Point parking problems? Possibly.

Thought I’d take the opportunity to rebut a letter we received this week from Mr. Jenkin of the Surfrider Foundation, who says that our Aug. 27 article on a beach path restoration in Ventura was incorrect in stating that parking will be impacted.

“Your article,” he says, “incorrectly portrays the beach restoration project at Surfers Point as impacting coastal access.”

In the article, it was reported that the project includes temporarily removing a portion of car parking access while a pedestrian/bike path is moved back. If all goes to plan, and this first phase of the restoration is finished by summer 2010, the parking lot is opened up, back to normal, and all is fine at the beach.

That is, if the project is finished on time. This restoration has been fraught with so many delays that the chances of a project snafu happening are very, very likely. This is a project whose discussions and draft designs date back as far as 1995. 1995!

City purveyors say that in the event of this happening, parking is available across the street on the property of the county’s fairgrounds. But even then, that parking availability could be threatened. If the restoration is placed indefinitely on hold, by next summer parking at the fairgrounds may be needed for fairground events.

Not to mention that the fairgrounds board was resistant to begin with on lending the city parking, and it all makes for an air of reluctancy.

“Could happen,” “Maybe,” “Might be threatened.” The article spoke to the possibility of parking access being taken away. It didn’t state that it would definitely happen. And we wouldn’t run with a story unless such a possibility was truly distinct.

And that’s where the letter writer, or anyone who echoes the same feeling, is misinformed because they didn’t read the story carefully enough. The only error made here is that someone tried to correct us with their incorrect understanding.

It’s worth clarifying.

Healthcare reform smackdowns

Strap on your mitts, it's time to go to the healthcare forum!

Why would someone inflict injury onto another person just to show that we need better ways to ensure health for each other if we get injured?

It sounds like some kind of riddled Chinese proverb, or maybe even a lot like the anti-death penalty button sitting on my desk: “Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?”

All over the country, we’re hearing about makeshift town hall-styled meetings to discuss national healthcare policy reform degenerating into brawls, fistfights and verbal spats. Violence for the sake of relaying a peaceful message.

What’s ironic is that in Thousand Oaks — by and large Ventura County’s safest town — these town brawls are getting out of hand, courtesy of the people you’d least expect it from.

Last month I attended a forum at the library when a man, shirt torn from a heated scuffle, was carted away by police after an attempt at attacking a doctor who didn’t agree with the man’s views on health insurance.

And last night, things got worse at the Thousand Oaks mall, where, at a healthcare forum, one older man was in real need of healthcare after getting his finger bitten during an argument over right vs. left views on government policies.

It’s hypocrisy of a very bad sort.

People always get worked up over things important to them, and perhaps it’s human nature that there will never be rational behavior when trying to dissect really complex issues like the American healthcare problem.

But like our current economy, if we don’t have some kind of organization or rationale behind these town hall meetings, we’re never going to solve anything. In Ventura County, more heathcare meetings are planned through this month, and it’s likely more heated disputes, or worse, could break out.

Let’s hope none of them turn into anything serious, or else someone’s strong stance on healthcare reform could come at the expense of a police record.

We poorly stereotype Ventura County’s Hispanic population too much

Race relations are not very good in Ventura County.

Since I’ve lived here, I’ve seen our Hispanic community derided by conservative whites for doing nothing but just being here, whether legally or not. There are a lot of Mexican families trying to make a living just like the rest of us, but acceptance is not easy to come by, especially when you read comments posted on a certain online newspaper message board.

It’s pretty obvious that a lot of the negative opinions surface from gang violence rampant among the Latino community of Oxnard, and it’s driven a proverbial wedge so far between that city and bordering Ventura that Thousand Oaks seems like a closer neighbor. Hateful comments abound whenever stories are published about said gang crimes, and even for the good news … I’m thinking of a report on Hispanic kids obtaining internships at local doctors’ offices.

Online posters concocted some hair-brained explanations that somehow it’s the teens’ way of allowing for illegal immigrants to milk the American health care system for free.

This week, a melee ensued during an outdoor soccer match at a Ventura park, whereupon authorities were called to break up the fight, and, since it was not the first of such complaints, the league in question was sadly banned, permanently, by the city’s parks division from all Ventura playing fields.

The reasoning, I imagine, is firstly because one adult player assaulted a teen aged teammate, resulting in his arrest. Secondly, the team can duly find enough room to play in Oxnard, their home city, without bringing crime to Ventura.

Did I mention the team was Hispanic?

Of course not: because it shouldn’t make a difference what race or nationality these soccer players are. Disturbances were made and a crime committed. Rightfully so, the team should ante up the money Ventura Police say they are owed for their troubles, no matter if the men are white, black, Hispanic, or Asian.

These guys are poor sports and sore losers.

Yet, on first mention that the Agricultural Soccer League is Latino, the Internet ire flared up in typical fashion today, generating every kind of racist allusion possible.

In fact, responses I read today weren’t nearly as bad as the “Most Ignorant Comment of the Year” attached last week to an article on county gay pride groups, “It’s my right to be intolerant if I want to!” Spelled in caps, which denotes shouting.

It’s unfortunate we can’t be objective and judge a crime and its consequences for what it is already without placing racial prejudices on top of it. Posters did worse than suggest banning the soccer players from Ventura parks; banning them from the U.S. was more like it.

I’m curious to know what suggestions would be offered if the team was white. A slap on the wrist? Was the penalty not harsh enough for some people because these players were Hispanic?

There are a lot of hard working Latinos in Ventura County who I’ve found to be friendlier than most Caucasian people I encounter here.

It’s time we start developing some understanding — and an ability to relate better to others — for our Hispanic neighbors before we drive this county back into the 19th century with our NIMBY values.

Should panhandling be criminalized in Ventura?

Take a walk down Main Street in Ventura and you’ll see signs like these pasted in window fronts, discouraging people from giving handouts to homeless people, and to panhandlers who congregate downtown.

The signs are encouraging, as well, because it sends a message to the homeless that real help doesn’t come from earning spare change, rather seeking it in social service programs, rehab centers and seasonal shelters.

Panhandling, according to experts in our city social services department, is just another way to get homeless people to stall and delay getting permanent help. More than likely, the few extra bucks many earn from panhandling go to feed drug and alcohol addictions. When the money runs out, the begging resumes, and the cycle never ends.

It’s all a matter of choice for us, though; window signs or no window signs, we can still choose to give handouts to the homeless if we wish. There’s something selfless to be said about the person who gives a quarter or two to a sidewalk beggar when that money could have gone to paying for (overpriced) parking meters.

But what if panhandling was a criminal offense?

The city council in Santa Barbara, a half hour north of here, supported a majority vote this week to further criminalize panhandling on their streets, where busking and begging are predominant.

The new ordinance makes panhandling at bus stops and near vehicles on public streets, a misdemeanor. A previous law on the books in Santa Barbara prohibited aggressive panhandling.

Should a similar law be in order for the City of Ventura? Would it prompt the homeless to get the help they need? How would they pay the fine? (In Santa Barbara, they charge $1,000. No homeless person can afford that price through panhandling alone.)

The city is already caught between a rock and a hard place on this one. Ventura is viewed by many as one of the only coastal towns truly sympathetic to the growing homeless problem; yet, it’s also criticized for taking too long to do anything about it. A law barring handouts could be the push the city needs to rid its streets of the problem. Or, it could only complicate things.

It’s both sides of the same coin, really.

The economy, domestic violence & road rage

This week, I spoke to a few domestic violence prevention advocates who stood by the notion that poor economic times equates to a rise in violence, not just domestically, but anywhere you go.

It helped to hear that coming from a band of professionals because we’ve been seeing and hearing examples of it everywhere these days, it seems.

Last night, I attended a healthcare “town hall” meeting in Thousand Oaks — the first in Ventura County — and of course, someone was forcibly ejected by police after a belligerent attempt to rankle some doctors.

By most accounts, it was a tame event compared to the town hall melees across the rest of the country. The image of the guy who got into Arlen Specter’s face a few days ago could turn into one of those lasting American history snapshots. Yet by all accounts, when a poor economy translates into healthcare problems, people seem to get angry.

And just a few days ago, we heard of a fatal freeway accident in Thousand Oaks, where a motorcyclist, in an alleged fit of road rage, cut off (and flipped off) another motorist, paying off the gesture with his life.

The accident dampened all the positive talk of frugality during tough times we’ve been hearing lately … a recent story featured some people who were riding their motorcycles more because of the economy. Yet the increase of bikes on the road leads to the eventual news of accidents. Only this time, violent behavior was involved.

So people are riding their bikes more because of bad fiscal times, yet getting angry at the same time and causing accidents.

A quick Google search reveals articles from publications across the U.S. discussing spikes in domestic violence numbers, as well as maxed-out emergency call centers. And the correlation is to the U.S. economy. The stress from being laid off, out of work, and/or on the brink of homelessness has put a strain on relationships to the point of violent behavior.

Here’s one that makes a link between domestic violence as a cause of financial hardship:

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/4017

A boost for Ventura housing?

It’s debatable whether officials, who voted this week to approve one of the largest housing developments in Ventura history, are really upping the ante on housing availability and affordability in the city, considering the current market.

The split, 4-3 vote from the city council OK’d the “Parklands” development, a proposed east end home/apartment complex of a whopping 500 units.

One of the big discussions at the council’s meeting was the need for more affordable housing in the city, and just how affordable they’d be. Talk hovered around a one-fifth fraction as the target number of affordable units.

It all seems like a revelatory thing for Ventura, considering criticisms that the city is quick on planning and visioning, yet slow on action. Very little housing is constructed here compared to the likes of an Oxnard, where an abundance of lower-income residents has prompted officials there to fast seek affordable housing (in some cases, charging into preserved farmland for it, too, but that’s another story).

According to reports, if Ventura doesn’t come up and fulfill some kind of affordable housing quota, they could be vulnerable for lawsuits from housing advocates.

Several online comments from readers of those online reports, however, looked down at the prospect, unfairly equating all affordable housing to mean an increase in crime, and a decrease in neighborhood safety.

“Where you find ‘affordable housing’, you’ll find riff-raff,” said one poster.

What they don’t understand in their generalizations is that affordable housing, in the grand scheme of things, is not that affordable at all for the lower income resident. It’s something that not even some of the financially better-off people can even afford. In a desirable place like Southern California, that’s the way it is.

I guess one of the big questions is: affordable or not, will the homes sell? According to a business report in our local daily paper, in Ventura County, 281,000 new homes were up for sale at the end of June — a 4-percent decrease from the month prior. At current rates, there’s almost a 9-month housing supply, and builders are reluctant to construct any new homes until units start being bought and the supply decreases to 6 months’ worth.

By the time the Parklands 500 is added to the mix, will the housing market will be in better shape? And we need to let the public to better understand a. that affordable housing won’t worsen a neighborhood, and b. that Ventura will fall behind if they don’t provide more housing.

If that happens, I predict in a few years a city like Oxnard could become the new county seat.

Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em if the law allows it

In the 1960s, California was the beacon of the peace movement. As a transplant here myself, I regularly meet people who flocked to the West Coast during the Sixties and Seventies in typical Woodstock-ish fashion: load up the VW van, drive cross country, see America, and maybe smoke a little something to enlighten the senses.

It kind of seems surprising that years later, the stigma surrounding most drugs — including that devil reefer marijuana — hasn’t been lifted. In fact, it’s worse than ever.

This week alone, just south of the Ventura County line, Westlake Village officials were the target of a lawsuit because they barred a medical marijuana dispensary from operating.

Ventura said it would “consider” (read: put on the back burner) allowing a similar dispensary within city limits. From the low priority sounds of it, we know that won’t happen anytime soon. Though it’s worth noting that at least one-half of the council seems open to the idea of letting dispensaries operate here.

It would be pretty groundbreaking if it did in this rigid area. There’s been enough dissension against the idea of legal pot, in medicinal form, that the county’s main advocate for allowing medical marijuana dispensaries told me personally a few months back that he decided to stop trying because of the discouragement.

Of course, with the discouragement also comes a whole lot of interest on behalf of disabled patients of all kinds who have written letters to the editor in support of having a dispensary in their neighborhood.

The decades-long backlash against pot seems surprising to me because A. The effects of marijuana use have not been proven as sinister as the effects of tobacco, and B. Cigarette smoking is now seeing limited prohibitions across the country.

Calabasas was the progenitor, last year banning smoking just about everywhere that’s a public place. Thousand Oaks recently enacted lighter, though no less stringent guidelines, for tobacco users, and Camarillo has hinted at considering similar restrictions on smoking.

There’s been more outcry in Ventura County over the lag in allowing pot altogether than there’s been over the slow, disallowing of cigarette smoking. The paradigm, in many ways, is shifting … yet cigarette smoking and marijuana use (medical, mind you) seem to get in the way of one another.

Should we ban smoking cigarettes altogether? This columnist seems to think so:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/07/30/newman.tobacco.ban/index.html

If we did that, we wouldn’t have any more sales tax revenue from cigarettes … but then we wouldn’t be spending tax dollars on health care for people afflicted with smoking-related illnesses (because the illnesses wouldn’t happen). The ones who are ill could safely obtain medical marijuana, and presumably, the drug would still be illegal for recreational consumption. Considering the numerous ways medical MJ can be ingested, most patients probably wouldn’t even be smoking it.

It might be a pipe dream at this point, but if that pipe ever gets put to use, at least we wouldn’t have to deal with a big plume of cigarette smoke to cloud the medical marijuana debate in Ventura County.

“Don’t worry, we’ll pay it back later,” OR, Oxnard’s debt sandwich

If Oxnard's debt was edible, it'd look something like this.

The timing must surely have been coincidental.

Not more than a week after Gov. Schwarzenegger informed the public that the state will need to issue IOUs to its creditors and contractors if California can’t come up with enough dough soon, our very own Oxnard votes to issue bond notes to make up for $21 million that isn’t there.

It was the next best thing the city could do short of issuing an IOU, scrawled on a City of Oxnard napkin, to a developer who pulled out of a land deal at the last minute.

Now, officials are faced with millions more in debt, on top of the millions in debt they already have, and it could be decades until it’s all paid off.

By that time, this could turn into a nasty habit and Oxnard will be further in debt, issuing IOUs and emergency bond notes to pay back money that isn’t there.

If Oxnard’s debt was a sandwich, the city better go on a diet quick, because the calories are climbing fast.

Oxnard leaders are claiming that they couldn’t have seen it coming, what with housing developer Casden pulling out and asking for a refund. But the company’s contract stated they could renege at any time.

It just so happens they waited until the eleventh hour of their deadline to do so … which is practical, really. Why not wait until your allotted time is up to feel how the housing market is going? Casden acted in their best interests.

So did Oxnard, too. They did what they thought was practical. But rather than wait as Casden did, Oxnard went right to work and used the money from the deal to make capital improvements to golf courses and recreational land.

Whether or not those improvements are practical depends on how necessary they are. Is spending millions on 18-hole landscaping worth going into debt for?

It’s not when considering the Oxnard City Council ignored the developer’s “pull-out” clause, arrogantly sure the land deal was a done deal. It wasn’t, and essentially, they spent money that wasn’t there.

Sound familiar? It should, considering that we’re talking about a city who could epitomize our local example of why the economy is in such a mess. It’s not the first time Oxnard has racked up dollar signs in the red instead of the black.

We can lambast cities like Ventura or Camarillo all we want for being slowpoke and slow-growth, but at least those towns take their time to develop until the money is there. (Most of the time, anyway.)

In a way, Oxnard is its own worst enemy. Ambition, vision and drive are all good things, but they can be detrimental when trying to achieve something one can’t afford.

It happens all the time in places of employment: there could be a vision to improve and surpass the competition, but without the manpower, the resources or financial backing, a company can fall short, or even fall behind the pack.

Oxnard should take their bond issuing predicament as a lesson learned — that bigger isn’t always better, and that patience is a virtue (especially when it comes to saving money.)

Somebody get Oxnard an antacid … there’s a debt sandwich that needs to be eaten fast.

Meeting a legend

With CNN's Larry King in Oxnard, Saturday, July 18.

One of the best moments in my life came this weekend when I had the chance to shake hands with Larry King, host of CNN’s “Larry King Live.”

King appeared Saturday evening at the Topa Tower Club in Oxnard to promote his autobiography, “My Remarkable Journey.” It was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for everyone who met the journalistic legend.

I’ve seen and encountered the likes of Hollywood celebrities before, but they pale in comparison to meeting someone like King, an American institution, a dignitary, whose impact on modern media is unrivaled. This is a man who’s interviewed tens of thousands of people in his lifetime, with one of the longest running talk programs in the history of television.

Our recent interview with Mr. King can be found at this link:

http://vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/a_king_among_journalists/7089/

The sky isn’t falling in Ventura

It’s like the movie that gets panned and criticized to no end, yet turns out to be the sleeper hit that surprises everyone.

The Ventura City Council’s vote this week to start a pilot program aimed at easing our homeless problem was like that kind of film: something that got built up and blown out of disastrous proportions, but ending up passing with little outcry or fanfare from the public.

Why? Because misinformation can grow like a weed and make people react prematurely to things they know nothing about (but think they do).

And to our paper’s credit, it wasn’t until we sat down and published the comprehensive facts on the matter that people read it, realized it’s a practical choice to make, and decided that protesting the city council actually wasn’t necessary.

The week before, the city’s proposed program to allow homeless people designated times and places to sleep in their cars was made out by some Venturans to sound like the homeless would take over and terrorize the city with drunkenness and crime.

I was expecting mobs of people lined up outside city hall boycotting and damning the program on Monday night.

I had sat down at a Downtown Ventura Organization meeting last week and was witness to this type of thinking. I couldn’t help but shake my head in disbelief to hear that some business owners truly, truly believed their livelihoods were in jeopardy, panicked over the notion of giving the homeless some extra freedoms.

It was all the more unbelievable considering I’d sat down the day before at city hall with the man in charge of the project who spelled it out for me, word for word, and described in detail what sounds like an innovative program for homeless transition.

But I suppose panic thinking could be an unchangeable part of human nature. People will always run with rumor and hearsay before getting all the facts straight. Working at a newspaper, where facts are our foundation, will make these things more evident to the journalistic eye.

Yet it all makes the downbeat response at Monday’s city council a good thing. It goes to show that once people did get the facts straight, there’s nothing to protest because the sleeping in cars project is a good idea.

Of course, getting people to admit their reactions and opinions were wrong and uninformed … well, that’s another problem no pilot program can ever solve.