The 1978 Flood and now the "Business Park"

"They found a body down the fourth row of trees" my friend said as I slowly walked up D Street. The devastation seemed unbelievable. Washers and dryers, stoves and sofas, and now a body, had washed down from Sespe Creek, through Los Serenos and across 126 into Marvin and Bonnie Smith's orchard. The tree trunks were buried in several feet of mud.

This was a sad day in 1978. After weeks, if not months of rain, the Sespe couldn't contain itself.

Highway 126 at that time was only two lanes. Tall eucalyptus trees lined both sides of the highway through Rancho Sespe. Mud and boulders were strewn across the highway. The Los Serenos tract was devastated.

I don't remember the man who was washed down the creek into the orchard. Some of you may have known him. I believe he had been warned to evacuate.

The other devastating loss from that day was Marvin and Bonnie's house. Bonnie's father had built the house so she had lived there her entire life. It now had over a foot of mud and water in every room. The family room with the fireplace was the only part of the house that was salvageable.

They decided to rebuild the house around the family room. It took a couple of years and they lived in their fifth wheel waiting for the house to be rebuilt. Bonnie was the sweetest and kindest person you could know and she was also strong enough to endure that time in her life with a smile. I only saw tears in her eyes once or twice.

She passed away a few years ago. Marvin, who has some health issues, has turned over the farming duties to his son Bill.

Marvin and Bonnie's property is located in the "Business Park". Marvin and his son have said that they do not want any part of the business park and want to maintain their agricultural operations.

The business park EIR is now on the City's website. I urge you to review it and submit any comments or concerns you may have.

The EIR has incorrectly stated that the Smith property is in Phase II of the business park and

"It is anticipated that agricultural activity to the west of this property(The Stop) would cease as the Plan Area builds out in accordance with the proposed Master Plan. Therefore significant conflicts between onsite development and agricultural activity are not anticipated."

Mr. Payne became aware over a year ago that the Smith's (and other property owners) were not interested in becoming part of the Business Park. Yet, the EIR or Master Plan have no acknowledgement of this fact.

The City was contacted by the Agricultural Commissioner reminding them that the State considers agriculture one of our most important resources and that a 300' buffer is required around all ongoing ag operations. In addition, the County's Right to Farm Ordinance provides protection to farmers when development threatens to encroach and harm their viability.

Sadly, this business park will try to put these farmers out of business against their will. I don't know how you feel about agriculture but because of our alluvial floodplain we have the most productive soil in the world, which is not found in abundance, and we are taking 200 acres of it out of production forever.

In addition, at least four families have been or will be displaced. This seems unfair and borders on eminent domain. The business park's promises of jobs is used as a selling point but I remain ever the skeptic at the exaggerated numbers. Rite Aid only employs about ten people and I doubt that they are making high wages. A Long's Drug will hurt Rite Aid and won't provide "high quality" jobs which is one of the goals of the business park. It's all speculation at this point. While the biggest manufacturing employer in Fillmore, Ameron, is being forced out. The speculative jobs seem to take precedence over real jobs.

These are the victims of these plans to turn Fillmore into a place that has already become unrecognizable. Unrecognizable in the vicious political games, unrecognizable in the way citizens are treated, unrecognizable in the way that long time family farmers are treated.

Some of the business park developers have made comments that their projects are on the borderline of economic viability. If the business park is not feasible or cost effective on its own merits then perhaps it should not be done until it is feasible.

Sustainability Issue

Note: I intended to write about sustainability in the context of our physical resources; land, water, energy and even food. However, I got sidetracked into the realm of RDA or Redevelopment Agency issues and the sustainability of debt in a down market...Indulge me once again.

When I first moved back to Fillmore and saw the growth that was occurring, the second thing that occurred to me was..."this is not sustainable." (The first thing that occurred to me was..."this is not the slow, controlled growth that I read about in Vision 2020!")

First, the cost of housing wasn't sustainable without the Federal Reserve pumping liquidity into the system at such a rate that the value of the dollar was declining daily.

Second, the cost of housing wasn't sustainable without wages rising so that working people could pay for those houses.

Third, the economic viability of the City budget wasn't sustainable when it was based on borrowing multi-millions of dollars against potential future revenues that may or may not occur. In particular when the housing market goes south. Well, now it is moving in that direction(actually since July of 2005). The City RDA is now carrying an astronomical debt burden and a percentage of our budget will not go to any benefit or service for the community but, like our sewer plant, to debt service interest costs.

Here is a report on RDA that you will find interesting. Redevelopment and the attendant financing schemes are confusing but this report is a great place to start.

Here are a few of the comments...

"Bondholders and their brokers are profiting handsomely from redevelopment debt, while pocketing property taxes that should go to public services."

"Redevelopment has become a massive wealth-transfer machine. Cash and land to powerful developers and corporate retailers, while small business owners and taxpayers must foot the bill. A quarter of the money pays for the interest of debt."

"Significantly, 12% was spent on administration, most of it for redevelopment staff salaries. This provides a lucrative bureaucratic base that redevelopment staffers seek to preserve and expand."

"[Close to a billion] dollars into the pockets of bondholders, at the expense of California taxpayers."

"20% of RDA money is supposed to be spent on housing but "of the money which is spent, one fifth of all funds are eaten up by administration overhead, mostly for agency staff salaries, while 18% actually goes toward new housing construction."

"Clearly, redevelopment is out of control. Under the thin guise of eliminating blight, it consumes a growing share of property taxes, incurs ever-burgeoning debt, spawns sales tax wars among cities and tramples on property rights."

I'm not able to provide any figures on our RDA finances(on the road again without the budget book) so if you have any data be sure to share it with us.

American Water bails on Santa Paula

Today's Ventura County Star reported that American Water has officially dropped out of the bidding for Santa Paula's sewer plant.

"We just didn't have enough time to do it (the proposal)"

I find that hard to believe since American Water probably had more time than any other bidder. Why?

1. Their engineering partners, Kennedy Jenks, had previously completed 60% of the design work before Santa Paula decided to switch to a DBOF procurement process.

2. Since they spent months preparing the Fillmore sewer plant's smaller but similar technology and requirements(with the same partners), they already had a complete proposal that could perhaps have been revised.

So, in reality, American Water could have responded a lot easier and faster than any of the other bidders who were starting from scratch.

What's your theory on why they have dropped out?

Happy New Year

I wish all my readers a wonderful and prosperous 2008.

As usual, it's difficult to pick a topic to write about. There are a lot of things. One issue that I would like to talk about is the CEDC farmworker housing project.

This was approved by the City Council a few weeks ago - but I've still had some lingering concerns about the project.

My biggest concern(as always) is the cost of the project. It is my understanding that CEDC is a non-profit organization. It seems strange that their costs for this project are so astronomical when they don't have to provide a profit margin or pay taxes.

They have stated that they require $8.5 million in funding to build 29 units. That's $293,000 per unit in construction costs!

Folks in the construction business that I have talked to think that is high for multi-family or even single family residential property.

Here are some comparisons of current construction costs per unit for multi-family. You can get this data from www.census.gov 2007 building permits tables.

Santa Paula = $169,194
Camarillo = 92,437
Oxnard = 93,800

Even SunCal's average unit building cost for North Fillmore's feasibility analysis shows a range from $115,000 to $185,500 (multi-family to single family).

CEDC sued the City to force us to build farmworker housing. Santa Paula rejected their application so now they are being sued.

There are other companies that build low income housing. I think HUD can do it between $125,000 and $150,000 per unit.

Perhaps there is another reason for these high costs that I am not aware of. If you have any insight please share with us.

Stay dry with all the rain...