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

Eat At Joes.

It is so disheartening when you have a roomful of people with so many eloquent speakers, to have it end in such a manner because of one man. In the half-dozen council meetings I have attended, there have not been as many business owners present as there was tonight. Kudos to you for showing up and speaking. I believe that Mr. DeVito was alone in the room on this vote. It really is to bad that he won by 35 votes in November.

Shop Independent Business and Keep Ojai Real.

Joe DeVito's Subway!

UNDER THE HEADING "A SERF'S VIEW OF OJAI"

Wow! That was amazing tonight. For a minute there I thought we had it, and I wasn't alone. Joe Devito just destroyed Ojai's last, best hope of stopping a formula retail and restaurant business takeover. I hope he's proud.

I'm probably paranoid, but follow me down this particular primrose path for fun. To me, tonight looked like a really talented bit of political kabuki. Let me see if I have this right. When the city council next visits this topic Sue Horgan will be there, so we'll have all five present to vote. Apparently the LORDS in Joe DeVito's feudal vision of reality will have been sufficiently notified and the council will once again put on this bit of theater. Rae(I'd really like to sincerely thank Rae for thinking that she could get this done.) will vote YES for a TEMPORARY moratorium. Carol, to the degree that she's actually following the whole thing, will vote YES. Steve Olsen will vote YES, but maybe only because he strategically(I hope I'm wrong) knows that the TEMPORARY ordinance has no hope of getting passed. Sue Horgan will vote NO because she sees nothing wrong with chains and doesn't like any regulation on private business. Joe will follow her lead and put the thumbs down as well. Because this type of emergency ordinance requires a unanimous or 4-1 vote, it will not pass and more chains will be let in. Way to go Joe.

At least they claimed to like Kenley's initiative, though the mayor seemed to be unclear about how an initiative could be an ordinance. Are you kidding me, how can this happen.

The tuesday city council meeting was underreported
by the OVNews- standing room only for local citizens
speaking out about chain stores invading downtown
Ojai. Business leaders spoke as well as civic minded
neighbors and everyone else who cares about the
tradition of locally owned and operaterated business.
It has been many council meetings that folks have come
to show the council how they want the community to
resemble the small charming locale that it is and not
a lesser version of everywhere else, USA. On the
surface the city council seems to get it, yet look at
the decisions being made needing citizen intervention,
where, once again constituents remind the council to
do their jobs and represent Ojai. As with
water,housing, crime, and revenue from tourism, the
city council needs to show common sense, collective
wisdom and democratic process on these important
quality of life issues, and not simply a knee jerk
reaction everytime their critics
show up in force at council meetings.

Pete LaFolette

Can anyone enlighten on the following:

1. What was the text of the "moratorium" that was defeated by DeVito? Since there currently are no ordinances blocking chains, and therefore no special permit requirements, a moratorium on permits that aren't even required would not seem to be very effective. No excuses for DeVito, but before laying all the blame on him its worth getting an idea whether the council's "moratorium" was worth the paper it was printed on in the first place.

2. Did any council member, or Widders, or Kersnar, have any concrete ordinance proposals? Or was(is) Kenley's initiative the only thing on the table?

DeVito may be the fall guy on this, but I think we need a whole lot more information before giving any council member or staff a free pass. Remember, the SLAPPed initiatives laid out a road map for the council way back in August. What is the excuse for having nothing on the table (much less passed) here in April?

I hope people will keep their eyes open and on the ball here. Talk is cheap, and our council does plenty of it; but actions are what counts. The Subway franchisee is smart enough to understand that - he has been quoted as saying (paraphrase) that the rules have changed and chains are now welcome. He didn't come up with that out of nowhere. He has observed the actions of this city council and staff. Those of us interested in preserving Ojai would be well advised to do the same.

I'm disappointed with the outcome of last nights meeting. But from what I've read here today and elsewhere, I'm proud of those who put forth the good fight. In time this will be the new law in Ojai regardless of Joe's intransigence, ignorance, arrogance and steadfast resolve to accomplish absolutely nothing.

So take heart everyone, take a breath, be confident in the eventual outcome. If we can stop the LNG plant, we in time will stop chains notwithstanding deflections by those like Joe.

In response to Anonymous 10:39am.

The defeated ordinance was drafted as an "urgent ordinance" to be effective for only 45-days. It would need to be reviewed again before that time to be extended for up to another 10 months and 15 days.

The text of the defeated ordinance stated that formula businesses would not receive a permit during the 45-day moratorium. As you pointed out, not everyone would need a permit, but Mr. Kersner pointed out that even to put a sign up, you need a permit or to make any changes to the structure internally. Most likely a formula business would want to modify the interior and put up a sign and therefore request a permit.

The majority of the text of the rejected ordinance included most of the same material in my ordinance (such as definitions of formula businesses, scope of the city covered, process,etc.). Originally the rejected ordinance only covered the historic downtown, but the council had amended this before the vote was taken to include the entire City Limits, under the moratorium.

My ordinance was not on the table for discussion but was included in the agenda packet. Council member Hanstad suggested that it could be used as a model for the City to draft their own ordinance. The City Attorney then said he could draft a stronger one than mine.

P.S. - we should be able to start collecting signatures after April 23. Get your pens ready. :-)

Anonymous above,

Last night was clearly Joe's fault. He completely torpedoed the admittedly too late attempt to stop the chain invasion. Joe needs to resign now so he can keep some dignity. If he doesn't, then he should be recalled. As a direct result of his actions last night, a Subway will open in Ojai and there will be no protection against any other incursions. That's the bottom line. His neo-feudal view of reality has got to go!

The moratorium itself was pulled wholesale from the Port Townsend, WA initiative and dressed up slightly to cover only the downtown core, as if that could ever be enough. To their credit, they moved to eliminate the downtown core language and make it the city limits of Ojai. Of course, the moratorium would have only been temporary, 45 days initially. But it would have made it possible for us to stave off Subway and more incursions while the real initiative to Keep Ojai Real could have worked through the system. In the end, we'll have the ordinance from the new initiative and a whole host of national chains that will be grandfathered in.

Here's a good rule of thumb in politics. Never trust a politician named Joe:

Joe Stalin
Joe McCarthy
Joe Lieberman

and now

JOE DE VITO!

Now Widders will "draft a stronger one" than Kenley's? Hanstad wants to use Kenley's "as a model" for the City's own?

So at this late date the City is planning a competing ordinance?

The answer here is recall. Get rid of this council, get rid of Widders, get rid of Kersnar. Unless they start working FOR the people of Ojai. They should be offering comments and suggestions on Kenley's initiative, not proposing their own. That ship sailed, they failed to act, and the people are leading now.

The city drafting their own now looks like just another SLAPP - an attempt to silence what the people are doing.

The last thing we need is Widders telling the public that he has drafted a "stronger" ordinance. Can the city get a lawyer with some credibility on this issue?

Kenley - why April 23? The ordinance appears pretty short and straightforward, and already has a title. Can't Widders prepare a title and summary in less than the whole 15 days? Every day he delays looks like he is impeding. I suggest writing him and copying to the public that you want the title and summary today. That's the least he can do after his performance on the last initiatives.

I agree. That is obviously the beginnings of the campaign against Kenley's initiative.

Widders entire premiss at the meeting was that the initiative Kenley submitted was drawn from the Coronado ordinance. That's flat wrong. In fact, the scaffolding Widders and Kersnar chose to use for their Moratorium is the exact same Port Townsend ordinance that Kenley used in drafting his. In fact, once the council changed the boundaries to the whole city limits, there was very little daylight between theirs and ours. Except, of course, that ours is finished and has an entire section dealing with a new permit for formula businesses and mitigation, etc.

Like I outlined in my guest editorial. The city will drag it's feet and stall the whole time. They will probably even draft a competing, weaker. initiative that they will tout as being stronger. And the whole time this is happening the city will be totally unprotected because Joe and Sue will never vote for a moratorium.

As to Widders using the whole 15 days. Read my guest editorial for the full timeline on the initiative. By law, Widders can use up to 15 days. He could give it back early, but I seriously doubt it. Public pressure can be applied, but the fact is, he's allowed to do that. Also, the 15 days is miniscure compared to the amount of time that gets to pass before a special election, between 88 and 103 days from the validation of the signatures. Like I keep saying. The city did nothing and now it is probably too late to matter.

an open letter to Councilman DeVito

Dear Joe,

I have been thinking of an apt example in the commercial world that might illustrate the perspectives many of us have adopted the more we compare Ojai with the rest of southern California. It’s a baseball analogy-and it comes via the impending sale of the Chicago Cubs.

A consensus of observers claim that the Cubs National League Franchise may fetch bigger money than the Yankees ( 450 M) or the Dodgers ( 430M) though their inferior history, real estate and market base are second rate. Something about ivy walls and day games, and the city that adores an idea, not merely the men in the uniform.

They say that the Cubs are all about the way it used to be. That the antique charm of Wrigley Field can never be duplicated. That the popcorn vendors and ushers are friendly at Wrigley and know the fans on a first name basis. Generations have grown up in succession watching the plucky Cubs try to get back to the World Series, in the stands or across the outfield on the tenement rooftops and on fire escapes, absorbed by a timeless dream. The Cubs are not some false, loud, funhouse mirror image of baseball or of life. Somehow things there are more authentic.

The Cubs have value because of what happens when the team plays at Wrigley Field, which is a beautiful, wonderfully comfortable environment to let yourself go while a ball game goes on.

All of these attributes can with little effort overlay Ojai. The uncluttered charm of Ojai allows us to still experience the individuality of our place, the community woven together by our mutual economic and personal pursuits.

I intimately know of three other places in southern California, three former citrus towns along the San Gabriel foothills, Cucamonga, Claremont and Glendora. I either lived in them or went to school there and in my time I saw them dissolve into the wallpaper maelstrom of our rather unimaginative and soul-less commerce. This is the future brought by formulaic franchise business. For the sake of all that has been lost here, we need to conserve a bit of our singular paradise, for our own good and the many who have not yet set eyes on it.

Steve, thanks for bringing the perspective that many who have been in Ojai for a long time are forgetting. There are at least two truths I would emphasize. First is, Ojai is unique today in Southern California. We are the last real town that both has a local economy and is not dominated by chains in the downtown. Second is that, whatever happened in Cucamonga and Claremont and hundreds of other towns in California, today in 2007, as a result of all those examples, we know the result of letting these chains in. So there is no excuse.

By the way, it is my understanding that the City of Ojai requires a conditional use permit before any establishment can use outdoor seating. And, a new business cannot grandfather on top of a former business' use. I know for a fact the city has told independent businesses that wanted to start up that they would be required to go through this time consuming (potentially 4-6 month) and expensive process in order to be able to use existing, longstanding private patio space at a location. The proposed Subway clearly intends to use the sidewalk and back patio at that space - so people should be demanding that the City require Subway apply for the conditional use permit and take the entire 4-6 months possible in order to review every aspect of the proposed business and put in appropriate conditions before giving the permit.

Let me also suggest the City consider enforcing that requirement against existing chain Jersey Mike's, which was given a free pass yet uses sidewalks for table space. Fine them the max for each day since they opened that they have been in violation. We have no hope in this city if debilitating permit requirements are applied only to shoestring independent businesses while chains get a free pass.

This was not a good move by Devito but a telling and transparent one.How one minority vote can lead
the city council around by the nose when vested interests are involved.
Sure shows where the hearts and minds of city of Ojai are truely located. Time for a change of course and leadership-akin to when the entire council voted a SLAPP to stop the inniative process. PL

I'm appreciative of all the perceptive posts which help to penetrate the smokescreen which protects the black heart of Ojai. I especially resonate with spk and anonymous, although I'm quite sure they may want to put distance between themselves and this fringe element crackpot.

I'm going to think on my seat and fly by the seat of my pants. I'm Dennis, the author of the longwinded diatribes. You've been forewarned so you can scroll out now, and I won't have wasted your time.

At the council meeting on Tuesday, I said something that I did not intend to say. It just came out of the blue, which often indicates to me the feminine intuition part of me that cuts through the usual crap jamming the airwaves.

I said: "I hope you've had a change of heart, but I don't trust you."

Bingo. Straight from my heart to theirs.

Trust has to be earned and the council has zero credit with my trust meter. When it goes "clunk" instead of resonating "truth," I've learned to listen.

Kersnar opened the game, as usual, trying to frame the terms of the debate. He tried to narrow the moratorium to a narrow historic corridor. Clunk.

This is the same man who said the council could not do anything to help Frostie because Frostie is not comparable to the Top Hat in Ventura, who was helped by the Ventura council. The Top Hat is still operating at the same spot. I passed it yesterday on the bus.

Mr. Kersnar said the Top Hat was on city owned land and Frostie was on private land. Therefore, the two cases were entirely different. Clunk.

The Top Hat is on private land, just like Frostie. I've got city memos and a development agreement between Ventura and the property owners and the Top Hat owners which spell out in detail the agreement.

This was only one piece of false information which was used to fool the public and derail any public effort to save Frostie, in the manner in which the Top Hat was saved by Ventura.

Mr. Kersnar said that the council could do nothing to save Mallory Way from being destroyed because the city needed the permission of the property owner before it could be declared a landmark. Clunk.

Not true. There is nothing in the ordinances that prevents the city from declaring Mallory a landmark which would save it. It qualifies for landmark status easily and also for inclusion on national and state registers.

The General Plan, ordinances and state law require the city to preserve its historic resources. Yet, for years the city has promulgated the false impression that the property owner's consent was needed before something could be declared a landmark.

When someone suddenly acts out of character, my truth meter goes clunk. Why, all of a sudden, the council, Mr. Widders and Mr. Kersnar get behind the opposition to chain stores? This is a total switch in their accustomed way of operating.

Is it a coincidence that the emergency meeting was called at almost the same time as Kenley's initiatives were submitted?

This time, as spk opines, they probably would hesitate about slapping them with the ACLU in the game. What would be the next option if they could not safely slap them down?

Would it not be good strategy to give the illusion of being for the initiatives while actually preventing them, or at least delaying them? But how, since a good portion of the public is for them, and they might even pass?

Why not plant the idea of a moratorium with an unsuspecting council member like Rae Hanstad? She's just trusting enough to miss the real intent. Leak it to the press. An article quoting Rae appeared in the OVN a few days prior to the moratorium special meeting which contained the moratorium idea.

The manager and the council (presumably the manager would not act without concil input) have been scrupulous about noticing and agendizing, cancelling meetings and agenda items if they discovered the proper notice times have not been adhered to.

Suddenly, they schedule a meeting under the emergency powers clause. What? Clunk. An emergency has existed for a long time, certainly since Jersey Mikes opened up. A month or two ago Mr. Kersnar admitted that chains could come in and it could happen very quickly. Does it seem reasonable that Mr. Kersnar did not know anyting about Subway coming in before, say, the Ojai Post knew about it? Clunk.

Could it be that the real emergency was Kenley's initiatives, not Subway? If a citizen's initiatives passed, it could set a precedent of people setting policy. If outright slapping them is no longer an option, co-opting them might also work.

If I may presume to say so, Kenley is a cooperative, agreeable sort of person. He appeared to go to lengths to talk to Mr. Kersnar and city hall in processing the initiatives. He bent over backwards to avoid being put in the same category as bad boy Jeff.

The city has given every appearance of being cooperative with Kenley. Could this be a cover, part of the strategy?

The city has used and is still using Kenley's work. Kenley is doing what the city should have done long ago. Kenley is not getting paid for any of this while the city has just hired two new people. For what?

Kenley does all the work and the city appropriates the credit. Clunk.

How interesting that Sue Horgan is absent, and Joe DeVito can do nothing without her. How interesting that Joe has nothing against the moratorium, except that key players have not been notified (an unproven assumption), even though in a true emergency, they do not have to be notified. In other words, in Joe's mind this is not an emergency after all.

Joe accomplished what is very likely the council's overall objective: delay, delay, delay until it doesn't matter anymore. By the time the city gets around to passing an ordinance the chains will be in. The same technique is being used with Mallory Way. After Mallory is destroyed, a housing ordinance won't much matter.

Delay saps the strength of the opposition. One side is getting paid and the other is not. The financial elites count on apathy and the passage of time. Wear down the opposition, keep the target moving, etc.

When Widders says the ordinance could be made even stronger, I wonder, because this is out of character for him.

When Kersnar says the city might not give permits for signs and internal renovation, this too strikes me as being out of character.

If the council members, Mr. Kersnar, Mr. Widders or anyone else is reading this, I would certainly stand to be corrected if they should enter the discussion.

The May 1st meeting should be instructive. If Horgan and DeVito vote for a moratorium it could change some of my assumptions. However, it would go against their deeply ingrained biases. Also, a moritorium is only a temporary measure to gain time. It doesn't change the underlying issue.

Time is of the essence. Delay can only benefit the chains, and that objective so far is being obtained by the city through DeVito's vote.

I wish I could trust city hall but I get a weird feeling when dealing with it. It's creepy. It could be me because I'm weird and creepy too. Takes one to know one I guess. Well, I'll keep following my feelings and the money. Should be interesting.

Finally, here's another odd statement made by one of the council members. I think it was Rae. "We didn't know that there was no ordinance to protect Ojai from chains."

What? Clunk. Clunk. Clunk. Not one of you knew? Not your attorney? Not your manager? No one knew a critical piece of information upon which Ojai's cultural life depends?

How long do you think this kind of pretended innocence is going to fly? You don't know anything and you can't do anything when it concerns the real interests of the real people of a real Ojai. But you can do everything and anything when it comes to protecting the interests of bankers and developers.

With each new crisis, more of your cover is being blown. The moratorium debacle is just the last in a long line of covers being pulled from the emperor without any clothes in bed with other usually well covered partners.

Right on the money Dennis!

Go cast your vote on the OVN's poll.

http://www.ojaivalleynews.com/

Why were four votes instead of three required to pass the moratorium? Does anyone know?

The OVN makes it sound like the city staff drafted the moratorium to require a unanimous vote, rather than it being any legal requirement. Is that true? If so, who prepared it and why did they add that requirement?

4 out of 5 votes were necessary to pass the "urgent moratorium". Because Sue Horgan was absent (we're trying to confirm she had previous travel plans), all 4 attending councilmember votes were required.

Not sure where that requirement came from.

That's the question. The OVN makes it sound like the moratorium was drafted to require 4 votes. If there is no legal requirement for that "supermajority," then we know the "moratorium" was just a sham, deliberately prepared to appease the public while being absolutely assured of failure.

Let's hope it isn't so.

Hi Dennis -

You wrote this: "Finally, here's another odd statement made by one of the council members. I think it was Rae. "We didn't know that there was no ordinance to protect Ojai from chains."

For the record, Rae Hanstad said "I would like to commend Kenley Neufeld for writing the ordinance everyone thought we had," referring to the common assumption that chains were "not allowed" in Ojai.

You misinterpreted her respectful yet dryly humorous comment about Kenley as ignorance. This isn't anything to hang your hat on.

Respectfully,
Tyler

Thanks, Tyler, for the clarification.

On the 4/5 vote -- California Government Code Section 36937.
An ordinance takes effect immediately, if it is an ordinance for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or
safety, containing a declaration of the facts constituting the
urgency, and is passed by a four-fifths vote of the city council. (Otherwise it's 30 days after final passage.)

Seems to me that if no one eats there it will go out of business. I don't like chains and refuse to eat at Jersey Mike's. I'll give my business to local businesses. However, the larger democracy issue is how to deal with this topic. Questions in my mind include: Why is 75% not enough to stop something (3 out of 4) when only 60% is required to halt a presidential veto. Who made the rules and what recourse is there? Sorry I don't know the answer! There are solutions in place to deal with politicians we don't think represent us and that is to recall them. So, whomever feels strongly enough about it can start a recall petition...I'll sign it.

Thank you Rae Hanstad for the explanation.

OK Tyler, just to set the record straight, Rae Hanstad didn't contact you offline and demand some kind of retraction on the Dennis comment, did she?

Re the Government Code citation: perhaps Ms. Hanstad can enlighten us further on why the majority of three did not put into effect a moratorium that would go into effect in thirty days, once it was clear Devito was going to block the immediate moratorium?

Chain Free Ojai - I am in ongoing communication with multiple city officials, elected or otherwise. In the context of an ongoing dialogue, Rae Hanstad pointed out Dennis' misstatement.

I addressed it independently - at no point did Rae ask me to do anything about it whatsoever, and I didn't ask her permission first. She was courteous and respectful as always, and I have never found her to use her position as leverage for any sort of favorable coverage on The Ojai Post.

The use of the term "retraction" is imprecise - Dennis Leary is not affiliated with The Ojai Post, and I felt that his statement was worth correcting. If Dennis, as an independent reader and commenter, wants to retract that part of his statement, that's at his discretion.

Regarding some sort of post-dated moratorium, I would just offer that I don't think any provisions were made to consider an alternate proposal.

Thanks for participating.

Okay. So anyway, the fact of the matter is that Rae Hanstad really did say something like "Isn't there already an ordinance against chains?" I'm not sure of where Denis got his original quote, but this paraphrase is from some long ago time when Jersey Mike's first slipped in. Long before she voted, not once but twice, to sue a fellow citizen for introducing two initiatives to address chain businesses and affordable housing. Pardon me if I don't believe Rae Hanstad. I really want to, but the facts just don't help her.

Now, about quotes from Tuesdays meeting, Rae said that the SLAPPed initiative would have done NOTHING to stop Subway. I'm sorry, but that is patent BULLSHIT. The initiative that the City Council SLAPPed required that the City Council Urgently consider AND adopt an ordinance to protect the city from chain stores. This was an opportunity that they squashed. I might point out that these original initiatives were filed in AUGUST of last year. The reason that we are dealing with a SUBWAY today is because the City Council decided to become rights violators and sue a citizen of this City instead of just getting on the ball and dealing with this obvious threat! Think I'm wrong? Next time Rae calls you, ask her about the ACLU.

Yesterday I called the 800 number on the Subway poster that is in the window and left a message for the franschise director, I believe that was the title. I told him I where I resided and that the scheduled Subway franchise is not supported by, so far, 72% of the 800 person Ojai community as per a poll taken by the Ojai Valley News. I asked him to speak to the franchise owner and encourage him to reconsider opening a Subway in our area.

I like your thinking Raymond. If we can't get our City officials to do something, we need to take this into our own hands.

The human appendix doesn't really do much. In fact, it just kind of sits there vulnerable, collecting waste...until it becomes infected, at which point it threatens your health, happiness and potentially your life. The City Council reminds me of an appendix.

Maybe it is time to remove the infection?

I'd like to see a Subway in town.

you mean an underground train, right.

Thank you Tyler for the explanation.

Rae Hanstad, if 4/5 was required for the moratorium to go into effect immediately, why didn't the majority of three simply pass the moratorium to go into effect in thirty days? Wouldn't that be better than nothing?

Hi, this is Dennis the Menace, Timothy Leary's relative, for those of you who want to click off now.

Thank you, Tyler and Anonymous, for your comments, and Rae indirectly through Tyler.

I think someone is missing the point. Maybe it's me but I don't think so.

According to Tyler, Rae thanked Kenley for "writing the ordinance everyone said we had." Tyler interprets this as my misinterpreting Rae's remarks as ignorance.

Am I missing something? If Rae and everyone else thought we had an ordinance which we in fact did not have, is this not ignorance of the true facts?

The true facts are that we do not have an ordinance to curtail chains which Rae and others apparently thought we did have. How is this not ignorance?

This appears to be fancy foot work to avoid the point. The fact is that Rae and the council should have known the true facts.

Chains have been in the public debate for a long time. You mean to tell me that no council member even thought of looking up the true facts?

Nobody knew? Come on.

This strikes me as a very convenient way of avoiding responsibility. If the council truly did not know the facts, they were derelict in their duty. If they did know and pretended not to know, they violated their duty, and played into the hands of the bankers and developers.

A parallel case is Mallory Way. The council has for a long time said that they cannot save Mallory Way from being destroyed because they first have to get permission of the landlord to declare Mallory Way a landmark, and obviously the landlord is not going to give that permission. Therefore, they justify their nonaction on the basis of some supposed ordinance that states they have to get the landlord's permission.

Guess what? There is no such ordinance. I pointed this out to the council and the historic preservation commission a few months ago, and no one has disputed it.

There is nothing to stop the council from directing the historic preservation commission from starting the steps to declare Mallory an historic landmark.

There is absolutely no question that Mallory Way qualifies for local landmark status, and also for inclusion on the national and federal registers.

The council's cover has been blown. They cannot pretend ignorance anymore. The ordinances speak for themselves.

Yet to this day, the council refuses to take action to save Mallory Way.
The developer has recently dug eleven large holes on the property as part of the process of development. He continues to spend money on the project, knowing full well that it faces stiff public opposition.

Now why would the developer be so confident of eventual success? The project will first go to the planning commission and then to the council for approval. In other words, the buck is going to stop at the council. They will not be able to pass it off to the planning commission.

Does anyone really think the developer expects the council to block his project?

I have told the council a number of times that there is conflict of interest among them which gives the appearance of developer-banker bias.

Sue Horgan's husband sits on the County Commerce Bank board along with a partner of Monte Widders, and Jeff Becker, the developer of Mallory Way. Jeff Becker's brother, Troy Becker, sits on the planning commission.

Sue Horgan vigorously denies there is any conflict of interest. Joe DeVito tells me that if I think there is something amiss, I should go to the district attorney.

I have not acccused the council of a crime, so I do not have to go to the district attorney. I have told them more than once that there appears to be a conflict of interest. I think most reasonable persons would agree with me.

Back to the parallel of the chain store question and the affordable housing question.

In the case of Mallory, the council said the ordinances prevented them from acting. They pretended knowledge which was false. They did not bother to investigate the true facts, even after I told them what I thought they were. They simply did not acknowledge the problem. Now they know the true facts but they continue to refuse to do their duty.

The city is required by state law to preserve historic resources. Mallory is a magnificent city resouce. It is the only remaining early motor court which preceded our modern day motels. It is well preserved and intact. It is the basis of Ojai's visitor economy. It is de facto low income housing.

Imagine the tourist attraction of this site if it were used to Ojai's advantage. Visitors could be shown the way things were, the very things they are still coming to Ojai to enjoy now in an updated form.

In the case of the chains, the city again claimed ignorance of the ordinances, the very law they are sworn to protect. They say that did not know what the ordinances were on a matter of vital importance and public debate that has going on for a long time.

Do you think this is reasonable and believable? Does it not at least raise the suspicion that there might be developer-banker bias lurking in the background?

Frostie is another case of pretended or culpable ignorance. The city through their manager said that they could not help Frostie based on the clear precedent of Ventura helping Top Hat.

The Top Hat provides a clear legal and ethical precedent for a city helping one of its small town businesses. The Top Hat is still operating. Frostie is a pile of rubble.

Frostie would also qualify for landmark status, and still does. The landlord could reinstall Frostie at the same site he occupied for 53 years.

He would be stupid not to. Imagine the selling power of an historic resource like Frostie. It's a advertiser and businessman's dream. It's an economic asset to Ojai, a real money maker.

Ojai could do exactly what Ventura did to save its owner operated business. I have the documents to show what the Ventura council did, the official memos and the legal development agreement between the parties concerned: developer, owner of the business and owner of the land.

The city refuses to act, based on false misinformation which has been refuted by myself. They have presented no rebuttal.

The city said the cases of Frostie and Top Hat were entirely different and therefore the city could not do anything to help Frostie. The city falsely claimed that the Top Hat was on city owned land while Frostie was on private land.

This is false, and has been told to them repeatedly. Still, they refuse to do anything to save Frostie, which they are required to do by state law since Frostie is arguably an historic resource.

Any reasonable person will ask what the cause of such unreasonable, harmful behavior is. The only explanation that makes sense to me is that the city is banker-developer biased.

The real bias behind the whole fiasco of Frostie, Mallory, Jersey Mikes and Subway is money. The city, bankers, developers and other vested interests stand to make money.

Fine. So far so good. Except where is the money coming from? It's a long analysis, beyond the scope of this post, but the money comes ultimately from people on the lower economic scale, mostly. In other words, money is being transferred from poor to rich.

Subway is about money. The question is: is the money going to benefit Ojai locally or will it go into the pockets of stockholders, God knows where.

If the council were wise, they would advocate for money staying within the community. For some reason, they haven't gotten it up until now (apparently, but appearances can be deceiving as per my previous post) with the public outcry about Subway. Again, a reasonable person is going to come to the conclusion that they are money biased in favor of special interest-class interests, which may or may not include themselves.

Back to Rae. She has apparently talked to Tyler, but has not gone public on this post.

She or Tyler did not address the main point I brought up. They are quibbling with a minor distraction, and are getting that wrong, if my understanding is correct. The main point I asked was: who initiated the moratorium effort and why?

Rae appears to be the point person. She was quoted in the OVN, proposing the moratorium, a week or so before the meeting.

Did she come up with this idea on her own, or was she speaking on behalf of someone else?

In my previous post, I asked whether the moritorium itself might not be part of larger strategy on the part of the city.

Anyone with an once of sense can see the city is following a well planned agenda. The question is where is this policy originating? Who is actually running the city?

The council itself has repeatedly failed to act on crucial issues such as Frostie, Jersey Mikes, Subway, Mallory Way and others. They only act or react when public pressure becomes strong.

Subway is only the tip of the iceberg. If we take a trip in a sub, way down to the bottom, we find some interesting things going on. Isn't Ojai worth the trip?

Well worth it, I would say.

I demand an ordinance that limits Dennis to 800 words!

Hi Dennis -

As always thanks for your participation. There is plenty in your comment for Rae to address, if she is so willing.

I have encouraged her and other city officials to participate on The Ojai Post since before Day 1, as authors and commenters, and have been disappointed that our growing online community includes their voices with such infrequency.

It is my hope that we all can continue to foster constructive dialogue that encourages participation from all segments of Ojai's population, be it elected officials, citizen activists, parents, teachers, cops or coffee drinkers.

One small note about Rae's comment referencing Kenley - it was humorous and many people in the room chuckled because I think that one year ago Jersey Mike's showed many people in the town, myself included, that there was no chain store legislation where we thought there actually was.

I have no idea when Rae became aware of what legislation was or was not on the books regarding chain stores.

And regarding Rae and myself as a "they" - come on, I am not in league or cahoots with anyone. My allegiance is to Ojai, and if that means making a correction in the dialogue of this thread based on my personal observation at a meeting, or giving you, Pete and Len a platform and increased level of visibility in your run for City Council, then I am happy to do so.

Suza,

Good idea about the 800 word limit. Does that refer to each post, so that I could have several posts of 800 words each, in sequence?

Tyler,

I also thought Rae's comment was humorous, and I believe I chuckled when it was made.

That's not the point, however. The point is that her comment indicates ignorance of something that should have been known, and may in fact have been known.

You are correct that she is the one to clarify information on this subject, which she could do by joining in this discussion.

You take exception to my using the word "they" in reference to you and Rae. I apologize for any suggestion that you and she were in "cahoots" or in "league" with each other. That was certainly not my intent.

In my defense, however, the information posted here could easily lead to the conclusion that you and she talked offline. There is nothing wrong with that, of course, but it would justify my referring to the two of you as "they," without meaning anything else by it.

You made the following remarks in reference to me:
"You misinterpreted her...comment about Kenley as ignorance"; In the context of an ongoing dialogue, Rae pointed out Dennis' misstatement"; "his statement was worth correcting"; "if Dennis wants to retract, that's at his discretion"; and your comments were "based on personal observation at the meeting."

Why do you persist in thinking that my original statement was a "misstatement," without justifying it after I went to lengths explaining why in fact it was not a misstatement but perfectly understandable taken in context?

Why do you take exception to my pointing out that Rae's statement indicates ignorance, when if fact that is the case?

Why do you suggest that I might want to retract my statement when there is no reason to do so?

You and Rae are ignoring my point and focusing on side issues, which are peripheral to begin with. As you pointed out, there is no need for you to enter into a matter that is between Rae and myself, but you chose to do so.

You think that my statement is worth correcting. Fine. I welcome your input, if you wish to give it, but what exactly in the statement needs to be corrected? Are you taking Rae's word for it? What reason did she give, if any? I agree that it was humorous.

Someone apparently looked up her exact words, or has a very good memory. I do not have a great memory. When I made the statement, I said I thought someone on the council had said they did not know there was no ordinance in place. I thought it might have been Rae.

No one wants to address the issue of what the council knew and when it knew it about the status of an ordinance. Why?

If you or anyone truly wants the good of Ojai, we have to start with truth and openness. Rae accepted a public trust position and you are in the media business. Both of you should be open and willing to dialogue with the public if you want the good of Ojai.

I want the good of Ojai, and therefore I ask for accountability. I am asking for that here. I intend to account for my words. I expect others to account for theirs.

If "Rae pointed out Dennis' misstatement," where did she do this? I don't see it here on the Post. She did not reference it that night at the council, that I know of. In the context of your statements, it appears she told you offline that Dennis made a misstatement. What the misstatement is remains unanswered.

In fact, none of my substantive comments above have been addressed by anyone, except spk. Forgive me if I'm missing someone.

I know people are busy but this kind of avoidance of messy truths does not bode well for genuine communication here in Ojai.

The Ojai Post is the best we have and I hope it continues to be so.

I can feel Suza watching me over my shoulder and counting the words. I don't think I've hit 800 yet so I feel safe.

Happy Friday the 13th.

OK, Dennis, I'm done with this conversation. Yes, I was in an ongoing (email) dialogue with Rae, which I have already detailed. No, she did not ask me to correct anything whatsoever, which I already said. What you attributed to her was in quotes, and it wasn't what she said.

In hindsight, the reason that I posted a clarification was because I was attempting to create an environment where city officials would feel comfortable participating on The Ojai Post - its something I have been trying to do for a year. Trying to open the dialogue, where ONLY tension exists now. In retrospect, I shouldn't have typed a thing, because this is what I get for it.

My comment regarding retraction was in response to the anonymous person that questioned me - in going back and re-reading, I realize that its application in my reply was somewhat imprecise.

Like I said, I'm done and I apologize if my intentions weren't taken as constructive. See you on the next thread, I am sure.

I'm going to agree with Suza on a wordcount limit for DL, who keeps hi-jacking the Post, but clearly 800 is WAY too much.

What seems to be getting lost in this is that Dennis' original comment on this thread, long as it may have been, was a terrific contribution and ought to be addressed on its merits.

Instead, the thread has been hijacked - but not by Dennis. Rae Hanstad hijacked it by contacting Tyler offline, and inducing him - overtly or not, intentionally or not - to post a "correction" that she should have posted herself.

I commend Tyler's efforts to try to help councilmembers feel comfortable in participating on the Post. This City could make alot of progress if we had the perspective of the councilmembers here. Instead, all too often, members of the public speculate, and members of the council respond by putting their view out in an unaccountable "whisper campaign" fashion, to select people - usually not Tyler - and outlets such as the OVN where they can be quoted without ever having to suffer followup questions that might bring a little more light.

The SLAPP lawsuit is a great example of this. The councilmembers have never offered any reasonable explanation of what they are doing and why in a forum where the public can ask questions and comment. If they did, very likely that whole debacle would have been solved long ago, and we might even have had the ordinances called for in the SLAPPed initiatives in place to protect this town from the likes of Subway.

The Rae Hanstad example we see here - the unfortunate predilection to avoid dialogue and possible criticism in favor of this awful background whispering that is responsible for so many false rumors that circulate in this town - is exactly what we all should be discouraging.

I think if councilmembers did change attitude and consider participating for the benefit of their constituents, they would find a couple of things. First, there undoubtedly would be criticisms and even possibly some unfounded attacks. But, as has been seen repeatedly on the Post, the majority of reasonable people who participate here would set the record straight and help defend against that. Second, councilmembers might find that by sharing their decisionmaking with the public, in fact members of the public have valuable things to say.

The point is, nobody would benefit more by councilmember participation on the Post than the councilmembers themselves, despite the occasional attack. And we ought to remember: not all "attacks" and criticism are unfounded. Let's separate the unfounded ones from the ones that are right on. Councilmembers could cure the first by participating and shedding some light, and cure the second by changing course on indefensible policies and decisions.

Hi, this is Dennis.

Thanks, Anonymous, for your comments, not just because I agree with them, but because they are very perceptive and hit the target's center.

The main message I get from the council's actions is that they are afraid to communicate in a natural and human way. The reason is that they are hiding something. It is very difficult to be free in your expression when you are afraid that anything you say is going to reveal an agenda you need desperately to hide.

One comment from someone like Rae, God bless her heart, starts on unravelling process that I imagine strikes fear into the heart of the patriarchic council.

Since I get no direct communication from the council about their real feelings, I have to speculate and guess what those feelings and needs are which are being withheld.

I believe the council and their two main hired hands need to keep control of the city. They think they are actually doing a good service to Ojai. They fear that if Ojai were to fall into the hands of someone like myself, chaos would ensue.

I can really empathsize with that point of view. If I were in charge, for example, there would be a period of chaos because my views are so radically different than theirs.

However, a snowball in hell has a better chance of surviving than I do of ever getting on council. My role, it seems, is to be the outsider who can provide a radical alternative point of view.

There are plenty of talented people in Ojai who are the real mainstream. You know who you are so I don't have to name names. The present council and their two hired hands are the real fringe element. They are so far behind the times and in the dust that is being stirred up that it is hard to see them anymore.

I think the way is being prepared for a new leadership. Naturally, the present leadership which has been in charge for decades is going to fight tooth and nail to retain its hold on what it sees as the good of Ojai.

In that respect, the old and the new guard have the same needs: to save Ojai from what it perceives to be an imminent and real danger from the opposition.

The two camps need to make contact with each other since we have the same objective: the good of Ojai. We need to get over our own fears of each other. There is no need to fear since we are just people with the same needs.

Fear is not a trait of just the old guard. The so called liberal people in Ojai are afraid of someone like myself because they intuitively know I am as threatening to them as the the ruling elite. I represent radical change.

So I don't mind when my friends wish to put distance between themselves and me. Like Dylan said, to be honest you have to live outside the law.

I don't expect anyone to go as far out as I do. But someone has to do it just to balance the far out patriarchic side. It's that great middle that I need to shake up and wake up so they take up the cause of saving Ojai.

yo

I was stoked the OVN published my letter to Joe De Vito this week. We got some nice calls. You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar is the old saying. I figure that only two people can skuttle the moratorium on chain/formula stores, and there is no need poke at them. Poking does no good. Anyway I love you all and am glad to observe this enormous energy supporting conservation.