispute with Rick Caruso on another project.

That meeting symbolized the best and the very worst in our city government. Congratulations to the members who listened to the people and demonstrated the type of vision that the citizens expect and deserve from our elected representatives.

To Council member Parks: You represent the remaining roadblock to an effective and civil City Council. Your distortion of the facts and your opposition to this critical project underscore your inability to provide positive leadership. Hopefully, our upcoming election will mark the end of four years of political finger-pointing and disruption of an otherwise now civil and professional City Council.

JEFF ALEXANDER

Thousand Oaks