"Medical Marijuana"

Last night the City Council tackled the controversial topic of marijuana -- and came to a unanimous vote on a cautious direction forward.

Feelings run deep on this issue -- from die-hard advocates of legalization to opponents who warn of the dire consequences of widespread acceptance of a third major drug in a society that already pays sky-high costs for alcohol and tobacco usage.

The local angle is a narrow, but contentious one. Federal law continues to prohibit the possession, use and sale of cannibas, although the new Administration has taken a softer line on enforcement. California voters, however, approved Proposition 215 which opened a window for "compassionate use" of "medical marijuana" for the "seriously ill."

That law, like many voter-approved initiatives, contains ambiguous fine print. The result has been an upsurge in thinly disguised drug emporiums called "medical marijuana dispensaries." Nearly 1000 have opened in Los Angeles, using a loophole in a moratorium passed by their City Council. Commercial business distribution is simply not allowed under Proposition 215 -- but the amount of money involved has overwhelmed the technicality of their illegality. Beyond cultivation by doctor-authorized "patients" and their "primary caregiver" -- the only allowed distribution under State law is the somewhat loosely defined concept of a "co-op" or "collective," Those names imply non-commercial, non-profit exchange amongst patients and their caregivers, but the limits of such a model are fairly elastic. The sports equipment retailer REI, for example, is a "co-op" with more than a billion in sales and stores in 27 states.

The other major cities have imposed moratoria on all "medical marijuana" land uses. Despite the fact that there is no legal zone for them in Ventura either, pressure has been building from those who would like to provide "medical marijuana" to local "patients."

We brought City Council four options: do nothing different, which means continue the de facto moratorium; craft regulations that would allow bona fide "co-ops"; follow the lead of cities like Oakland and Santa Barbara and regulate "medical marijuana dispensaries" despite their illegal status under Federal and State law; or join the other Ventura County cities in imposing a formal moratorium on such uses.

A score of local residents and out-of-town "medical marijuana" advocates spoke to the Council, attracting LA television news crews. After a thoughtful discussion, the Council voted unanimously for the option of a moratorium. But the maker of that motion, Councilmember Ed Summers, also included a call to look at the option of regulating bona fide "co-ops." Mayor Weir and Councilmember Monahan favored moving toward an outright ban. Despite the very difficult challenge of crafting and enforcing local rules, a majority of the Council favored exploring that alternative.

There are no easy answers. But Ventura is moving forward to tackle a contentious issue and find a legal and sensible way to navigate among the conflicting State and Federal laws governing "medical marijuana."

Sales tax: where would the money go?

In November, Ventura voters will elect City Council members, School Board members and decide on three ballot measures. Measure A would increase the local sales tax to the same rate approved last year by Oxnard and Pt. Hueneme voters. Here is the actual ballot language:

"Shall Ventura adopt a one-half percent sales tax ordinance to expire automatically in four years, with all the money staying local in Ventura, to preserve essential general fund services, such as police, fire and emergency response and provide additional funding for other priorities, including street repiar, keeping Wright Library open and protecting local beaches from pollution, with a Citizen's Oversight Committee, mandatory audits and quarterly reports to the Council on how the money is spent?"

To give citizens a clear picture of exactly how those assurances would be honored, the City Council unanimously adopted a spending plan for the estimated $8.25 million that would be generated (any additional funding would be used to augment the City’s reserves as a prudent safety net in difficult economic times and to ensure future fiscal health for city operations.) Here is the spending plan that would be monitored by the Citizen's Oversight Committee.

Public Safety 40%

The Police Department (25%) would restore six officer positions cut in this year's budget. These officers would improve response time by 7%. PD would also bring back the Patrol Special Response Team and increase the Street Crimes Unit to work on sources of crime, including transient problems downtown. The funding would also restore cuts made to Police support staff, including communications, detective support and Crime Prevention/Neighborhood Watch. Finally, PD would continue their investment in technology to improve crime reporting and analysis.

The Fire Department (15%)would ensure adequate staffing, equipment and facilities to protect the community from wildland fire, earthquakes, toxic spills and other natural and man-made disasters. The FD would restore three firefighter positions to improve response times by at least 10% by strategically re-deploy the “roving fire crew” working peak hours in areas with the lowest coverage.

Public Works Street Repair, Infrastructure Investment and Park Maintenance: 35%

Street and sidewalk repair (30%) would ensure cost-effective maintenance of our aging infrastructure. Another 5% would reverse deep cuts in park and landscape maintenance, litter control, tree trimming and park facility repairs.

Clean and Safe Beaches and Rivers: 15%

The City would identify and eliminate sources of water pollution that enter stormdrains that empty into our beaches and rivers; provide year-round testing of our beach waters to ensure health and safety; litter that enters Ventura’s coastal waterways; and ensure that new developments eliminate polluted water from entering stormdrains.

Keep Wright Library Open and Safeguard Library Services: 6%

Supplemental funding would be provided to aid our County Library system to save Wright Library from closing; improve the books and other materials at all three Ventura libraries; and improve services to increase the number of books circulated per capita by 5%.

Maintain and Build Effective Community Partnerships: 4%

Funding would restore grants that go to local non-profits whose staff and volunteers work to prevent homelessness, care for senior citizens and support cultural and educational institutions.

The spending plan gives citizens clear standards for deciding how to vote. For those fed up with taxation and "wasteful government spending," voting no is a no-brainer. For those who don't mind paying a quarter a day to keep Ventura safer and bolster quality of life services like parks and libraries, voting yes is a good bargain. In the end, the decision belongs to the majority. Either way, the City Council is determined not to spend money we don't have. That's why they made the difficult decisions that cut $11 million to produce a balanced budget this year. It is up to the citizens to decide the level of services they desire and can afford.

Cutting a budget deal for the world's eighth largest economy

Bleary-eyed, State leaders announced a solution to the budget deadlock that has forced California to issue IOUs to pay bills. But the more the details emerge, the less it looks like a "solution" and the more it looks like a "deal" that breaks every promise the Governor has made, starting with his pledge not to kick the can down the road.

Cities have joined in the howling. The State will "borrow" $2.73 million in local property tax from Ventura and simply refuse to pay us $1.73 million in locally collected Gas Tax funds for each of the next two years. The State will also divert several hundred thousand in local redevelopment property tax revenues, but the exact formula hasn't been revealed yet. The upshot statewide is that Redevelopment agencies will be crippled, street repair will suffer and cities will either have to make deeper cuts in local services or borrow from reserves until the State has money to pay them back. If these sacrifices helped fix the State's chronic fiscal problems, it might be worth the short-term pain.

Everyone recognizes the budget hole has grown too large for a popular solution. But what's sickening about this budget "deal" is that despite the pain inflicted on millions of California residents, the agreement actually makes the State's fiscal problems worse and guarantees higher costs -- and bigger problems -- down the road.

State leaders blame the long stalemate on the two-thirds majority requirement to pass the budget. But Ventura has both Democrats and Republicans on our City Council and they voted unanimously for $11 million in cuts to balance this year's budget. State leaders ignored Constitutional deadlines before cutting a secret deal, but here in Ventura, the City Council worked in public to finalize our budget plan back in March, well ahead of legal deadlines. It isn't that the City Council in Ventura is so heroic -- the contrast just underscores how irresponsible the leaders in Sacramento have been.

Short of another recall circus like the one spawned by the State's last budget meltdown, the current leadership will remain in place for the next year and a half. Unfortunately, the house of cards they've erected with this budget deal will collapse sooner than that. Stupid gimmicks like postponing payroll into the next fiscal year guarantee more pain, more partisan wrangling, more budget crises and more counter-productive schemes. It's a sad prospect for the Golden State.

Sleeping in cars . . . an issue to rally for or against?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Written today, we'd substitute "people" for "men," but these words from the Declaration of Independence remain central to our public lives, not just on the Fourth of July holiday.

They were divisive words then and they remain so today. Historians guesstimate that only about a third of the colonists supported independence and a good third remained loyal to the British crown (presumably the remainder would have told the pollsters of the day, "Put me down as 'undecided.'") In our time, one set of patriots invoke the Declaration to protest taxation while waving teabags at the County Government Center while other sets of patriots use the same words in support of government intervention to further a wide range of "rights," from healthcare to full employment.

In a democratic society, clashes over "rights" are common. And too often divisive.

One may be brewing for next Monday at Ventura City Hall.

One group gearing up to arrive in force are citizens committed to humane treatment of the homeless -- and to the long-run goal of ending homelessness in our community. They converged on the City Council back in May to insist on prompt action on a variety of concerns, including a demand to "decriminalize" sleeping in cars.

Another group that is equally determined to be heard are demanding a "clean and safe town for our families and visitors." They are fed up with what one described as "being overrun by panhandling, petty crime, public toiletry and the other symptoms that go along with the problem."

These two concerns are not mutually contradictory -- and in fact could be completely compatible. But when rhetoric heats up, they might run right into each other -- to the detriment of both causes.

The issue at the bottom of all this commotion is a narrow, but potentially contentious one.

For years, under the Ventura Municipal Code it is illegal for anyone to sleep in a car for more than four hours on public or private property, except in case of emergency. It's not an unusual law. It is not a criminal matter -- violations are handled administratively with fines. In the past seventeen months, only ten citations have been issued, all the result of citizen complaints that brought the Police to the scene.

But for those advocating on behalf of the homeless in these tough economic times, that is ten too many. They equate enforcement of the law against sleeping overnight in cars with "criminalizing" homelessness.

Back in May, the Council agreed unanimously to review the statute -- as well as explore whether some sort of supervised alternative might make sense for homeless people to sleep safely overnight in their cars. Some communities have adopted this approach, including nearby Santa Barbara. The Council asked staff to research the issue and return with recommendations -- which are coming on Monday.

The staff are indeed recommending some changes. We offer the alternative of carving a narrow exemption in the ban to allow private property owners such as churches to provide space for homeless people with cars to stay overnight -- as long as we can establish rules to keep this from becoming a public nuisance. It's not clear whether any institution will step forward to undertake such a pilot, but experience in other communities gives us the opportunity to draft the rules to ensure a program that works and avoid significant problems. We are also recommending restoring $22,000 of the $50,000 cut in homeless prevention grant funding as part of this year's budget balancing effort. These funds could help underwrite such a pilot program -- or go to other worthwhile homeless prevention efforts. To read the actual report to the City Council, go here and click on Agenda Item 10.

Reasonable people can disagree, of course, that this recommendation either goes too far -- or not far enough. But it would be a shame if it became a symbolic battleground between those who want a humane Ventura and those that want a safe one, especially since almost everyone wants both.

Fortunately, besides lining up of supporters, leaders in both groups are talking to each other. There is less disagreement that meets the eye. There is a chance that Monday will give everyone a chance to be heard without damaging the spirit of collaboration necessary to successfully work on both concerns.

Ultimately, the City Council (and the City Manager, City Attorney and Police Chief) understand that the "buck stops here" when it comes to local laws and their enforcement. But it is also important to understand that all the issues raised by homelessness are not resolvable with a vote of the City Council -- or the long arm of the law.

Keeping Downtown safe and reducing and preventing homelessness are both vital issues. But they are not primarily political ones. No matter how many people show up at City Hall or how eloquent their pleas, the most important work to be done is not there. It is continuing to work together as a community to make progress where we agree and find ways to resolve differences where we don't.

July in Ventura . . . wish you were here

The weather today is gorgeous, my kids are spending their last morning at surf camp and Ventura is featured on Virgin Airlines recently revamped web site as "California's Last Best Beach Town." Travel writer Maryann Hammers says, "Ventura would never be described as 'tragically hip'. There are no budding starlets, no paparazzi, no designer stores nor celebrity chefs. That's what's so great about it." To read the whole story, click here.

Like residents of most great towns, Venturans tend to be ambivilent about tourists. We certainly aren't overrun with them as parts of Santa Barbara seem to be. But most locals prefer the undiscovered charm of the place. They are proud of the revival of the historic Downtown, but suspicious of national chains locating there, even though we are happy to shop at big stores elsewhere in town.

Yet there is also a recognition that without visitors, we couldn't maintain the lively arts and culture scene in town -- and we welcome the economic benefit they bring to businesses and public services.

Some people wax enthusiastic about capitalizing on our location -- the first sight of blue water for the millions of annual travellers coming from the south on the 101, where all the green Caltrans signs say "Ventura," starting in Pasadena. The recently approved Hyatt Regency -- along with the spuced up Marriott and Crowne Plaza -- are making Ventura more attractive as a travel destination.

For more about Ventura as a place to go this summer, check out our Visitor's Bureau web site here. You can even send free e-postcards featuring gorgeous shots of Ventura landmarks. And even locals will enjoy the Virtual Ventura eye-popping eye-candy that takes you on a dizzying virtual tour inside local spots from the high-end Watermark to the funky Bank of Books. Finally, there's also great info on our Downtown on the website for the Downtown Ventura Organization.

No State budget today . . .

Despite working late into the night, our elected State leaders remain deadlocked on bridging the $24 billion budget gap, the product of both years of polarized partisan zealotry and the international fiscal crisis.

In Ventura, the City Council adopted a balanced budget back in March, reducing spending by $11 million. We made the hard choices. We are not spending money we don’t have. Barring further deep declines in the economy, we will be able to live within our means for the next two years.

City leaders around the State remain mystified and angry at the continuing resort by State leaders to diverting local revenues to patch the State's budget deficit. San Luis Obispo citizens, for example, three years ago voted a sales tax increase and have responsibly managed their resources to protect their public safety, quality of life and standard of living. Their City Manager, Ken Hampian, yesterday wrote to the Governor:

Governor, as a City Manager, I know that there is great urgency when it comes to the State budget. Here in San Luis Obispo, our City Council recently closed a projected $11.3 million budget gap by doing the hard work of fiscal stewardship – looking people in the eye and making very tough cuts (cuts composed 80% of our gap closing actions), securing “zero year” employee concessions from every bargaining group, raising some revenues, and strategically using our rainy day fund.

While our Council is “non-partisan”, it is composed of Democrats and Republicans and yet these political differences did not stop them from doing what they had to do for the greater good of the community that they represent. When we look toward Sacramento, we see nothing that resembles responsibility stewardship and political compromise for “the greater good.” Instead, we see an endless death spiral of increasingly irresponsible, dogmatic behavior that is driving California (and its communities) off the cliff.

We are a national embarrassment. If we saw a shred of hope from our elected officials in Sacramento, we might suggest triggering Proposition 1A. However, borrowing or seizing local government revenues to close a budget gap that has been festering for years due to a completely dysfunctional system of governance is just bad fiscal policy. Based on the lack of political courage in Sacramento, we really have no reason to believe that the State would fulfill its commitment to pay back Proposition 1A funds plus interest, when it matures in three years. And, of course, we have no evidence that the State can afford to do so, even if it wanted to meet its debt obligations.

California needs an honest budget based on integrity not budget gimmicks, which will only threaten investor confidence. I am respectfully asking you to put an end to gimmicks including borrowing or seizing local revenues.

We live in an incredibly diverse State. So the scale of problems is daunting. But isn't it about time that we get leadership from both parties to do what city leaders from both parties are doing all across California? Now is the time to find a way to bridge the partisan gap and balance competing priorities. It's incredibly difficult work. But it's July 1 and the time for excuses, delays or gimmicks has long since passed.