Santa Paula, Fillmore and SOAR

* Caution needs to be taken in reading the proposed Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) initiatives in both Santa Paula and Fillmore.

These initiatives follow California law and agree with the existing housing elements (a legally required part of each city’s General Plan) in encouraging density of housing near the city core. This would have the double effect of providing more customers for downtown businesses and reducing traffic congestion and the consequent air pollution.

It also would raise property values near the core, as apartments and condos have higher value than empty lots and run-down commercial property. Considering that such development benefits the city, it is appropriate to give density bonuses to developers of such property.

The SOAR initiatives follow state law in calling for a range of housing types and costs. They exempt affordable housing (and a few other land uses) from future referendums.

Rather than SOAR having negative effects on Santa Paula’s or Fillmore’s home and business owners, a more serious attack on the property rights of existing residents would be the development of noncontiguous land with expensive houses, hotels and golf courses. These would require expensive new water, sewer, electric and phone lines and police and fire services.

Many people have the illusion that all these new services would be paid by the developers and the new residents of the noncontiguous land. However, the history of land development in California is that developers and new customers pay only a small portion of the cost, the rest being borne by the cities that hope to benefit from the annexation.

Basing our voting decisions on emotional appeals “for the children” and “against low-income housing” is not likely to produce a livable Santa Paula or Fillmore. I urge that everyone read both the pro- and the anti-SOAR materials carefully.

DORA P. CROUCH

Santa Paula