Santa Paula’s Proposed Expansion

* Re “Growing Pains: Critics Assail LAFCO Policy Change as Santa Paula Seeks to Expand,” Jan. 16.

I was dismayed after reading this article about Santa Paula’s desire to annex and develop land outside its present boundaries.

I was dismayed because the city says it wants “to send an influx of customers into the city, bolstering its struggling downtown shops and infusing cash into sales [and property] tax coffers.” Assuming both that the city could attract many new residents and that they would choose to shop in Santa Paula, the problem is that this argument tends to revisit itself. What do you do when there is no more room and the shops are not doing well?

The we-have-to-constantly-add-people-to survive method of running cities in California is old and unimaginative and has been unsuccessfully used all over the place. To me, the mark of a good city official is that he or she thinks of ways of managing a sustainable economy in a place where (and when) it is still enjoyable to live. It is also discomforting to hear that some city officials seem to care for citizens only as consumers and taxpayers and not as people and neighbors.

Attorney Richard Francis sued because LAFCO didn’t follow its guidelines in approving a proposed 3,221-home development near Moorpark (which was, according to the paper, one of largest ever in this county). What did LAFCO do? Instead of deciding to follow those guidelines, it decided to relax them.

Now, Santa Paula wishes to build 3,600 homes. I don’t recall LAFCO seeking input from citizens of neighboring communities as to the effects of the proposed development on them. I am a resident of east Ventura and something my family and I enjoy is driving or riding out on rural Foothill Road. It’s beautiful. Santa Paula’s proposed development would kill that ride. It’s ironic too, inasmuch as we usually stop to eat in Santa Paula’s quaint downtown.

MARK E. HANCOCK

Ventura