SOAR SPURS DEBATE; FARMERS FEAR INITIATIVES WILL TAKE AWAY THEIR FREEDOM OF CHOICE.

Byline: Sylvia L. Oliande Daily News Staff Writer

When Steve Shehyn bought 20 acres of farmland just outside the Moorpark city limits nearly eight years ago, he saw the avocado orchard as a way to fulfill a dream.

He could get away from the city, he thought, and work the land on Grimes Canyon Road that has a sweeping view of the valley below.

But years of failed crops and dwindling water supplies have left the 45-year-old grower wondering if he will be able to make a go of it.

And, to add insult to injury, some environmentalists are trying to tell him how to use his land with one of the several Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources initiatives on the Nov. 3 ballot.

``They have no idea what it takes to farm,'' he said. ``They're all city slickers. They're not going to compensate me for it, and they're taking away my right to do something with my land later on.''

But SOAR supporters said that while they are not farmers, they have farmers in their ranks who support the initiatives, although they refused to provide the names of those in favor.

``The No. 1 threat to farming in Ventura County is if the farm next to a farmer develops,'' said Steve Bennett, a leader of the SOAR movement. ``SOAR is good for farmers because it ensures that they won't be encircled by urban sprawl.''

Also, he said, as working farms dwindle, the businesses that serve farmers would suffer as well, making it more expensive to operate.

If they pass, the initiatives would limit growth and development to predetermined areas called City Urban Restriction Boundaries. Only a vote of the people or a council action under strict guidelines could alter that boundary for 10 to 20 years once it is established.

While the new laws would not require the farmer to get a public vote to put up a fruit stand, for instance, a measure would have to be put on the ballot if he wants to convert his land to a major commercial or residential use.

Vocal opposition

Now that the initiatives are securely on the ballot countywide and in six cities - though the citizen-sponsored initiative in Moorpark must still face a legal challenge to its signatures - opponents of the measure are speaking out.

``We are being designated official farm scenery for the enjoyment of all, at the expense of no one else except us,'' said Rick Brecunier, manager of the Tierra Rejada Ranch near Moorpark.

Rex Laird, executive director of the Ventura County Farm Bureau, said that while the organization has not taken a formal stand on the initiatives - the organization was never consulted by those who drafted the initiatives - he knows of no farmer who supports the measures.

``We are offended that the SOAR advocates used the word `agriculture' and they're selling their initiative on the basis that they are preserving agriculture,'' Laird said. ``This is not about agriculture. This is about cessation of development in some areas and expanding development in other areas.''

He pointed to the SOAR initiatives in Santa Paula, Oxnard and Camarillo, where, he said, organizers have agreed to include rich farmland and greenbelts within the urban restriction boundary. On the other hand, he said, the Moorpark initiative seeks mostly to kill the Hidden Creek Ranch project, proposed for less desirable land.

``There is no distinction between highly productive ag land and open space,'' Laird said. ``People have to have a place to live. But if there is development on any land, doesn't it make sense to do it on the least viable possible?''

Tailor-made measures

SOAR supporters said that participation in the city-based initiatives was limited to residents of those cities. They were free to draw their own limits to development, and each community had very different ideas of what that would be.

For example, SOAR supporters in Santa Paula were split on whether they wanted growth, Bennett said.

He said that any farmer who does not support SOAR is looking at the potential dollar signs. According to a study conducted by the city of Ventura, 100 acres of farmland is worth about $3 million, but the same land zoned for commercial use is worth $15 million.

Laird said that while the farm bureau, which represents 1,100 of the more than 2,000 farmers in the county, does not condone farmers selling or using their land for development, it also does not interfere in free enterprise.

``It's certainly an option, but it's not something we're going to support,'' he said. ``Farmers have done that before.''

For Shehyn, who maintains an auto restoration shop in Simi Valley to make ends meet, the initiative gives others too much power over his property - and future.

``You can't take someone's land away and change the ballgame after they buy,'' he said. ``If there ever comes a time when they shut off the water, what other alternative do I have once my crops die and the weeds grow?''

SOAR supporters said they are concerned for the farmer who finds himself inundated with offers from developers to build houses, office buildings and, in one case, an amusement park on his land.

It also shields him from the decisions of neighboring farmers who do not resist the temptation.

Fred Rosenmund, owner of the Rosenmund Ranch in Oxnard and a member of the SOAR board, wrote in the spring issue of the SOAR newsletter that he supports the measure in part because he is ``constantly under assault by proposed projects of the most ridiculous nature.''

``I find myself more than willing to put the control of the development of open-space and ag land in the hands of members of the community than in local government,'' he wrote, ``because I see it as the only remaining mechanism available to help us keep our land in agriculture.''

CAPTION(S):

Photo

PHOTO (Color) Farmer Steve Shehyn is concerned that he will not be able to do whatever he wants with his own land without public permission.

Myung J. Chun/Daily News