SOAR Battle Could Change Political Landscape

The grass-roots movement to stem urban sprawl, an effort sweeping through Ventura County this fall, could wind up affecting more than land use--it could also alter the local political landscape.

And critics say that was the intent all along.

The success of the Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) campaign is far from assured, with the expected hailstorm of opposition mailers and media ads still looming four weeks before the election.

But by taking SOAR measures to all of Ventura County this year, former Ventura council members Richard Francis and Steve Bennett have already accomplished something.

They have amassed an unusually broad coalition of elected officials, environmentalists and homeowner activists--earning endorsements from such disparate sources as conservative Supervisor Frank Schillo, League of Women Voters and Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks).

And in doing so, they have dramatically raised their own political profiles amid widespread speculation they will soon seek higher office: Francis for the congressional seat held by U.S. Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley) and Bennett for the county Board of Supervisors seat expected to be vacated by Susan Lacey.

“Jeffersonian democracy is alive and well in Ventura County right now thanks to these guys,” said Kevin J. Sweeney, a former aide to Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and former Democratic presidential candidate Gary Hart, who now works for Patagonia Inc. “I don’t think it’s an overstatement to say that if they pull this off, it’s the most significant thing to happen here in decades.

“It would be a legitimate springboard,” he added. “You’re talking about hundreds of thousands of people coming together and saying, ‘We want to keep this place beautiful.’ It’s better than having a bunch of money from some rich people.”

Francis and Bennett insist they are not gearing up to run for any position. But both acknowledge an interest in stepping up the political ladder, and they leave open the possibility they will do so in 2000.

SOAR critics contend that was probably the plan all along--not just for Bennett and Francis, but for the legion of local slow-growth activists who have carried the SOAR torch in every city in Ventura County.

Using a ballot drive based on the premise that elected leaders cannot be trusted as a launch pad for higher office is the ultimate in hypocrisy, they say.

“In my mind, the agenda of the primary backers is less than honest,” said Supervisor Judy Mikels, an outspoken SOAR opponent. “I just don’t believe that these are 40 or 50 people that care so much about agriculture that they’re mounting this grass-roots effort. I think it’s a way of making a name for themselves.

“If politicians are so damn untrustworthy, why do we want to be one?” Mikels added. “I think they are being two-faced here. What message are they sending to the public? It’s going to come back to haunt them, believe me, and I’m going to be there. I’m going to be lying in wait.”

SOAR proponents say such accusations are senseless considering that most of the slow-growth activists engaged in the ballot drive have been waging local environmental battles for years.

If anything, Bennett and Francis say, their interest in running for higher office is based on championing community quality of life issues such as SOAR, not vice versa.

“They’re trying to question our motivations in an attempt to erode support for SOAR,” Bennett said of his opponents. “That’s just one of the things you do--you question the motivations of the leader.

“If you’re going to question our motivations, I think it is only fair to question the motivations of SOAR opponents,” he added. “These are the people who would profit directly from the continuation of urban sprawl.”

SOAR Measures in 5 Cities This Fall

A countywide SOAR measure would prevent politicians from rezoning farmland and open space outside cities through 2020 without voters’ approval. SOAR measures in Thousand Oaks, Simi Valley, Camarillo, Oxnard and Santa Paula would block the cities from expanding beyond certain borders unless voters give their approval. Another SOAR measure will go before Moorpark voters in a special election in January.

If history is any indication, SOAR activists could benefit politically from their involvement in the growth-control drive if the measures pass next month.

Across California--particularly around the Bay Area, where voters have passed more than a dozen anti-sprawl measures in recent years--local elected posts are increasingly littered with activists who rode popular ballot drives into office despite strong opposition from business groups and the building industry.

“These issues are not going to go away. They’re just going to get hotter and hotter,” said slow-growth activist Duane Kromm, recently elected to the Solano County Board of Supervisors after working on a variety of initiative drives. “It’s real clear the public’s heart is with [slow-growth] candidates.”

The same trends have marked recent Ventura County politics as well, part of the traditional rise and fall of pro-growth and slow-growth forces that seem to take place in direct correlation to the local economy.

In Thousand Oaks, for instance, Councilwoman Linda Parks went from a planning commissioner known to few local residents in 1996 to the top vote-getter in city history after spearheading the “Parks Initiative,” a drive to prevent open space and parkland from being rezoned without a public vote.

But slow-growth drives in Ventura County just as often tend to be one-note affairs, with the participants failing to capitalize on the momentum--if they even attempt to do so at all.

William Fulton, a Ventura-based urban planning author, and other planning experts recently conducted a study for the Claremont colleges on the climate that spawns growth-control measures.

They concluded that such drives are usually tied to economic cycles and typically take place in wealthy, fast-growing, conservative areas such as Ventura and San Diego counties, where residents are less likely to trust government.

But success on a ballot measure does not easily translate into personal success in an election campaign, Fulton said.

When Francis and Bennett passed the first SOAR measure in Ventura in 1995, voters did not support slow-growth candidates running for City Council on the same ballot, opting instead for the Ventura Chamber of Commerce slate, he noted.

“If you look at the classic growth-control initiatives of the 1980s, angry citizens took a hold of the initiative process, started a movement, won on election day and took over the city council,” Fulton said. “For some reason, that has never happened in Ventura County.”

Some political experts say triumphs in grass-roots ballot measures may help candidates running for local office at the time, but are difficult to parlay into success afterward--particularly in state or national races where candidates are expected to espouse more global views.

“Who knows what the economy is going to be like then? The issues would certainly change,” said John Davies, a Santa Barbara-based Republican political consultant who has worked on numerous Ventura County campaigns. “The SOAR supporter, they could be a NIMBY in their backyard, but a developer in the community next door. It’s a very strange thing that’s happening all across the nation.”

Rumors of Patagonia Control

Because the roots of SOAR date back 10 years--to when Sweeney and Patagonia schooled a group of Ventura activists in the nuances of grass-roots environmental organizing and shocked the political establishment by sweeping a new council majority into office--many SOAR critics murmur the group is secretly controlled by Sweeney and Patagonia.

Not true, Sweeney and Bennett say. Other than passing advice about layout for a campaign brochure now and then or hosting a coffee klatch at his home, Sweeney said he is far removed from the campaign.

“This is genuinely a grass-roots movement that I had nothing to do with, other than training some of these young activists a decade ago,” Sweeney said. “I’d love to take credit for this, because it’s a wonderful thing. But if they think Patagonia is behind this, they’ve got their heads in the sand.”

Likewise, Bennett said Patagonia is far from a sugar daddy for SOAR. Other than $1,000 or so from Patagonia co-founder Malinda Chouinard, the environmentally active company has not contributed anything to the campaign--much as campaign leaders would like the firm to do, he said.

Some SOAR critics have even speculated the campaign is part of a larger effort by the Democratic Party to gain a foothold in Republican-rich Ventura County.

SOAR and Democratic leaders alike dismiss the claims, saying the growth-control drive may attract a broad base of voters from both parties, but actually turns off some traditional Democratic supporters, such as the building trades.

“It’s a divisive issue, and it divides party people along with everyone else,” said Hank Lacayo, chairman of the county’s Democratic Central Committee.

“If they think the mules are going to kick their heels up on SOAR, they’re crazy. This is the kind of issue where the wife will vote one way and the husband will vote another.”

The truth, according to Bennett, is that SOAR is the result of 10 years of work by himself, Francis and a handful of other Ventura activists to build a countywide slow-growth network from the highly unstable city groups that usually form to oppose one development or issue.

“I’m to the point where I’m getting offended,” Bennett joked. “I’ve laid out brochures and done campaigns for a long time. I’m running the show now all by myself, and I think I’m doing a pretty good job.”

Others apparently believe so as well. SOAR is becoming so well known that Bennett says he receives an average of two calls a week from fledgling slow-growth activists throughout California, Colorado and other western states, looking for advice on how to pull off a growth-control drive.

That advice, he believes, will be SOAR’s greatest political legacy.

“These people are where I was in 1989, and I sympathize with them. They’re just getting started,” Bennett said. “It’s really pretty tricky to keep a grass-roots group together. But if you can do that, it’s amazing what you can do from there.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Anti-SOAR

* Robert Lagomarsino

Former congressman

“I think it [SOAR] is an unfair class attack on farmers, and that bothers me. As a former legislator at the federal, state and local level, I’ve always been proud of the job we have done here. We’re well regarded all over the state. This is the first step in doing away with our representative government.”

* Lynn Jacobs

Ventura Affordable Homes Inc.

“The approach of the SOAR is, ‘Let’s not provide any housing, let’s keep things the way they are.’ It sounds pretty elitist to me. It’s somewhat ironic that SOAR bills itself as a way to help preserve agriculture, but it’s putting a major obstacle in front of . . . providing housing for farm workers.”

* Rob Roy

President, Ventura County Agricultural Assn.

“They want pretty views, that’s what they want. But they don’t want to pay for it. This is a very deceptive measure. It has nothing to do with saving agriculture and it has everything to do with no growth.”

* Penny Bohannon

President, Ventura County Economic Development Assn.

“We all believe in controlling growth and preserving agriculture, but this is not the way to do it. The policies we have have worked for a long time. Otherwise, we would already look like the San Fernando Valley.”

Pro-SOAR

* Steve Bennett

SOAR leader

“SOAR has proven to work well in other places to stop urban sprawl because it gives people the vote on the ultimate size of their community. We need it now in Ventura County or we will quickly sprawl together like Los Angeles.”

* Linda Parks

Thousand Oaks councilwoman

“SOAR is good policy. It really is the will of the people. It reinforces our general plans, and it allows for growth where growth belongs while protecting the areas that are valuable environmental resources.”

* Diane Bentz

Coordinator, Simi Valley SOAR drive

“Quality of life for myself and my neighbors--that’s why I support SOAR. It’s responsible growth, not no growth. It’s making the cities and the county grow in a responsible manner. With SOAR, we are still going to grow much more.”

* Fred Rosenmund

Oxnard landowner

“I was born in Ventura County, I’ve lived here all my life, and I hate to see the [farmland] being eaten up. I’m not going to sell out. I can make a comfortable living off my land. I’m not looking to make millions.”

About This Series

“County Report: The SOAR Debate” is a four-part series examining the consequences of the Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources initiatives on the fall ballot across Ventura County. Today’s story, the last in the series, looks at the effect of SOAR on the county’s political landscape. Past stories have detailed the effects on housing and property owners as well as outlining the arguments from both sides.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Ventura County: Go SLow on Growth

A Los Angeles Times Poll conducted in 1997 of 1,286 Ventura County residents found overwhelming support for slow-growth policies.

Residents want to preserve the rich farmlands and open spaces that still separate the county’s 10 cities. About half favor taking control of development on farmland away from elected officials and giving it to voters instead.

*

Growing too fast: 47%

Growth just about right: 44%

Growth too slow: 3%

Don’t know: 6%

*

Population growth:

1990: 669,016

1997: 716,000

2000*: 755,400

2010*: 886,100

Favor limits on development even if they hurt economy: 64%

Favor more growth even if it hurts the quality of life: 27%

County can be prosperous with little or no growth: 54%

County must grow to prosper: 39%

*

Ballot initiative to preserve open space farmland:

Favor: 50%

Oppose: 42%

*

Impose 1/4-cent sales tax to buy development rights from farmers:

Favor: 50%

Oppose: 41%

*

If development occurs, residents favor building:

Schools: 20%

Teen/senior/community centers: 15%

Parks/open spaces: 15%

Business centers: 14%

New homes: 11%

*Projected

*

How the Poll Was Conducted

The Times Poll contacted 1,286 adults in Ventura County by telephone Sept. 20 through Sept. 23, 1997. Telephone numbers were chosen from a list of all exchanges in the county. Random-digit dialing techniques were used so that a list and non-listed numbers could be contacted. The sample was weighed slightly to conform with census figures for sex, race, age and education. The margin of sampling error for all adults is plus or minus 3 percentage points; for certain subgroups the error margin may be somewhat higher. Poll results can also be affected by other factors, such as question wording and order in which questions are presented.