Home › News › Local News
Eminent domain measure rejected
Moorpark will consider other ways to revitalize downtown
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from Local NewsNow that buying properties through eminent domain is not an option for redevelopment in Moorpark, city staff members said they will focus on other projects to help revitalize the downtown area.
In a packed Wednesday night meeting, the Moorpark City Council, acting as the Redevelopment Agency, rejected an amendment to reinstate for 12 years eminent domain authority over commercial and industrial properties in a 1,200-acre project area.
The unanimous vote was taken after more than 350 people sat and stood in council chambers in quiet opposition to the amendment. Dozens of residents inside and outside the project area spoke against the issue during a public comment period that lasted three hours.
The council voted 5-0 just before midnight; the audience applauded the vote.
"If you don't trust us with eminent domain, we don't want it," said Councilman Keith Millhouse, who made the motion to reject the measure. This decision puts the issue to rest indefinitely, city officials said.
Eminent domain is described as the power of a public agency to forcibly acquire private property at fair market value for public use. Officials have said it would be used only as a last resort, and not on residential properties.
The agency's eminent domain authority expired in 2001, and city leaders have tried to get the issue to a council vote for the past two years. They ordered a study of blight in the area and established a Project Area Committee, made up of residents and business owners.
But the crowd Wednesday night wanted nothing to do with the idea.
"The best thing for me and my neighbors is to just forget this eminent domain thing," said Terry Davenport, a 52-year-old Moorpark resident. "When we sell our home, it shouldn't be a profit-making thing for the city."
Focus on High Street
Hugh Riley, assistant city manager, said the city will continue to focus redevelopment efforts along the south side of High Street with the Severyn Ashkenazy development by a San Fernando Valley builder who specializes in historic projects. At the other end, the city is hoping to add a mixed-use development, including a restaurant and office spaces.
Officials have said a revitalization of downtown includes a good mix of offices, businesses, restaurants and entertainment.
Riley estimated the city spent about $60,000 over the past several years in consultant costs in its attempt to reinstate eminent domain.
But the people spoke loud and clear Wednesday, Riley said.
"We tried to be honest about it, but there's a lack of trust there," he said. "These people were passionate; that's just the way it goes."
Fears about residences
The project area includes downtown High Street, Walnut Canyon Road and south to the Arroyo Simi, extending as far east as Condor Drive and west to Gabbert Road. While the amendment did not include residential housing, there was the fear that could change.
"In spite of telling them there were no plans to do that, there was a lack of trust that would happen," said Councilwoman Janice Parvin. "In order to relieve everyone of that stress and worry, better to go the other way."
The council decision goes against a Project Area Committee recommendation to adopt the agency's previous authority, known as Amendment No. 2.
Politically prudent' move
"They did what was politically prudent last night it's a bittersweet day for me," said Dale Whitaker, chairman of the committee. "I'm a little disappointed because I feel what we sent as a recommendation to the City Council was the best thing for the city."
One of the main goals of the city's redevelopment plan is eliminating blight, which ranges from graffiti to boarded up houses and run-down cars on private property. The council reviewed a 100-page blight report that was completed by Urban Futures Inc.
Councilman Mark Van Dam pointed out flaws in the study, saying there were two pictures used as examples of blight that were wrong. One labeled as "faulty wiring" was really a TV cable. There was also an RV on a residential property that was listed as blight.
"It's only a few years old," Van Dam said. "I wish I had an RV like this."
Not reflecting community
Parvin is happy to see the blight report sit on a shelf and gather dust.
"The report was, to me, not a reflection of our community," she said. "I was looking at these parcels, and saw there was a disconnect."
The council said they wanted to bring back the "Moorpark Beautiful" program, which focuses on cleaning up, landscaping and other beautification to the affected areas.
"We need to go in a more positive direction, where you don't have to take away people's homes," Parvin said.
Posted by Face on September 21, 2007 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Great, we can wrap the blight with loving care and call it fantasyland now.
Posted by Moorparkhammer on September 21, 2007 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is a travsty that the City Council lacked the long range vision to improve the city. It was apparent that they folded under the pressure of a small minority of ignorant and uneducated "residents" along the Walnut Cyn corridor. Mr. Milhouse and Ms Parvin should be embarrassed at the illogical comments and statements made as to why ED was rejected. This was one of THE most important decisions that the city had to make in the last 10 years - and they blew it.
The city is now and forever a second tier town that will continue to see blight increase and a tougher sell the attract businesses to the area.
I only wish Moorpark City Council could have learned from Camarillo - a city that once was plagued by blight in its historic zone, is now a thriving, beautful area. Kudo's Camarillo for having the spine to do what's best for the city-at-large and not folding under the pressure of a minority group.
History again repeated itself on Wednesday night clearly illustarting the impotence of our city gov't to make any reasonable and lasting change to this overrated town.
Camarillo, here I come!
Posted by Tom_Johnston on September 21, 2007 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I just finished GoogleEarth view of the area that was under consdieration for this "blight" eminent domain action. Basically it is all of "old" Moorpark. That being the Moorpark that existed before all the new tracts and urban flight from the San Fernando Valley.
I went to Moorpark College in the early 70's and had friends who lived in this "old town" area and I remember how the town was prior to fancy "bedroom" home developments and the influx that made Moorpark a "city".
The Council is to be commended for its action.
I don't doubt that there are parts of this area that could be cleaned up...where is that not true? But, for me, there is a suspicion that some wanted to wipe the old original "Moorpark" off that map.
There may be need for some actions, but I think the City Council has done the right thing for now.
Posted by Moorparkhammer on September 21, 2007 at 9:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Perhaps "Tom", your spellcheck malfunctioned? I think the word "condemned" rather than "commended" was the word that should have chosen.
Like the uneducated and paranoid residents who bullied the Council on Wednesday night, you fail to see the bigger picture. Eminent Domain improves historic areas that are already protected by Federal Law. Take a look at Camarillo and Ventura - they have done outstanding jobs at maintaining history and creating vibrant commercial districts.
This is not a question of who was here first. Rather an opportunity for the city to improve what is currently an eyesore.
Lastly, the residents along Walnut Canyon will get their just rewards. After the 250th Lyon home is completed, the Centex homes are completed and the Country Club homes are completed, they won't be able to leave their homes due to the traffic whizzing by their driveways along Walnut Canyon.
This was a shortsighted decison (as was your response) to a long range problem.
Remember, the word of the day is: condemned.
Posted by Moorparkhammer on September 21, 2007 at 9:13 p.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ironwoman on September 22, 2007 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Taking someones house away for profit just because "they can", is immoral. People live here with their families. The Country Club, Merridian Hills and Moorpark Highlands aren't "above" anyone else. The City should have thought of this before making these developments.
p.s. If it's an eyesore, then don't drive through the area or buy a house over there.
Posted by Moorparkhammer on September 22, 2007 at 8:37 p.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ironwoman on September 23, 2007 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Moorpark Hammer- No need to call me paranoid and uneducated or others for that matter. Your point is taken. Please have respect for others.
Posted by barajasmoorpark on September 23, 2007 at 8:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
THIS GOES TO MOORPARKHAMMER, MY FAMILY HAS LIVED ON WALNUT CANYON FOR OVER 50 YEARS, AND THEY ARE FAR FROM UNEDUCATED. ALOT OF THESE PEOPLE HAVE WORKED THEIR WHOLE LIVES FOR THEIR HOMES! HOW WOULD YOU FEEL TO HAVE ALL THAT TAKEN AWAY FROM YOU!!!??? I HOPE YOU DO GO TO CAMARILLO BECAUSE MOORPARK SURE DOESNT NEED PEOPLE LIKE YOU HERE! YOU SEEM LIKE THE UNEDUCATED ONE TO ME! THESE PEOPLE JUST FOUGHT FOR WHAT WAS RIGHTFULLY THEIRS AND I THINK THAT'S AN AWESOME THING! IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE NEGATIVE COMMENTS TO THAT ARE EITHER RACIST OR PREJUDICED, OR BOTH! AND THOSE ARE THE MOST UNEDUCATED PEOPLE OF ALL!!!
IF YOU KNEW MY FAMILY HISTORY AND THE HISTORY OF MOORPARK LIKE I DO, YOU WOULD JUST KEEP QUIET! DON'T TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW!
Posted by AnnaWhaat on September 28, 2007 at 6:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Obviously with the market down like it is they tried to pull a fast one and get some cheap property! Ohhhh Couldn't have tried it when the house prices were up? Yep ,hit em when there down ! I don't believe in this eminent domain crap and think its plain WRONG !!!!!!!!
Posted by EthicalPerson on October 1, 2007 at 3:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with Moorparkhammer on this issue.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.