Room at the inn?

As millions prepare to celebrate Christmas, many look past the frantic shopping and gift exchange to the underlying meaning of the holiday in the original Christmas story. Set aside Santa Claus and look back to the family that ended up finding housing in a stable and laid their child in the animal's food trough.

On Christmas Eve, two thousand years later, families and individuals are still without shelter, even as the clouds darken for another rain storm here in Ventura.

Despite our own economic constraints, Ventura is part of a national effort to end homelessness. One of the brightest legacies of the Bush Administration is the effort spearheaded by Phillip Mangano, Executive Director of the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness. Mangano challenged decades of acceptance of homelessness as a problem to be minimized and managed, instead of ended. His vision and energy has inspired localities across the nation to pull together government, civic, charitable, faith and business leaders and institutions to devise "10 Year Plans to End Homelessness." Although no one has yet succeeded, until the economic crisis hit, the cities and communities that pioneered this effort were finally making progress on that remarkable goal.

Ventura has its own 22 point plan that you can read here on the website for the Ventura County Homeless and Housing Coalition. The most ambitious plans to provide housing face daunting challenges for funding. But already more than $30,000 has been raised privately to keep families from becoming homeless -- by far the most economical way of reducing the number of families on the streets.

In fact, the program was recently singled out as one of the most promising innovations in the nation by the US Interagency Council. You can read more about it on their website here.

Councilmember Neal Andrews, who chairs the Council ad hoc committee on homelessness (Mayor Christy Weir and Councilmember Ed Summers serve with him on it) has been a tireless champion of the idea, along with Karl Keller, who chairs the Ventura Social Services Task Force. Churches, the Rotary, the United Way and numerous individuals have led the fundraising efforts.

One church, the Ventura Unitarian Universalist Church, raised $2900 for the fund. They also sponsored a recent rememberance of homeless people throughout Ventura County during the last year (Ventura County Star photo at right.)

There are many ways to give at this time of year. But perhaps none is more fitting for people of all faiths than to ensure that "the least of these" can find shelter in the year ahead.

Change we need?

President-elect Barack Obama today announced retiring Republican Congressman Ray LaHood as his choice for Secretary of Transportation. A good pick for bipartisanship -- but hardly a sign of the change we need in the nation's transportation policies.

LaHood has been a supporter of Amtrak and public transit, which distinguishes him from the Bush Administration's current Transportation Secretary Mary Peters. But both Obama and his new pick have bypassed the key element for the "21st Century transportation system" our next president called for at his press conference today.

That's linking land use and transportation to foster what Chris Leinberger calls "walkable urbanism." The effects of building an auto-dependent landscape have been devastating -- disinvestment in inner cities; widespread collapse of older neighborhoods and communities; pollution and greenhouse gas emissions that have poisoned our air, water and future; and a collosal expenditure of money that is simply unsustainable no matter how much money Washington prints during this economic crisis. And despite the drop in the price of oil, we are still shipping billions of dollars overseas to fuel this addiction to driving.

It is not that cars are bad -- what's caused the worst damage is building our homes, stores, workplaces and schools for the convenience of the car instead of the health of the community. A balanced transportation system doesn't just add an afterthought of a bike path or bus route as an empty "alternate." It creates "complete streets" that serve the pedestrian, the bicyclist, the transit rider and the driver equally -- and orients everyday life to the pedestrian, not to the motorist. It's a healthier, cheaper and more sustainable way of building great places -- and the "21st Century transportation system" that would serve them.

The acid test of whether the new administration is serious about "the change we need" is whether the trillion dollar infrastructure bill now being formulated ends up as a gigantic pork barrel or whether it is directed at laying the foundation for a more sustainable economy. Eventually that trillion dollars will have to be repaid. Does it make sense to invest it in longer and wider highways -- or in fixing the roads and bridges we have and repairing the communities that have been degraded by laying asphalt at the expense of livability?

Ironically, the outgoing Bush Administration provided the best news this week on that score when it backed the California Coastal Commission's veto of the misguided El Toro toll road. Not only was that road an environmental nightmare, it was the route to more sprawl in southern Orange County. It's time for California to reinvest in the cities we have instead of subsidizing more building on the fringe.

Ventura County has been a leader in curbing sprawl. It would be nice to hope that Washington would become an ally in that quest. Next year is shaping up as a pivotal one where the "Stimulus Package" and the next "Transportation Reauthorization" bills will set the direction for the next administration. Let's hope the new administration will connect the dots between highway construction and oil dependence, climate change, deficit spending, our trade imbalance and the unsustainable social and environmental costs of auto dependence.

Repealing the 911 Fee?

UPDATE: Last night, as anticipated, the City Council voted to repeal the 911 Fee -- by unanimous vote. Councilmember Andrews made the case that whatever the good intentions at the outset, the problems that have arisen in implementing the fee have made it time to "cut our losses." His colleagues agreed and asked for an ordinance to be brought back officially ending the fee, effective February 1. A mechanism to refund the fee to any resident that requests a refund will also be set up.

The Council also acknowledged that the need remains -- in fact is greater today -- to find ways to bolster public safety funding. The City Council has embarked on an ambitious “redesign” effort to reduce the cost of government by focusing on “what matters most.” Mayor Christy Weir said, “I will be looking forward to the discussion.”

Councilmember Neal Andrews has introduced a proposal to repeal Ventura's controversial 911 Fee on the agenda for Monday evening's City Council meeting.

The fee was adopted a year ago to provide funding to hire additional police officers and fire fighters. Few doubt the need -- or the value of expanding our public safety staff to reduce emergency response times. The year before, the City Council allocated $1.2 million in additional funding to hire six officers and launch a new three-person roving fire engine. Three of the new officers were assigned to patrol, two to gang enforcement and one toward the re-establishment of our School Resource Officers program in Ventura's high schools. As a result, crime has decreased by 12 percent over the last year. Despite receiving more than one thousand more calls for emergency services in the summer months of 2008 than the same period in 2007, emergency response times have improved.

By collecting the fee to pay for the 911 system, an identical amount of funding would be freed up to hire additional police officers and firefighters to make Ventura safer -- as well as continue to make improvements to the 911 system.

A number of other local governments in California have long charged a modest fee on phone bills for access to 911. But in adopting that model, Ventura offered residents a choice: pay the monthly fee or be charged for using the system. While that option strengthened the legal basis for charging such a fee, it was widely misunderstood and wildly unpopular. It has also proven to be far more challenging to implement than anticipated. It has taken months for phone companies to sort out the new billing and one company is still charging those who "opted out" of the monthly billing (although it is also crediting those customers on the same bill.) Until that was straightened out, we've held off on issuing per call charges. That too promises to be complex and controversial. Finally, a lawsuit has been filed by an Orange County firm that specializes in class action litigation, which if successful could result in paying the firm six figures in legal fees.

So, Councilmember Andrews is making the case that the time has come to admit error and pull the plug on the fee.

Many, of course, will say: I told you so! And they will have a point. Yes, it has proven confusing -- and we don't want anyone confused about whether or not to call 911. Yes, the implementation has been bumpy -- and diverted staff time from other important functions. Yes, it is being challenged in court -- and it will be months, if not years, before that is sorted out definitively.

Of course the need for adequate public safety funding is even more urgent than a year ago. But sometimes even the best intentions go awry. While 85% of the phone users did not opt out and are currently paying the fee, the clamor from those angry that the fee is an illegitimate tax shows no sign of going away. Perhaps the time has come to acknowledge a mistake and look for better ways to address our public safety and financial challenges.

So on Monday, the Council will reconsider the issue. Share your thoughts directly with the City Council by logging on to My Ventura Access.

Rental Update

Last night, the Council heard from more than 40 speakers, primarily landlords and realtors opposed to local regulation of 1-3 unit rentals.

The tone was generally thoughtful and restrained. Landlords repeatedly claimed that the majority of rentals are well maintained, that there are ample Federal, State and local laws and protections governing their business, that some unsafe or unhealthy conditions are actually the result of bad tenants and that the City was simply angling to extract revenue from them -- and that new fees as well as stringent enforcement of codes would drive up rents and reduce the supply of affordable housing.

As is common in public testimony, statistics were bandied about, argued and mangled, compounding confusion about the extent of substandard housing in Ventura. The City cited 281 reported substandard housing complaints during the current year and Fire Department staff showed graphic photos of unsafe and unhealthy conditions uncovered during the last two years. Depending on your perspective, that is either just the reported caseload of a much larger problem or the validation that the problem affects a tiny minority of the estimated 6,000 properties that are not now registered or inspected by the city.

Of the five options presented, while a handful of speakers supported some form of pro-active inspection, the great majority wanted to keep local government out. Quite a number, however, did support enforcement of existing laws against slum conditions rather than passing new ones and endorsed the idea of paying for that stepped-up effort with fines on violators.

I appreciated the passion and general good will of the public speakers, with one exception, the owner/occupant of the house that burned on Hemlock. He publicly berated the press and Fire Department for "demonizing" him and insisted that the fault for the fire was entirely with the tenant. As City Manager, it is not my role to question public speakers expressing their opinions to the Council, but his attack on the integrity of our inspectors and his blatant disregard for the law was not something I could allow to go unchallenged. He got the last word before the Mayor wisely and gracefully closed off the discussion, as he continued to insist that taking a 90 year old single-family house and illegally putting a wall down the middle and carving out two rentals had nothing to do with the tragedy that put one of his tenants in the hospital and nearly spread to his neighbors. Nor did he show any appreciation for the efforts of three fire companies that responded to douse the flames before the fire spread to his adjacent dwelling unit. Instead, he chose to "demonize" the inspectors who are legally obligated to investigate the incident.

We have a lot more listening to do as we prepare for the Council to take up this issue again on January 12. The problem is real and we can benefit from better communication with the voices we heard last night. Finding the right solution(s) is worth taking the time and collaborating on a community consensus.

Why you should be concerned about unsafe rentals

Last week, unsafe wiring in an illegally subdivided home led to a devastating fire that left $250,000 estimated damage, a renter at the hospital with burns and smoke inhalation and neighbors relieved it didn't spread to the nearby houses. "Glad no one was killed. Scary . . ." commented one nearby resident on the Ventura County Star website. "The place had no smoke detectors; that landlord's gonna be in trouble," added another.

So why didn't the City prevent this dangerous condition?

The answer is simple, if painful. We have three code inspectors for the entire city. They concentrate on life safety issues, but they can't ignore residents who complain about too much dog excrement in their neighbors yard or the angry neighbor complaining about the illegal banner signs on a nearby business.

That's why as we reviewed our budget to focus more "on what matters most" we identified the need to shift attention away from responding to complaints to preventing the substandard housing that is our most serious community problem.

Of course, if you own a rental property in town, what you heard instead from a handful of irate voices was that the City of Ventura is planning an all out assault on your property rights with the goal of grabbing more fee income.

That's in part our fault for not getting word out better about our efforts to develop a sensible, equitable and affordable effort to promote safer and healthier housing. We've tried to remedy that by pulling back from just one possible solution to present five alternative responses in the staff report for Monday night's City Council meeting here.

I hope you read the report and give the Council your thoughts.