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

Great work Pat. Thank you. I look forward to hearing you on Wednesday at the Planning Commission meeting too.

A very well thought out letter. I would imagine the Planning Commission will see the merits in the concerns of all who have signed the petition, as illustrated in this letter.

Pat's points on where the City has apparently ignored some of the suggestions of the Planning Commission should be a warning as to their actual intent in their draft.

Also, the point about amending the General Plan to accommodate the City's Plan is a powerful one. Why should the General Plan be tampered with this issue, when it can be handled directly.

The Citizens Initiative sounds better and better as we near the City's final draft.

Very good letter Pat.

Thanks, Pat, for this very useful information. I have lived here for two years. I became a political activist over the issues of Frostie and Mallory Way. I am a sort of naive and trusting person and I have tried to be fair and trusting in dealing with the city administration but I have continually been disappointed. I don't like to be confrontational but there is no other way to deal with all the administration's dishonesty and downright falsehoods. Once again I fear that the city is going to distract us from the big picture and fool us by bogging us down in deceptive details. My mind is not that smart so I must go by the feelings of my heart. Something is terribly wrong in city hall. The staff and council are supposed to be administrators and ministers who serve the public good of people. Why will the city not cooperate with people like Kenley and Jeff? Are they not people with families and roots in this community? Why are they not treated with respect and consideration? I feel fearful and sad, and confused by the city's behavior. Lacking any meaningful conversation from their side, I can only speculate as to their motives which is playing with half a deck. It makes me angry, too, when I'm treated in this arrogant way. It wouldn't be so bad if arrogance wasn't joined to ignorance, as this HCD debacle proves again. The wisdom is with the people, not some self appointed know it alls who use words to deceive, not to enlighten and to serve. Maybe I'm wrong. If I am, tell me where and why so that I can learn and grow. I believe in love which includes love for truth and justice. - I'm preparing my own three minute draft which I'll probably read to the planning commission Wednesday night. Thanks to all for the input, pro and con. Things are coming to a head locally and globally; it's scary but it's also liberating to know the truth. The truth will set me free to love. Love, Dennis

I propose we put forward an initiatve which makes our city council immediately and irrevocabley accountable to the citizentry. The Ojai City Council has declared itself obsolete and needs to be put in its place - the waste bin. The audacity of these rogue servants never ceases to amaze me. They will drive Ojai off a cliff to please their fragile egos.

Any retired attorneys out there that are not completely jaded? Please, please, please help us save Ojai! We need to start suing the city council for gross negligence, misrepresentation and deception.

I left the planning commission meeting about an hour ago. Kenley and Leslie were there and may be posting something about it as I speak. - I feel it was an historic meeting. Eight of us citizens spoke and may have just turned the tide in favor of saving Ojai. We may have have saved the day. It's too early to say of course but miracles and magic do happen. - My take is that the city is being forced to change its position and is moving closer and closer to adopting Kenley's inititative, although it will never admit it and will take credit for it and put its name on what is essentially Kenley's. Oh well, what can you expect? - Here's how it went from my notes and poor memory. Katrina was lead off hitter. She summarized the previous meeting. She noted that the members wanted a bigger physical area (in her mind the HCD) but she shied away from saying city wide. She said the staff took a combination approach which turned out to be the HCD, a buffer zone and west of the Y which would remain as is. She then went into some nitty gritty stuff that escaped me but Kenley later said he was pleased with it. I did catch that two stories was reduced to one story which I was pleased with. She did say and I quote: "If the HCD is ruled unconstitutional..." Interesting insofar as the staff seems to be worried that the Citizen Initiative is unconstitutional. - Steve Sprinkle who was with his wife and son I think, spoke nicely about how it is possible to regulate well, about how places like Farmer and the Cook keep money in town vs. Domino types which truck it away. He suggested a moratorium for 3-5 years among other things. - Nathaniel Wolper spoke staff playing a game and of people with money and developers looking to build; of Ojai as a last shangrila; of protecting the whole town vs. call of greed and of the city manager having his idea about it. - A Mr. Terminoff ?? also recommended covering the whole city. - I spoke next and read the following:

"There is no need for this competing city initiative or changes to the General Plan and zoning. The city must work with citizens, not marginalize, undermine or sue them. The city initiative fails because the city's motivation is to attack rather than cooperate.

"The Citizen Initiative is legal, sound, workable, fair, reasonable, covers the whole city, honors the will of the people, preserves our small town character, conforms to the General Plan, has 600+ signatures and supports the 70% of business owners who favor a city wide ordinance.

"The city says it doesn't like the regulatory approach because it fears being capricious and arbitrary. Yet its HCD is extremely capricious, creating a regulatory district which outlaws chains entirely.

"The city says it wants to be able to change the ordinance. Yet, it refuses to cooperate with citizens in writing into law an ordinance that could be changed, and would not have to be if done correctly.

"The city says it's afraid the Citizen Initiative would not be as easy to defend from a lawsuit. This is a scare tactic. Several cities have city wide initiatives that are perfectly legal. The administration and council are not afraid of risking half a million taxpayer dollars (at no risk to themselves) over the Furchtenicht / ACLU lawsuit. The city's own HCD seems highly prejudicial and vulnerable.

"There's nothing historic or commericial about the Historic Commercial District. It leaves off its map entirely our main historic and commercial asset, the Ojai Valley Inn. The city twists Ojai history to suit its hidden political agenda.

"In its fear of conceding power to citizens, the city would create a Maricopa chain store highway, ruin the attractive open space Meadow Preserve and create a dead zone in the heart of town.

"The city says the General Plan MUST be changed and an HCD created. Why? On whose authority? Certainly not the people's.

"Tell the city to scrap its competing initiative and HCD. Tell the council to work with the citizens, build on and fine tune the Citizen Initiative so we don't have to go through the work and expense of a special election. Tell the council to work with Mr. Neufeld to create a matrix of regulations to preserve Ojai and support owner operated business and a vibrant local economy."

Kenley spoke next and I'll let him speak for himself. He did urge the commission to make it city wide, and that it was hard to attend all meetings since he and Leslie had to get a baby sitter, and that coming to city hall was not like a date night [You mean this isn't your idea of romantic? Maybe next time we can ask them to turn the lights down. Would that help?]. - Pat McPherson pointed out that the HCD was not in the moratorium; the attorney said the city wide ordinance was legal; neither draft is city wide; the HCD is not the only option; no alternative is offered; it is inappropriate to change the General Plan and other excellent points. See his letter at the top of this thread, and his new site. - Scott Eicher spoke about unintended consequences with the HCD, like what if businesses wanted to expand and couldn't? Buffer zones [Hey, I learned a new word] may or may not work; most business people wanted it city wide [another score for our side]; the buffer needed to be very strong, and may not be the best choice [good point, hint, hint, council]; however, A&W years ago which was a chain was also the sign of a small town; and then he struck out with "it is important to do it from the city side, not the initiative side." [boo, who talking in his ear?] - Leslie Davis then spoke about the pros and cons of shopping in Ojai, mostly pro as far as she was concerned; she chooses not to shop at big boxes; however, women's swim suits can be a problem especially for adolescents {gee, did they try Ojai Surplus? I mean you could probably get used one piece baggy ones cheap.] She agreed with city wide [another score for our side]; she pleaded not to leave Maricopa Highway open to chains because the developers will surely want to move in. - That was it for the public. Score 8 to zip in favor of city wide. Kersnar spoke next and here is where I wish I had taken shorthand. I think he was referring to me as a previous speaker when he said "there is no case law in this area." [Well, it turns out there is federal law and the attorneys did look at that. However, my point was not case law existence but that none of the city wide cities have been sued as far as I know, which sort of makes the case for city wide being legal, don't you think?]. He said the staff recommendation comes with "the best judgement of our legal advice of what they think a court will rule." [There's always a lawyer in the background]. He was concerned about not having substantial rules and admitted it was a matter of opinion. He believed the city ordinance was stronger than the initiative which allowed chains anywhere in town [boo, not exactly true as Kenley reminded them later on]; and again "that makes this ordinance stronger..." [Well, like he said, it's only an opinion, and I think the opposite but then who am I?] He feared the initiative "opened up to arbitrary and capricious...without specific regulations." [Not an exact quote but you can see where he's going, plugging his side; hey, fair enough; we do the same]. He then played his trump: "The council can change the ordinance." [Well, I have a higher trump but I don't think anyone wants to see it]. And then this: "I trust in the system." [I felt like saying: "I don't," but it was not my turn. He said a few more things I couldn't wrap my head around but I did catch this: "...not based on case law...the ATTORNEYS ARE DRIVING IT..." [My emphasis. Yes, indeed, the attorneys are in the driver's seat but the question is: should they be? As I pointed out, the attorneys don't seem to be concerned with risking a half million dollars to sue Jeff, but then it's not coming out of their pockets, in fact it's going into their pockets. Attorneys are driving us into the poor house. Fear is what is really driving us all crazy, in my non lawyer opinion]. He made much ado about "restraint of trade" and "not permitted to protect existing businesses against new businesses..." [Doesn't the HCD restrain trade and protect existing businesses, and as Katrina pointed out, may be unconstitutional. Attorneys can drive you crazy]. Mr. Kersnar said his "overall point was this was a best guess of what the legal restraints are," and how difficult it was to project twenty years ahead, etc. He mentioned the concept of "legal non-conforming" which turned out to be bugbear later on. - Katrina then reminded everyone that the Maricopa area was still regulated by existing rules, and does not open flood gates. [Well, maybe not but I'd wear hip boots anyway]. - The commissioners came to bat next, and I must say I was impressed with their wisdom and competency. Foster said something about what the city attorney read. Mirk referred to a spread sheet on other cities' ordinances which they had just received. He noted that Sausalita had created a matrix (ala Koehler); chains had to get a CUP, could not result in a concentration of chains and focused on what one wanted. Mirk was excited about the positive approach and even thought of "maybe...scrapping what we have..." [Bravo, a three pointer for our side]. He noted that "every speaker wanted a city wide ordinance." [Cheers, hip, hip, hurrah]. He like "city wide or nothing." [Pardons if I misquote but isn't this marvelous?] - Troy Becker stepped up to the plate. [God bless his soul, I like him more and more.] He said he was "not entirely compelled..." [by the staff's recommendation, I think??] He said [?] "hasn't been challenged." And get this: "DO NOT RELY ENTIRELY ON THE ATTORNEY." [My emphasis. Wow, he hit a home run with that one]. He advised caution; the defined area was too small; need to include the east end and extend to the Y, doesn't see a compelling reason not to; include most of the city; include a matrix; include the Sausalito approach; and he was "impressed by the public input." - [Go, Troy. I wonder what you're brother, Jeff, is like. Maybe he's not so bad as I thought.] - Mrs. Weaver was next and she's a real sweet heart. She was concerned about moving ahead too quickly; was not comfortable; she liked the Sausalito approach if it covers all of the city; was concerned about the Y, and saying "no formula stores." She and Leslie were in synch about shopping [but she didn't get into the swimming suit dilemma]. She doesn't think much of Solvang [nor do I], said there is nothing there downtown unless you like Danish; wants a living community, not some faux one like Solvang; keep a viable community so that if the tourists go, we are OK. But we have to accept change; can't have perpetuity. She was in favor of looking at this again; she doesn't see the urgency. - Mr. Crabtree was concerned about the legal non conforming concept; business owners did not make a lot of money but did it for passion; he didn't like the legal language of "legal non conforming," especially the part "to provide for eventual elimination." [Agree]. - Mr. Foster appreciated the dialogue and getting to the information bottom line, heard new things, and wants more discussion; likes mom and pops like Radio Shack [me too]; was concerned with legality and "absolutely no formula retail..." Wants regulations that allow the public to exchange ideas, etc. - Mr. Koehler quoted an article whose point was that starting way back in 1928 the chains started raising money to oppose the anti-chain proponents, $175,000 in 1933 which now would be a lot. We could be vulnerable and there are long term consequences and we shouldn't rush to judgement. He later pointed out that there was a body of federal case law which was concerned with restraint of trade. - Mr. Kersnar responded that there was an extensive thirty page paper which was analyzed by an attorney regarding trade from the federal constitution. ?? Monte and his office have looked at it. He spoke for awhile but I couldn't quite pin it down. My notes say: "our analyses is based on law, other ordinances and speculation." He recommended continuing the discussion and inviting the city attorney to come to the next meeting to answer the questions himself, and in the meantime have the attorney office review the Sausalito language. - Weaver said that until "I heard the public communication, I didn't have concern with the HCD. Now say what we want to see, or a city wide basis if we don't like the HCD." [See what a difference only eight folks can make?] - Troy Becker noted that Sausalito does not outright ban formula businesses. - The chair very graciously kept the public communication open for brief comments. Pat McPherson wanted a copy of the attorney opinion and what he told staff. - Kenley said he started to talk to council 17 months ago; appreciated the dialogue; will turn the initiative in on Oct. 19th; advised that they read his initiative; it provides variance; the legal council does not agree with what's said in the initiative, and "I would love to see the city pass an ordinance so that I would not have to turn mine in." - Leslie said this issue has been to the city many times and that they might want to look at old tapes; she suggested inviting other city managers and have a town hall meeting; and reminded them that they were given the initiative and other ordinances. Weaver suggested that the city post them on its website and Jere said he would get them copies. He said the moratorium expires May 1st, 2008 so they had plenty of time. He said the city ordinance and the citizen initiative could end up on the ballot at the same time, and whichever got the most votes would be law. - It was decided to have another planning commission meeting and push back the council meetings previously scheduled for August 14th and 28th. - My final thought is this: if eight of us can accomplish so much, what would sixteen or twenty-four be able to do. See Pat McPherson's new site; it's really great and should be a big help to creating more support. Like I said, the city's ordinance is beginning to look more and more like Kenley's Citizen Initiative, although the city will never admit it. And remember what Mr. Kersnar said about the attorneys driving this thing. We need to put our thinking and driving caps on. We should be the ones driving this thing; and in fact, it is beginning to look more and more like we are, although we will never be given credit for it. Especialy thanks to Leslie and Kenley and the baby sitter. And to everyone that showed up even if they didn't speak. Love, Dennis

CONFUSING: “The premise that an HCD is needed is flawed, and actually encourages chain stores to be in Ojai.”
QUESTION RAISED: How?

CONFUSING: “It is also a dangerous precedence [sic] to change our well-thought-out General plan just to support an ordinance that is intended to only regulate Formula/Chain stores.” & all of #2
QUESTION RAISED: What does this mean??? Now, you're opposing an ordinance that regulates chain stores? You do not make any sense! First crying about chain stores... and then wanting no rule that stops them. What does precedent have to do with anything, either? There is no stare decisis effect from creating an ordinance. Does not make sense to me.

CONFUSING: I’m giving up on this format… Just everything in #3 and #4, again, like #2… This is tiring.
QUESTIONS RAISED: Constitutional Rights! You are saying that temporary is the same as permanent. The only reason, as city-wide, that it does not violate constitutional rights is because it is “temporary.” Make the temporary moratorium permanent and it become a constitutional violation. You know… that might be a great idea if you want to make the city attorney more money from everyones' pockets from having to defend all the constitutional violation claims that will be filed (and won) by rich corporations like Subway. Your idea is STUPID! And contrary to your unsupported opinions, the opposite side has a lot of legal precedent to it… starting with the Constitution.

Pretty much all of Dennis’s comments down below are completely confusing… things like how the city planner “went into some nitty gritty stuff that escaped me…”
Hey Dennis, do you only hear what you want to hear? Got a little rose-colored glasses syndrome, possibly? ALSO, in the same statement you condemn the city for being concerned about the voter initiative violating constitutional rights AND THEN you go on to talk about “honor[ing] the will of the people” by pushing through with creating an illegal rule. Such a perfect contradiction to make a law that violates peoples’ rights. To complain about the protection rights, and then wanting them only for your side of the argument.

You know saying that it is “legal” does not make it legal, either. That is just your opinion.

Ever hear of “Shelley v. Kramer.” Your constitution-violating ordinance would (1) cost the everyone a lot of money to defend because the corporations have good attorneys and thus know that such a law is clearly unconstitutional and (2) the thing would clearly get struck down by any court that it went before. The voter initiative is not, as you opine, “legal!” So stop filling us full of your self-serving conclusions that are unsupported by fact or law. The rules deciding how to implement such an ordinance would need to be very, very clear AND not violate constitutional rights AND this is likely impossible to do because you can’t tell anyone how to make such rules clear and constitutional. It is very clear, however, as you indicated that the city stated that with such rules, decisions to allow or not allow stores anywhere in town would be “arbitrary and capricious.” Thus a violation of constitutional rights.

Here’s a lovely example of what happens with your proposal: Someone with infinite wealth from New York wants to tear down the Arcade and put up a Walmart, and Ojai’s only protection is an arbitrary decision in an unconstutional ordinance, the ordinance will get struck down, down goes the Arcade, and Walmart goes in. That is why we need a constutional ordinance to begin with.

I support the discussion of the HCD. You say there is not an alternative proposed... but that is the what-you-call voter initiative. Picking between the two. As an attorney, I pick the one that keeps Walmart out of downtown and actually withstands constitutional scrutiny.

Another thing. You complain and complain about how the council are not working with the citizens. What do you think the planning commission meeting is about? You go to a meeting that gives you a voice to give your opinions into the process, you give your opinion, and then you complain that the city is not working with you. Well you know what? This ain’t Dennis Leary land… there are more people here than just you and your narrow opinions to consider. But don’t get me wrong, I want you to keep active. Just realize that there are reasons why things cannot go your way sometimes… like the Constitutional rights of other citizens in this town and country.