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

Dennis - welcome to the Post! It's great to see new contributors in this lively discussion. Your letter is music to my ears. I also try do the majority of our shopping in town. Always have.

I hope our city council members are reading this. Did you email it to them as well? Their email addresses are posted here: http://www.ojaipost.com/2007/04/open_letter_from_rae_hanstad.shtml

Best,
Leslie

Dear Mr. Rice,

We share the same first name, and from what you wrote, share similar sentiments about chain stores such as Subway. You spoke most eloquently, clearly and movingly on a subject which is of utmost concern to the good of Ojai.

I am going to tag onto your comments because I need to do whatever I can to save Ojai for her qualities which you so well described. Ojai is in grave danger and now is not the time to hold back out of fear of offending someone's feelings.

The chain store issue is a timely symbol of an immense problem that faces Ojai. It's the tip of a political iceberg. Unlike you, I am a relative newcomer and so may not speak with the experience of yourself. Yet, newcomers can sometimes speak with a fresh perspective. Bear in mind that Mr. Kersnar, our new city manager, has been here for less time than I have, and he has certainly not hesitated to speak out with vigor and conviction.

As with many small company towns, Ojai has a core political base dating back many years. The faces change but there is a force holding it together out of a need for consistency and safety. It is not easy to identify this power base because much of its influence comes from secrecy. Since it does not as a rule go public, I am forced to speculate on the available evidence.

Over the two years I've been here, dozens of people like yourself have expressed their feelings and requests to the council, in their chambers, personally and in the media. The council is in a bind. They may sympathize with requests such as yours but such requests go against the grain of the interests of those who stand behind the council.

Money runs this town which should come as no surprise. The financial interests take precedence over the wishes and desires of many people like ourselves. Since we live in a democracy, the council must give lip service to requests like ours but if you examine their actions, you will find that the council invariably lines up to support money rather than people.

There is not space or time to argue my case here. I have done plenty of that on other threads, so much so that readers complain of my being excessively wordy and even of attempting to hijact the Post. So, I must bottom line it. In short, the council is banker-developer biased.

The council, their attorney and manager, knew or should have known long ago that the Subway problem was inevitable. Mr. Kersnar admitted it a few months ago and said it could happen very quickly. How long has Jersey Mikes been here? The council denies knowing that there was no ordinance in place to hinder chains. Is this believable? Extremely unlikely. The council is either ignorant and derelict in their duties or it is not honest. This is a serious charge but I am prepared to debate it with them, should they choose to enter the public arena.

Are you familiar with Jeff's initiatives and the controversy surrounding them? If the council was truly interested in saving Ojai from chains, they could have seen to it that the initiatives were put on last November's ballot. Of course, the council is not going to come out and say that they did not think the initiatives were in the best interests of Ojai because that would put them in the position of favoring chains. Instead, they made up specious excuses, like saying the wording was not exact enough, which is simply not true. Why would an elected body not support an initative that does exactly what the council says it wants: to protect Ojai from chains?

To answer that question, we must go back to my initial premise that the council is caught in a bind between serving the financial interests and the interests of saving Ojai as the unique place you described. Follow the money. Who stands to gain by chains? Most everyone agrees that the real Ojai will suffer, and perhaps be destroyed by chains. Yet, chains come in and the city government does nothing to stop them, until the public gets so irate, as in the Subway case, that inaction, excuses and delays pose a danger that continuing their strategy of non action will blow their cover.

The main beneficiaries of chains are the various money interests. Guess what the city is most concerned about? Money. That puts them squarely in the money camp. Do you think money cares about an Ojai that will not submit to its hegemony? Money not only talks but it walks over anything that gets in its way. Frostie had put a deposit down on where Jesey Mikes is now. Why do you think Frostie was bumped? Money.

The council sees all this money shenanigans going on, and has the power to exert the rights of the people. They do nothing unless absolutely forced to act by the people. Worse than doing nothing, they make up excuses for their inaction to persuade the public that they would act if only they could. There is no kind way to say it. If it's a spade, call it a spade. If you try to call a spade a heart, it's hyprocrisy or something worse.

I don't have time to go into all the evidence for the conclusions I am drawing here. I would be more than happy to debate the conclusions right here on the Post. Wouldn't that be fun? Let's have a community forum right here. If someone talked about me the way I am talking about the council and their two main employees, I would certainly defend my actions and point of view. The council has tried mightily to hide behind the Brown Act but I've pulled that cover from them. The only logical reason for non participation in a democracy that I can see is having something to hide due to conflicts of interest. It's hard to be open and free in your expression if you're being pulled in different directions and are afraid of displeasing someone.

I am guessing that the council has the same needs I do. They want to save Ojai, too. They want to save Ojai from the likes of me because they think my values would threaten the stability of Ojai. Ironically, I want to save Ojai from the likes of the council because I think the council is threatening Ojai's very reason for being. Now how are we going to get over this impasse except by civil discourse, in public?

When I talk to the council, I am not nearly as nice as you are. I prod them, I challenge them, I question their policies. I am not rude or uncivil, and they are courteous to me, for the most part. But there remains this gulf between us. The only way to bridge the chasm is to keep exercising our most fundamental right, that of free speech. I don't claim to be right, but I claim the right to freely and publicly state the truth as I see it.

Thanks for the eloquent comment Dennis (and Dennis). It is nice to see old time, well recognized residents stand up to make the point - there have been far too many silly allegations that the desire to preserve Ojai's unique character come from some fringe province of "newbies." Not so. Ojai attracts its best new residents, and keeps its best old-timers, because of its uniqueness. Part of that uniqueness is the lack of chain stores.

The wide-open door to chains in part started with the last election - prior to the vote, the current councilmembers, outrageously, filed a lawsuit to silence initiatives that were aimed at putting protections in place that, as Rae Hanstad has been quoted, "we all thought we had."

The ACLU has labelled the city's lawsuit a SLAPP - a strategic lawsuit against public participation. In plain English, a fundamental violation of our basic rights. The current council has voted to escalate its fight and is now locked in litigation against the ACLU on this, for what public purpose it is difficult to fathom. In the meantime, the SLAPP had the effect of delaying action on, among other things, chain stores, as the council developed its alternative plan to go slow and do nothing (until suddenly Wham! Bang! Who could have foreseen it! A Subway is coming!), and citizens refrained from filing initiatives or taking other actions so as not to get sued too.

In the end, the election decision to vote for the incumbents who filed the SLAPP also brought us the Subway. Chain store owners were not crazy to conclude, as has the proposed Subway franchisee according to published reports, that "the rules have changed": chains are now welcome in Ojai.

Dennis, what do you see as a way forward? What would you like to see the council do? What do you think the people of Ojai can do?

Greetings Dennis Rice -- long time no see.

For the record, I was completely aware that although City Hall was not corporate logo friendly (as in the defeat of a drive-thru Wendy's at Ojai Avenue and Bristol), the City of Ojai did not have a "law against chains" per se. My comment at the Council meeting about the lack of such a law was part of a recognition of Kenley Neufeld's hard work and willingness to research and produce an actual, enactable ordinance for citizens to consider.

On May 1 the Council will reconsider a 45-day (renewable) urgency ordinance moratorium against formula retail and restaurant outlets. I hope citizens and friends of Ojai will continue to let their elected officials know, in person and in writing (I echo Leslie Davis' suggestion), what they desire from all possible plans and policies.

Thank you.

Thanks for that information, Rae. From what I understand, the council is somewhat limited in their absolute ability to stop chain stores from proliferating in Ojai. This is not to say that they cannot put up a resistance, but an outright ban may or may not be on shaky legal ground. Previous efforts have focused upon sign ordinances and such. While caring councilpersons must go to bat for us, the ultimate answer, from my perspective, rests with the community. Unlike the Starbucks, which is poised in the traffic corridor as a threat to Stir Crazy, the proposed Subway is in the heart of town. In order to succeed it must have community support. What I think the community of Ojai can do is not go there.
Although that many would have us believe that the opposite of communism is democracy, in truth its opposite is capitalism. In a capitalist system, we vote every time we lay a dollar on the counter. When we buy music or go to movies that exploit, we are saying, “I want more of that”. When we drop our dollar on organic produce or frequent socially or environmentally responsible business, we are in effect voting for it.
I am not concerned that there are two Jim and Rob’s, or two Bocallis or Rueben’s or Seafresh. I am concerned for the delicate fabric of the community when “logo” shops abound, when local entrepreneurs, committed and involved in the community, are pushed out and our downtown begins to resemble that of any other burb in the country. So, in short, I encourage any one reading this to support community business and to vote against “logo” shops with their wallets.

Dennis Rice is correct.

If every Ojai Post visitor who agrees, silently or loudly, had bought one sandwich at Howie's once a week, it might still be in business.

Policy is important, but alone it can only go so far to change norms.

Now is your chance to "vote" by shopping and dining locally.

Thank you, Rae, for your participation in the various public "discussions" that are finally taking place in town. I wish others on the council would follow your very smart and practical lead.

Our economy is defined as capitalism: Free markets determining what is available and for how much due to demand and one's willingness to take a risk for a profit in meeting that demand. That is not to say we allow a full and unfettered dynamic take place.
The results would be one mercenary abridgment after another of our rights, our choices, our very being. Examples abound in history and in case law.

That is why, to the chagrin of some in the far right, that the supreme court has upheld and ordered in some instances that, regulation be in place to protect the common man from overpowering, unfair trade practices that hurt all but a few.

A city has many powers to influence, hinder and prevent certain activities. In some cases, it requires only courage to act on it. Clearly Ojai exercised that for many years or we would have had more chains than we do now. Now we face a different dynamic, for the hindrances once used are not in play anymore.

The proposed temporary moratorium, whether it be selective or all encompassing in application, is a step towards bringing back protections that once existed by the mere influence of those in power.

I support a complete ban of those operations defined in the Neufeld Initiative for the downtown area. I also would like to see it applied city wide. But as mentioned or touched upon, is that this could be a problem, but not one that couldn't be met legally.

Mr. Rice,

I enjoyed your editorial posted by Tyler immensely. I too always shop locally and I've been aware of the corrosive effects of formula businesses on local economies for a very long time. I agree that choosing to spend your money in independent, unique establishments strengthens our local economy, but I disagree that is is a straight dollar for dollar situation. It is not simply a matter of spending your money at Giorgio's rather than Subway. As has been posted here by others many times in all these forums, franchise businesses do not need to make a living for their owners. They only need to make a small positive income beyond fees sent to the main corporation and the overhead. The franchise owner makes money by owning multiple franchises, all making small positive incomes. Subway in particular has been known to allow its' franchises to run at a loss in order to eliminate competition. In fact, the bigger picture here is that Subway is going into competition against Jersey Mike's. The Jersey Mike's chain is an upstart with only a few hundred location, and it is a direct threat to the Subway corporation because it using the exact same formula. It is in the interest of the Subway Corporation to try and eliminate all new Jersey Mike's locations. That is the reason a Subway is coming to Ojai. They want to bump off Jersey Mike's and the collateral damage from these chain behemoths battling it out in our downtown will be the loss of our independents. These corrosive business practices will adversely effect our independent businesses regardless of how many of us decide not to patronize these chains. Many many people either don't understand this issue or simply don't care, even here in Ojai.

It was interested to see that Rae Hanstad actually responded to your editorial. It seems to be a rare thing when she actually comes on the post for a dialog with her constituents, though nowhere near as rare as it is for her cohorts. I can only assume that she chooses to respond based on who is writing rather than what they are saying.

About the latest ordinance to stop the coming chain invasion. I was able to help Kenley with the initiative that he submitted to the city twelve days ago(Still no return from the city attorney, by the way). In looking at the other ordinances that cities all over the country have passed, we learned that it was possible to write an ordinance that can effectively ban formula retail and restaurant businesses form the city limits of Ojai. Kenely's initiative is such an ordinance and it should be adopted immediately rather than going through the whole, long special election process. I seriously doubt the council will have the wherewithal to do this, so I fully expect to be be gathering signatures to that end after Mr. Widders gives the initiative a Title and Summary by Monday April 23rd as he is required do by law. Despite Rae's seeming support for Kenley's initiative, it may interest you to know that he intended to submit an initiative last fall. However, as his Declaration to the Court in in the matter of Widders v. Furchtenicht in November asserts, he was afraid that he too would be sued by this city council. Rae actually voted twice to sue the last person who tried to stop the chain invasion. This had a chilling effect on Kenley's decision to submit his initiative and he held it until now because we are threatened with Joe DeVito's Subway. The bottom line is that this did not have to happen. It is the rights violations of the part of the City Council that has brought us to this current impasse.

SPk: I for one appreciate your elaborative comment on chain store practices, highlighting them clearly, so others may see them for what they are: 'Unfair Trade Practices'. Where influence and dialogue wane, regulation has to step in. I want to thank you personally for helping Kenley.

Also, if Rae is on board, all the better.

Rae Hanstad, all well and good if everyone had eaten at Howies and it was still in business. Absent an ordinance protecting the character of our town, Subway would just go into any one of a number of other vacant spaces.

You imply city policy is no replacement for voting with our wallets. In reality, it is just the opposite - voting with our wallets on a chain already here is no replacement for an ordinance preventing the chain from coming in the first place. For us to even have the chance to vote with our wallets, we need independent businesses here. You had a terrific opportunity last August to help us have that chance by putting in an ordinance as the prior initiatives called for. Instead, you ... well, why don't you tell us what you did? There has been far too much speculation put out on the Post and elsewhere already. I am not the only one who cannot understand why you didn't just direct Mr. Widders to prepare a ballot title and summary as the law requires, instead of a lawsuit? Or at the least, accept the offer to withdraw the initiatives and put the issues on an council agenda? Why the lawsuit? And why keep supporting it now, even after it was thrown out of court on its face and the ACLU has come in and told you it was a SLAPP?

What seems incontrovertible is that the city's inexplicable lawsuit is the reason we have Subway today. As SPK points out, it is truly a sad result that, in addition to all the other terrible fallout, the lawsuit had the effect of delaying Kenley's initiative from getting in place in advance of the Subway. Unlike the prior initiatives, you seem to support Kenley's proposal. It is just sad to think that but for your actions and those of your colleagues, it could have been in place today.

Anyway, all this is water under the bridge now with the Subway. But Rae, why not make up for lost time and put Kenley's initiative on the next council agenda for adoption? You have a majority of three. Don't let Devito torpedo your moratorium again. Get something on the agenda that the three councilmembers in favor can actually enact.

Dear CFO,
Thanks for the informative post. What I tried to suggest was not an either/or, but a both/and solution. I believe with you that the members of the council should act in preservation of local commerce AND that the citizenry should support local business with their patronage. I did not feel an obligation to often eat at Howie's, as there were others that I liked better, but I also do not feel drawn to not frequent Jersey Mike's or the looming Subway for reasons already stated.
Rae, I would also urge you and your fellow councilpersons to get behind the proposed ordinance. This issue is not about one store, it is about the slow erosion of the unique character of the town.

It is so heartwarming to see so many people who also support and appreciate the independent, small business owners in town. This is precisely why we moved to Ojai and seeing this type of support just reconfirms why I love Ojai so much. This is such a unique community. Chain stores don't seem to be something that locals want to see and I couldn't imagine that visitors would travel all the way to Ojai to dine or shop at establishments they can find in ANYTOWN, USA.

I have always tried my best to shop local for everything including my clothes (Rains, Kindred Spirit), gas, groceries (Starr Market), pet food (Wachters), and every other small business imaginable in town. We are blessed to have so many people who have invested their hearts and souls to create such a unique place.

I concur with Rae Hanstads suggestion that we should all shop local. Let's make it a point to buy our sandwiches and meals at say Rainbow Bridge, Rubens Buritos and all of the other great places you love to patronize. And we all should ask our friends and neighbors to do the same.

Rae, I do hope that you and the rest of the City Council members can work with the community to develop a legally viable ordinance that will protect our wonderful little community. Talk with other City Managers and find out how their ordinances are working. The following provides great information on how other communities have succeeded with passing similar ordinances.

http://www.newrules.org/retail/formula.html

While it is important to protect the City from unnecessary lawsuits, it is equally important to not get so hung up on this issue that the City becomes too paralized to be proactive or take necessary action. Working collaboratively with the innovative community members such as the folks who participate on this web site can help establish workable solutions that will be a win-win for everyone involved.

I am encouraged by the thoughtful conversation taking place on this thread. I am especially happy to have an elected official participate.

I need to get more clarity on the council's knowledge of the municipal law relating to chain stores. At the special council meeting to consider a moratorium, Rae said something to the effect that "we all thought we had" a law banning chains. It was in the context of a humorous reference to Kenley's initiative. In this thread, she says "I was completely aware that... the City of Ojai did not have a 'law against chains' per se".

These are contradictory statements. At the meeting, was Rae making a joke and at the same time paying Kenley a compliment for his work by saying the opposite of what she knew to be true? In other words, was she speaking ironically or tongue in cheek? What could be meant by implying that "we all thought we had an ordinance" when it is quite obvious that the council knew or should have known there was no ordinance. And what is the meaning of "per se"? There either is an ordinance or there is not.

I need clarification because I have had the experience many times that the council has slipped things by the public with obfuscations and outright falsehoods. I am not saying Rae is doing that here in this instance but her remarks confuse me. I may be missing something, like a humorous double meaning. If so, I need to be let in on the joke.

The council's actions are no laughing matter when the fate of Ojai hangs in the balance. If the council knew there was no law in place and did nothing, it is culpable. If it thought there was a law in place when there was not, it is also culpable. The council owes the public an apology and a pledge to act in the city's best interests in the future.

What Ojai needs is clear, honest and open discussion about real issues. I am happy to see we are making progress although we are a long way from tackling the issues I and others raised above about wealth, economics, power and the SLAPPed initiatives.

Thank you Dennis Rice for your comment. Just to follow up on your last post, I too agree that the solution must be "both/and" and that's how I read your message initially. But I am concerned when Rae Hanstad and the other members of the council focus on the "vote with our dollars" part of the solution - they are the ones who have to either put in place the city policy part of the "both/and" solution or not. When they fail to act, we end up with a "neither/nor" - and a Subway in the arcade plaza.

We have seen a real failure to act, and even a dangerous and counterproductive choice to file a rights-violative lawsuit to prevent action on these issues back in September of last year. Now that Subway is here, it seems like a majority of our council has woken up. But when Rae Hanstad suggests that we have a Subway because not enough of us citizens supported Howies with our lunch money, that concerns me. It suggests a view of the facts that still does not accept the central role that a responsible council must play on these issues, and a lack of appreciation for the central role the council has assumed by its actions to date, bringing us to where we are.

But like I said, the past is water under the bridge if the council acts now to get protections in place. It seems like the only people not in favor of swift council action are Joe DeVito and the property owner Ernest Salomon (who is not even an Ojai resident). The overwhelming sentiment of Ojaians is in favor of a strong ordinance, now.

Let us hope the council takes your advice and gets behind - and passes - the proposed ordinance without delay.

Amen!

The ordinance is inevitable, the only question is: ?Is the City Council going to take a demonstrative role in favour of it, thereby saving everyone from more unnecessary grief?

I still don't have any indication(s) of their plan of action.

?How about it Council?

For the record, this is totally incorrect and out of context: "But when Rae Hanstad suggests that we have a Subway because not enough of us citizens supported Howies with our lunch money, that concerns me." I have never said that we should have a Subway and, in fact, suggested the moratorium.

Rae,

I am happy you are participating in these discussions. I need to feel a connection with our city government. At the moratorium meeting I said I was not going to be so easy on the council as other people were. I believe at that time, you said something like "Why am I not surprised?" You have a beautiful sense of humor and timing, and you are showing independence and courage in speaking here.

That being said, your comments are missing the points raised and your silence on the many other points raised here is telling. The last exchange is an example. I and others are making the point that the council is responsible for Subway (and Jersey Mikes) getting into Ojai. You and the council ignore that point completely. You shift the focus to people who should vote with their dollars and support owner operated small businesses. Of course, that should be done but that is not the point brought up here. You are changing the subject.

Of course, you or the council would never say we should have a Subway. (75% of Ojaians oppose it. Why 25% eat there beats me but I have some guesses). That would be political suicide. But saying here "I have never said we should have a Subway" is a red herring to throw us off the scent of the real problem. It shifts the blame to people who are not the problem. The council is the problem and if the council is going to keep stonewalling, we are going to have difficulty making progress.

Likewise, you state that you suggested the moratorium. Fine. But you will not give more information about how the moratorium came to be in the first place. I have asked for that information but as usual am ignored. Many red flags pop up with the moratorium which I've discussed elsewhere so I don't need to repeat that here.

I'm happy you're here, and I'm going to maintain standards of reason, logic, truth and honesty in these discussions or there is no reason to have them. I need to speak to adults with adult language. Blaming and criticising based on low developmental emotional needs need to be raised to the level of civic rational discourse. I am not referring to you. To this date, the serious questions citizens raised remain unanswered, which gives rise to speculation based on the available evidence. Rae, thanks again for being here. I value your input.

Rae, I can't follow your post:

"For the record, this is totally incorrect and out of context: "But when Rae Hanstad suggests that we have a Subway because not enough of us citizens supported Howies with our lunch money, that concerns me." I have never said that we should have a Subway and, in fact, suggested the moratorium."

I did not suggest you ever said we "should" have a Subway. I think it is clear to everyone that you think just the opposite. What I said is that, it concerns me when you imply that the reason we DO HAVE a Subway is because not enough people ate at Howies. That suggests a lack of appreciation for what happened, and for your role. It is clear to many if not most that among the reasons we DO HAVE a Subway, and DO NOT HAVE an ordinance addressing formula retail in place today, is because of your decision to file a lawsuit on the last initiatives instead of addressing the issues. You have a terrific opportunity to correct that course now, and it seems pretty clear that everyone is behind your doing so.

Please re-read my earlier post. In the meantime, let me express that I am glad you are here as well. Let's all take advantage of your participation: Let us know how we can help you get a moratorium, and a strong ordinance, passed ASAP. What can we the people do to help you get Kenley's initiative on the agenda for May 1 so it can be passed by the majority in favor? What is that status of getting that to happen as of right now?

If you get the ordinance on the agenda, I am sure that the people will take the lead to make sure that it is in front of at least Steve and Carol right away, and questions are answered and issues addressed in advance of the meeting. What do you say?

I second Chain Free's idea of getting Kenley's initiative on the agenda ASAP. WE can suggest that at Tuesday's council meeting. If the council is sincere about an anti-chain ordinance, they will quickly put Kenley's measure into law. It seems simple. Am I missing something? If the council stalls and drags its feet, well, what shall we think?

I'm not sure how many times or in how many ways we have to ask the council to adopt Kenly's initiative. I think the position of most of the people who care/know about this issue is abundantly clear. That said, I'm currently taking bets that the city council will not adopt the initiative either tomorrow or on May 1. I'm offering 3:1 against.