LETTERS : PUBLIC WON'T BE FOOLED BY INACCURACIES ABOUT SOAR.

Many thanks to Jon Haines for his sour grapes essay, ``SOAR initiatives have handcuffed our cities'' (Simi Valley Daily News, Aug. 28). His remarks clearly show Jane and John Q. Public that he doesn't understand what the voters approved almost eight and 10 months ago in Moorpark and in the rest of the county, respectively, when they passed the Save Open-space and Agricultural Resources initiatives. The voters were not fooled by the kind of misinformation, sprinkled with occasional grains of truth, that is rampant in Haines' essay. And the public won't be fooled now either.

Haines wants you to believe that he knows better than two out of every three voters who voted for SOAR. He wants you to believe you made a mistake, so he resurrected much of the old anti-SOAR rhetoric that you rejected in the two elections, hoping you'll believe it this time. Then he adds a few more new inaccuracies. It's not very likely that the public will be gullible enough to believe the inaccuracies.

Example No. 1: Haines says about the passage of SOAR: ``By putting up the no-growth gates around Ventura County, all we have done is make it impossible for our children to own a home in the community where they grew up.'' Wrong.

Just take a look at the figures for the already-planned growth in Ventura County's cities and in the unincorporated county till 2020. There are no less than 60,280 new housing starts planned that are not subject to SOAR's voter approval requirement. Assuming they all get built by 2020, that's another 185,000 people! Who would call that ``no-growth?'' Jon Haines did. Would you? I doubt it.

Of the 60,280 housing starts, some 4,280 are projected in Moorpark, where I live. For Moorpark, this will generate a 48 percent increase in population. But Haines and his anti-SOAR cronies aren't satisfied with a 48 percent growth rate in Moorpark. No, he wanted to allow Messenger's Hidden Creek proposal, too, to give Moorpark 3,221 more houses - so we'd have a staggering 86 percent growth rate by 2020.

Thankfully, Moorpark voters knew that a 48 percent growth rate was plenty to guarantee room for our children and grandchildren and many others. And they also knew that 86 percent was too much too soon, so they voted for SOAR and against Hidden Creek. Allowing a 48 percent growth rate is not following the ``last man closes the gate'' theory!

Example No. 2: Haines says, ``they (Messenger Development) spent 15 years going through all the necessary state, county, city planning and council approvals to go ahead and start development. But with the passage of SOAR by Moorpark voters in January, they are now left with the investment ($1.5 million, supposedly) but no way to capitalize on it.''

Haines' remarks suggest that he believes developers should be allowed to go through the motions of the public process and get automatic yes votes from any city or the county, no matter what they propose to do and no matter where or how they propose to do it. Well, guess what? California law allows city council persons, county supervisors, and yes, even the public, to vote no if they believe that sometimes a developer has to take no for an answer because of an inappropriate project! That's what happened in Moorpark when the citizens overturned the Hidden Creek development deal decision via a fair and legal referendum.

If the only criteria for getting development approval were submitting a proposal and investing your own money, then there would be no rules to protect the public interest and there would be no public process to ensure following the law. Automatic wink and nod yes votes to all urban development have no place in our government. Judge Hutchins' August 20 ruling to overturn the Hidden Creek annexation to Moorpark underscored that principle. No government entity should abuse its discretion by not following the law during its decision-making process for proposed projects seeking approvals. Yet that is just what happened with the Hidden Creek project. So, not only did the people of Moorpark say no to Hidden Creek in an election, a judge also said no to the Hidden Creek annexation in a courtroom. Messenger never had, and still does not have, valid approval to do any development in Hidden Creek. That's a fact.

Example No. 3: Haines criticizes Richard Francis, SOAR's attorney, for trying to make sure that a church group that wants to build on farmland has clearly defined their project before it goes on the ballot. Haines claimed the church's plans were ``already approved by the appropriate city agencies.'' Not so. The plans were not even submitted to the city, let alone scrutinized in the normal city process, as you would expect. So the Ventura City Council never got to vote on the church's plans to put them on the ballot. If such due diligence scrutiny had occurred, the project would have been well-defined and there would be no need to challenge it now. Nor would the church need to gather any signatures because the council would have placed it on the ballot for them.

``Closing the gates to the county?'' ``Handcuffing our cities?'' No. SOAR did not, has not and cannot do such things. Having Haines tell you that SOAR stopped all growth or handcuffed our cities doesn't make either statement true. And they're not true.

The reality is that Haines, the president-elect of the Simi Valley-Moorpark Association of Realtors, gives only lip service to promoting managed, sustained growth, while he argues against SOAR, the very thing that gives us the best chance to have that managed growth. Do you think he has a vested interest in uncontrolled building? Nahhh, of course not.

- Roseann Mikos

Moorpark

Roseann Mikos is president of the Moorpark Branch of the Environmental Coalition and is co-author of the Moorpark SOAR initiative. She can be reached at rmikosearthlink.net.

SOAR gives us control

Growth, even managed growth, is not necessary for communities' vitality or prosperity. By choosing whether or even how much to further urbanize Ventura County, we have made it possible for our children to grow up in a quality environment of safety and open spaces.

Ventura County as America's most democratic community? Sure, consider this: With the passage of the SOAR initiatives, the residents of Ventura County - excluding Santa Paula and Fillmore - have chosen to vote for themselves on new development proposals outside our current city boundaries.

This responsibility was formerly delegated to our elected representatives at the city and county level. Dissatisfied with the results of this process, Ventura County citizens overwhelmingly voted to reserve for themselves this authority over new and previously unanticipated land use change requests.

In part, SOAR is a classic example of a democratic overreaction to a political process that failed to be responsive to the will of the people. Wholesale approval of massive new leapfrog development that has strained the communities' infrastructure and patience marked the period before SOAR was approved and literally paved the way for its passage.

To characterize SOAR as a restriction on development is untrue. SOAR merely codifies what people have always believed: Land-use changes are a community issue and not a system of political spoils.

Let's break down what SOAR initiatives have done so far and what their long-term impacts may be. SOAR has caused developers to rethink their new development proposals in the unincorporated parts of Ventura County. This is a deliberate consequence of SOAR.

Even the more subtle forms of runaway urbanization are affected by SOAR. The city of Ventura had wanted to trade development rights on existing open space for land that may be used for a new regional park for its residents.

Guess what? Now it can't be done without voter approval. This is the kind of development deal that used to be a slam-dunk for a project applicant. City councils love this stuff. Who wouldn't want a new park? Good for kids and seniors, right?

Without SOAR as a plebiscite on the will of the people, opponents would be forced to resort to litigation. SOAR saves on public lawsuits - an unintentional but nevertheless beneficial side effect. And rest assured that without SOAR, there would be no opportunity for residents to even vote on it.

There has already been an example of this. The Messenger development in Moorpark was approved by a majority of the City Council. The council members smugly proclaimed that this was in the best interests and an expression of the residents' feelings. The subsequent vote showed just how different the people actually felt.

Just look at what's going on with the First Assembly of God Church in Ventura. A religious issue? Only if you consider sports fields and a running track a form of prayer. Church officials are ready to take their chances with a vote (they have gathered 7,000 signatures in support of the project) and hope to get the public go-ahead to change the land-use designation so that they can build on their land. This is as it should be. Any attempt to circumvent a public vote should be rightly viewed as an attempt to avoid the legal process that applies to everyone except government agencies.

Despite the hyperbole of SOAR naysayers, (developers, Realtors associations and such), things haven't changed. I own property in unincorporated Ventura County. My zoning has not changed. Before I decide to use my property for its ``highest and best use,'' I need to do nothing. If I wish to exceed the existing zoning, then I need special permission. Before SOAR, this was a majority of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Now my neighbors have this responsibility.

No doubt a bureaucratic quagmire is now the norm in the planning and approval process. This has nothing to do with SOAR. The ``streamlined'' development process at the county level is streamlined only in the sense that there are not enough personnel to adequately address applications. SOAR, if anything, has relieved the burden for p

roject review, and we can expect better service as a result.

Now you're thinking, He's equating SOAR with democracy!

Well, maybe not quite, but close.

Consider this: In Moorpark, Messenger Investment Co. has speculated $1.5 million in its Hidden Creek Ranch project. For 15 years it has gone through state, county, city planning and City Council steps to ``win'' (as in hitting the lottery) approval to start the development.

But with the passage of SOAR by Moorpark voters, Messenger's gamble has failed. That sounds like a lot of democracy to me. Messenger was not denied use of its land nor was the land's value changed in any way. Messenger was not allowed to change the land use to a more valuable condition.

Managed and sustained growth is a political slogan with no basis in reality. Ask any resident. By adopting SOAR in Ventura County, all we have done is make it clear that the interests of the residents are not always aligned with those of our elected representatives.

Yes, property values will escalate because of SOAR. The desirability of a stable community where people have direct control of the development process is worth a great deal to many. We have prevented our cities from engaging in rezoning for dollars and the destructive competition this entails. New businesses know there will be no radical changes in the reasons they are relocating here, and the quality of life for their employees will remain a strong employment incentive.

A lot of my friends and neighbors - in fact, most of them - voted for SOAR. Well, I'm here to tell you that democracy isn't perfect. Indeed, as Winston Churchill pointed out, it is the worst possible form of governance, except for all the others. If SOAR had been in place 20 years ago, Ventura County would have indeed become a different place. On the other hand, 20 years from now it would be too late. I am satisfied with the middle-ground, moderate response SOAR represents.

So what happens next? I like to think about how the next downturn

in the economy will be different. With no new developments straining city coffers with their massive infrastructure investments and no large unsold inventory to drive down housing prices, it won't be as bad as last time. Short of a well-funded special interests campaign to dismantle SOAR, I think the next 20 years will vindicate this democratic revolt as a first step in preserving a hard-fought quality of life that is the envy of our neighbors and, indeed, the nation. It ain't perfect, but then it is better than all the other possibilities.

- Robert Cote

Camarillo