Redistricting Reversal Angers Somis Residents

In a surprise reversal that infuriated Somis residents, a divided Ventura County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to unite the Las Posas Valley in Supervisor Judy Mikels’ district.

Supervisor John Flynn, seeking to preserve his own Oxnard-based district, changed his earlier position and cast the key vote in support of Mikels’ motion. Supervisor Frank Schillo also favored the move.

The board is required to redraw its political boundaries after each census to ensure that each of the five districts has roughly the same number of residents.

The board’s action ran counter to its position two weeks ago, when supervisors voted to consolidate much of the agricultural valley in Kathy Long’s district, a move supported by Somis residents who have been unhappy with Mikels’ representation.

Tuesday’s vote means that Mikels will have political control not only over Somis, but over the entire Las Posas Valley--an expansion of her current boundaries.

A handful of Somis residents watched in disbelief as Schillo of Thousand Oaks and Flynn of Oxnard cast their votes. The Somis residents left the supervisors’ board room immediately after the vote, many expressing disgust.

“It’s one of the most political situations I’ve ever been involved in,” said Barbara Kerkhoff, one of dozens of Somis residents who have lobbied hard in recent weeks to get out of Mikels’ district.

“Our worst scenario happened,” Somis resident Carrie Warren muttered to her husband, Len, as they exited.

Mikels recommended the move as supervisors were struggling to balance the population in each of their political districts at about 150,000 residents.

To get Schillo’s district there, Mikels suggested moving the Santa Rosa Valley out of her district and into Schillo’s, and then consolidating the Las Posas Valley at the western edge of her district.

Mikels acknowledged that the move would be unpopular with Somis residents, but said that it made sense to bring the Las Posas Valley together in one district.

“None of this is political,” Mikels said. “I am trying to be as logical as possible.”

The board’s other option was to move the eastern Las Posas Valley out of Mikels’ and into Long’s district. But that would have required Flynn to give up parts of south Oxnard to balance Schillo’s district, a move he opposed.

Mikels’ motion passed over the objection of Long and Supervisor Steve Bennett. Long, based in Camarillo, said Somis residents tend to shop in Camarillo and therefore should be in her district.

In other changes, supervisors unanimously agreed to include the northwestern portion of the naval Seabee base in Port Hueneme in Flynn’s district. Flynn said it made sense for him to represent a portion of the base because many of its workers live in Oxnard and are his constituents.

Supervisors also voted 4 to 1 to include the Cal State Channel Islands campus in Long’s district. Schillo argued that it should be part of his political base because students would be traveling through Newbury Park.

But supervisors voted him down, agreeing with Long that Camarillo will feel the brunt of the developing university.

Tuesday’s changes bring the redistricting process closer to completion. The proposed plan will be presented for a public hearing next Tuesday and, if all goes according to schedule, adopted on July 24.

In earlier sessions, supervisors agreed to unite the city of Ojai with the surrounding Ojai Valley in Bennett’s district. Bennett would also represent the communities along the Rincon north of Ventura and the Matilija back country area.

The city of Thousand Oaks, including Newbury Park, will be consolidated in Schillo’s district. But Schillo will no longer represent Port Hueneme, which will be in Long’s reconfigured boundaries.

But the biggest upset Tuesday was the decision to put the entire Las Posas Valley in Mikels’ district.

Somis residents have long criticized Mikels’ support for widening of a nearby highway and said Tuesday’s decision means their concerns will go unheeded.

“We have no power,” Kerkhoff said. “We’ll go on living. But I doubt we will be making [campaign] contributions to any of these board members in the future. They shouldn’t even ask.”