ojai news at The Ojai Post :: blog, newspaper, events in Ojai, California

OVN has posted a response on the OVN blog. Strange, but here it is.

According to the latest tabulations, Pete and I (Dennis) got 20% of the votes cast, and Lennie got 17%, for 37%. If we suppose half of Lennie's votes were for Lennie the conservative, and half for Lenne the progressive, that makes for 26-27% of the vote for the "status pro." Conservatively, the status pro is about 25%; liberally interpreted, the status pro is about 30%. As a minority, third party (non-partison, of course), those are significant numbers. Imagine, nationally, the Green Party getting 25% to 30% of the vote.

I agree with Bret Bradigan, that "fringe element" is not a good term, because it is prejudicial. I prefer the distinction between status quo, and status pro, pro standing for progressive, and being for leading edge change in a positive direction, with a "pro"fessional touch. It puts a positive spin on the minority position. The status quo, or mainstreamers may not like it, because it puts them in a defensive position, but I think that is in fact their position; they are defending the present status quo.

If I may tag something on here, some interesting things have been happening the last three days politically. Monday was the Historical Preservation Commission meeting, Tuesday was the council meeting, and Wednesday was the Planning Commission meeting. Today (Thursday) is the Art Commission meeting. As Dylan said, you don't need a weatherman to see which way the wind is blowing, at least in council chambers.

A month ago, I brought up to the Historic Commission, that my reading of the ordinances is that the property owner's consent is NOT needed to initiate landmark status for Mallory and Frostie, to which they replied, the Historic Commission should look at the ordinances themselves, to see if I was right. Something must have transpired in the meantime, because on Monday last, Mr. Kersnar made a presentation to them, in which he admitted that consent did not have to be obtained from the property owner prior to landmark status proceedings. So much for another developer biased myth, which now hits the dust.

On Tuesday, I spoke to the council about this new information, pointing out as gently as I could, that they had authorized their manager to make a powerpoint presentation, defending their non-action for Frostie, that contained outright falsehoods, which unfairly persuaded the public that the council's position was justified. The true facts were that the owner's consent is not needed, contrary to what was stated in the powerpoint; and that the Top Hat was on private land like Frostie, which makes the two situations similar, not dissimilar, as was stated in the powerpoint, which again unfairly persuaded the public, based on false information.

The true facts are beginning to emerge. The conclusion is that the way is now cleared for declaring Mallory and Frostie city landmarks. But ah, here is the rub. This brings out into the open the submerged conflict of interest the council has relative to developers. The council has all the legal authority to provide a check and balance to developer excesses, if they want to, including subpena powers, but do they want to? If the council directs the Historic Preservation Commission to proceed with landmark status, Frostie may have to be reinstated at his historic site. The Historic Commission said that this would be a problem in a small town, implying that these conflicts of interest are somehow OK in a small town, but not in a big city. I said that the council should make this political decision, not the Historic Commission. The buck stops with the council.

It isn't too hard to see which way the wind is blowing, as far as the council is concerned. Election wise, they are in the status quo camp, not the status pro one. Their non-action policy favors developers. Their response to the ballot initiatives shows they do not want owner operated businesses given preference to national chains.

This conflict of interest showed its head last night at the Planning Commission. Mr. Polito got a pass on his design review. To the Planning Commission's credit, over more than a year, and over the course of five meetings, they forced Mr. Polito to come up with a greatly scaled down version, that looks quite good, except for one glaring ommission. Nothing was said about what is going to go into those four or five retail spaces, including one restaurant space. The planner, Katrina Schmidt, may have let the cat out of the bag, when in reference to income, she said something like, it would not be hard to get chains in there. In other words, the door is wide open for national chains to move in. I said I hoped her statement did not indicate intent to invite chains in, to which she only smiled. The only way to prevent them is through an ordinance, such as what the ballot initiatives would advocate. So now we see why the council would be so opposed to the ballot initiatives, and would direct their attorney to resist them.

By reading between the lines, and testing the air, I could see how cozy the relationship between developers and city government is. More than once, the developer said how he had talked to Jere or Katrina about this or that. Others may have a different perception or opinion, and they are welcome to express themselves here or elsewhere, as I am doing here. All of us do have first amendment rights, no matter what side of the dias we sit on. I note that conversation is taking place in interesting places: at the council, during "public communications," which has long been held (incorrectly) to be against the Brown Act; on this post; on the OVN post; and now on emails I'm getting from Katrina Schmidt, presumably because of the Brown Act, because if one person sends her an email (like Todd's), she has to share it with everyone. It looks as though there is an interesting communication network growing here in Ojai, which now will include a physical medium such as the one at the Stir Crazy on Saturday at 3 PM. The medium is the message. Ojai is one crazy place. Anybody remember Peyton Place?

Anyway, with Mr. Polito in attendance, at the Planning Commission, I suggested that it would be in everyone's interest to reinstate Frostie at his rightful, historic site. If you've ever had the feeling of being a lone voice in the wilderness, this was it. Truth and justice can be quite embarrassing, to even think about. I was addressing the Planning Commission, but it is not they, or the Historic Commission, that I was really talking to. I was speaking to the heart of the Ojai power complex. To her credit, councilwoman Sue Horgan was in attendance. Brown Act or no, the word should reach the ears of the powers that be that Frostie is not dead, as they hoped. On Tuesday, I asked the council to put the question of Frostie's landmark status qualification on their agenda. You can imagine with what enthusiasm this was received.

To make a long story short, the ball is in the council's court. If they have the political will, they can see to it that Frostie is put back in that open restaurant space in Mr. Polito's plans. That would be a smart business move. If not, Mr. Polito's "gray collar" enterprise will suffer the gray curse, and will spell the doom on Ojai's future, as the blind lead the blind into the pit of Anywhere America. Politoville may look nice on the outside, but inside it will be full of dead men's bones, if just action is not taken now.

As for me, I claim the title and ground of "status pro" for Ojai's sake. A minority party has the duty to speaking truth to power, and keeping the majority status quo honest. Todd Miller is a brave soul, who, as in this thread, keeps surfacing the issues festering under the surface. As the city manager once said, Frostie is a symbol. Well said.

In the above post, I need to correct the statement that Katrina Schmidt is sending me emails. She is not. Paulette Whiting, Mr. Kersnar's assistant, is doing this.

Also, I've been thinking about how to interpret Lennie's votes. Are they likely to be from the status quo, or the status pro? Lennie's positions have been very progressive. I think a vote for Lennie would be a vote for a change in leadership. The status quo would vote for Joe, Carol and Steve. The status pro would vote for Lennie, Pete and Dennis. There might be a few exceptions, but that seems to me most logical.

The upshot of it is that the status pro(gressive) of Lennie-Pete-Dennis received about 37% of the actual votes cast, according to a recent count. That is a significant number. For a talking point, it says that over a third of the actual votes were for a change in leadership, and by implication, a change in policies. That's the good news; the bad news from my perspective is the two thirds who do not want significant change, even when Ojai's very character is threatened.

What could change that one third-two third balance would be 1) a downturn in the economy, which might convince the comfortable that high end, speculative development does not actually work; 2) education and consciousness raising in general; 3) more blunders on the part of the present leadership, like their positions on Mallory, Frostie, and the ballot initiatives.

How we interpret the election results is almost as important as the results themselves. Much of politics is about word spin, and defining the terms of the debate. We can win even when we seem to lose.