Tuesday's election: 70% won't vote!

If you are reading this, you probably are voting in the election next Tuesday, November 3rd. But there is something more you can do: encourage your neighbors, friends and loved ones to do the same!

You'd think from the blizzard of signs, the deluge of political mail, the chatter in the media, the strident rhetoric and the plethora of candidates and issues that this year is shaping up as a record turn-out. And you would be wrong.

The record for voter turn-out was set back in 2005 when the same four incumbents seeking re-election today were all handily elected by the 32,823 voters who participated. It was the first time in decades that a majority of voters have turned out for a local election.

This time, only about 30% of the voters are projected to actually go to the trouble of voting, just like two years ago.

How do we know? Overall voter registration is up 10% over two years ago. So is voting by mail, which two years ago was nearly 60% of the total votes. Yet with only three working days left for the County to receive mail ballots, returns are only 10% ahead of two years ago. Without a last minute surge in mail ballots and voting on Tuesday at the polls, the percentage will actually be lower than two years ago. So despite the clamor around this election, most voters are simply ignoring it.

The funny thing is, just one year ago, we had the highest national voter turn out in a generation. People realized then that elections matter. If you don't vote, you not only forfeit your authority to complain -- you lose your opportunity to shape the future. What's being decided on Tuesday is the future direction of Ventura, including the level of environmental protection, emergency response and maintenance of our streets, sidewalks, parks and trees. It is not just the people who will sit on the City Council and School Board -- but three key ballot measures.

There are a few days left. Talk to the people you know, especially young people. Tell them why you are voting, what matters to you in this election. If they need voter information, it is easily accessible on-line here, with more information on Measure A, the voter's verdict on city service levels here.

Last minute attacks, of course, can discourage turn-out. "They're all crooks and liars," is something you hear too often.

But you know better. You know the people who serve our City are decent people. But they have very different views about controversial issues. They bring very different leadership skills. They represent different philosophies of government.

Elections matter.

Let's see if we can get more than one out of every three voters to participate in deciding the future direction of our community. Time is short!

Ken Corney: the right choice for Ventura's next Police Chief

He's been with the Ventura Police Department for 23 years, rising quickly through the ranks. He's been our Assistant Chief for the past six years, working side-by-side with Pat Miller to reduce crime in our community. Their record over the past five years has been outstanding: overall crime is down 20% and Gang Crime is down 14%. People not only are safer, they feel safer. The number of people who feel "safe walking alone" is up 5% and who feel "safe after dark" is up 10% since 2005.

On the day after Christmas, Ken Corney will succeed Miller as Ventura's Chief of Police.

"All Chief’s have to overcome significant challenges," he noted on accepting the appointment. "Clearly, at the beginning of my tenure we’ll be facing significant challenges on a federal, state and local levels.

• The world wide economic crisis.
• The continued threat of terrorism.
• The uncertainty of our state budget.
• The potential for the unsupervised release of tens of thousands our state prisoners.
• Increased gang violence and the significant impacts of crime and disorderly behavior on our local businesses.

"While we certainly live in a dynamic and changing times, I believe the formula for success is a constant:

• Put together a winning team
• Develop a shared mission with clear goals
• Relentlessly pursue success.

"I believe the concept of a 'great team' is everything. What a team does and how a team gets the job done may change depending on the environment, but a great team can execute any plan under any circumstance."

With a Master's from Azusa Pacific in Organizational Management and as a graduate of California's Police Command College and the Police Executive Research Forum's Senior Management Institute, Corney brings both a thoughtful perspective and a deep appreciation of the uniqueness of this community to his new role leading the Police Department:

"I am constantly inspired by passion of dedication of our more the 200 police officers, civilian employees and volunteers that make up the Ventura Police Department team. These people are foundation for our success. We must continue our tradition to recruit retain and develop the best and brightest to be part of our team.

"With this team and our core mission to reduce crime and the fear of crime in our Community we will continue on our journey from good to great incorporating the following tools:

• Collaborative partnerships - This is not another program; it is part of our DNA. Being part of the Community is the core of how we achieve success.
• Innovation – Continue to innovate as the means of leading change.
• Technology – The use of technology can be a tremendous accelerator of progress.
• Good old-fashioned Police work - Nothing can take the place of experienced, well-trained and highly motivated police officers."

No matter who takes on this job today, it won't be easy meeting rising expectations at a time of diminishing resources. While residents complain about quality of life issues in Downtown and in our neighborhoods, they also expect prompt emergency response, effective action against gangs, police presence to keep schools safe, not to mention a sympathetic ear if they are pulled over for a traffic violation. If any officer or dispatcher ever seems to fall short, critics are quick to condemn the entire department.

Success as a Police Chief isn't measured by popularity, whether inside the department or out in the community. Yet strong relationships are the basis for community partnerships that are crucial to our success. The Ventura County Star described Corney as "a steady, familiar face and deep-rooted community relationships during challenging fiscal times." He'll be able to call on those, along with his outstanding law enforcement record and his innovative approach to problem-solving in the months and years ahead.

Cutting through the rhetoric to the facts on Police pay and pensions

There are 10 cities in Ventura County, but only one is having an election. So guess which one is routinely battered with criticism about city finances and public employee salaries?

Then on Sunday, the Star ran a story about the Simi Valley Police officers hammering the City Council with public protests, ads and complaints. Finally, a reality check on the constant barrage of criticism about the pay and benefits for Ventura city employees.

So why are the Simi Police protesting? Because they refused to take a 2% cut in their pay despite Simi's deep drop in sales tax and other city revenues due to the recession. They now say the City is retaliating against them on other issues.

Most revealing is the side-by-side comparisons of Simi, Oxnard and Ventura police compensation. They all have the same pension formula. Ventura's patrol officers are paid 14% less than Simi officers and 19% less than Oxnard officers at the top step. Ventura's sergeants are paid 9% less than Simi sergeants and 2% less than Oxnard sergeants at the top step. Simi's monthly medical benefits are more than twice Ventura's (Oxnard's are about 20% less.)

Here's the biggest kicker: "Simi Valley police have long enjoyed some of the best salaries and benefits in the county, including lifetime medical and other benefits for officers and their families once they work in the department for 25 years."

Oxnard Police also receive lifetime medical benefits, partly paid by the City. Ventura does not. Like pensions, these lifetime benefits go on long after the employee retires. But unlike pensions, cities are not required to put away contributions now to ensure the money is there later.

Again, Simi and Oxnard have lifetime medical benefit programs for their police, Ventura does not.

Yet when the recession hit all three cities, only Ventura police officers took a 5% reduction in compensation.

A similar comparison for Fire, by the way, would show even greater disparities on pay -- and Ventura has a significantly lower pension formula than the firefighters on duty in Oxnard and Simi.

Will the facts change campaign season rhetoric? No. There is an agenda in those singling out Ventura for criticism. They'd prefer not to talk about how we compare to other public agencies.

I understand and sympathize those who think public safety pay has gotten out of hand generally -- although I personally think that corporate executives, football players and members of the rock band U2 get paid way too much, compared to people who risk their lives to keep our communities safe. But we are all going to have to reset our expectations as we cope with a drastically different economic landscape, whether we work for government, private industry, non-profits or run our own business. The world has changed and Americans are all going to have to work harder and longer with reduced rewards. Sorting that out is fair game for debate.

Here Ventura is the leader. We are not the leader in high pay, pensions or benefits. But Ventura is the leader in tackling the challenge of reforming compensation. All eight of our unions accepted fifteen month compensation concessions of at least 5%. All are participating in the Council and community-led Compensation Policy Task Force which is looking at how to be both sustainable and competitive in the years ahead.

I am proud to serve Ventura. The City is fiscally sound because our staff have not demanded top pay and have often worked for less than average. They recognize that public service comes with public responsibilities. They (and I) bristle when uninformed or reckless critics single us out for attacks. But we know that serving this community is an honor and a privilege. Our City staff will continue to work with and for the City Council and our citizens to find common sense solutions because they care deeply about the community they serve and protect, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Climate action: Sustainability by any other name

Today is something called "Blog Action Day" and nearly 10,000 bloggers have signed up to write about the topic of "climate change." (Who knew there were 10,000 bloggers?)

I am often asked about where Ventura stands on California's legislative goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 back to 1990 levels. I usually respond by acknowledging that there are differences of opinion in our community from those who think it is the most serious threat to our species in history to those who think it is a giant hoax perpetrated by Hollywood eco-fascists. But, I always note that while debate is healthy in a free society, it is a scientific fact that the Governor signed AB 32 into law, requiring us to sharply cut greenhouse gas emissions throughout California.

I'm no expert in the science. As City Manager, my role is to carry out the policies of the City Council and State and Federal law. But it seems obvious to me that no matter what your views on climate change, most, if not all, of the actions needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions make sense independently -- and in California, at least, that IS the law.

"Fossil free by '33," the catchy slogan of Santa Barbara's Community Environmental Council, may seem overly ambitious to many -- and even offend those engaged in the locally still important oil business. But we all know that the price of oil is not just a monetary question of whether we can afford it. Much of the world's remaining oil supply -- whether abundant or dwindling -- lies under countries run by dictators and/or kleptocrats. They certainly aren't our friends -- or the friends of the people in those countries. Our addiction to oil is helping prop up their brutal and oppressive rule.

Then there is the environmental price. Here again, there is passionate debate about whether to drill in our local channel -- or on Alaska's North Shore. But the cumulative impact of extraction in ever more remote locations is at the least very troubling -- especially to keep our gas tanks full while we idle in traffic jams.

Then there is the huge indirect economic cost of the vast network of streets, highways and bridges and the staggering expanse of parking in lots and structures. The cost of health care is the number one topic of national political debate -- yet locally we are trying to figure out how Community Memorial Hospital will be able to afford the added cost of a big parking structure on top of the State requirement that they completely replace their current hospital to meet new earthquake codes. If you had $20 million for local healthcare would you spend it on a . . . parking structure?

Finally, there are all sorts of "minor" impacts from our addiction to cars and the oil that runs them. Like the battery acid and lead and other toxic unmentionables that end up in our groundwater, rivers and oceans -- and that local cities are bearing an increasing burden of responsibility to control and clean up. Or paving over prime farmland to accommodate the sprawl of auto-oriented suburban development.

In the end, reducing our dependence on oil and other fossil fuels isn't just good for the planet. It's good for kid's lungs, the American dollar, municipal budgets -- and you, the next time you swim at our beach.

Sustainability is about pursuing our own quality of life and standard of living in ways that doesn't cheat future generations out of the same opportunities. That's a good standard for our actions -- independent of whether you accept the argument about climate change or not.

Be careful what you wish for . . . ballot initiatives and the law of unintended consequences

In the three decades since Proposition 13 reshaped the California political landscape, most voters have become more cynical about ballot initiatives and the simplistic claims and counter-claims that abound at election time. On average, only three out of every ten measures that make the ballot actually pass -- and many voters adopt a reflexive "when in doubt vote no" position.

Still, the accumulated legacy of one shot solutions lives on in a Constitution that has been amended more than 500 times in the last 140 years (the United States Constitution has only been amended 17 times since the Bill of Rights was adopted more than 200 years ago.) While it's convenient in tough times to blame incumbents for California's fiscal crisis, California Supreme Court Justice Ronald George recently focused on the ease with which special interests can appeal directly to the voters through the initiative process:

"One Bar leader has observed: 'California’s current constitution rivals India’s for being the longest and most convoluted in the world . . . . [W]ith the cumulative dross of past voter initiatives incorporated, [it] is a document that assures chaos.' Much of this constitutional and statutory structure has been brought about not by legislative fact-gathering and deliberation, but rather by the approval of voter Initiative measures, often funded by special interests. These interests are allowed under the law to pay a bounty to signature-gatherers for each signer. Frequent amendments — coupled with the implicit threat of more in the future — have rendered our state government dysfunctional, at least in times of severe economic decline."

Writing in today's L.A. Times, journalist Tim Rutten notes that "the chances of repealing the initiative are somewhere south of zero." But repeal isn't the answer. If we are going to fix California's broken government, every flawed step in the initiative process needs to be addressed.

First, the writing. Today, any interest group, corporation, lobbyist or political operative can write an initiative, file it and begin collecting signatures.

That's nonsense. All sorts of sneaky or ambiguous provisions can be stuck in -- or slip through. If initiatives are "people's democracy," then the writing needs to be public. A system should be devised for public posting for some reasonable period of time -- enough for supporters, opponents, those affected and the press to comment and criticize. Laws passed by local city councils require public noticing of the language, public hearings and two separate public votes before becoming law.

Opening up the "black box" of initiative writing would give the public -- and elected officials -- the opportunity to suggest and pursue alternative solutions and compromises instead of "Yes" or "No" simplistic choices on the language of the special interest's choosing.

The next stage is petition gathering. Courts have struck down residency requirements for professional signature gatherers -- but why? It's against the law to pay someone for their vote or to get a legislator to introduce a bill -- why can't it be against the law to pay someone to collect your signature on an initiative petition? The "business" of commandeering signatures is poisonous -- it invites fraud and abuse as mercenaries try to convince shoppers to sign lengthy petitions they couldn't possibly read or fully evaluate on the spot.

The number of signatures required is also ridiculously low. While signers are told, "this is just to put it on the ballot," as soon as the signatures are turned in, they are magically transformed into evidence of widespread support for the proposed measure. Right. It's classic bait and switch. Duplicates, those ineligible to vote and even forged names are all lumped together as evidence of widespread support. Yet everyone in the political business knows it is not the validity of the measure but the money behind it that counts. At the State level, one million dollars guarantees you a place on the California ballot. Who has a million dollars? Not your typical average citizen.

Then all it takes is a majority vote to pass initiatives and even amendments to the State Constitution. To amend the US Constitution takes two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and ratification by the State legislatures of three quarters of the states. To amend the California Constitution: half the people voting on that measure in any given election. We all know it takes two-thirds vote in the legislature to raise taxes -- but to authorize or earmark spending is a majority vote at the polls. So special interests can propose costly programs, subsidies and laws through initiatives -- leaving it to the legislature and governor (or mayor and councilmembers) to figure out how to pay for them. What a scam!

Is there hope for reform? A new poll shows California voters actually favor requiring a two-thirds vote for amending the State Constitution. But the very same special interests that thrive on the initiative process will fight to block any reforms. "Don't mess with the people's right to vote!!!" they will scream, with the same shameless dishonesty that they employ at election time when it comes to convincing voters to buy their half-baked or Trojan Horse ballot measures.

Ventura voters are catching up on two initiatives that qualified for this year's election. Both are being debated with the usual war of signs and soundbites. Both require reading the fine print to understand -- and thoughtful consideration of their potential unintended consequences. How many voters will take the time? Is this really the best way to do the people's business?

A Police Chief's Legacy: Pat Miller Retires

In the six years he served as Assistant Chief, Pat Miller was a quiet, effective second-in-command under the far-more-visible Mike Tracy. In the six years since he accepted the Chief's badge, Pat Miller has been an extraordinarily effective leader in law enforcement.

On the first day he took command, Miller clearly laid out the principles he would follow in leading the Ventura Police Department:

• Establish clear goals and objectives
• Create a positive atmosphere
• Let people do their jobs, and
• Collaborate with other City departments

The clear goals and objectives were spelled out in the Department's strategic plan that Miller spearheaded:

• Reduce Crime and the Fear of Crime
• Improve the Quality of Life in Neighborhoods
• Enhance Community and Police Partnerships
• Develop Personnel
• Continued Accountability

Each one of these goals was spelled out in direct outcomes that could be measured and tracked. And the results are impressive. Most importantly, overall crime is down 20% and Gang Crime is down 14% since 2005.

Ventura residents also feel safer. Each year, a professional survey benchmarks key measures of security for our residents. The number of people who feel "safe walking alone" is up 5% and who feel "safe after dark" is up 10%.

To cut crime, Miller has focused on improving response times, which have improved dramatically. Our understaffed Police Department average was able to arrive on scene to a priority one emergency within five minutes less than 60% of the time when Miller took over. Chief Miller set the ambitious goal of getting there within five minutes 90% of the time. With relentless focus, the number has steadily improved. By this August, the department was able to get to priority one calls within five minutes 87% of the time.

Driving down crime has also meant focusing resources. High crime areas were targeted for intervention with specific goals for reducing calls for service by fixing the underlying problems. The result: a drop in police calls of 17% in the targeted areas since 2005.

Chief Miller has built the community partnerships he promised. The Volunteers in Policing program he established has contributed 35,000 hours of well-trained assistance out on the streets. The School District is now paying for half of the successful School Resource Officer program and the Responsible Retailer program has 98% participation.

Chief Miller has constantly stressed accountability -- while empowering his officers to do their jobs. Again, the results are exemplary. Only 1.5% of arrests involve the use of force and 99% of them have been handled within policy since he took over as chief. Resident satisfaction with our Police is up 5% since 2005 and citizen complaints are down 23%.

During tough economic times, Chief Miller has relentlessly focused on delivering "what matters most." The department's reputation for innovative use of technology led Motorola to pilot its latest generation of dispatching computer software in Ventura, generating national attention and delivering hundreds of thousands of dollars of value for our system behind the purchase price.

Chief Miller has been a vocal and tireless advocate for additional crime fighting resources, especially new officers. He is often quoted for noting that with limited resources, "we can do anything, we just can't do everything." Two years ago, he was successful in adding six additional officers to the force along with funding for Downtown foot patrol. But the national recession has forced the City to cut $11 million to balance this year's budget. Continuing the commitment to funding those additional officer positions now depends on whether voters approve Measure A on the November ballot.

What's even more unusual about Chief Miller is his commitment to teamwork across City departments. The Police Department has worked closely with the Public Works Department to eradicate graffiti. Arrests for graffiti vandalism are up 1500% on his watch -- and convictions have resulted in thousands of dollars in restitution fines assessed against irresponsible parents of juvenile lawbreakers.

Chief Miller has distinguished himself as well by his insistence that you can't arrest your way out of a crime problem. He's an eloquent advocate for preventing crime and working with our schools, non-profits, neighborhoods, churches and families to build respect for the law and steer young people toward positive outcomes.

While Pat Miller is known locally for his deep commitment to Ventura and the Ventura Police Department, he is highly sought after nationally as one of America's top experts on homeland security. He serves on the Homeland Security Advisory Council in Washington D.C. which put together a policy paper in 2008 for the next president. Chief Miller met then President-elect Barack Obama while briefing Janet Napolitano, Obama's choice for Homeland Security Secretary.

Chief Miller holds an MPA in Public Administration from Pepperdine University and another master's degree in Homeland Security Leadership Development from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey. He's also a graduate of the California Command College. He is a member of the California Police Chief’s Association, California Narcotics Officers Association, National Tactical Officers Association, California Association of Tactical Officers, and California Peace Officers Association.

In 2003, Chief Miller received the California Peace Officers Association’s Award of Distinction for his work in bringing the Crisis Intervention Team Program to Ventura. Every officer on the street undergoes 40 hours of training in handling suspects with mental illness or under mental stress designed to protect their lives -- and the lives of police officers and the public. This common sense approach has been widely copied by other police agencies.

Chief Miller retires after 34 years in law enforcement on Christmas Day. It's a fitting milestone -- for years, he's followed departmental tradition as Assistant Chief and Chief in taking the wheel of a patrol car on the Christmas shift so young officers can spend the holiday with their families. This will be the first Christmas in years that Pat can spend with his wife, children and grandchildren.

He leaves an enviable legacy -- one that his successor is committed to build on.

Local victory: Ban on dispensaries upheld

Advocates of medical marijuana (and marijuana legalization) argue that California's vaguely worded Proposition 215 trumps Federal law that bans the sale, possession and use of the drug. They may be right on the overall public policy merits of their case -- the "war on drugs" may never be winnable. But from a constitutional standpoint, it's a weak case.

Without irony, however, marijuana advocates reverse course when they insist that local land use authority is trumped by their interpretation of Proposition 215. Although the initiative approved by California voters in 1996 aimed to "encourage the federal and state governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana," it was silent on the issue of local land use regulations.

The result is a legal morass. Under Federal law, marijuana remains an illegal drug. Under State law, there is a narrow provision for "seriously ill Californians" and their "primary caregivers" to possess or grow marijuana for "medical purposes" with a "recommendation from a physician." According to the State Attorney General's office, profit-making "medical marijuana dispensaries" are illegal under both Federal and State law. Only non-profit "co-ops" organized by medical marijuana patients and their "primary caregivers" are authorized to distribute the drug. Local governments are then left with the murky challenge of applying these distinctions to local land use regulations.

Cities have taken widely divergent approaches. Oakland tightly regulated a handful of marijuana "co-operatives" that distribute the drug. Voters there recently approved a big tax hike on the "non-profit" businesses that will generate hundreds of thousands in local revenue. Los Angeles allowed nearly 200 "medical marijuana dispensaries" to open their doors before passing a law banning them. The measure left open a loophole that allowed hundreds more to open, however. L.A. is now enmeshed in public hearings and lawsuits in an effort to shut them down. Many other cities simply outlawed them altogether.

Not surprisingly, lawyers follow in the wake of the financial bonanza opened up by the growing "gray market" in selling a formerly illegal drug. Lawsuits are cropping up across the state. In Claremont, city authorities ended up in court for seeking to shut down a marijuana dispensary operating in violation of local law. The trial court ruled in favor of the city and on appeal last month, that decision was upheld.

Claremont City Attorney Sonia Carvalho hailed the ruling. "Obviously we're pleased with the decision," she told the local press. "We're also pleased the court of appeals has made clear once and for all the (medical marijuana) compassionate use act Advertisement does not pre-empt the city's local land-use powers. As this case makes clear, the law does not prevent the city's ability to regulate or prohibit dispensaries."

Whether cities should do so, of course, is the subject of emotional political debate. In Ventura, the City Council chose a careful middle route. A moratorium has been enacted to give the community time to thoroughly examine the complex challenge of regulating "the safe and affordable distribution" of "medical marijuana" called for in Proposition 215. The Council unanimously adopted a motion by Councilmember Ed Summers to prohibit siting of medical marijuana dispensaries in Ventura "pending further study and experience in other communities, and to return with potential language for land use regulations for bona fide 'cooperatives.'" Mayor Christy Weir and Councilmember Jim Monahan expressed strong misgivings about allowing any local marijuana distribution, but joined in the consensus to at least explore the 'coop' alternative.

That leaves two daunting challenges over the year the moratorium is expected to run.

First, navigating the polarized (and sometimes schizophrenic)attitudes about drugs amongst Venturans (and Californians -- and Americans.) On the libertarian fringe are those who argue that marijuana should simply be legalized and taxed like alcohol. On the other end of the spectrum are those who argue its widespread availability will unleash a wave of social and community ills.

Second, local regulations must not only be crafted -- they eventually must be enforced. The most well-intentioned rules allowing "bona fide 'cooperative'" could be trampled by the money lure of catering to consumer demand for the drug. We know from the tempest stirred up by "pro-active" enforcement of rules against illegal and unpermitted living units that making rules is often easier than applying them.

But while the middle way is a challenging one that infuriates advocates on both sides of this emotional issue, it is probably the right fit for Ventura. After all, voters, including the ones in Ventura, have spoken through 215 for "compassionate use" of "medical marijuana." An outright ban disenfranchises that sentiment. But few want to open the door to a gold rush of profiteers with no regard for the impacts on local neighborhoods and kids.

This is an important test for forging public policy at the local level. As elections loom, it's another one of the long list of topics that the next Council will need to deal thoughtfully with in the year ahead.

Grow your own

UPDATE: A hundred residents attended the workshop and learned practical tips about how to turn yard and kitchen waste into garden gold!

When it comes to saving water and recycling trash, Ventura residents rank among the best in California. Despite growing by almost a third, we use less water today than the community did back in the mid-Seventies. And in response to the need to keep waste out of the landfill, Ventura diverts 70% of our trash through recycling, composting and waste reduction programs.

Part of this conservation ethic means changes to our landscapes at home. Less green lawns and more green vegetables. Less pesticide and more organic ways to naturally control pests. And composting both garden clippings and kitchen waste to turn into rich soil.

This Saturday, October 10, the City is hosting a "Composting and Gardening Workshop" at Green Thumb Nursery at 1899 S. Victoria. The first hour is a hands on demonstration of how to compost -- including "vermiculture" (putting worms to work for you.) There is a sale on compost and worm bins for more than half off, plus refreshments and prizes.

The second hour gives planting tips for the fall.

I decided to give composting another try after seeing Daryl Wagar demonstration at last year's Summerfest. I started at Lowe's looking for a compost bin, but they were out. I found one at Green Thumb and I invested in a small plastic container from Vons for the kitchen. I bulked up with old bark from our low-water front yard and soon had rich, dark soil in abundance (except to sift out the bark I have to shake it through one of those plastic mesh flats that plants come in.)

This spring/summer, we had quite the harvest from that soil. A big crop of heirloom tomatoes (still coming); green beans; eggplant; pumpkins; squash; carrots; potatoes; basil; mint; and rosemary. The corn and broccoli were the only disappointments. I also used the soil to plant fig, pomegranate, grapefruit and orange trees. It also came in handy on the periodic transplants and replacements of plants in the front (which was featured in Sunset Magazine here.) Check out Surfrider Foundation's "Ocean-friendly gardens" suggestions here.

Hope to see you at Green Thumb. I'm thinking about getting worms . . .

Cemetery Park: A Councilmember responds

Few issues have drawn as much ire on both sides as what to do about Cemetery Memorial Park in Midtown. For one camp, anything short of restoration of the old cemetery is an immoral insult to the 3,000 departed still buried there. For another group, the plan recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission to better memorialize the park's unique history symbolized over-the-top government excess.

As with so many issues in our "soundbite" democracy, judgments are made and lines are drawn on the basis of a newspaper headline or an email blast. Recently Councilmember Morehouse received a sarcastic query from a constituent on the topic of Cemetery Park (I've shortened the name since the resident may not wish to be publicly identified.)

Dear Council member Morehouse,

I was sorry to miss the meeting where you supported a 4 - 6 million dollar renovation of Cemetery Park. I would have been fascinated to hear why you think it would be appropriate to spend that much money on a perfectly fine park while our children are having music, art and other school programs cut. The world has truly gone mad when the dead get more than the living.

"K"

Few elected officials take the job of dialogue with their constituents as seriously as Councilmember Carl Morehouse. He obviously took care in response:

"K":

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and asking a question. Let me address both if I may.

First, with regard to issue of school programs getting cut and substituting City of Ventura capital funds to take care of those things; the answer is that this is beyond comparing apples and oranges. It’s more like comparing apples and watermelons.

The City of Ventura’s tax dollars are completely and thoroughly separate from the Ventura Unified School Districts funds. So nothing in our budget has any impact on the schools and vice-versa. That’s why there is a separate school board election, as there is this fall, and those people are completely separate from the City Council. Personally, I happen to agree with you that society seems to have its priorities slightly off-kilter when so many important programs -- such as music and arts and other things that help make our children more well-rounded citizens of our community – are being squeezed out of school curriculums. However, as a City Councilmember, I have no say in that. For that, please speak to your elected School Board members.

Now, with regard to my vote on Cemetery park. I don’t know if you actually watched the meeting that night either via television or web-cast, or if you simply read the headlines in the paper. If you did watch, you would know exactly what I did and why I did it.

To begin with, you did not have the pleasure of sitting in the Mayor’s seat, as I did, the night the Council chambers were filled with dozens of angry, frustrated descendents of those buried in Cemetery Park. Let me tell you, it was no fun. Those people were extremely angry about how their ancestors’ remains were being treated and they were being egged on by one individual that I contend is a carpetbagger with a single agenda and who is a Johnny-come-lately to Ventura. Still, that did not dismiss the anger and frustration of that crowd.

As a result of that group’s contention that the City somehow or another had a moral obligation to do something about those individuals still interred in Cemetery Park, the Council set a process in motion. To that end, the Council set aside some funds to develop a process, dedicate staff time and to hire a consultant who had expertise in these kinds of matters to bring us back a way to recognize Ventura’s pioneers who are buried there, but to not return it to a full fledged cemetery. (Which the outside carpetbagger contends that we must under State and Federal law.) Therefore, we set out to do that. While the Council did set a limit on the amount we would spend on the consulting firm (which did come out of our General Fund), we set no other parameters on the outcome of the product. We decided that we would let the experts figure that out with the input they got during the public meetings.

Sadly, there was a fair amount of time between the initial public meetings and when the consultants got back to the City’s Parks and Recreation Commission for the final product. And by that time, a fairly extensive plan had been developed. However, in keeping with the process, our Parks & Recreation Commission had a couple of public meetings and took testimony on the consultants’ proposal. At the end of the process, the Commission brought forward their recommendation to the Council. (Remember, the Commissioners are simply appointed citizens, like yourself, who get paid nothing to put in their time and provide guidance to the Council. They are merely your neighbors and fellow citizens.) Their recommendation was to approve the plan as presented and to consider the possibility of phasing it in over time. Unfortunately, the night of the Council hearing, most of the crowd who had appeared angrily in front of me the night I was Mayor did not show up, and supporters of the “leave it as it is” contingent did appear.

As I am a strong believer in process – and we had one from the get go that gave all members of the community a chance to weigh in before the consultants ever did their thing – and as the Parks and Recreation Commissioners are merely unpaid citizens doing their best to advise the Council, I chose to listen to what the Commissioners brought forward. And, quite honestly, while I did not appreciate sitting in the hot seat the night the angry descendents were yelling at me and threatening me, they did have a point about how that area has been treated over time. With that sensitivity in mind, I believed then, as I do now, that the Council could have at least received the plan as well thought out and accepted it as a potential blueprint for sometime well in the future, if the City ever had additional capital funds, to maybe phase in over time. I CERTAINLY NEVER HAD ANY INTENTION OF SPENDING $4-6 MILLION RIGHT NOW OF CAPITAL MONIES WE DON’T HAVE ON FIXING UP CEMETERY PARK. If that’s how you interpreted my action, you are, I’m afraid, way off the mark.

By the same token, for those who demanded that it be fully returned as a cemetery with full up-right gravestones and a surrounding black, gated wrought iron fence, I told them to forget it. That train had left the station in the 1960’s when the Council of that time took over the property from the Catholic Church, who had, basically, abandoned it.

So, while there are some who prefer not to be aware that they are walking on dead people while playing Frisbee or walking their dogs, I do believe that we ought to do a better job of recognizing those dead other than just putting up a small wall with a little plaque on it saying basically “Oh, by the way, there are dead people under your feet here”. (Okay, I’m being a bit sarcastic here, but in some ways that’s what the final Council’s decision was.) To that end, I thought the final proposal brought forward by the consultants met the purpose the Council initially directed quite nicely and it could have, maybe someday, been phased in over time. But in no way did I ever envision spending $4-6 million right today to build some kind of elaborate park. That WOULD have been nuts.

Now, one more thing I’d like to point out. Since you seemed to have had a problem distinguishing between the City’s funds and the School District’s funds, would you do me a favor? I have developed two pieces that occasionally run on Cable Channel 6, CAPS TV. However, they have also placed these on their website, so you can watch them at your leisure instead of trying to find them on the TV. Most people who have initially come to me with criticisms, like yourself, have returned to me after viewing them and thanked me for better explaining the tax system to them. And for that I am thankful. I’m not sure I’ll change your mind about anything, but it might aid you with better understanding where your tax dollars go. So, if you are at all interested, please do the following. Go to: capstv.org, then click on Streaming Media on their home page. On the next page you’ll find “Member’s Projects” and you’ll find my two pieces listed. I would suggest you watch them in order. The first is about a half and hour. The second about 12 minutes. Hopefully, you’ll find them both beneficial.

Thank you, again, for sharing your thoughts. I hope you now better understand where I was coming from. And thanks for caring!

Councilmember Carl Morehouse

Don't know what K.'s reaction will be. But in a time when too much of public debate seems to involve talking only to people who agree with you and shouting at those who don't, Councilmember Morehouse's thoughtful response stands out as a better way.

UPDATE: Councilmember Morehouse received this response from "K" to his explanation:

Dear Carl,

Thank you for the very thoughtful reply. You are right, I wasn't there
and so was very interested to hear your thoughts. I realize that VUSD
funds are separate from City funds - I was just making a general point
of how our tax dollars are spent. Whether the taxes go to one thing or
another, they are still taken out of my pocket.

I am angry because it seems that every few years we spend time, energy
and money on surveys and such over the fate of a park that really is
perfect. I have never seen any disrespect of the graves. Well
remembered are those whose graves are visited daily. Our time and money
could be better spent.

Thank you very much for your reply,

K.