Cabrillo lost in their application for Plaza Amistad and they are now suing our city for exercising its discretion in this land use matter. I have absolutely no quarrel with any Cabrillo officer or employee, but they hold $400,000 of our money and are suing us. It seems reasonable to raise some issues and ask some questions.This developer has certainly been well treated by the city. Until now, their every request has been granted. Santa Paula has been more generous to them than any other city in California. Even I supported their early projects, but we now have enough of what they offer. We need a moratorium on low end housing until our inventory reaches balance with the other cities. This is only reasonable.The Cabrillo developer emphasizes being a “non-profit corporation”, but I notice that this non-profit feeds a lot of fat cats. If they are as committed to fairness as they claim, they will recognize our need for balance and take their projects elsewhere. We already have the highest percentage of low end housing in the county and Cabrillo executives know this. They come here, not because of need, but because Santa Paula has been compliant to their demands. I have some questions:1. Where’s the money? Is our $400,000 held in a separate account or are they using it to pay their attorneys to sue us? Are they planning to return this money? Are they planning to pay interest on it?2. What steps are our city officials taking to recover our money? Now here’s a job for Mr. Berger.3. It seemed obvious on March 19 that Commissioner Ornelas, a Cabrillo executive, was advocating for this developer. Even if this were not the case this time, he has countless opportunities to influence other commissioners, council members, and staff using his position on the Commission. Why is this developer entitled to a seat on our planning commission?4. Why in the world do we continue to do business with these people?Delton Lee JohnsonSanta PaulaHow do you feel? To the Editor: In 2006 our city administration gave/granted Cabrillo Economic Development Co. (CEDC) $400,000 to economically help them build some affordable tax exempt housing, in the form of Plaza Amistad. The project was an idea and not approved at the time. The document for the transfer of the funds was developed under the watchful eyes of our city manager and city attorney, without a termination clause. In 2007, Plaza Amistad was submitted to the Planning Department and to the City Council. Both organizations found the project unacceptable and turned it down. This is public knowledge to all of Santa Paula.In 2008, Cabrillo is angry about their project being declined. So they have decided to sue the city of Santa Paula for declining their project for more of Santa Paula’s money - they still have our $400,000! Now it is up to Santa Paula to find the money to defend ourselves. Do you think our city Attorney might think he could be partly responsible for allowing a NON-PROFIT CORPORATION to keep our $400,000 whether they perform or not?Some of us are unhappy with these events, how do you feel about this? You may let your City Councilmen know your thoughts. David KaiserSanta PaulaIn gratitudeTo the Editor:I, like many others, am grateful for Santa Paula Hospital. I have used their facilities several times in the months it has been back in operation.A few days ago again I was in the emergency room, as directed by Dr. Swartout. Before performing the procedure, Dr. Constantine thoroughly explained what to expect in a fashion that made me feel comfortable.His assistant, a young lady named Erica, followed the doctor’s directions and again made me feel special with her manner and assurances.Following that, I was wheeled to X-ray for a cat scan by a very capable technician whose name I have forgotten.Again, Thank God for Santa Paula Hospital!Vernon B. TubbsSanta PaulaRe: “Affordable Housing Focus of Two Debates” by Scott HadlyTo the Editor:I attended an earlier community workshop this month related to Santa Paula’s Housing Element Update. I was compelled to speak against any further development by Cabrillo Economic Development Corp. in the city limits of Santa Paula. On the other hand high end to moderate-income housing should be promoted.Although I was given 5 minutes in which to make my point, I don’t believe the majority of Santa Paula had the benefit of sharing my comments. I would like re-emphasizing my thoughts; Cabrillo has put a chokehold on Santa Paula and monopolized the development of low-income housing for the best interest of Cabrillo and its so-called non-profit organization. All the while the right type of development will continue to be left out of the equation of a balanced community.Cabrillo is a non-profit organization but reaps the best of two worlds. It has advanced its agenda with taxpayer money, i.e. $400,000.00 gift by the previous city council with no strings attached. It continues to reap sizable rents and the organization grows like a well-nourished anaconda. Presently, Cabrillo is pressing the City of Santa Paula with a lawsuit due to the denial of Plaza Amistad, the proposed Cabrillo development. Obviously, legal fees are no object especially with a $400,000.00 grant that was gifted by the previous city council. In explaining my workshop talking points, I commented to the audience the drawbacks with adding further low-income housing to the City. The article quoted mayor Bob Gonzales having said “enough already” which is my exact sentiment. We should add pricier to moderate homes before any further low-income housing is contemplated. However, one factor that should not be left out is the amount of housing that is displaced due to the accommodations afforded to the unspoken, the illegal immigrants and their families. This issue may be the politically and socially incorrect topic of conversation but nevertheless its impact on available housing is great. Mr. Rodney Fernandez’s philanthropies may appear noble but I see it as a magnet for further illegal immigration. Andrew F. CastanedaSanta Paula
Letters to the Editor
March 28, 2008
Opinion
The monuments of Santa Paula
To the Editor:It should say, “The Big Five Monuments of River City of Santa Paula, California.” A tourist sign with a big arrow could be posted at each end of town and could also say “Tourists Welcome.” Signs could be posted at each monument with “Low to ultra low-income apartments, including nice smooth driveways & sidewalk play yards, plenty of baby carriage parking and lots of street parking for cars. (No lawns for parking.) Treatment with respect. A local Goodwill department store for your great shopping excursions. Laundry lines will be furnished compliments of CEDC, a nonprofit no tax corporation….”You know CEDC is suing the city because they were turned down again. They don’t get it, as the saying goes. Even though the previous City Council gave a non-tax CEDC 400,000 dollars. Why?“Now the good stuff.” Have you seen the map, photos and a scale model of a great new very upscale future neighborhood that the “Limoneira Ranch” Company has in the works with a very positive attitude and with great response from the “local citizens”? This is an intelligent project. When this project is complete along with Adams Canyon, this city can be proud.Ken ZimmetSanta PaulaRehabilitation of our substandard housingTo the Editor:City Council has bemoaned the fact that we have had for years, within the City, many, many, low tax roll valued, substandard dwellings in which people are living in unsafe and illegal conditions in Santa Paula. In the past, some have been reported, cited, and brought into some degree of compliance. The main problem being by way of resources, ordinances, personnel and funds to complete the job in this regard. Frequently the owners go right back doing the same code violation again and again without a building permit or city inspection and oversight. The city gets over 200 calls a year from neighbors reporting these type of offenders.Instead of building more high-density future slums in Santa Paula let us consider spending our tax dollars to up grade our existing housing. The reward for this thinking can result in increasing our (TAX) cash flow and pride in Santa Paula. Every one of us benefits. Santa Paula’s Building and Safety could do a good job of providing inspectors to follow through to correct our many illegal and non-complying structures by rehabilitating our substandard housing. Using RDA funds with large in-lieu funds we could work toward safer housing for all our workers. Santa Paula gave $400,000 RDA funds to Cabrillo in 2006 to economically help them. The project, Plaza Amistad was declined by the City Council and the Planning Department. Nothing was produced by CEDC. Today they are showing us how much they appreciate our funds by suing the city of Santa Paula for more money. I know our city council can spend our money more productively, I know!!! David KaiserSanta Paula Don’t rest on your laurelsTo the Editor:Don’t rest on your laurels regarding working to make Santa Paula a better place to live. More work remains to be done. All of the below is expressed as my opinion, but I think that a little thought, investigation and analysis will validate my points — draw your own conclusions.I attended and spoke at the joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission of March 19, which addressed the General Plan Housing Element Update. In my view, Cabrillo (CEDC), directly or indirectly, orchestrated many of the speeches given during the public comment period, virtually all of which required a Spanish language interpreter. There are a number of things that lead me to this conclusion, but if you have cable, you can watch the replays and decide for yourself. The consistent message in all these talks was: “I am unable to afford housing; therefore, give us more and more subsidized housing.” This is in spite of the fact that Santa Paula has already been carrying the low-end housing burden for all of Ventura County, and has done so for many years.There was no mention of individual responsibility for living within one’s means, nor was there any mention of the accountability for one’s actions. Sure, all of these people have needs, but Santa Paula can only do so much, and we’ve done our share and more. From my perspective, the underlying message is to have Cabrillo build these affordable units, which would mean big bucks for Cabrillo’s principals. Don’t let the fact that they (Cabrillo) are a non-profit corporation fool you. There is a lot of money to be made for the principals of “non-profit” companies; there are basically few limits on salaries or perqs. As you may recall, Cabrillo is in the process of suing the city for rejecting a noncompliant project, and they are likely using the $400,000, or leveraging off those deposited funds, that we gave them for a project, to now pay legal expenses never contemplated by the city. Make no mistake, this low-end housing does not pay for itself, which means that you and I are going to have to bear the cost. This will be in addition to our increased costs for sewer and water as well as increases in our state taxes — enough is enough! Another point that might interest you about the meeting are the comments made by Planning Commissioner Ornelas. Watch the rerun of the meeting and you will see Ornelas arguing the position of Cabrillo - as opposed to taking the position of an objective Planning Commissioner for the City. I have brought this conflict of interest to the attention of the previous City Council, and also to the attention of the Planning Commission, but no one seems concerned. Why?In my opinion, Cabrillo has a definite agenda to see to it that they are awarded more lucrative, noncompetitive, Santa Paula city contracts and grants. At the meeting their attorney threatened to see to it that our Housing Element will be rejected by the state unless they (Cabrillo) are satisfied with the numbers submitted by our city. From my point of view, the plan seems to be to hit our city with more lawsuits if we are unable to meet these numbers. It looks like a set-up to me, and a lose-lose proposition for Santa Paula. Probably, most of you who have been around town for any length of time have seen these same behavioral patterns. Of course, as I said in the beginning, these are only my thoughts and opinions. I would urge those of you who did not go to the meeting to watch a replay or get a tape and judge for yourself. When you have seen the meeting, and if you share my views, it is essential that you write Letters to the Editor and contact members of the City Council and Planning Commission and let them know what you think. Your thoughts need to be made part of the public record. Mine already are. We cannot rest on our laurels and lose the ground that has been gained over the past two years to make Santa Paula a better place.Larry S. SagelySanta PaulaReady for battleTo the Editor: I watched the March 19 meeting of the City Planning Commission and City Council (Re: the update of the Housing Element of the General Plan), and boomeranged back and forth between sadness, empathy, frustration and real annoyance. Sad and empathetic to see people testifying about crowded and unhealthy living conditions in Santa Paula – frustrated and annoyed to see one of our Commission members and out-of-town, hired gun lawyers representing “certain clients” basically threaten the City with legal and political action to block the City in Sacramento. Comments like: “You’ll never get it through the State” and “You’ll be bringing big trouble down on the City if you put in these numbers” (mind you, the numbers were from the most recent official U. S. Census, 2000 or 2002). Threats, intimidation, borderline blackmail, all over housing numbers!Let me just say right now that if any attempt is made to block or frustrate good faith attempts by the City to update the Housing Element of the General Plan, having used official U. S. Census figures, and this “blocking” is by certain vested special interests, there are several of us who have agreed to fly to Sacramento on our own dime to expose the truth and to testify for the City. The “numbers” should reflect actual present Santa Paula residents, legal residents, U. S. citizens, those with valid work visas, those with “Green Cards” and possibly “farm workers,” if there is a valid California policy to provide permanent long-term housing for undocumented agricultural workers, since they are essential to our ag industry. There should be no other exceptions. For instance, if there were Al Qaedas in the City, who slipped over the border or came in on false papers, would California and the City be under some obligation to provide them housing? Would they have lawyers? I doubt it! There has to be some limit to the liberal policy of providing benefits to non-citizens at the expense of citizens who have their own problems paying mortgages and rent.Everyone is talking about East Area One as if it is already built out, so (they say): let’s spend that money and build “affordable dwellings” to house X many thousand people who want better housing. Folks, with the present housing meltdown and the downturn in mortgage financing and in Wall Street, there are no assurances whatsoever that those thousands of houses will be built in the near foreseeable future. We can only hope.Likewise, Adams Canyon Ranch and its golf course. Whatever numbers of “low income” and “very low income” dwellings are incorporated into the new Housing Element (good through 2014), those units should be built with or after the market-rate housing, and not before, otherwise the percentages will get more and more out of balance. We must achieve a better economic/demographic balance; we need to bring more money into this City, and the only way to do that is by building moderate and upper level housing, as well as more manufacturing and light industrial business, such as we have out in the Lemonwood Business Park. Note, folks, how the Ford dealer just left the city - couldn’t make it with the economic base in town - how sad. That’s a wake up call!Main Street cannot have a real rebirth unless and until we have more higher income housing within city limits and people living in them with more disposable income. This is not a theory or a hypothesis, this is proven, indisputable fact. More “low income” and “very low income” housing, even assuming the people living in them are the nicest most deserving people in the world, will only drive the City deeper in debt. It’s time for the other cities in this county to step up to the plate in this regard. How many of those cities have a 15%, or greater, inclusionary housing ordinance? I wonder, do any of them? Ventura, Fillmore, Camarillo, Thousand Oaks, what is their existing percentage of “low income” housing? Recently in The Ventura Star, Cabrillo’s Major Domo seemed to be bemoaning the fact (he said) Santa Paula had only 36% “low income” units. Can this be correct? Is he serious? If it is true, no wonder the Ford dealer had to close up shop.People spoke the other night about bad living conditions. Well, why doesn’t the City find out where they live and pay those illegal landlords a little visit? Don’t the speakers have to fill out their address on their speaker cards? I thought that was a requirement. Is this political correctness run amuck? And why didn’t the 2, 3, or 4 lawyers representing “clients” or organizations clearly identify their employers (their firm) and their addresses? What’s up with that – anonymous lawyers representing anonymous clients living in anonymous places in Santa Paula? Someone talked about the rubber meeting the road the other night; yes indeed, let’s open up this mystery box and see what’s really inside, how much is fact, how much is hyperbole, how much is Kabuki gone awry. A lot of people have worked too long for no pay at all, in fact have paid significant monies, to try to help this City, a place we all love and enjoy, warts and all. We are not going to fall down or play dead now just when the battle gets going good. We’ll be there, we’ll be in Sacramento, armored up, ready to do battle - because dog and pony shows like the one we saw on the March 19 - well, what can I say - they motivate some of us. Richard MainSanta PaulaWhere’s the money?To the Editor:The March 19 hearing on the Housing Element of our General Plan was typical of Cabrillo: scads of uninformed persons using translators and reading from scripts obviously prepared by others, and repeated failure to provide their addresses as all others are expected to do. I noticed that not even their attorney would provide her address. She indicated that she was representing some persons but declined to name them.
