Meet the candidates

Neal Andrews

BIO: I recently retired as the owner of Horizon Management Services, a business consulting firm specializing in strategic planning, management and marketing. I focused especially on assisting corporate clients to develop and execute appropriate strategies to support new business initiatives or to respond to new business challenges.
I have had a varied career, moving back and forth several times between the private and public sectors. I have been a university professor at major academic institutions, a hospital administrator, a senior manager in one of the largest and most successful health care corporations in America, a high-level state government administrator, the executive director of a regional medical services organization, an entrepreneur, and an author and popular speaker for regional and national conferences.
My undergraduate degree is from Duke University and my graduate degree from the University of Pennsylvania. I also completed post-graduate studies in health care administration with the University of Michigan School of Public Health and in public policy administration and public law at the Michigan State University School of Public Administration.
I have been a Scholar Diplomat under the auspices of the U.S. State Department and was a National Defense Fellow and wrote Foreign Policy & the New American Military. I have also authored many articles and papers on a wide variety of business, health care and public policy issues and have served on the faculty of the Conference Board, the California Medical Society, UCLA’s Anderson School Health Care Management Program, and the National Managed Health Care Congress, among many others.

What has been your greatest achievement on the Council?
I have accomplished a great deal during my time on the Ventura City Council. I led the fight against the ill-conceived 911 fee and ultimately secured its repeal. I’ve led the way on water policy and in water conservation, saving millions upon millions of gallons of water annually. I helped draft and secured adoption of the Ahwahnee Water Principles that are employed statewide to guide development with respect to water issues. Ventura was the first City in the State to do so.

I led the effort to assist owners of historic property to preserve local landmarks.

I led the effort that culminated in the City’s endorsement of the Plan to End Homelessness. Our Homeless Prevention Fund was recently recognized as a national model program.

I led the effort to establish a formal Economic Development Committee and crafted a meaningful economic development strategy for the City for the first time.

I led the effort to create a program to stimulate business investment and business development in the City, the Jobs Investment Fund (JIF). This fund also spun off the City’s economic development incubator. The JIF program was also recently cited by Nation’s Cities weekly magazine as a national model.

I initiated the program to assist employees to purchase homes in the city with employer assistance that costs the taxpayers absolutely nothing.

I led the effort to secure passage of the State Constitutional Amendment (Prop 65 and Prop 1A) that limits the ability of the State to confiscate local tax revenues and forces the Legislature and the Governor to pay back any funds they “borrow” within three years with interest.

I led the effort to bring a cultural arts center to the City and to make Ventura truly the cultural pearl of the Central Coast and the New Art City.

However, I think that my most important achievement is probably one of the least understood, and that is the introduction of Performance Based Management that I championed, and its companion program, Budgeting for Outcomes. Performance Based Management forces an organization to identify what are truly the most important things it must accomplish and provides a means to clearly measure the productivity of its various activities vis-à-vis those most important goals and objectives. It helps managers focus their attention and energy on the most important things. From a budgeting perspective, it helps them re-align their resources to optimize their effectiveness. Instead of measuring how many medical calls the fire department responded to, for example, we ask how many lives were saved? Then we put the resources available into those programs that save more lives. I think that has been my greatest single contribution to the City.

What is your solution to keeping our budget balanced without sacrificing services, programs and jobs in the future?
There are only three ways to balance our budget without sacrificing services, programs or jobs. The first is to become more productive and efficient. I have introduced Performance Based Management to do this, and we are seeing good initial results. The Performance Based Management approach, along with its corollary, Budgeting for Outcomes, allowed us to cut nearly 15 percent from our budget over the last two years without layoffs, while preserving our most important programs and focusing on our most essential services.

The second way to maintain jobs and services is to increase natural growth in our core revenue streams. This approach comes down to maintaining a prosperous local economy. In this we have not done as well. We have devoted less than 1 percent of our General Fund budget to this goal. Of course, we naturally cut back on even this small effort.

However, I believe that, as we begin to come out of this recession, one of the first places we need to realign investment is toward economic development. If we can be successful in these endeavors, we can grow our natural revenue streams in tourism and retail sales without a tax increase. That will support a natural rise once again in property values, and we will all be richer, plus the property tax base will once again be restored.

The only other way to maintain current jobs and services if revenues continue to decline is to raise taxes and add fees. I believe that this approach is counterproductive in the long run. Taxes are generally a poor way to try to respond to a recession, especially one of this magnitude.

What is your plan to acquire or build more affordable housing units in Ventura?
We have ample housing units already approved for the City to provide more than enough housing to meet demand for the foreseeable future. The critical issue here is, first, affordability, not availability of housing, and, second, getting the housing built, not simply having it approved on the books. The Council has already adopted an “inclusionary” requirement for every newly approved development in the City that assures that a significant proportion of every development is affordable. This requirement is meaningless, of course, if no housing is being built.

The simple fact is that none of the housing we have approved is going to be built until the economy improves. The economy is stubbornly resisting the efforts of the Federal government to buy our way out of recession with trillions of dollars of printed money that has no real value.

The simple truth is that the ideal of an affordable single family home for most lower-middle class or lower income citizens is probably out of the question for the foreseeable future. What we need are more and more affordable, rental units.

One of the major problems we face in the City is that precisely these types of rental projects are the most likely to be resisted by every neighborhood council and NIMBY community group that harangues against higher density housing in its neighborhood and argues that building this type of affordable housing, with its typical height and mass, undermines their perceived property values or takes away from their views.

It takes a courageous Council to approve this type of housing in the face of the onslaught of strong neighborhood resistance. Still, we have approved about 500 such units in the last few years, and they are among the most likely to be built first as we begin to emerge from this recession.

What are your thoughts on protecting agricultural land while continuing with urban development?
First, I place great value in protecting the green space around our urban communities and in maintaining the distinctive separation we have worked so hard to preserve between our urban centers in the County. Second, I view our hillsides open space as a valuable natural asset that we should bend every effort to maintain, both as a scenic treasure and as a potential recreational asset. Third, I believe one of the more significant deficiencies of our current development planning is the failure to set aside sufficient green space and open space for adequate parks and recreational facilities within the City.

That having been said, we have to recognize that there have been errors made in the past in managing our urban plan. These errors have resulted in hop-scotch or step-out development and an undesirable sprawl that extended beyond the reasonable reach of the capacity of our infrastructure, stretching our resources and service capacity too thinly and making it far more expensive to provide basic services than it need have been if a rational development plan had been followed.

The only way to correct those errors is to focus in the future primarily on concentrating development within the City on those open space or agricultural areas that have been skipped over in the past — i.e. infill development.

As with all things political, it is always a matter of who pays and who receives benefits. Those who receive the benefits of those open fields do not want to give up their benefits, while those taxpayers who must pay a larger burden, because the denser population areas of the City are paying more for basic services than they would otherwise have to if the intervening areas were properly developed, are unhappy about carrying an unfair tax burden to subsidize the lifestyle of their suburban neighbors.

We need to achieve a balance of interests between these two elements of our community. As for the property owners, especially the agricultural operators who are caught in the middle between these two forces, we need to be particularly sensitive to their dilemma. We want generally for them to remain in productive agricultural operation for as long as possible, while at the same time we want them to operate as much as possible in a manner compatible with their urban neighbors. That means we need to protect them from undue restrictions desired by Johnny-come-newly neighbors, who feel they have paid a premium for their homes and are entitled to freedom from the side-effects of an agricultural operation next door, and at the same time we have to facilitate the gradual assimilation of their properties in to the urban context — often the exact thing that the Johnny-come — newly neighbor does not want. At the very minimum, we need to make it the responsibility of those who wish to develop the land adjacent to these agricultural operations to bear the cost of mitigating the impacts of the agricultural operations on the urban residents, not vice versa. If there have to be buffer areas set aside, for example, they must be paid for by the urban developer, not the farmer.

What is your proposal for raising test scores and bettering education locally?
The responsibility for raising test scores or bettering education in the school system is not generally a responsibility of City government. However, to the extent that providing safer, more gang-free schools or making available more wholesome after-school recreational and educational activities or giving kids greater opportunities to be exposed to cultural experiences and enriching programs in the arts would contribute to better education or higher test scores, we have a serious obligation to continue to make sure these opportunities not only remain available, but that they remain accessible to the least able to afford them among our community. While these are the very programs that are among the first to be cut in times of economic stress, I believe they have been cut far out of proportion and that we need to restore many of them quickly as soon as economic realities permit.

My first priority would be to beef up, once again, our school policing operation to assure safety on our school campuses. Second, I would provide a much stronger grants program for our private non-profit organizations like the Boys & Girls Club, Project Understanding, the Rubicon Theatre or the Music Festival or the New West Symphony and others to increase their after-school support and tutoring programs, continue to provide cultural enrichment at far lower cost than could otherwise be achieved by the School District, and, with the cooperation of our local business community, enhance the sports and recreational activities available to our young people. Third, I would restore City subsidized education and recreational opportunities like the sailing program, learn to swim program, basic computer skills programs, etc and others that have been cut back, as soon as we had the resources to do so.

A strong and vibrant community that has an appreciation of the arts and music and recreation and that provides for the needs of the whole student, body and mind and spirit, will be a far more successful educational community.

What do you feel about Ventura’s planning process and how will you work with developers and city planners to expedite these processes to keep projects on track?
The process today is what I call “Give me a rock” planning. By that I mean, today the developer goes to the city planner and asks for guidance, and the planner says, “Give me a rock.” The developer dutifully goes out and brings back what in his mind is a beautiful rock, often at considerable expense. The planner says, “Well that’s a pretty nice rock, but I wanted a gray rock.” So the developer again at significant additional expense goes out and comes back with a gray rock, and the planner says, “No, I meant a gray rock with little white specks in it.” Well, you see where this is going.

I placed before the Council in January a set of proposals to definitively stop this practice.

My proposals require the planning department to establish a definitive template of requirements that define a complete plan so that the developer knows more precisely what he has to do. They require a pre-submission meeting with all relevant city departments to review the developer’s concept and advise on any changes.

They require that in no case may a plan be remanded to the developer for changes more than twice at any level of review. If they are rejected twice the developer, then may appeal directly to Council.

They require that the planning staff complete all phases of review in specific timeframes and within a total time allocation not to exceed twice the mandated minimum time permitted by State law. In each instance where a major project is involved and a timeline is not met, staff must report that failure directly to Council in a formal report.

If the total time allowed is exceeded, the City is required to refund all planning fees to the developer.

This is Performance Based Management, the system that I have advocated and we have established within the operations of many of the City departments. In July the Council finally adopted these changes.

They are still in the process of implementation, and I will dog the staff until they implement them in every particular

If re-elected, in this area my focus will continue to be to secure greater developer certainty as to the requirements for a successful project, improved efficiency of process, speedier approvals or denials, and generally reduced costs for both the developer and the City. Hopefully it will also lead to more successful housing projects and lower priced housing.

How important is the success/failure of the council’s “green” agenda to the well-being of the city?
The City’s “Green” agenda is a significant program for the future of the City and consistent with our obligations to identify and implement programs that could result in significant savings of taxpayer dollars. This latter point is significant. I insisted that it be formally incorporated into the statement of budgetary principles that were unanimously adopted by Council earlier this spring and that set the guiding framework for the Finance, Audits and Budget Committee, which I Chair, as we went forward to develop the 2009-10 budget and set the initial parameters for the 2010-11 budget. Those guiding budgetary principles specifically state that our “Green” initiatives must demonstrate that they will not only have positive effects environmentally, but that they will actually reduce net costs of operations for the City and will in no case add net costs.

There are a variety of ways to assess “importance” in this matter. Already the City of Ventura is being recognized as a leader in environmentally friendly practices and programs all around the State and Nation. I helped draft the Ahwahnee Water Principles and brought them to our City Council as guidelines for development related to water use and conservation, for example, and Ventura was the first city in the State to adopt the Ahwahnee Principles as planning guidelines. That enhances our stature and attractiveness to corporations and employers looking for places to locate that maintain high “quality of life” standards. It is no surprise, then, that we were identified as one of the best places in the nation to start a new business, in part because of our green emphasis and in part because of the creative programs I have been primarily responsible for initiating in jobs development and business investment. We recently received accolades in the Nation’s Cities Weekly, in fact, for developing a model Jobs Investment Fund approach to business development that was cited as a model for all cities to emulate.

Clearly, we are achieving progress in environmental practices that are very cost-effective and that produce real savings, which are our highest priority. Our focus on “green” friendly businesses as we move forward with our economic development plan could become a major differentiating element in our competitive posture.

Aside from the ongoing economic crisis, what is the single greatest problem the city faces?
I think the single greatest problem the City faces is inseparable from the economic crisis. On the one hand, from a narrow City government perspective, there is the terrible constraint the economic crisis has imposed upon our City budget and our ability to meet the needs of the City in every arena from the most important public safety functions to the least services of the groundskeepers who are largely responsible for maintaining the beauty of our community. On the other, there is the immense impact that the economic crisis has had on unemployment, home foreclosures, poverty, homelessness, and illness within our community. All these vitally affect our quality of life. I think it is the latter considerably larger general impact on our community that is the greatest problem our City faces!

Our community, to its great credit, has risen in response in remarkably dramatic and profound ways to these challenges, and we are a better City for it, but in fact only a few know it. We must make it a torch we carry with pride, not a candle that we hide under a basket. We were recognized this year as a national model of excellence for our Homeless Prevention Fund program undertaken by our volunteer Ventura Social Services Task Force, an entirely privately funded initiative that has saved many families from being driven into homelessness. Our Social Services Task Force and its Faith Committee brought the entire City together in the One City One Meal celebration of Thanksgiving last fall where not a single homeless person was left unfed or uncared for at least for that day.

We’ve seen every one of our social service organizations from Project Understanding, Catholic Charities, The Salvation Army, the Turning Point Foundation, Family to Family, Food Share, to all the service clubs and individual church congregations and many more step up their efforts to help meet the dramatic increase of needs among the poor and homeless in our community. It has been an inspiration to watch, and it gives me great faith in our community. What it has proven is clearly that government is not the solution. At best it is a small part of any solution. It is our fellow citizens who are the real solution, and they will respond if properly led. That is my great comfort. Ventura is a great City, and I am proud of her!

Questions regarding local initiatives:

What is your position on the sales tax initiative and why?
I believe that voters have the right to decide for themselves whether to approve a tax increase or not. I will respect their decision.

What is your position on Measure B (view protection initiative), and why?
I do not support Measure B. It is a misguided effort to establish a “property right” to a “view” that is totally arbitrary and unnecessary and has never existed in law before, is so poorly thought out that it will invite massive litigation virtually immediately if passed, actually benefits only very few residents as a practical matter, though many may feel that somehow it protects their interests if they fall unthinkingly for the propaganda of its proponents, actually takes away from most property owners very real and well-established property rights long protected by the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, gives the authority to draft legislation to a self-selected and un-elected group who can operate in a private back-room environment not subject to public scrutiny, if they choose, and simultaneously imposes a dreadful moratorium on almost all construction for up to two years at precisely the time when we should be encouraging building as a part of our effort to pull the economy out of this recession.

Get past the hysteria and the “populist” exaggeration.

Ask yourself if your views have actually been threatened by any development next door to you in the last 20 years? Ask yourself if you really expect any of your neighbors to build something next door to you soon that might impact your views? Ask yourself if the current rules haven’t actually done a pretty reasonable job of protecting against massive large-scale buildings in your neighborhood in recent years? Ask yourself if there aren’t places that you think should be allowed to develop multi-story buildings and where such buildings would not be offensive or unduly interfere with anyone’s views? Ask yourself if you really want to place yet another obstacle in front of efforts to move our economy forward out of recession in these challenging times of unemployment and terrible economic stress?

Measure “B” is simply totally unnecessary, probably illegal, and will be immensely costly to the City if passed by the voters.

What is your stance on Measure C (forbidding the addition of new “superstores”), and why?
I do not support Measure “C”. Measure “C”, for all its fanciful language and arguments about traffic and environmental impacts, is simply a disguised effort to prevent a Wal-Mart Superstore that sells groceries from coming into Ventura. All the arguments about how bad a Wal-Mart store would be or about how many bad effects might come about if a Wal-Mart store opens on Victoria Avenue are actually irrelevant. Measure “C” does not and will not prevent a Wal-Mart store on that site. It just prevents a Superstore.

Measure “C” is designed exclusively to benefit one labor group, the unionized grocery clerks, and their corporate partners, the large chain food stores like Vons, Albertson’s and Ralph’s, who do not want to see a major corporation like Wal-Mart enter the Ventura Market and bring with it significant food price competition. Our citizens, especially our seniors on fixed incomes and the poor, deserve the benefit of lower food prices if they are available. Labor goals, if legitimate, should be achieved through the collective bargaining process, not through one-sided ballot measures. Price competition is a cherished basic concept in a free enterprise economy. The opposition to Wal-Mart is simply antagonistic to the free enterprise system upon which America is founded.

Measure “C” should be rejected by the voters as a classic example of abuse of the initiative process and an abuse of land use policy. It serves only narrow “special interests” in opposition to the broad public interest.

One of the worst unintended consequences of Measure “C” is that it would also prohibit other large-scale stores like Target, who offer groceries, from building new stores in Ventura, and it may even make some of the existing stores illegal and subject to closure. We do not need to see additional employers closing up operations in Ventura because our voters failed to get the real facts before voting. Nor do we need to waste millions of dollars fighting about it in court, which we would be obligated to do if Measure “C” is passed by the voters and one of these major corporations decides to sue the City.

As the cartoon character Pogo once famously said, “We has met the enemy, and he is us.”

Mike Gibson

BIO: I am a community activist and volunteer in the city of Ventura. I have become known in the community as a passionate advocate for taxpayers, with a reputation as a fiscal conservative and an ardent supporter of a common sense approach to local government. 

I am currently employed as the business manager for the Santa Barbara County Parks Department, where I have worked for the past 15 years. Prior to this position, I worked for the city of Oxnard as a management analyst with the Community Development Department. I have also worked for the city of Simi Valley in the Public Works Department and Transit Division and for the city of Garden Grove in the City Manager’s office. My experience in local government has been primarily in the areas of fiscal and budget management. I also have significant work experience in planning, economic development, redevelopment and code enforcement.

My professional affiliations include serving as chair of the Channel Islands Coast Region of the Municipal Management Association of Southern California (MMASC) and as secretary/treasurer of the Santa Barbara County Management Association (SBCMA).

I hold a bachelor of arts degree in political science from Cal State, Fullerton, and a master of public administration (MPA) from Cal State, Northridge.

I am active in community-based service groups and nonprofit organizations, including the Ventura Commerce and Education Foundation (VCEF), Ventura Family YMCA, Santa Barbara County Park Foundation and Ventura Chamber of Commerce committees.

What is your primary reason for running for City Council?
I am running for Ventura City Council to help change the culture at City Hall from one of an inefficient, ineffective bureaucracy that is detached and unresponsive to the citizens that it is supposed to be serving to one of openness, efficiency, and a city government that functions in a common-sense, effective, business-like manner when it comes to problem-solving and policy-making. Currently, there is an “ivory tower” mentality that pervades at City Hall. That is, the majority of those in elected and policy-making positions for the City somehow believe that they are all-knowing and all-seeing and that the citizens are simply misinformed, or worse yet, ignorant, to what’s going on. This attitude has to change in order for Ventura to be able to move forward as a City.

I am running to help restore fiscal sanity to City Hall by helping make it operate leaner and more efficiently by introducing some very basic business and economic principles to City government. Key among these principles would be not to resort to fee and tax increases to generate revenue for the City. The time and the economy are not right for raising taxes right now. But, our City leaders don’t seem to understand this.  

I think I can bring a whole new outlook and perspective to city government — one of honesty, approachability and practicality, when it comes to solving some of our most pressing problems. I have worked in local government for the last 28 years in various capacities, and I believe that experience has given me a keen sense of how effective public policy-making occurs. The key, of course, being listening and responding to those in the community that must live with the decisions that are made at City Hall. I have significant experience in financial management and working with government budgets and I believe that experience will serve me well on the City Council, especially in today’s environment of fiscal constraints.      

What is your solution to keeping our budget balanced without sacrificing services, programs and jobs in the future?
My solution is twofold:

1.) Generate more tax dollars for the City by improving its economic vitality and by attracting new tax-producing businesses to Ventura. This first component involves having a more cohesive strategy for economic development that promotes the City’s assets as a desirable place to start and grow a business; and 

2.) Reform and restructure the City’s development review process to make it a more understandable, affordable, and user-friendly system for businesses. 

Currently, the City projects an image of a non-business friendly community because of the plethora of unnecessary requirements that are loaded on project applicants seeking to open or expand a business in the City. Not only are the requirements too stringent, but then they get to try and fight their way through a cumbersome, lengthy planning permit process that scares many of them away from the get go. 

This needs to change or Ventura will find itself like the State, struggling to balance its budget year after year.

What is your plan to acquire or build more affordable housing units in Ventura?

I firmly believe that the private sector should take the lead in providing affordable housing in the City. With the current real estate market, this has been difficult to accomplish, but things will turn around. However, I think the City can play an important role in encouraging affordable housing units by conditioning a certain percentage of affordable units on developers through its inclusionary housing program and by partnering on projects with nonprofit housing developers like the Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation.

What are your thoughts on protecting agricultural land while continuing with urban development?
With the passage of the SOAR measure in 1995, which restricts development on agricultural land, and the City’s hillside protection measure in 2002, which severely limits development in the hills above the City, I believe adequate protections are already in place to preserve agricultural land in the west end of Ventura County. With the passage of these two measures, the City is essentially limited to in-fill development projects on vacant parcels within the City limits. So, I believe the restrictions and limits are already in place to maintain the City’s character and quality of life relative to its agricultural history. 

What is your proposal for raising test scores and bettering education locally?
Although the City doesn’t play a direct role in efforts to raise test scores and bettering education locally, I think City leaders should be working closely with the Ventura Unified School District and other educational institutions to promote educational advancement, college preparation, and diverting at-risk kids to more healthy and productive lifestyle choices. On the latter, the City, through the Chamber of Commerce and other private and nonprofit entities, sponsors and promotes the City Corps program that results in many young people achieving valuable training, counseling, mentoring, and work experience opportunities that helps prepare them for the real world once they graduate from high school and have to make major choices in their lives.

I support the City’s involvement in programs like City Corps, and I also sit on the Ventura Commerce and Education Foundation (VCEF) that provides funding for this and other similar programs. 

What do you feel about Ventura’s planning process and how will you work with developers and city planners to expedite these processes to keep projects on track?
Ventura’s planning process is completely broken, which is causing more economic distress on a City that is already starving for additional revenue to pay for vital public services like police officers, fire safety, and street, beach and park maintenance.

I would propose that the City completely revamp its planning review process to establish guidelines and procedures that are easily understandable to applicants, provide reasonable timelines for approval of projects and issuance of permits, and charge fair, reasonable, and predictable fees to the applicants for getting their projects through the process. The current system, besides being extremely non-customer friendly, slow, cumbersome, and lacking predictable rules and guidelines for developers, builders, and contractors to follow, results in unnecessary delays for projects being constructed, which deprives the City of additional tax revenue. 

The Embassy Suites Hotel project near the fairgrounds, which took 11 years to get through the process, is a classic example. Had this project come on line several years ago, as it should have, in my opinion, the City would have benefited greatly by the additional Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) as well as the additional sales tax provided by hotel guests spending their money in town. This could have mitigated some of the $11 million in cuts the City had to do to balance its FY 2009-10 budget.

The City recently hired a new Community Development Director, Jeff Lambert, who has a wealth of experience in both the public and private sectors in the areas of planning, land use, development, and permit processing. He has seen how the process works, and doesn’t work, from both sides of the counter. If elected, I would urge the City Council and City Manager to assign Mr. Lambert the task of working with the development community to develop new planning processing guidelines and procedures that will streamline the current system and make it more understandable, user-friendly and responsive.

This will go a long way towards helping the City rebuild its image as a non-business friendly community to one that welcomes opportunity and becomes more prosperous as a result.          

How important is the success/failure of the council’s “green” agenda to the well-being of the city?
I believe it is both wise and prudent to be as environmentally-conscious and mindful of our limited natural resources as we can in today’s world. I think it is commendable that the City is trying to lead the way in this regard by actively promoting a “green” agenda.  However, as with any promotional campaign, the benefits to the community can be somewhat overblown or exaggerated.

I think City leaders should always have a balance of the community’s interests in mind when they embark on these types of programs. In other words, the “green” agenda shouldn’t take such a priority so as to adversely affect a much-needed economic development effort by the City at a time when generating new revenues to provide for vital City services should be at the top of everyone’s priority list in the City. Just because a particular business doesn’t meet the City’s definition or criteria as a “green” operation shouldn’t mean that it’s automatically excluded from consideration by planners and City leaders. Again, “balance” should be the overriding principle.

Aside from the ongoing economic crisis, what is the single greatest problem the city faces?
Besides the economic crisis, the single greatest problem facing the City is the lack of an economic development strategy to attract high quality businesses to the community to improve its tax base and, related to this, is the broken and dysfunctional development review process.  If elected, I would make development of a comprehensive economic development strategy and business outreach program a top priority for the City. 

Questions regarding local initiatives: 

What is your position on the sales tax initiative, and why?
I am steadfastly opposed to the sales tax initiative (Measure A) for two basic reasons:

1.) A sales tax is a regressive tax and, therefore, an increase would have a disproportionate impact on the poor and unemployed who are already suffering the most from the economic crisis.  This would add insult to injury.

2.) A sales tax increase at this time would be counterproductive to anything the City is trying to do to strengthen its economic vitality.  It would negatively affect sales of such big ticket items as automobiles, computer and electronic equipment, furniture, major household appliances, etc., thus reducing, rather than increasing, sales tax revenue to the City.

What is your position on Measure B (view protection initiative), and why?
I am opposed to the view protection initiative (Measure B) because I believe it sets arbitrary height limitations on buildings (26 feet), in the mid-town section of the City, which make absolutely no sense to me. During a time when the City should be doing everything in its power to encourage development in the City, particularly in the mid-town area where redevelopment is desperately needed to jump start the economy there, Measure B will have the opposite effect by setting undue restrictions on building heights.  It is not needed and I believe it will have a detrimental impact on the entire City if it passes. 

What is your stance on Measure C (forbidding the addition of new “superstores”), and why?
I am absolutely opposed to forbidding the addition of new “superstores” (Measure C).  This ballot measure, which obviously is intended to prevent a Wal-Mart from coming to town, can have harmful effects that extend far beyond stopping Wal-Mart from coming into the City.  In fact, the way the measure is written it could actually allow a Wal-Mart as long as it is no larger than 90,000 square feet. The current plans that have been submitted to the City call for a 98,000 square-foot store to be located at the old K-Mart site on Victoria Avenue. So, if Measure C passes, Walmart could simply downscale its footprint and still move into the K-Mart location.

However, this measure could, by virtue of the square-foot limitation, prevent other highly desirable retailers that may want to come to Ventura (like Home Depot, Fry’s Electronics, Costco, IKEA, Best Buy, Bass Pro Shops, Target, etc.) from coming here. In my opinion, this is foolhardy. It results in throwing the baby out with the bathwater and potentially depriving the City of reputable retail stores that could benefit the City tremendously with significant ongoing sales tax revenue to support important municipal services (like public safety and street maintenance).

I also have a philosophical issue with limiting free enterprise in such an arbitrary and capricious manner, which is what Measure C does, in effect. Walmart has as much right to submit plans to build a store in the City as any other business or retail establishment does. As long as it abides by the City’s General Plan, zoning, traffic mitigation, parking requirements, and all other planning and building regulations, it shouldn’t be treated any differently than any other prospective business in the City. 

Measure C clearly targets Walmart because its proponents do not like Walmart as a business entity. It seems to me consumers should have a choice in the matter and shouldn’t be dictated to by a particular group of community members who have branded Walmart as the enemy. Therefore, in the name of free enterprise, consumer choice, and the City’s economic future, I will be voting “no” on Measure C.      

Wendy Halderman

BIO: I have been a Ventura resident since 1973. I am an honors graduate of Buena High School, Ventura College and CSU Channel Islands, where I studied art, accounting, business law, economics, real estate and environmental design. I also completed coursework through UCSB and UC Berkeley.

My company, Halderman Design, specializes in marketing communications for the financial services industry. My prior work includes projects for Patagonia, Big Dogs, QAD, Pepperdine University, Seminis, Gold Coast Broadcasting, KVEN/KHAY and many others. I am co-author of the “Adobe Creative Suite Bible” published by J. Wiley and Sons.

An award-winning artist, my work is in numerous private collections.

My community involvement spans many decades and includes volunteer work for the New West Symphony, Community Memorial Hospital, Ventura County Fair and the American Cancer Society. Currently, I serve on Ventura’s Public Art Commission. I previously served as chair of the First Sunday in the Park Art Critique Committee, and recently assisted the City of Ventura’s Blue Ribbon Budget Committee and Economic Summit Hi-Tech Working Group.

I live in east Ventura and have three sons, ages 24, 21 and 16.

What is your primary reason for running for City Council?
Over the years, I have watched our Council make decisions, which were highly counterproductive to the long-term financial viability of the community. Time and time again, they voted against wider community interests, and squandered money on frivolous and extravagant expenditures, even in times of financial shortfall. Community trust in government is now severely damaged.

Ultimately, I decided to run because of the 911 fee fiasco. It is entirely mind-boggling and wholly inexcusable that our Council voted to endanger public safety under the guise of defending it. To rub salt in the wound, they apparently thought citizens wouldn’t notice. So, when bad policy endangers my family and friends and prioritizes special money interests over community safety, there is no choice but to get involved.

What is your solution to keeping our budget balanced without sacrificing services, programs and jobs in the future?
The City can keep the budget balanced while also maintaining all services, programs and jobs by 1.) increasing City revenues in desirable ways; and/or 2.) decreasing the total cost of delivering services and programs.

Desirable ways to increase revenues include aggressively marketing and selling products, services and events to people outside the community so that more profit is brought into the city. Ventura has failed miserably at competing for a healthy share of the regional economic pie, and assets such as to-die-for 101 Freeway frontage and unique geographic resources remain extremely underutilized. In the past, millions of dollars from new development would also have been realized, but the City did not move forward on these opportunities.

Desirable revenue does not include raising taxes and fees on citizens during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. These strategies do not bring in increased profit; they simply weaken the private sector further by shifting money from individuals to the government. And I don’t know anyone now who thinks government is a wise guardian or sane spender of taxpayer money.

Maintaining current City services will require decreasing costs. Personnel is by far the biggest expense, so the option is to cut some services and jobs, or keep all services and jobs by decreasing compensation costs to stay within budget. Generous pensions and benefits that were guaranteed to certain employee groups are unsustainable, and were given at our peril. These increasing unfunded liabilities could eventually bankrupt the City.

What is your plan to acquire or build more affordable housing units in Ventura?
I don’t think we’ve seen any “affordable housing” for quite some time. The concept itself is perplexing. Affordable for whom? And with what government subsidies? It’s virtually impossible to build unsubsidized, market-rate housing right now that is affordable for the average citizen. To compound the problem, the tightened credit market makes it extremely difficult for buyers to qualify for loans. And the number of unemployed, underemployed and homeless will continue to grow in the short-term.

Zoning regulations are so restrictive, building codes so rigorous, and quality standards so high that few people can afford to abide by them at the moment. This is probably why we see such odd workaround decisions by the City Council such as using taxpayer money to facilitate sleeping in cars and erect “tent cities,” while simultaneously declaring otherwise-safe garage conversions or second dwelling units illegal and uninhabitable simply because they lack a formal building permit.

For the short-term, we need more mid-range options; that is, something between a tent/car and a house/apartment. In certain areas it may make sense to at least temporarily change zoning to allow for denser development, more units, and/or increased flexibility of use. Dorm-style buildings would provide viable options for young singles. We should also keep in mind the likelihood of a growing “mobile community” that permanently lives in RVs, and we should anticipate how to best accommodate them.

The community may ultimately not want these things, of course; they are simply new options to consider.

What are your thoughts on protecting agricultural land while continuing with urban development?
We have a dilemma with the way our city has developed over the years. Numerous small pockets of agriculture remain interspersed with residential/commercial. This is not ideal, because the two uses don’t mix well at all. The pesticide overspray at Mound Elementary School is a perfect example of the severe problems that can result.

Ideally, the City will be able to preserve larger agricultural parcels that are in areas well-suited to ag, and are further removed from population centers and urban development, while also being able to convert the smaller pockets of agriculture into developable areas. This seems to make the most sense for the both the land owners and the community at large.

What is your proposal for raising test scores and bettering education locally?
Our students are doing pretty well on test scores, which is good. But there’s always room for improvement.

New technologies must be utilized in order to keep kids engaged and learning at a quicker pace. This generation of students has learned to access and process information instantaneously via the web, and “old school” teaching methods may no longer be optimal.

We must continue to value education in the community, encourage parental involvement, keep curriculum relevant, and underscore the link between education and future success. Children may feel worried about the current state of affairs, but we can’t let them lose hope for a better future.

I am very proud of Ventura’s teachers. Having three children, who attended VUSD schools (one is still at Foothill), I can speak with confidence that our teachers are some of the best, brightest and most committed you will find anywhere.

Still, they need more support from us now than ever to maintain a quality educational experience for our children.

What do you feel about Ventura’s planning process and how will you work with developers and city planners to expedite these processes to keep projects on track?
The planning process certainly needs to be streamlined, with clearer guidelines and timeframes for both developers and city staff. Fortunately, we have a new community development director, and I am optimistic he can get things going in the right direction. Sadly, the fact remains that many opportunities were missed that will never return.
Ventura has had a notoriously obstructive planning process, which chased away many millions of dollars in desirable development, including a CSU campus and numerous residential and commercial proposals that would have revitalized key areas. This is inexcusable.

Ventura may have a great plan on paper, but it does no good if there is no implementation. The City failed to capitalize on one of the greatest growth cycles in history. Investors lined up with money, but deals were not closed; they were instead put on hold and asked to jump through hoops. Ventura completely missed the boat.

How important is the success/failure of the council’s “green” agenda to the well-being of the city?
Right now we must consider whether a “green” agenda has ultimately held back economic growth and long-term viability for the community. Were the benefits gained equivalent to the things that were lost?

To the extent that “going green” promotes real sustainability and community health —and is not just a trendy jump-on-the-bandwagon catch-phrase — we will have benefited. But my guess is, in the near-term, “green agenda” may take on an entirely new meaning, as the community may, by necessity, shift its priority away from protecting the environment to looking for dollars. Time will tell.

Aside from the ongoing economic crisis, what is the single greatest problem the city faces?
Every other issue I can possibly think of is tied to economic viability. The challenge going forward will be to address the problems caused by lack of money: loss of jobs, increasing homelessness and crime, decreasing property values and overall quality of life.

We desperately need fiscal responsibility at City Hall. We must to be more economically competitive in the marketplace. We must be incented to join together as a community and stop working at cross-purposes. We all must be aligned on the same page in order to get through these difficult times.

Questions regarding local initiatives:

What is your position on the sales tax initiative, and why?
While this seems to be a viable short-term solution for gaining some “temporary” funding, I am against an increased sales tax for two reasons: 1.) I believe it would bring net harm to the community by ultimately interfering with an economic recovery; and 2.) the City must first prove it has ceased all unnecessary and frivolous spending and that it runs a truly lean organization before asking the taxpayers for more money.

Sales tax is regressive, which means it disproportionately burdens lower-income people and small businesses. In wealthier communities and during economic growth periods, this is less of an issue. But we are in a period of severe economic contraction — the greatest since the Great Depression — with many people already impoverished and unemployed, homeless or close to it. When taxes were raised during the Great Depression, it sent the economy back into another tailspin.

Let’s not repeat this mistake.

It is not appropriate to burden average citizens even more. It would cause many additional families to suffer, businesses to close, residents to move, and further depress real estate values, which would further reduce city revenues and ultimately make stable funding more difficult. I think there are better ways to boost government revenue without further harming the economic condition of our community right now. We can not tax ourselves into prosperity.

What is your position on Measure B (view protection initiative), and why?
This is a tough issue because midtown is in desperate need of revitalization and development. There has been virtually no building in midtown, or any substantial refurbishment, during the entire time I’ve lived here (36 years). Can we make it profitable for developers, and for the entire community long-term, if we impose height restrictions on new construction in a major commercial corridor? While I am all for a “livable community,” I think the community’s long-standing no-growth stance is now causing financial duress.

That said, I think we should trust the initiative process. The measure’s temporary height restriction would have little effect because new building is at a virtual standstill because of the bad economy. Plus, the Council or voters would have final say on the proposed view protection ordinance, which would allow time for further community dialogue on the issue.

Ultimately, the community will decide, but to me, Measure B simply highlights the dire need for the City and residents to become better aligned to find mutually beneficial solutions. It’s unfortunate that the community does not trust the government to look after average citizens’ best interests. I would much rather see collaborative, win-win solutions, and would push for policies and procedures which facilitate compromise between the City and initiative proponents before a measure goes to the ballot.

What is your stance on Measure C (forbidding the addition of new “superstores”), and why?
Measure C does not limit all “big box” stores, only those larger than 90,000 square feet with more than 3 percent of the sales floor devoted to non-taxable goods (e.g., groceries). The measure protects our neighborhood grocery stores for the near future. I welcome stores such as IKEA and Costco as long as they are in appropriate areas, such as near the Auto Center.

Neighborhood grocery stores, which are easily accessed by walking or biking, are in keeping with the New Urbanism ideals that our City planners recommend. I think it’s in our best interest to preserve these neighborhood stores despite the push for “centralization.”