Paving Midtown's Island Streets

Finally … finally … finally! … Midtown’s “island tract” streets are going to get paved.

Last Monday, our City Council approved a contract for almost $5 million for the most expensive paving project we’ve ever undertaken – repaving most of the streets between Main and the 101 from Cabrillo Middle School all the way to Five Points. This is typically called the “island tract” because so many of the streets are named for islands off the coast of California.

The paving of the island tract streets is a milestone, because it’s the biggest remaining hurdle to completing the total repaving of the city – an effort that our predecessors on the City Council undertook almost a decade ago. There are many other streets left to pave, but the island tract is “the big one”. It’s 3-4 times larger than the typical city paving project.

That’s because many of the streets are concrete, and they haven’t been paved or otherwise rebuilt in probably a half-century. Whereas many streets in town simply need a new coat of paving, the island tract streets – almost without exception – need to be ground down and rebuilt.

It’ll take the better part of six months, and it’ll take place in two phases. Phase 1 will begin November, when our city crews will conduct prep work on all the streets downtown and then pave all the non-concrete streets (mostly those east of Catalina).

In Phase 2, from March to May, the city will pave all the concrete streets. Most of the concrete streets will receive asphalt paving because the concrete is too deteriorated to restore. But a few streets still have good concrete – and those streets will restored to their former concrete glory. The good concrete streets are:

Chrisman south of Thompson
Catalina south of Thompson
San Nicholas from Anacapa to Coronado
San Clemente from Main to San Nicholas
Coronado from Main to San Nicholas

This project will also include adding 235 handicapped ramps at intersections and installing 137 street trees. This is not as many trees as we would like – but the city engineers say that in many cases the planting strips along the street are too narrow to add more trees.

In our City Council discussion, Councilmember Brennan suggested we should have used this opportunity to rethink the entire stormwater runoff system in Midtown. Although we did not hold up the project to do this, we were generally sympathetic to the idea and asked that the landscaping plan for the paving project be brought back to us so that we can see how the stormwater situation can be improved – and whether we can squeeze a few more trees into the project!

Wal-Mart and Victoria Avenue: Let’s Unite Around Shared Goals, Rather Than Divide Over Tactics

One of the things I’ve learned in politics is that there are lots of ways to skin a cat. When you have a goal, you have to focus on getting to the goal itself, rather than getting stuck on any one particular way to get there.

By focusing on the goal rather than the tactics, you won’t get stuck if the tactic you have in mind doesn’t work. (Because there’s always another way to skin that cat.) Just as important, you’re also more likely to create a broad and enduring consensus about what you’re doing, because many different groups will come together to pursue the same goal, instead of fighting each other over which tactic to use. Focusing on tactics rather than goals can be divisive, because it can be harder to discover the things that different elected officials and different constituent groups have in common and how they can work together to get things done.

All this comes to mind because, in recent days, I have received quite a number of emails and phone calls from constituents asking me to immediately introduce a carbon copy of Santa Maria’s anti-big-box ordinance as a way of forestalling a Wal-Mart Supercenter at the Kmart site on Victoria Avenue. After thinking it over, I have decided not to introduce this ordinance immediately. In other words, although I share this goal I have decided pursuing this tactic is not the best way to reach the goal.

Here’s my reasoning: I think it’s better to work a bit more slowly and carefully toward a very broad-based and ensuring community consensus – which is what we’re doing with the Victoria Corridor plan and code right now. This plan and code will encourage the creation of high-quality office space in this area and almost certainly eliminate the possibility of new, extremely large-scale retail stores. To me, there’s not much point in pursuing a particular tactic, especially if it could be divisive in the midst of an election season, when we all have so much invested in a planning process already underway that will likely get us to the goal.

We in Ventura successfully used this approach – creating a broad coalition to achieve a common goal in a way that will endure over time – in passing the Living Wage Ordinance. I think we can do the same on Wal-Mart – if we focus on our shared goal.

Up to now, our local Wal-Mart opponents, such as the group Livable Ventura, have generally been supportive of our planning effort. When they have expressed an opinion about Wal-Mart itself, it has been a general concern – along the lines of, we don’t want Wal-Mart in our town because we don’t like their labor practices, or we fear additional traffic on Victoria Avenue, or we fear the impact of a Wal-Mart on other businesses in town. These are concerns I know many Venturans share and I share them too.

Recently, however, the typical communication from an anti-Wal-Mart constituent has changed. Instead of a generic concern about Wal-Mart, people have been making a very specific request that I introduce Santa Maria’s anti-big-box ordinance immediately. This is at least partly a result of some communications from the Ventura County Work People's Alliance and the Stop Wal-Mart Coalition Action Team, encouraging constituents to contact me and ask me to introduce such an ordinance.

I’ve had a good relationship with labor organizations over the past few years and the City Council has a good record on issues of interest to labor and working families. I was endorsed by the Tri Counties Central Labor Council and the Service Employees International Union in 2003. Since I have been on the Council, we have adopted a Living Wage Ordinance and we have pursued innovative inclusionary and workforce housing programs, which I have described in previous blogs. At both the city and Gold Coast Transit, whose board I sit on, we have re-established trust in negotiations with bargaining units that had long been missing.

This year, however, many labor organizations are intensely focused on Wal-Mart – and especially on Super Centers, which sell groceries. It’s understandable why. Most employees of large supermarket chains are unionized, but Wal-Mart employees aren't. There's a real concern -- a concern I share -- that a Wal-Mart supercenter enters the market, it will undercut existing supermarkets and placed unionized jobs at Vons, Ralphs, and Albertsons at risk. In other words, there's a fear that Wal-Mart will drive down the wages of supermarket workers generally. This kind of thing worries me too -- since I have always said that the gap between the high cost of living and relatively low wages is one of the biggest problems in our city.

A whole ago I had a meeting with Jim Alger of the Ventura County Working People's Alliance, an organization affiliated with the Tri-County Labor Federation, at which he asked me to introduce the Santa Maria ordinance. The Santa Maria ordinance is a typical – and perfectly legal – anti-big-box ordinance, which restricts all large retailers to using no more than 5% of their leasable floor area for the sale of non-taxable merchandise. Since groceries are exempt from taxation, such an ordinance effectively prohibits a Wal-Mart Super Center. These stores – typically 200,000 square feet or more – are a combination of a typical Wal-Mart store and a supermarket.

By the way, the Santa Maria ordinance doesn’t prevent construction of a regular Wal-Mart store (without the Super Center and groceries). In fact, there’s already a Wal-Mart in Santa Maria, which you can see from the freeway.

I told Mr. Alger that I was extremely unlikely to support a Wal-Mart Supercenter on Victoria and that, in the end, I did not think it would pass. But I declined to introduce the Santa Maria ordinance immediately, as he requested.

Over the past two weeks, I have received quite a few phone calls and emails from constituents and others asking me to introduce the Santa Maria ordinance. Many have been from people I don’t know; others have been from old and dear friends. Many have used exactly the same language that Mr. Alger used – that there is no reason not to introduce this particular ordinance if I really agree with their goal.

I always appreciate hearing from constituents, and I appreciate and respect all these communications. However, I would like to turn the “no reason not to” statement around so that we can focus on the goal rather than the tactic.

There is no reason not to vigorously pursue our broadly shared goal – a development strategy on the Victoria Corridor that prevents the construction of very large retail stores – and pursue it in a way that creates a broad consensus with enduring results, just as we did with the Living Wage Ordinance.

However, there are good reasons not to pursue this one particular tactic – immediately introducing a carbon copy of another city’s anti-big-box ordinance in the middle of a campaign season. Doing so would end-run a planning process that has been underway for two years. It may not get passed by the City Council, either before or after the election. And, in my view, all this will make it harder to achieve the goal of preventing large-scale retail development in Victoria Avenue in the future.

The Victoria planning effort began with a one-year moratorium, which has now been replaced with a special conditional use permit required for all new retail buildings in excess of 50,000 square feet, while we debate what the specifics of this corridor plan and the accompanying zoning code. We have not yet adopted the plan and the code, which is why we have put the interim steps in place.

As I noted above, the Wal-Mart opponents have generally been supportive of this process. But not everybody likes it. Those members of the Chamber PAC who think we should just go ahead and approve Wal-Mart clearly believe that the whole Victoria planning effort has been a huge waste of time and money with no benefit for the community.

There’s no question that the Victoria Corridor effort has taken more time and more money than we thought, and that it’s been pretty frustrating at times. But it has been far from useless. After lengthy debate, the Council has reached general agreement that future development along the Victoria Corridor should be focused mostly on office development, with some mixed-use. Our goal is to attract higher-wage office jobs, especially in the professional services sector, that we currently lose to Oxnard. Existing retail could be retained, but greatly expanded retail operations would be prohibited. Maximum store size would be approximately 90,000 square feet, far too small for a Wal-Mart Super Center.

Our staff is currently working on revisions to the proposed code to reflect this carefully crafted consensus. If I were to introduce this Santa Maria anti-big-box ordinance now, I’d be undercutting a lengthy and careful planning process that I have championed from the beginning and that many of my constituents who are wary of Wal-Mart have supported. I’d probably be accused by my colleagues on the council of “grandstanding” during election season – and rightly so. I’d be sending the message that I stand for thoughtful planning processes and careful consensus building – except when I am pressured by a constituent group during an election year.

And frankly, I don’t think that if I introduced the ordinance, the council would pass it – at least not now. Oddly, neither Mr. Alger nor any of the constituents who have asked me to introduce the ordinance have ever asked me if I think it would pass. But to me it’s an important consideration. I have learned from many political mentors – including Assemblymember Pedro Nava, whom I respect a great deal – that you have to pick your spots when introducing legislation. There’s no point in introducing an ordinance if you can’t get it passed.

As I said before, the council has reached consensus that we should limit the size of new retail stores along the Victoria corridor. But the council is also committed to seeing the Victoria planning process through to the end. And the members of our council – like the voters who elected them – are independent, deliberative, and sometimes stubborn. If my colleagues think I am grandstanding or trying to muscle them into adopting this ordinance, they are not likely to go along with me. And if I introduce such an ordinance now and fail – after championing the Victoria planning process all along – it will harm my ability to work successfully with my colleagues in the future on Wal-Mart and many other important issues. It will create unnecessary divisiveness on a good city council.

Which brings me back to my basic point: Let’s focus on the goal and not the tactic. This is the technique that was used successfully in passing a Living Wage Ordinance. This ordinance took a long time to pass but when it did there as an extraordinary consensus.

If we had rushed the Living Wage Ordinance to a vote, it might have failed or passed on a 4-3 vote, which would have given opponents reason to believe they could bring the ordinance back and defeat it. But because the Living Wage Coalition, which included many of the same people and organizations as the coalition opposing Wal-Mart, worked patiently and effectively with the city – simultaneously keeping the political “heat” on us and seeking allies elsewhere in the community, while also cooperating with us – the result was quite different. The council passed the ordinance unanimously, with the support of the Chamber of Commerce – the first time that had ever happened in the United States.

The lesson of the Living Wage Ordinance is that we should strive to create broad consensus around controversial issues, so that when a decision is made, it is strong and enduring. In the end, I believe we will get there on Wal-Mart. We will pass a Victoria Corridor Plan and code that will focus on office and mixed-use development and prevent the addition of very large retail stores. We will also lay the foundation for a discussion about how best to use the Kmart site, since Kmart is likely to close no matter what Wal-Mart does and we do not want a blighted sight along Victoria.

I am well aware that many constituents who are inclined to support me do not agree with me and would rather see the immediate introduction of a stronger ordinance. However, I believe that by working through the planning process that is already underway, we will be able to reach a broad and enduring consensus that we will all be happy with -- and that won't be easily undone by City Councils in the future. I look forward to working with all of you on this in the months ahead.

Cleaning Up the Planning Process: October 8th

Back in August, Councilmembers Brennan and Summers introduced a proposed policy to change some of our planning processes. We were scheduled to take this matter up next Monday, September 17th, but because one or two of councilmembers will be out of town, we’re likely to take it up on Monday, October 8th, instead.

Getting the Parks, Getting the Schools

The City Council returned from our summer recess Monday night (9-10), and took one very important action: We increased our city’s standard for the amount of parkland that residential developers must provide. This action will allow the staff to increase the fees charged to developers who don’t provide parks on-site.

And it lays the groundwork for some important decisions in the Saticoy & Wells Community Plan and the several pending specific plans in that area – most specifically, where do we put parks and schools in Saticoy & Wells and how do we pay for them?

For almost 25 years, our park standard has been 3.5 acres per 1,000 residents. On Monday night we increased that standard to 4.78 acres per 1,000 residents – an increase of about a third.

Some developers provide parks onsite, while others – especially those with smaller projects and smaller parcels of land.—often pay a fee instead. The new park standard will allow the staff to increase the fees as well. On single-family subdivisions of 50 units or fewer, our fee has been about $600 per house in most of the city and about $2,200 per house in Montalvo, Thille, and Saticoy & Wells, where park deficiencies have been identified. The new park standard will allow the staff to increase the fee to about $3,050 per house everywhere in the city. This fee is based on the assumption that parkland costs about $250,000 an acre to buy. (The fee for projects of more than 50 units not uniform citywide but, rather, must be based on an appraisal of the particular property in question.)

To give you an idea of what this means: Up to now, a developer of a 50-unit subdivision in most parts of the city was paying $30,000 in park fees (about enough to purchase one 50x100-foot lot), and a similar project in Thille, Montalvo, and Saticoy & Wells was paying $110,000. All such projects will now pay about $150,000.

The idea behind increasing the fees is not just to raise revenue, but also to encourage developers to provide parks on-site rather than just paying money. This is, frankly, a tricky balance. Small developers will usually opt to pay a fee and the city should encourage this, because we often need bigger parks than small developers can provide. Larger developers are more likely to provide land rather than pay a fee, but if the fee is too low they will buy their way out of their obligation, which raises the question of where the park will actually be located. A higher fee will mean developers are more likely to provide land on-site.

Another issue that was raised Monday night was the question of small parks – mini-parks. Increasingly, we are seeing developers propose subdivisions with many small parks, and they are asking that these parks count toward the park acreage requirement. Many small parks can often be a good thing, but you always have to be careful. Developers sometimes will try to have the city classify small bits of leftover land as “parks,” whether or not they can really be used.

The whole park acreage standard – and the park fees – have important implications for the Saticoy & Wells area. This is currently the only part of the city where lots of subdivisions are pending, and we are trying to deal with broader issues in the Wells & Saticoy Community Plan.

On Monday night, Dan Cormode of the East Ventura Community Council quite rightly pointed out that we might wind up with lots of developer fees earmarked to buy land for parks and schools in Saticoy & Wells – but with no land in Saticoy & Wells to buy, because all the developers have chosen to pay the fees rather than contribute land. (Developer fees for schools are set by the state, but the city and the school district can seek additional land and fees for schools by working together – which we are not doing.)

This is one of the main reasons I advocated for the creation of the Saticoy & Wells Community Plan in the first place. We need to make sure that, as the Saticoy & Wells area gets built out, we have decided where parks, schools, and other community facilities are going to be located – and we know how they are going to be paid for.

Does this mean that our East End developers may have to do more than just pay their fees and build their projects? Probably. More than likely, they are going to have to work together with the city, the school district, and each other to make sure that the land is set aside in Saticoy & Wells for schools and parks, and that money is available to build those facilities. Some developers will be able to pay fees. Some will have to contribute land. In some cases, we may see a combination. For example, Developer A may have to cut the number of houses in his plan in order to accommodate parks and schools – but may be compensated by the city or by Developer B (who’s paying money rather than providing land) for the loss.

Are these tough choices? Sure. Do the developers – or even the city or the school district – like to face up to these tough choices? Not always. But when you’re trying to do the best job you can in building out a community like Saticoy & Wells, these are the kinds of tradeoffs and tough choices that you have to deal with in order to succeed. That’s what community planning is all about.

The Field Is Set

The City Council may be “dark” during August, but the political scene is pretty active anyway. Over the past few weeks, a lot of prospective City Council candidates have been out there trying to put campaigns together. Now that the filing deadline is past, the field is set. Nine candidates will be running this year for three seats on the council, including all three incumbents. You can break the field down into four categories: the incumbents; veteran challengers, newcomers, and “the gadfly”.

Overall, I have to say that I’m looking forward to the campaign. I’d say everybody has
something to contribute, and the candidate debates should be both informative and fun. I’ll post the schedule as it evolves.

The Incumbents

All three incumbents – Carl Morehouse, Christy Weir, and I – are running for re-election, and we have all endorsed each other.

It’s unusual for all the incumbents to seek re-election, but Christy and I are only finishing our first term and Carl is finishing his second. Carl is finishing up his two-year term as mayor and Christy is finishing up as deputy mayor. (Mayor and deputy mayor are selected by the council for two-year terms after each election.)

This is only the second time in the last seven elections that all the incumbents have chosen to run. The last time was 2001, when Brian Brennan, Donna DePaola, and Sandy Smith – all finishing their first terms – ran for re-election, along with Jim Monahan, who had already served God-knows-how-many terms.

It’s also unusual for incumbents to lose. The only recent incumbent defeated was Donna D. in 2001. Before that you have to go all the way back to 1993 to find an incumbent who was defeated.


Veteran Challengers

Three veteran candidates are running again – Doug Halter, Jerry Martin, and Brian Lee Rencher.

Doug Halter is a longtime community activist – a guy who’s energetic, passionate, and committed. A lot of people would say Doug is the most viable challenger. He’s run twice before, in 1997 and 1999. He almost won in ’99, when he lost out for the last seat (to Carl Morehouse) by about 500 votes. Since then he’s focused on his businesses and he’s been the chair of the Chamber of Commerce.

Jerry Martin ran a good campaign last time around and wound up as first runner-up, though he was pretty far behind the winners. Jerry’s also a good-hearted guy who has done a lot of positive things for the community. Recently he helped organize a wonderful effort to help out an elderly lady on the Westside whose house needed some renovation. Jerry’s also a favorite of the unions and is likely to get one, maybe two union endorsements.

Brian Lee Rencher has run in every City Council election since 1991. He just barely made the filing deadline this year – he showed up 20 minutes before the deadline, and while he was filing his papers he graciously told me he thought the current council is doing a good job.

A lot of people would put Brian Lee Rencher in the gadfly category, but that would be a mistake. He’s gotten a lot of votes in the last three campaigns, and he runs strong in the western part of the city. (If Ventura stretched only from the Avenue to Seaward, he’d have been elected by now – he always runs in the top three in that part of town.) Brian’s an excellent campaigner and he always raises the level of debate in the campaign. (By the way, most people call him “Brian Lee” but I once asked him what he preferred to be called personally and he said “Brian,” so that’s what I call him.)

Newcomers

This race has attracted two newcomers who seem pretty serious about their campaigns: Lou Cunningham and Mike Gibson.

Lou Cunningham has been around town for a long time. He just retired as a facilities manager from the Oxnard Union High School District, but he’s also been a member of the city’s Mobile Home Rent Review Board (a pretty thankless job) and the county’s Local Agency Formation Commission (which makes decisions about local government boundaries – another thankless job.) He ran for the council in 1991 but got less than 400 voters, finishing second to last (ahead only of Rencher). He’s definitely more serious this time.

Lou seems like a good guy. He’s been sitting through City Council meetings (to the bitter end!) for several months now. I ran into him while he was filing his papers at the City Clerk’s office and he was wearing an American flag tie! Lou appears to be running as a fiscal conservative, but with a “roll up our sleeves” and “common sense’ orientation.

Like Lou, Mike Gibson is a veteran public employee who is running as a fiscal conservative, although his rhetoric is a little more aggressive than Lou’s. I haven’t met Mr. Gibson, who works as the business manager for the Santa Barbara County Parks Department.

He has already written a letter to the editor of the Star criticizing Christy Weir for her supposed opposition to the proposed Wal-Mart on Victoria. (http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2007/jul/23/no-headline---opwclet23wc/)
In his campaign statement (reproduced in Brian Dennert’s blog on the Star web site), Mr. Gibson criticized the current council for supposedly doing nothing on the economic development front to increase city revenues. He states his unequivocal opposition to last year’s Measure P6, which would have increased the sales tax by a quarter-cent to fund public safety. He also says the voters affirmed his view by rejecting Measure P6. I can’t help but note that, although P6 didn’t pass (it required a two-thirds majority), in fact 62% of the voters voted in favor of P6 and only 38% voted against it.

I think the newcomers will contribute a lot to the debate about fiscal and economic issues in the city and that’s part of the reason why I’m looking forward to the campaign.

The Gadfly

Carroll Dean Williams. Need I say more? He also qualified to run for school board. The City Clerk's office told me that if he is elected to both positions, he can actually serve in both capacity. Think that'll happen?

Who Didn’t Run

Mike Tracy, the popular former police chief, flirted with running but decided against it. He definitely would have been a strong candidate if he’s run.

Kimble Ouerbacker, a lawyer who was involved in the Grant Park Cross issue a few years ago, declared his intention to run and raised some money, but then never picked up nominating petitions. Mr. Ouerbacker, whom I’ve never met, is a member of the Ventura County Republican Central Committee. In 2003, he represented the original landowners of the land underneath the Grant Park Cross, who claimed in court (unsuccessfully) that the City had to offer to return the land to them before selling it to a nonprofit conservancy; a few weeks ago, he organized the “Lights on the Cross” event, where many community residents lit up the cross on a Saturday night with their flashlights. Mr. Ouerbacker was the only prospective challenge to file a campaign finance disclosure statement in July. He had raised $2,800, including a transfer from the campaign committee of Paul Kunicki, the conservative member of the county Board of Education from Simi Valley. You can read everybody’s campaign disclosure statements at http://www.ci.ventura.ca.us/depts/city_clerk/disclosure/index.asp

And Melody Joy Baker, the deaf, wheelchair-bound homeless vet who ran in 2005, failed to gather enough valid signatures to qualify. (You have to get 20 signatures from registered voters in the City of Ventura to qualify for the ballot.) Melody can be a difficult person and she is sometimes disruptive at public meetings, but I am sorry she didn’t get the signatures. I actually signed her petition because I believe elections are the crux of our democracy and all voices should be heard in our local elections.

Connecting The Digital Coast To The Technology Corridor -- In Ventura

A few weeks ago, Dr. Bill Watkins of UC Santa Barbara, our leading local economist, delivered some pretty depressing news at the Chamber of Commerce’s annual breakfast: Our local Ventura economy is not adding any jobs.

In many ways Ventura is a prosperous town. We have a lot of stable, middle-class employers like the County Government and Patagonia. Home prices are high, which may be bad for newcomers but is very good for most of our residents. And we are fortunate to capture more than our share of retail sales and therefore sales tax as well.

But we’re not adding jobs. And although we have more than our share of jobs compared to the rest of the county, we don’t have as many high-tech jobs – nor as many high-wage jobs – as we should.

That’s why I think the Council’s Monday night to move forward with the “Jobs Investment Fund” (JIF) is so important. At first glance it may seem like an unusual or even risky thing to do. But if we’re going to bring good jobs in growth industries to Ventura, this is the direction we have to take.

Here’s the problem: Here in Ventura, we are swimming in a sea of good jobs, particularly those associated with high-tech and biotech startup companies. But we’re drowning – and not getting very many of those jobs. Santa Barbara – the “Digital Coast” – is the 5th or 6th most important high-tech startup location in the nation. The 101 corridor from Camarillo to Calabasas – the “Technology Corridor” – is breeding fabulous new businesses, spinning off of Amgen and sometimes catching high-tech startups when they spin out of Santa Barbara looking for a somewhat cheaper location.

We like to think of Ventura as the place where “the Digital Coast meetings the Technology Corridor”. But the truth is, Ventura is the place where the Digital Coast just barely misses the Technology Corridor.

Which is ironic. Because I know from my day-job work in economic development that what these fast-growing companies want is what Ventura has: A great quality of life with access to both urban amenities (i.e. arts and culture and downtown restaurants) and outdoor recreation; proximity to research institutions where innovation is bred, such as UC Santa Barbara and Amgen; and an educated labor force. Even the cost of housing is not nearly as important as these other factors. The biggest irony here is that a lot of the high-level workers in these companies already live in Ventura. They just commute out, either to Santa Barbara or Thousand Oaks.

Four years ago – right after I was sworn in as a member of the City Council – we voted to set aside $5 million for economic development purposes. This was money the redevelopment agency got from refinancing some bonds. (Another $2.2 million from the refinancing was spent on paving streets and other short-term needs.) Although the formal vote occurred after I was seated, it was really an idea from the previous (Ray Di Guilio-Jim Friedman) council and the Chamber of Commerce supported it.

At first everybody assumed that this money would be spent either on infrastructure needed for companies (whether that’s new roads, parking garages, land, whatever) or loans to businesses already located in the city. But as the council worked through its economic development priorities, the ideas began to evolve. Both the General Plan and the Economic Development Strategy placed high priority on “high-value, high-wage jobs”. The council appointed an ad-hoc Economic Development Committee – including Ed Summers, Neal Andrews, and myself. We kicked this idea around and even began to hear from local businesses – and nonprofits – that wanted a piece of the money. Over time, we began to explore different options that we thought would help us grab some of those good jobs in growth industries that we seem to be missing out on. Eventually we hit on the idea of the “Jobs Investment Fund” – that is, using the $5 million to actually try to encourage – and possibly invest in – up-and-coming local companies.

Here’s how it would work: We’ll partner with a venture capital investment fund in Santa Barbara named DFJ Frontier. This fund and its manager, David Cremins, are among the most respected in the business. Their mission is to capitalize startup companies in California outside of Silicon Valley. Their main investor is the California Public Employment Retirement System – the world’s biggest pension fund. Cremins teaches in the Technology Management Program at UC Santa Barbara, and he’s really committed to growing tech companies in the Ventura-Santa Barbara area.

The city would invest part of the $5 million in one of Cremins’ funds, DFJ Frontier II, which will have about $60 million in capital altogether. The fund will invest in many start-ups in California. As is typical in venture capital, most of them will probably fail but a few of them will probably hit it big. There’s no iron-clad guarantee that the money we place in this fund will be invested in companies locating in Ventura, but Cremins is working with a lot of start-ups working on new products emerging from the UC Santa Barbara engineering program. They are looking for places to locate, and Ventura is half the cost of Santa Barbara. It’s got many of the same lifestyle amenities and as I said before a good chunk of the skilled labor force that these companies need lives in Ventura anyway. DFJ Frontier will promise to make their “best efforts” to place companies in Ventura – and they can make an iron-clad promise to organize workshops and networking sessions with local companies and entrepreneurs looking for capital.

To sweeten the pot, the city would invest the remainder of the $5 million in a new fund that Cremins would create, known as the Jobs Co-Investment Fund, which could be used only for companies locating in Ventura. Cremins and his investors would be expected to match our investment; and the money in the Co-Investment Fund could be used as an inducement: We’ll capitalize you to a certain extent if you’re a start-up, but we’ll capitalize you even more if you locate in Ventura.

In theory, there’s a risk here. Our investment in the DFJ Frontier investment fund, in theory, might not produce any jobs in Ventura. Our investment in the Co-Investment Fund may never be used. Our funds will certainly assist some businesses that will fail. And, in theory, we might not get a good return on our investment.

None of these things are likely. By establishing a strong relationship with DFJ Frontier, we will make inroads into the world of venture capitalists who typically overlook Ventura as a location – which is exactly our goal here. We will be partnering with an investment fund – and an investment fund manager – committed to this region and excited about our city. We will likely bring far more than $5 million in high-tech and biotech investment into the city, because DFJ will bring other investors to the table, including CalPERS. We will almost certainly get a fabulous return on our investment – though it will take a long time to cash in on this (as is typical of venture capital funds) and a return on investment is not the main goal here. (Plus, we’re not betting the farm here – the city still has $147 million in very safe investments earning 4% interest.)

As our City Manager, Rick Cole, pointed out on Monday night, simply partnering with an outstanding venture capital firm won’t magically bring good jobs to Ventura. We in Ventura – the city, the Chamber, and other civic leaders – will have to sell the city to investors. We’ll have to make sure that these businesses have the offices and buildings they need. And we will have to work with our colleges to make sure the labor force is ready.

We talked about the Jobs Investment Fund for an hour and a half Monday night – and rightly so, because this is a new idea and a big step forward. Several members of the council expressed concern about the level of risk associated with this partnership – the lack of an iron-clad guarantee that the jobs will be in Ventura, along with the possibility (certain) that we will back some firms that will fail and also the possibility (very remote) that we could lose some money.

In end, we got a 5-2 vote to begin negotiating with DFJ Frontier. (The final deal will come back to us again.) Deputy Mayor Christy Weir expressed concern that the Chamber of Commerce and local business interests had not been consulted sufficiently, and this is a fair concern. Councilmember Jim Monahan said that the city should not be risking the taxpayers’ money and we should use this money to pay for police officers, pave the streets, and so forth. He said that the role of government should be to “get out of the way”. This is a legitimate position which I respect, although it’s worth noting that Mr. Monahan voted in favor of setting aside the $5 million for economic development purposes and he has since voted in favor of every step along the way, including the General Plan and the city’s Economic Development Strategy.

My personal opinion is that if we’re getting whipped at economic development by ultra-liberal Santa Barbara, then there’s probably something more to success than simply us “getting out of the way”. As I said before, this kind of economic development is mostly about proximity to university research centers, having a high quality of life, and having a local labor force.

But one thing is for sure: If we don’t do something like this, we won’t get the companies and jobs we want; and if we don’t get the companies and jobs we want, we won’t create the long-term prosperity we need to provide opportunity for our residents and create the tax base we need to sustain street paving, police and fire services, and all the rest over the next several decades.

We could do other things with this money, even to promote economic development. We could pay for new roads, new business parks, and other things that such businesses need – but we are going to do that anyway. We could loan money to individual companies – a typical economic development strategy – but this is very risky. We are certain to suffer some losses and they may not be counterbalanced by big successes. Or we could “throw the bomb” and use all the money to back some big idea – as Oxnard is currently doing with “Big League Dreams”. But as somebody who has written and consulted on economic development for more than 20 years, I have to say the throwing the bomb usually fails. It’s very risky.

Instead, we’re going to partner with a very solid and well-respected investment fund manager that has not only our money, but tens of millions of dollars from the world’s largest pension fund; as well as a mission that conforms to our goals and true passion for our area. We’ve been harmed by a lot of economic bad news since I moved to Ventura 20 years ago – the loss of the oil industry, the loss of Cal State, the loss of Kinko’s. That’s why I think we have to focus on long-term, sustainable prosperity for our community.

The Jobs Investment Fund will prove that we are serious about jobs and strengthen our connections to start-up companies, capital markets, and research centers at UCSB. It may be unusual – it may seem risky – but it’s exactly the kind of thing we need to do.

What It's Like To Run For Office

In the next week or so, the City Council campaign will begin in earnest. On Saturday, I’ll be in the Fair Parade. On Sunday, I’m having a kickoff campaign event at Architexture (25 S. Ventura Ave.). The filing deadline is next Friday, so within a week we’ll know who’s running and who’s not.

There are three incumbents up for re-election – Carl Morehouse, Christy Weir, and me – and we’re all running. There are quite a few other folks running as well; I won’t list them here because the group isn’t set yet.

Fortunately, Ventura’s campaigns are not big-money affairs. Generally speaking, there are no campaign consultants and (with at least one exception, which I’ll mention below) no polls. There are no television ads and usually few radio and newspaper ads. We spend most of our time talking in people’s living rooms, seeking endorsements from local constituent groups, and debating each other in candidate forums. It’s pretty grass-rootsy, and I like that.

It costs somewhere around $20,000 to run a good City Council campaign. The vast majority of this money goes to design, print, and mail those four-color mailers you get right before the election.

But raising the money requires a lot of effort. Some years ago, Ventura’s voters passed a ballot measure on campaign finance. This ordinance places strict limits on how much money people can give to our campaigns, and in some cases it limits how much money we can spend. The idea is to limit the role of money in the council campaign – and, in particular, to ensure that one business or wealthy individual can’t bankroll a candidate, as often happened in the past.

The ordinance gives candidates a choice: We can either limit our contributions to $275 per person and limit our overall spending to $26,000; or we can limit our contribution to $175 per person and raise as much money as we want. (The City Clerk sets the amounts before each election according to a formula contained in the ordinance.)

Almost everybody chooses the first option, and you can see why: If you know 40 or 50 couples who are fairly affluent and strongly support you, you just get each one to give you $550 ($275 for each spouse) and you’re done with fundraising. But, in my opinion, even this isn’t really a grassroots effort. So I do it differently.

I choose the other option – a $175 limit on contributions, no limit on expenditures. I do this for a couple of reasons. For one thing, some candidate have gotten into trouble in the past because they’ve run up against the expenditure limit, and I’d just as soon have one less compliance issue to worry about. More important, though, is the fact that it forces me to run a grassroots campaign.

Last time out, the average donor gave me about $75 – that’s way lower than any other candidate. Lots of people wrote me a check for $25. Some people sent $5 or $10 bills to me as contributions. But I also raised more money than anybody else -- $30,000 – which I spent mostly on doing extra campaign mailings right before the election. (I was a challenger then so I was trying to get known, and it was right after the gubernatorial recall so it was hard to get voters interested in the race.) This also means I had more donors than anyone else, about 400.

I like this approach because it requires real grassroots campaigning – buttonholing people I know, going around to people’s living rooms to talk to neighbors, and having “addressing parties,” where my campaign volunteers and I address envelopes and lick stamps. (I sign every one of my fundraising letters myself, and I try to write a personal note if I can.) This year, almost 100 people have already donated to my campaign, and the average donation is once again well under $100.

What’s great about this level is that there’s really no difference between fundraising and campaigning. You’re looking people in the eye and asking them both for a check and for their vote.

That’s one of the many reasons that I like running for the Ventura City Council. It’s so much more satisfying than running for, say, the Assembly or Congress – or even for County Supervisor – where there’s a lot more fundraising and a lot less direct contact with voters.

Let me know if you’d like to contribute to my campaign – even if it’s only $5 or $10. Campaigning in Ventura is so grassroots that I’m not even set up to accept online donations! So I’ll send you a contribution envelope, either via email or snailmail.

And also please let me know if you would like to host a house party. This is usually a neighborhood event where you invite your friends and neighbors, provide a few refreshments, and we chat in your living room or backyard about the issues that really matter to you. It’s my favorite part of campaigning.