After World War II ended in 1945, the Legislature permitted cities and counties to establish special agencies to revitalize their blighted areas. Since that time, roughly 425 community redevelopment agencies (RDAs) have been dedicated to spending your property tax dollars on government-subsided housing, commercial development, eminent domain acquisitions and other land use and construction projects—as they deem necessary in the name of urban renewal.

But in January 2011, Governor Jerry Brown decided that the $1.7 billion in property taxes going to the agencies this year, about 12% of total statewide property taxes, would be better spent on helping to close California’s projected two-year, $25 billion budget shortfall. Besides, he concluded, the redevelopment agencies had developed the bad habit of misusing the funds! Monies supposed to be used to build affordable housing and, he’d hoped, to go to schools and public safety, were sometimes spent on private developers, golf course upgrades, extravagant dinners and apparel, and even lobbyist fees.

So in June, Brown and the Legislature decided on a compromise: the RDAs  would be dissolved (Assembly Bill 1X26) and municipalities would be permitted to join a voluntary redevelopment program by making payments annually to the state, to be used for schools and other services (AB 1X27). One month later, a petition was filed with the California Supreme Court by the California Redevelopment Association, the League of California Cities and the Northern California cities of San Jose and Union City, asking the Court to declare the elimination of redevelopment agencies unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, some municipalities made plans to go along with the compromise, though they weren’t happy about it. In Ventura County’s City of Thousand Oaks, some council members who voted to make the payment of $5.9 million to the state in the current fiscal year and an annual $1.4 million thereafter, to be part of the voluntary program, called the payments “ransom money” and “extortion.” They were angry that the state would take the city’s funds and redirect them to programs the state chose, rather than leave them to local discretion. Yet Thousand Oaks had its own issues with what many have called a misuse of redevelopment dollars: a private developer had received a lucrative deal from the city to develop an upscale shopping center, which included the RDA purchasing the land, paving sidewalks, paying developer fees and charging $1 per year for the land lease.

Other cities and counties were disgruntled with the governor’s legislation as well. They perceived a major source of their power being taken away, as RDAs provided them with funds (“property tax increments”) and authority to build low-income housing complexes, establish and renovate so-called “blighted” properties (a designation typically influenced by special interests), award loans and grants to businesses, establish public works projects and acquire property (via eminent domain), all purportedly to “create jobs” and “rebuild communities.”

The Supreme Court ruling alas came in on December 29, 2011. Accordingly, the State of California is on sound legal footing to eliminate redevelopment agencies. It may not, however, require payments be made to the state as part of a voluntary redevelopment program (where the state would redirect the funds to local services) because such a mandate would not be voluntary.

Some California taxpayers and private property rights groups are applauding the Supreme Court’s ruling as a triumph. Municipalities across the state are displeased, of course. They want the control of your tax dollars and property rights in their hands, not the state’s. For now, the 425 RDAs appear to be pushing up daisies; however, the root of the problem still exists. By its own hubris, your local government considers itself the authority on how to spend your money, utilize your land, rejuvenate your community, create jobs and grow the economy.

But you know those are not the proper, or even feasible, roles of government. You know that only you and your neighbors, individuals and businesses, operating in a private and free-choice marketplace can make the decisions that will truly safeguard your prosperity and quality of life. You know that when government taxes and spends according to its own priorities, the result is crony capitalism.

Right now our local officials are working on a “solution” to regain their power. Their central planning scheme has only been derailed temporarily. The message we must send them is NO to redevelopment agencies, NO to tax-and-spend economics and YES to stepping out of the way to allow private decisions to be made by individuals and businesses on how to grow their personal and commercial economies.

It’s time to overhaul our local governments. And it can’t be left up to the tried-and-untrue left and right wings of the Big Government Party. Real and lasting change must come from those who understand LIBERTY and are willing to fight for it. Libertarians are ready to do just that. With your help, the CALIFORNIA LIBERTARIAN PARTY will take the critical steps to revive our State as a place of freedom and prosperity. We urge you to come forward and JOIN US today!

As reported in a recent Ventura County Star article entitled, “Thousand Oaks moves forward Avenida De Los Arboles lane reduction plan,” the city will be re-striping this arterial road and reducing the number of lanes for vehicles from a total of four to only two.  Bicycle lanes will also be added to Lynn road. Other changes will be made that include the removal of at least one stop sign.

At the center of this action is a relatively new concept  employed by “smart growth” planners, advocates of walkable cities, and extreme environmentalist called: traffic calming.  According to Wikipedia, such measures as adding bicycle lanes create “…a living street … in which the needs of car drivers are secondary to the needs of users of the street as a whole…”

Sounds safe.

Indeed, socialistic “traffic calming” measures are employed to outright discourage the use of vehicles all together according to public policy analyst, Randal O’toole.  Florida Urban planner, Dom Nozzi wrote a candid article in The Gainsville Sun that praises such anti-motorist stratgies. In his article entitled “Congestion is our Friend,” Nozzi lays out his argument for how traffic congestion discourages vehicle use and traffic calming is a method for creating that congestion. Thus we see advocates for “walkable cities” pushing suspiciously hard for bike lanes absolutely everywhere included where they don’t belong (like Lynn Road).

Nozzi suggests that congestion imposes a “time fee” on motorist and such a fee is easier to impose than monetary fees such as those based on mileage, vehicle size, or gas consumption. Bicycle lanes which are a staple form of such traffic calming measures also force drivers to reduce speeds for fear of hitting cyclists.  Lynn road is a perfect example where every week it seems, motorists careen off the road and knock out a block wall. How many more motorist swerve far less than that distance into what will become a bike lane along Lynn road? It is reasonably foreseeable that such tragic events will become more frequent as a result of the City’s actions. Despite this very fact being presented to the City of Thousand Oaks, they seem determined to create Saddam-style human shields out of cyclists in order to push an ideologically driven war on motorists.

It’s imperative we encourage our city leaders to accommodate cyclists without endangering them or reducing vehicle lanes on our streets.

Contact the City of Thousand Oaks at: 805-499-2100

References:

The Gainsville Sun: “Congestion Is Our Friend”

Local businesses opposed the adopted revisions, as well. A representative from the Oxnard Chamber of Commerce, located in Zaragoza’s district, attended the meeting to voice their concern over the County’s version of the new regulations in what should have been the clearest sign of the deleterious effects of his vote.

Zaragoza’s apathy toward the destructive effects of the now-clarified ISAG regulations was evident when he reluctantly granted a short twenty minute meeting (in the days leading up to the vote) with VC COLAB, a group formed in response to the threat of ISAG regulations, to be the primary voice speaking on behalf of farmers, labor, & local businesses. In fact, often times he appeared to be napping during the supervisor meeting. Perhaps Zaragoza might consider a position in President Obama’s administration as Vice President  or an air traffic controller where it seems Narcolepsy is a resume enhancer.

Farmers were wide awake, however, as they watched in dismay while the supervisors trashed farmers’ plans to expand their agricultural businesses.

Ostensibly, the purpose of the revision to the Biology ISAG regulations was to make them “less subjective” and “more clear”. To that extent, the Ventura County Planning Department scored a smashing success. The ISAG regulations are now clearly harmful to jobs, agriculture, working class families and property owners. In reality, the Biology ISAG document was more than clarified as it was expanded by over 500%.

Ironically, according to the Ventura County Star, John Zaragoza “appeared ready to give an initial OK” to a proposed plan to build a film production studio north of Simi Valley, only to then vote for the expanded ISAG regulations which will now ensnare that very project. The production studio, incidentally, is also mired in bureaucratic red-tape thanks to S.O.A.R..  If Zaragoza is really pro-jobs, perhaps he should wake up (literally) and spend more than 20 minutes with stakeholders who can show him how to accomplish his goal of attracting more jobs to the County without plowing under his own efforts or those of farmers.

“…the County of Ventura SOAR protects three land use categories:  Open space, Agriculture and Rural Land.”

Yet, debate has swirled within the farming community as to whether or not S.O.A.R. is actually friendly to agriculture (let alone protective), but with their public support for the County’s version of the Biology ISAG, there is little room for doubt: they are not.

Of the most contentious and damaging aspects which were supported by S.O.A.R. (along with liberal supervisors Linda Parks, Steve Bennett, and John Zaragoza), is the newly included references within the ISAG regulations to the South Coast Missing Linkages (SCML) project was the most worrisome and hotly contested by local farmers… and for good reason. The SCML project is essentially a collaboration of extreme environmentalists, using dubious science,  who seek to “create a major wildland network in one of the world’s largest metropolitan areas.” Obviously, this is a little hard to do without trampling on farmers and property owners who have other plans for their own bought and paid for property. What’s worse is that there has been no public scrutiny of their science or methodologies and they have not been transparent. Sound like the same tactics used by the global warming “scientists”? Al Gore would be proud. Just think climate-gate…

Referring to agriculture as “inhospitable” and targeting activities such as livestock grazing, the SCML project is unquestionably antagonistic toward agriculture. In many cases throughout their many reports, urban and agricultural areas are referenced together as a singular and equal threat to wildlife and their grandiose plans for connecting wildlands. When one looks at SCML maps such as the one found here, it quickly becomes apparent that much of the land that isn’t urban is targeted for hyper-regulation. It is no wonder, according to the most recent U.S. Department of Agriculture survey, the number of US farms has been declining. National Young Farmers Coalition board member, Lindsey Lusher Shute, said in a recent  interview for Rob Reuteman of CNBC, “generation after generation of farmers were making less and less money, and were not encouraging their children to farm.” That sentiment was echoed by many of the growers and ranchers who  expressed the desire to pass their farms on to their children.

Deceptively S.O.A.R. suggests that ISAG Guidelines are about saving open space from developers who will, if not prevented through the new ISAG regulations, divide “4000 acres into 400 10-acre lots…[with] the right to build 400 houses, and 400 second dwelling units.”  How ridiculous. The siren call by S.O.A.R. to stop developers from dividing up agricultural land, in reality, is little more than dad splitting his ranch into two parcels for his sons so they can each continue the family tradition of farming.

Bud Sloan, a local veterinarian and rancher, explained before the Supervisors that he had hoped to plant some additional acreage and in order to process the crops, he would need a new packing house. By his estimates, this would cost roughly $200,000 but with the passage of ISAG, that figure would jump to an eye-popping $700,000, making the project infeasible. So while S.O.A.R. fear-mongers about how the county will be a sea of tract homes without ISAG, the truth of the matter is that Parks, Bennett, and Zaragoza have trampled on small family-owned farmers once again. Congratulations supervisors, you stopped that big “developer” from building a barn (you know, the kind you always see on the front cover of Country Magazine).

George Miller of Ventura County TEA Party speaks to the Ventura County Libertarians March 16th, 2011

Libertarians in the Oxnard area came to hear George Miller of the Ventura County TEA Party speak to them at Yolanda’s Restaurant located in the newest section of the Channel Islands Harbor last night. George’s speech was an honest assessment of the common areas where Libertarians and TEA Partiers can work together, but he also shared distinct differences that sets Libertarians apart from the TEA Party. According to George:

Libertarians and TEA Parties agree that:

• Governments should be fiscally conservative
• Individuals have personal liberty and freedom
• The Constitution is important and most in government are ignoring it

Libertarian Party differs from TEA Parties because:

• The Libertarian Party is an actual political party, the Tea Parties are not
• The Tea Parties are, in fact, separate grassroots organizations, not an organized movement
• Libertarians believe that government should stay out of moral and social issues altogether, while many Tea Party activists tend to believe that the government should do at least something to protect innocent people from immoral behavior

Both groups can work together by:

• Educate the public and each other on important political issues
• Pursue political action on common causes (current ISAG issue, for example)
• Cross-endorse and support candidates

For the full text of George’s speech, Click Here.

George Miller of the Ventura County TEA Party speaking to local Libertarians.

Both TEA Partiers and Libertarians alike were excited at working together on common issues such as stopping the Ventura County land grab. We look forward to forging alliances with more groups as we build coalitions that enable us to influence public policy.