These past many months, I've watched with some consternation the ongoing debate, or should I say, ranting, in the newspaper by Camille Harris as leader of her Ventura Citizens Organization for Responsible Development group. This group, led and voiced by Harris, concerns itself with what development should be allowed, or not, in midtown Ventura.

Concern about our community is appreciated, as it should be. Where I find the group's reasoning puzzling is its very narrow perspective — protecting views, with the typical elements of fear thrown in for good measure: increased traffic, declining property values, collusion among elected officials, etc. They sound like ingredients of recurring conspiracy theories.

My feeble mind might as well believe that the mob-linked CIA sharpshooter on the grassy knoll in Texas had kidnapped Elvis and hidden him somewhere deep in the South along with Santa Claus.

Ventura has democratically voted for the current roster of council people. The city rightfully belongs to all its residents. Hence, the council's decisions, even if contrary to a vocal and tyrannical minority, carry the weight of the rest of the city's population.

Midtown doesn't just belong to those living immediately in it. Elected officials have a duty and right to decide on what is deemed beneficial to the larger community, even if a few residents might lose the view of the tip of some hills by some roofs when they walk their dogs.

What about other important issues, such as how do we manage to provide more housing affordable to most? How do we generate jobs that can prosper locally? If the way to achieve those goals goes through higher density, is it that wrong? Does someone's view take precedent over another's livelihood?

The lack of public discussions of such issues makes it seem like civil discourse has been sacrificed at the altar of emotional mudslinging. If members of VCORD believe in the contrary, they should run for election and, if elected, would democratically get to weigh the issues in whole and decide.

Speaking of property values, studies have shown again and again that many diversified, compact, dense communities around the country have held their own longer and more steadily than most other monochromatic/culture/type ones, such as the all-single-story-with-few-exception-for-two-story-buildings, as defended by the VCORD group.

A possible compromise: Why not try to get a bit of both? Allow for higher density with larger building mass, but get back in return more convenience of nearby shops, more parks in the neighborhoods and more open space on the outskirts of the community.

In the end, I don't know about others, but the day I die, I won't be able to take with me my property value (or much of anything else). But I'd be dying happy if I knew that through my life's efforts, I could help one family less fortunate than mine have a roof over their head, their kids work at local jobs, the air a little bit cleaner to breathe because they don't have to commute far for life's daily, simple necessities.

— Dao Doan lives in Ventura.