The City of Ventura is currently in the final stages of drafting an ordinance that will require Ventura property owners to apply for an annual permit to legally rent out their Ventura properties. (Applies to condominium units, single family homes, second dwelling units as well as apartments)  Property owners will be required to pay for the permit which will include an exterior inspection of the property by a code enforcement official.  Upon inspecting the exterior, the City official may require an interior inspection for an additional fee.  Obviously, they will require property owners to fix any substandard conditions or non-permitted uses and be assessed for any violations.

The City of Ventura’s stated goal is to eliminate substandard living conditions and one key method is through a permit process. The permit fees are to be used to financially cover the costs of implementing the ordinance.

Questions to consider:

• Are all rental owners in the city being asked to subsidize other property owners who are not complying with regulations already in effect?  
• How much of the fees collected go toward the administration and collection of fees and issuing permits? Is it cost effective and does it resolve the problems?  
• Will this program really help crack down on garage conversions and boot-leg units since owners of these properties would be unlikely to register their units with the city?  
• Are inspections of brand-new construction, or units in condominium/townhouse communities, really necessary?  
• The city already has existing laws that allow staff to inspect units and require owners to bring them into compliance.  Does this improve/strengthen existing laws?  
• Will the city actually do the inspections?  The city already charges properties with 4 or more units for inspections but often allows the owner to do their own inspections and simply fill out a certification form. 
• What does including the Ventura Business License/Permit No. in an advertisement have to do with the proposed Rental Housing Preservation program? What does it accomplish?  

The final proposed ordinance and resolution will be on www.VCCAR.net once it has been posted by the city.  You can also find more information on the city’s website at www.cityofventura.net/fire/building_safety/safehousing

What you can do: 

Attend the Ventura City Council meeting on Monday, November 24th at 6:00 PM

Get the word out.  If you are unable to attend the council meeting, write or contact the city council members and make your concerns known.  You can find contact information for the Ventura City Council is on the City of Ventura website.

UPDATE: 11/18/2008
The Ventura City Council will NOT be discussing the Ventura City Rental Housing Preservation Ordinance on November 24th.  The date has been changed to December 8th at 6pm.  This new hearing will probably NOT have an ordinance to be voted on, only a staff report.  There will now be more public input before the city council votes on a specific ordinance.

UPDATE: 1/14/2009
Last night, the Ventura City Council abandoned the proposal to inspect all rental homes and duplexes and charge a fee.  The city will be shifting two city inspectors who examine new construction to code enforcement.  They are still considering requiring that rental owners register with the city and pay a small fee, but for now, mandatory inspections are out.

The speakers gave a Powerpoint presentation with each taking turns presenting the slides.  We learned that the city had commissioned a survey last October that showed that 70% of Oxnard residents would support a half-percent sales tax increase if it went to improve and enhance vital city services.  We were told that Oxnard has had a A+ rating from Standard & Poors since 2003 and the city is very sound financial position and the survey indicated that 57% of Oxnard residents feel the city is well managed financially.  It was pointed out that the sales tax in Santa Barbara was 7.75% and in Los Angeles it was 8.25%.

If the tax increase is passed it would fund: 

• Police-More Officers on Street.  Neighborhood Patrols.  Enhanced anti-gang activity.  School resource officers.
• Fire-Additional personnel.  Disaster preparedness.
• Recreation-More youth enrichment and intervention activities, mentorship programs, City Corps gang prevention.  Pre-school to you programs
• Parks-New parks, sport parks, Campus Park, College Park, Ormond Beach
• Library-Enhanced services for youth. Online tutoring services. New Colonia Branch Library
• Street and Alley Repair-Increased Streets Budget.  Quicker repairs to streets, alleys and potholes. 

There’s something there for everyone.  The city estimates the tax would raise $10,000,000 a year to fund these programs.  Since this is a general tax, the measure would only have to get a simple majority.

I’ll grant you that these valuable services would enhance the quality of life in Oxnard.  So, you may ask, why the trust issues?  First of all, that 70% of Oxnard residents could possibly be in favor of a tax increase is hard to believe.  Our presenters made the point that polling only 400 people may seem like a small number but you can get an accurate reading from a sample that size.  I agree.  Problem is, we don’t know the wording of the questions.  Polls are conducted all the time with a specific outcome in mind and the questions are formulated to lead the peson being polled  to give a favorable response. 

Second issue: Oxnard City Manager, Edward Sotelo said many times that they were here only to provide information and were not taking a position in favor of the tax increase nor were they trying to convince us to support it.  Really???!!!  Seven of the highest ranking officials take time out their busy schedule to just give us a little information.  (I see you’re starting to have some trust issues, too.)  After the meeting I did a little research and learned that the Oxnard City Council had previously approved $150,000 information campaign to educate the citizens of Oxnard on the benefits of the tax increase.  That’s a lot of money to educate the public for a ballot measure you’re not taking a position on.  If the tax is approved, it will take $30 million dollars of taxable sales in Oxnard before that sum is recovered.  

Third issue: The City is calling it a half-cent increase.  It is not.  It is a half-percent increase.  It may seem like I’m arguing semantics but that language wasn’t chosen by accident.

Fourth issue: What the money will be spent on is not clear.  The presentation covered a lot of ground but it’s unlikely that the money will be allocated evenly across the board.  Once this tax is approved, the council can use most of the money for just one of those issues.  You might vote for the measure because you’d like to see more police and instead most of the money goes towards a sports park. 

Last issue:  How long is this tax for?  When asked, Sotelo says the ordinance hasn’t been written yet and the City is still trying to “find out” what the citizens of Oxnard would prefer.

It may seem like I’m arguing against the tax increase.  Not necessarily.  I just don’t think it’s being presented honestly.  This is a carefully orchestrated campaign that is being presented as if the City were only responding to Oxnard resident’s desires to pay more taxes.  Most people can see right though that.  Regardless of the possible merits of this tax increase I don’t believe it will be successful.  The economy is in bad shape, gas prices are soaring and folks are tightening their belts.  I’ll be surprised if 51% of Oxnard voters support a tax increase much less the 70% the City is counting on.

I hate traffic!

Before, I go on, let me disclose that this article is not intended to be an impartial analysis.  I’m biased and no admirer of Tim Flynn, the Oxnard City Councilman who is a major proponent of this measure.  In my opinion, though well-intentioned, Tim’s combative style of leadership is divisive and he is quick to resort to bullying and displays of temper to get his way.  I have seen him in action more than once.  Of course, none of that has any bearing on whether this initiative is good thing for the City of Oxnard. (It’s not.)

Penny shared with us that the current initiative is the second attempt to get this measure on the ballot.  The first time backers were unable to get enough signatures to qualify.  The new petition circulating is nearly the same but has some minor changes. 

The object of this initiative is to require that no residential project of 5 (or more) homes, or a commercial project of 10,000 feet (or more) could be built if any intersection within 5 miles of the project was or would drop below the letter grade C* even if for only one hour during peak traffic in the preceding year.  According to the out-of-date traffic study the supporters are using, nearly the entire city is subject to these restrictions.  Any project over these limits would have to be approved by the voters of the city.  It would require developers to upgrade those intersections to build even a modest project.  The Catch-22 is that if any of the intersections involved a State Highway such as Oxnard Boulevard (State Route 1), Vineyard Avenue (State Route 232), Fifth Street (State Route 34), only the state can upgrade it. 

Here are some of the key points “Citizens for a Safe and Prosperous Oxnard” would like us to consider.

The new Oxnard Traffic Initiative is flawed and misleading.  It’s not the solution to the issues facing Oxnard. Residents put concerns about public safety, access to health-care, educating our youth, open space, quality housing and jobs before traffic. When you consider traffic issues, they are not limited to just intersections.  They include competing priorities like quality roadways and they include regional issues such as freeway delays; areas over which the City of Oxnard has limited control.

This initiative does not provide one cent towards making traffic improvements. It is full of double talk designed to hide it real purpose.  (No growth.)

The flaws and negative side-effects of the proposed initiative are many. 

• By requiring a citywide vote on almost every private project over five units or 10,000 square feet it will make it unfeasible for small contractors to build in our city and that will hurt our economy and cost jobs.
• It will make it more difficult to address blighted areas and the need for affordable housing in our community.
• It will be more difficult to fund important services in our community or even have the resources to address traffic needs due to a potential loss of City revenue of over $129 million in one time traffic improvement funds and over $11 million per year in on-going funds.

There is more information at their website: www.StopTheOTI.com. 

To hear what the supporters have to say, visit: www.oxnardtrafficinitiative.org/.  Just don’t read the copy of the initiative they have posted on their website.  It varies in some significant ways from the actual text submitted to the Oxnard City Clerk.  You can see the correct document here.

I do hate traffic and am in complete sympathy with the effort to do something meaningful to help eliminate or lessen it.  The Oxnard Traffic Initiative is not the answer.  It is just too broad and Draconian in it’s scope and will hamstring the City of Oxnard for years to come.

*Level C is defined in initiative as “Stable and acceptable flow but speed and maneuverability somewhat restricted due to higher volumes.  Motorists intermittently wait through more than one signal.  Occasional backups behind left turning vehicles.