My wife, Joyce, and I have been residents of Santa Paula for nearly 57 years. We have been very active in the community, attempting in our own way to try to make Santa Paula a better place in which to live.

We believe that unless Santa Paula supports projects that will significantly boost the property tax revenue, the city will decline in the sense that it will not be able to afford to do what is necessary to make the city prosper.

Just consider that the tax base of the average home in Santa Paula is only about $140,000. This has come about because a high percentage of the residents of Santa Paula have lived in the same home since before 1976 when Proposition 13 was enacted.

We just received a mailing from Save Open-space and Agricultural Resources, and though we are both members of SOAR, we differ radically from SOAR's position on Measure A7. SOAR gives five reasons why Santa Paulans should not support A7. In my opinion, SOAR is wrong on all five counts. They assert that:

1. "There's no plan." A7 is an attempt by the residents of Santa Paula to get the city urban restriction boundary changed so that Adams Canyon will come under the control of residents of the city rather than some other entity. Adams Canyon is contiguous with the city, and it is entirely logical that decisions regarding the future of Adams Canyon should be made by Santa Paula residents, not some other governmental agency. A7 does only two things. First, it extends the CURB line to encompass approximately 6,500 acres and, second, it provides that only 495 home sites can be developed in Adams Canyon, as well as other appropriate safeguards.

2. "It's wasteful sprawl." SOAR is supporting a proposal for the county of Ventura to approve the development of 35 40-acre home sites. But it calls A7, which provides for 495 home sites that average about 13 acres per site, "sprawl." How can SOAR say that A7 is "sprawl" and the county plan is not?

3. "No safeguards." Nothing could be further from the truth. Just read the initiative that has been signed by more than 3,000 people! It is true that an environmental impact report has not been done, but it is very premature at this time to go to this expense before a development is even in the planning stage. Also, this initiative effort is being made by committed residents of Santa Paula, not by a developer who would be the entity that would be responsible for providing and paying for an EIR.

4. "Wrong place for growth." Proponents of A7 have not taken a position opposing either Fagan Canyon or the Limoneira proposals. In fact, A7 stipulates that if Fagan Canyon is developed, a "connecting road" would be built by any developer of Adams Canyon. This would help to mitigate traffic concerns expressed by opponents of Fagan Canyon.

5. "We already voted no!" Joyce and I believe that the last election did not produce an outcome that truly represented the wishes of the people of Santa Paula. Because two important developments were being considered at one time, people became confused, and many voters, we believe, just voted no on both issues.

A7 allows the voters to study Adams Canyon as just a single issue and realize that A7 is primarily a measure that will move the CURB line, allowing Santa Paulans to control the destiny of the canyon, rather than some entity other than ourselves.

This will almost surely be the last opportunity for Santa Paula to gain the advantages of increased city revenues that would almost certainly be generated with an appropriate usage of the canyon. Among the likely benefits to the city would be parks and areas for sports events, as well as a golf course and resort hotel. Bed taxes generated by the hotel could be substantial, and these revenues would come directly to the city of Santa Paula.

Please join us and vote yes on Measure A7 on May 8.

— Ernest Carlson, M.D., lives in Santa Paula.