Home › Elections › Local election news
Oxnard traffic initiative seen as both solution, 'catastrophe'
Download this story as a podcast!
ELECTIONS '09
Check out our one stop for all the information and news you need to be ready for to cast your vote.
Election Central »
Elections stories »
Measure V
The Oxnard traffic initiative would be in place for 20 years. It calls for any commercial project larger than 10,000 square feet or any housing project of five units or more to be submitted to a public vote, unless all intersections within a five-mile radius of the project operated at a C level of service or better during the previous year. An intersection at level C allows a stable flow of traffic with only occasional backups.
STORY TOOLS 
More from Local election newsOxnard voters are about to decide the fate of a traffic initiative that could profoundly influence how the city develops over the next 20 years.
Proponents say Measure V is needed because the city has failed to address an ever-worsening traffic situation, while opponents argue it is a no-growth measure in disguise that would slow economic growth without improving traffic.
Opinions are running hot on both sides.
"It's such a mess," Raul Rico Jr. said of the traffic congestion in the county's largest city.
Rico, owner of Raul's Liquor on East Fifth Street, is a lifelong Oxnard resident who has seen traffic increase to a "nightmare" level compared with 20 years ago. He supports the initiative.
But when a consultant recently told the Oxnard City Council about potential job losses if the initiative passes Nov. 4, Councilman John Zaragoza said, "This is a catastrophe."
The economic effects of the initiative would be worse than if Naval Base Ventura County closed, said Zaragoza, who is running for county supervisor.
Measure V would be in place for 20 years. It calls for any commercial project larger than 10,000 square feet or any housing project of five units or more to be submitted to a public vote, unless all intersections within a five-mile radius of the project — which encompasses practically the entire city from any given point — operated at a C level of service or better during the previous year. An intersection at level C allows a stable flow of traffic with only occasional backups.
Costly intersection
City planning officials say they have a plan to improve traffic that would reduce the number of intersections below level C to five by 2030. There are currently five to eight unsatisfactory intersections, depending on the methodology used for analysis.
One of those intersections, Five Points, where Oxnard Boulevard, Wooley Road, Highway 1 and Saviers Road intersect, could cost as much as $40 million to improve.
All projects covered by the measure would have to go to a vote until Five Points and other unsatisfactory intersections are improved.
Councilman Tim Flynn, a Measure V proponent who is running for mayor, said the purpose of the initiative is to make the city comply with its own general plan, which calls for C level of service throughout the city.
It would not stop development, Flynn said. Oxnard is in coastal California, where land is inherently valuable and attractive to developers. Projects that voters regard as beneficial would win approval, and developers could determine their likelihood of success by doing polling before they go through the lengthy and costly process of seeking city approval. The cost of elections could be reduced by putting multiple projects on the same ballot.
Foes' claims called overstated
Opponents' claims of potential financial ruin are vastly overstated, Flynn said. The measure is needed to take the sole power over development from a council majority that has not used its governing authority responsibly, he said.
Measure V opponents point to the impact study recently prepared by a group of consultants on behalf of the city that concludes the initiative would make traffic worse, as well as cost the city dearly in terms of jobs and revenue.
According to Sacramento-based Dowling Associates Inc., the initiative would cause 23 intersections to deteriorate or remain below satisfactory by 2027 by depriving the city of developer traffic fees.
The initiative also could cost the city and county a one-time loss of 27,700 jobs and an ongoing annual loss of 17,200 city jobs, based on a report by Sacramento-based Economic & Planning Systems Inc. And the one-time economic loss could be $3.8 billion, while the ongoing annual economic loss could be $4.4 billion.
"Every labor group in this county is opposed to Measure V because it would take jobs away from them," said Mayor Tom Holden, who is seeking re-election.
Posted by NowHearThis on October 12, 2008 at 6:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here we go again, the anti-development crowd is submitting another no growth plan, like T.O. did in the primary, which failed by the way.
Folks, you don't put a vote to the public every time an issue that's describes comes up. You have elected reps. to decide. Don't like their decisions, vote them out.
Posted by insideedge on October 12, 2008 at 7:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
EXPANSION.......WHY do we have to have all this massive expansion to survive? That is what has got this whole world in the massive financial mess in the first place. Even if Measure V doesn't pass the expansion/development will basicly stop anyways. With the global financial crisis, anyone with money will be looking real hard how they spend it.
Posted by luv2sail on October 12, 2008 at 7:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
below level C to five by 2030. According to the article there are currently 5-8 below this level and the powers to be will bring this down to 5 in the next 22 years. Stellar planning to say the least.
As mentioned by Now Hear This, the economy is going to be a far greater worry than this measure could ever present. As for new building, as I understand it, it would go before the citizens to aprove rather then those on the City Council.
The City and the County have both let us down by the continual greed for tax dollars with little to no improvement in the road ways.
I'm just curious where these tax dollars, both in property and sales, have gone. They have certainly not gone towards the improvement of the infrastructure for the citizens.
I know, some road has been done, but hardly the amont needed to keep up with the tremendous impact that has been placed upon our roadways.
It is time to stop whoring our City to anyone who wants to develop what is left.
With the scare tactics in the one report, they would have ou believe that every working person in Oxnard will be without a job within 5 years, hardly.
Posted by luv2sail on October 12, 2008 at 7:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry, I mistated earlier. It was insideedge who made the comment, rightfully so, about the economy.
Posted by lrgvanman on October 12, 2008 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Has anyone noticed the razing of the Oxnard Swapmeet/Hughes Market? It started last week. One less eyesore and another redevelopment possibility.
Posted by Oceans12 on October 12, 2008 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank goodness the swap meet is getting proper attention; but...make no mistake, if Measure V passes, it will NOT be rebuilt. It will likely remain torn down. Guess that is better than the blackened structure we have seen for years.
No on V - Still need a NO FLYNN ZONE for Oxnard.
Posted by tabsooma on October 12, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If you are truly interested where your tax dollars go, you can look at the Oxnard’s yearly budget document. This link will give you an idea of where the funding comes from and goes too, http://finance.cityofoxnard.org/Defau... look under financial reports.
Common sense would dictate that we would not want to experiment with Measure V especially under these difficult financial times. Do you really think that established companies, stores and businesses here in town are going to want to see their expansions hinge on a popular vote of the electorate? They will leave town for a city that welcomes them. That will leave us without local jobs, longer commutes and even more traffic.
If you are dissatisfied with our elected officials, tell them so or use your political rights to replace them. Measure V is not the answer, it won’t resolve your concerns about traffic since there isn’t any mechanism written into it to address repair of deficient intersections proactively.
Be logical and objective to find positive solutions if you truly think traffic is an issue. Don’t take the word of an individual who is trying to use an issue such as Measure V to springboard to higher political aspirations.
NO ON V, NO ON FLYNN
Posted by horsespinner on October 12, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If done correctly it is a perfect solution. Have elections once a week, no time to hype the msg. Make each precinct 10% smaller then as a republic have these areas vote on all issues. The budget, housing, fees, projects, etc. The legislature would be there to propose but not approve. It would change special interests influence forever. But you would need small areas of common interests to have an equal vote, or else it would be the tyranny of the majority. Probably 1000 to 10,000 souls per district. Gerrymandering would be reduced if the rules were created correctly. Unlike the peoples republic of California today.
Posted by DesertDaddy on October 12, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You have got to be kidding me!!! How can an independant research firm show how the Traffic Inititave will hurt the city, Flynn says it will help, and those are considered equivalent perspectives...The flynn party has no factual basis for pushing this initiative! MEASURE V WILL HURT THE CITY!!!!! People need to listen to the facts from the independant investigators....THEY ALL SAY MEASURE V IS BAD FOR THE CITY!!! and not to Tim Flynn who will lie to get his propoganda nominated. He doesn't care about the city or it's residents...
NO ON MEASURE V
YES ON MEASURE 0
YES ON HOLDEN!!!
Posted by tabsooma on October 12, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Muir96, I believe that you also should check Oxnard’s website and educate yourself on where our tax revenue goes. I’m sure you will find fault in some of the expenditures, but at least you won’t ask where it went. Then when you decide to speak in favor or opposition of a subject you will have facts from which to base your opinion.
Posted by vcsexplorer11 on October 12, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I say NO on V
Why take a risk in a bad economy?
Why don't we enforce the laws already on the books? It will reduce Oxnard population and decrease traffic.
What a concept, actually enforce the law.
Posted by michael on October 12, 2008 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As some of you have observed, the current economic circumstance will have much more effect on new projects coming forward than will any local prohibition of development. It is appropriate to enforce those statutes in the books we have today (re General Plan compliance). However, if Measure V passes, there will be no additional traffic mitigation fees paid by developers; no,the taxpayers in Oxnard will have to foot the bill to fix what is currently wrong with traffic in Oxnard; emphasis on what's CURRENTLY wrong. As cities and states struggle for the next few years to adapt to the new economy (the old one is dead and will likely not return), a city that denies growth merely for growth's sake will likely stagnate and sour; traffic will continue to be bad (unless some of you are willing to pack up and move to Tulsa) and your tax dollars will be stretched beyond resource.
Posted by mdquick01 on October 12, 2008 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This Traffic Initiative is bad for everyone. Vote "NO" on Measure V and also vote for Holden. Send Tim Flynn and his cronnies packing. He is a selfish person who is only doing what Fred Rosemond and their buddies want. It is the philosophy that I have mine and you can't have yours that they are trying to sell you. Don't buy it. Please folks wake up, Tim Flynn is BAD for everyone, even his neighbors. He is just like his father. They are both in this for personal gain. Stop the madness and vote them both out on November 4, 2008.
Posted by RioMan on October 12, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This argument continues to go in circles. The facts are in. Those supporting Measure V are not supported by facts, only speculation. Facts are: the initiative will cost the city millions and thousands of jobs. The city is only going to gain by the REDEVELOPMENT of blighted areas.
Tim Flynn is argumentative, negative, and has done nothing to make himself even appear to be a positive change for the City of Oxnard.
NO ON FLYNN
VOTE HOLDEN FOR MAYOR
PLEASE VOTE NO ON V
Posted by theoptimisticone on October 12, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tim Flyn is about hype not hope and soundbites, not solutions.
Posted by yrdsal on October 12, 2008 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Those in favor of V bring up the same tired arguments that are not supported by any facts. The facts are in and Measure V does nothing positive for the city. It's time to send the Flynns and their divisive ways packing.
NO ON V
YES ON O
NO ON FLYNNS
Posted by yn805 on October 12, 2008 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
WHAT THEY SHUOLD DO "STOP CUTTING THE TREES" THEY MAKING OXNARD LOOK LIKE THOSE UGLYS CITIES WITH NO TREES JUST PLANT TREES AND FORGET ABOUT MAKNG NEW ROADS.AND CITY OF OXNARD THANK YOU FOR CUTTING YOUR BEATIFUL TREES AND BE PART OF THE GLOVAL WARMING.NEXT THING YOU KNOW WE GOING TO BE LIKE IT IN A DESERT COME PEOPLE.
Posted by ox4me on October 12, 2008 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
IM WITH YOU DESERT DADDY YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY COORECT
Posted by yrdarlin1 on October 12, 2008 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
FLYNN PROPOSES "DIRECT DEOMCRACY": Has anyone witnessed the INCF experiment lately? 47 member Neighborhood Councils asked to weigh-in on Measure V at their last board meeting. Less than half attended and of those most "votes" were suspiciously submitted by the Executive Boards and not the General Memberships. Think any developer in his/her right mind would risk millions on the likes of Tim Flynn and his gadfly supporters? Or do you think they would cut their losses and more seriously consider cities that promote economic development? Anyone doubting developers' resolve should look at the stopped work at the Hemlock Ctr, Channel Islands Harbor, Lowes, Wagon Wheel and Levitz sites...
SOAR/CURB: Land-use laws protect surrounding farm lands from over development. Opportunities exist for in-fill projects, but Measure V does NOT provide any consideration to developers of the Swap Meet, the old Home Depot, etc. Like the projects mentioned above, these projects will also come to a screeching halt...
FLYNN V CITY OF OXNARD: The City of Oxnard has been working on a traffic mitigation plan for 2 years. Tim Flynn announced his candidacy for mayor on the last day of filing and only 15-minutes before the window(s) closed. His grandstanding and political stunts continue to cost the taxpayers in the form of an all-too-necessary independent impact analysis on Measure V and more than one defense against frivolous lawsuits. Does Tim Flynn really care about the City of Oxnard and wants to help find the paths to pratical solutions? Or is Tim Flynn a political anarchist who seeks to forward his personal axe-to-grind with the other Council members and Staff? I can vivldy recall Flynn yelling on a street corner with his banner to stop a sports park...
HOLDEN V FLYNN: Under Dr. Holden's leadership, we have seen 25 Level "C" intersections narrowed to less than 5. After 18-months of going at it, the Mayor and Staff just wrestled 5-Points from the DOT. But thanks to Flynn's shennanigans, projects like the business park at Rice/101 have been put on hold. And this was a project that was going to provide 70% of the funds necessary to improve that intersection. Way to go, Tim!
A most emphatic recommendation:
NO ON FLYNN
NO ON MEASURE V
YES ON HOLDEN
YES ON ZARAGOSA
Posted by Common_Sense on October 12, 2008 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Flynn is clueless and is one of those guys who has to take the oppoisite position on everything. I actually watched last weeks council meeting when discussing Measure V. Every single negative (and there were ALOT!!!), he would argue with the expert because it didn't fit Flynn's opinion. The guy is a decent public speaker but if you really listen to what he says, it makes no difference. One of the public speakers at last weeks meeting said that when Measure V was in the signature gathering stage, Flynn approached someone with the District Attorney's office trying to get a signature. When this person declines, Flynn offered him a 6 pack of beer in exchange for the signature!!!! I couldn't believe it. And he wants to be MAYOR? I watched last week to help me decide how to vote....it really helped me decide to vote NO on Measure V and to vote for Mayor Holden. While I dont agree with some of the decisions Holden and the others have made, he has a MUCH BETTER GRASP on the issues than Flynn does.
Posted by Oceans12 on October 12, 2008 at 1:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
yrdarlin1 - so true, we all know the Flynns are terrified of losing an election. Sr Flynn lost 1 term and made life hell for those around him. Let them retire NOW - NO FLYNN ZONE for Oxnard. We need no more bullying - lies - switch and bait from them.
Posted by kate on October 12, 2008 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I haven't noticed, but who will pay for the elections for anyone wanting to build if Measure V passes? Surely a developer won't pay for the possibility to develop? So, the city would be out the money? NO on V. There are too many what if's.
Posted by Oceans12 on October 12, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Kate, the taxpayers will pay....
Posted by Tom_Johnston on October 12, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't live in Oxnard, so this isn't my fight really but it does seem to me that Measure V has some problems.
Given the reliance of Cities on tax revenue derived from sales, any limitation on new sales outlets seems self defeating.
Oxnard truly has traffic and zoning problems. It's not about blight, its just very badly layed out as a city. I never venture south of the re-vamped Esplanade without REAL good reason.
This measure would make revamping the city even harder I think, due the the extreme restrictions this measure would impose.
There is a need to do something, but I don't think Measure V is it.
Good Luck Oxnard!
Posted by srjsr on October 12, 2008 at 3:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't care if Measure V passes or not. I signed the petition because the city refused to listen to it's own citizens when they asked the city to slow down the uncontrolled growth.
What this measure has finally done is get the attention of the city officials. The city's own consultant told the city it could not continue to grow at the current rate without a significant negative impact to the city.
The measure may be flawed, it may not be, it all depends on who you talk to. If the measure passes and it starts to have a negative impact on the city the people can always go back to the ballot box and have the measure overturned.
Nothing is set in stone, and the laws can always be changed.
Posted by rcprods on October 12, 2008 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oxnard City Planning Commissioner Dr. Irene Pinkard said it best: "OXNARD DOESN'T HAVE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS - IT HAS A TRAFIC FLOW PROBLEM..."
yrdarlin1 points out that the city just got a grip on 5-Points. Cool. But I've been looking at this thing for awhile and I don't know what the big deal is...
As relative newcomers (4 years), we consider this home to 200,000 relatively light compared to traveling any place south of the grade. Measure V is disabling legislation and a draconian approach to any viable solution as it has been written with absolutely no funding mechanism.
johnmuir96 must be a relative newcomer as well. With cities all throughout the state establishing enterprise zones to interest housing and new business development, anyone surveying the potential of Oxnard will almost certainly move on.
I'm not sure why the likes of Flynn & Co would gamble otherwise, but they play from the hip with little regard for those of us living in reality.
Posted by mind_riot on October 12, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
insideedge: agreed. have mayor holden and many others not learned a thing from recent economic events? it isn't all about $$$$. i, too, have lived my entire life in ventura county (40+ years) and have seen the traffic grow exponentially to the point where i don't even want to go participate in any sort of commercial exchange. this initiative could cost the city/county a one-time loss of 27,000 jobs? so what? do we really need 27,000 MORE people flooding our streets every morning and afternoon? this has always been an agricultural town. as it stands now, it has a decent balance of agricultural and business related interests. can we find a stopping point and be happy where we are at? or are we too eager with $$$$ sign dreams to ignore what matters most to the people living here?
Posted by Oxn_Mart on October 12, 2008 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
johnmuir96, I think it is very obvious to everyone who participates in this forum that you are more pro-Flynn and less pro-Measure V. You seem intelligent so I know you can't really believe that the "Traffic Initiative" AKA "NO GROWTH INITIATIVE is really good for our city! You make these terrible arguments and try to tell everyone that businesses won't leave...ARE YOU SERIOUS? Do you really think that a large business like Team Nissan that cannot rebuild their existing building is going to stay in Oxnard in a less appealing building? I'm sure they would just abandone their building and move elsewhere. Team Nissan just built a new building on Auto Center Drive.
If you are interested in seeing Wagon Wheel, old Swap Meet and other southside areas remain the same then go ahead and vote for the initiative. But I guarantee that this initiative is terrible for the city, its' loyal residents and employees!
NO ON V
P.S. If you want to see the type of leader you are voting for on Nov 4th, johnmuir96, then watch the City Council meeting from 10/7. Tim Flynn is full of poor arguments and for some reason never seems to get the same information the rest of the Council does. Oh wait, I know what you are going to say johnmuir96, the other 4 Councilmembers hid it from him, right?
Also, isn't Flynn the same guy who sued the City to get a report that was coming his way anyway? When Flynn won that lawsuit, who paid for his lawyer fees? Oh, that's right, the citizens of Oxnard....
Posted by rcprods on October 12, 2008 at 5:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No mind_riot, I don't believe we are "too eager with dollar sign dreams to ignore what matters to most of the people living here..." At least I don't think Councilman Flynn is like that as he has signed off on ALL city budgets presented to him since being elected to office.
But I digress...
It's just that not all of us want to retire or simply pull the curtains down to shutter the burgeoning world outside. Some of us like having restaurants to choose from, better retail, improved City services, and safe and happy neighborhoods with bright futures.
Just compare South Oxnard to some of the other neighborhoods...
Exponential traffic? WHAT TRAFFIC?? This ain't Hooterville anymore. How many farm towns do you know that have either grown-up or been boarded-up? There's not a lot of middle ground, especially in California.
Oxnard, under Mayor Holden, has done well managing it's growth and commercial growers while developing into the largest city with personal and professional opportunities in the County of Ventura.
Annually, we have 400,000 to 500,000 people moving to the State while only 100,000 leave California. Even without any more new housing, the population will grow at a rate of 60%. (We're already seeing that in our neighborhoods...)
Plain and simple, Flynn's initiative will not meet the demands of that kind of inward growth. And it has already had a devastating effect on families who've been cut short because of all the projects now on hold.
Today, my wife and I watched the band playing for the Cultural Heritage event at the Seabridge Amphitheater. Friends of ours were headed over to the new Yolanda's afterwards. There were about 20 of us in the audience who were on bicycles!
mind_riot, if you like the scary-looking blight you see at Wagon Wheel, Hemlock, Carriage Square, the Swap Meet and the old Home Depot, then vote for V. Because the end result is you'll be seeing THAT for a lot of years to come...
Posted by yrdarlin1 on October 12, 2008 at 5:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I HAVE A SUGGESTION!
For johnmuir and mind_riot (and anyone who's lived here the requisite years thus proving "they're right" about Oxnard's future), I'd like to suggest they first tack to port and sail on down to South Oxnard...
There, you should all vote for the government you so soundly believe in -- John and Tim Flynn, members from the Saviers Road Design Team, the Inter-Neighborhood Council! Preserve the present-day sanctity and conditions of your hoods!! Stop those damn developers pounding at your fence!!!
Then please allow the 27,000 residents (for whom you don't care if they loose their jobs) and the rest of us who comprise the majority of this fair city to continue with progress -- traffic mitigation that has been properly studied and funded, schools with state-of-the-art teaching aids and parks with open bathrooms, improved public transportation, a wider range of service industries and shopping, yadda yadda.
Then let's check in with each other in the not-too-distant future, see who's happiest and safest!
Ready and willing to take that risk? Well Councilman Flynn and the few proponents of his failed initiative certainly are.
Wake up folks: Measure V is a COMMUNITY KILLER.
Vote No On Measure V
Vote for Holden
Posted by LifesABeach on October 12, 2008 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
HEY DUDES, WHERE'S THE TRAFFIC???
Other than a bunch of commuters facing the morning rush, I don't see it. We get the kids around town without a lot of delays. Never been late for a playdate with friends.
Oxnard is EA-SY!!!
I'm guessin' all these complainers about the supposed traffic would have a meltdown in Los Angeles. Move to Santa Paula! Oh wait, they have some traffic lights there too.
WHAT'S THE BEEF???
Posted by jsanchezjr on October 12, 2008 at 6:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A couple of points of clarification: The estimates by the city's consutants of possible job losses and negative economic impacts are worst case scenarios based on the assumption that most projects that can reasonalby be anticipated would not occur under the initiative. However, they said they could not predict how much development would or would not occur under the initiative. Elections under the ordinance would have to be paid for by developers, not residents. If an election pursuant to the traffic initiative was conducted by the county at the same time as a general election, which happens every two years, the cost would be approximately $67,000. The cost would be divided among however many projects were placed on the ballot. A special election conducted by the county would cost approximately $300,000, with the cost divided among projects.
Joe Sanchez, Oxnard reporter
Posted by Oceans12 on October 12, 2008 at 7:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Sanchez, Oxnard reporter...the cost of an election is NOT just the cost of placing it on the ballot!
Posted by Allbeef on October 12, 2008 at 7:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sanchez, Is it legal to force a developer to fund an election that Measure V will force him/her to be a part of, or will the taxpayers fund it?
Posted by Oceans12 on October 12, 2008 at 7:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Something tells me that the taxpayer will get stuck with everything: fixing intersections, cost of elections, litigation costs...I for one will not stand for that. My ballot will be mailed tomorrow!
NO ON V.
Posted by LifesABeach on October 12, 2008 at 7:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
WOW SANCHEZ...
This coming from a reporter who excuses himself from Council chambers to take notes from Larry Stein, then returns. And while the numbers and sentiments from speakers with viable information speeds by, you doodle in your notepad sans any attention to what's going on.
As such, you continue to weigh-in with particular and obvious bias while remaining on the wrong side of this issue.
DUDE, WHEN WILL THE STAR FINALLY PROVIDE AN UNBIASED REPORTER WHO PAYS ATTENTION AND ACTUALLY REPORTS WHAT'S GOIN' ON DURING OXNARD CITY COUNCIL HEARINGS?
Posted by tabsooma on October 12, 2008 at 7:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Anyone looking to build more than 5 residential units or more than 10,000 square feet of commercial structure will either have to improve all intersections not meeting a grade C in advance of the development or spend a minimum of $67,000 to request permission to build during a special election. Well that appears to be a recipe for a worst case senario. Looks like we will all be picking up the tab for Flynns pipe dream if it passes.
As time passes Measure V is looking worse to me. 20 years of stagnation, and no urban planning. Looks like a nail in the coffin for Oxnard should it pass. No common sense present with this initiative. NO ON V, bad idea, bad timing, NO ON FLYNNS
Posted by tabsooma on October 12, 2008 at 7:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LifesaBeach, right you are, so much for unbiased reporting keeping your opinions on the editorial page.
Posted by jsanchezjr on October 12, 2008 at 7:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oceans12, you are correct. The costs I cited did not include pollling or campaign costs.
Allbeef, the cost of placing a proposed development on the ballot would become another cost of doing business for developers, who already are required to pay for any services they receive from the city in connection with the processing of their development applications as well as impact and other fees. These costs are generally passed on to consumers.
Joe Sanchez, Oxnard reporter
Posted by Oceans12 on October 12, 2008 at 7:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Sanchez; thanks for clarifying. Now maybe folks will see why developers will leave Oxnard and build elsewhere. I, for one, don't want them to pass along those costs to me. Be real folks; they won't pay millions to fix intersections nor will they elect to have a costly campaign...remember, too, no voter will want to vote on a project without a complete EIR. Think voters will want to pour through 1,000 plus pages of an EIR? Nope.
Posted by Allbeef on October 12, 2008 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow squeezing a 1000 page EIR document in to 300 word ballot statement. I feel like I will be making very ill-formed decisions. Planning at the ballot box- bad idea!
Posted by jsanchezjr on October 12, 2008 at 9:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Further clarifications: Oceans12, the traffic initiative does not eliminate any legal requirement to which projects are subject, including a determiantion by the city as to whether or not an environmental impact report is required.
Lifesabeach: Sorry you don't like my doodles. A reporter's job is to tell the readers what he or she finds most newsworthy, not to serve as a stenographer for a meeting anyone can watch on TV or their computer. Reporters don't get to pick what is the "right" side or "wrong" side of an issue. Our job is to tell the readers about ALL the sides of an issue so they can make up their own minds. This is what I have systematically tried to do in the six or seven stories I've done about the traffic initiative over the last couple of months and in the comments I have posted about them. I stand by these stories and comments. Joe Sanchez, Oxnard reporter
Posted by JosephScogin on October 13, 2008 at 12:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Councilman Flynn has said before he is against to much growth. This seems like a way for him to slow it down with bureaucracy. Who will that benefit, only those wealthy enough to afford a slow growing city, certainly not the working class. As another blogger wrote before, if the council makes bad decision, including those regarding traffic, then vote them out. Well Councilman Flynn, it may be time to go.
Posted by tabsooma on October 13, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Interestingly the Star editorial staff doesn't believe Measure V will solve anything. Hopefully the voters will educate themselves regarding this initiative and vote objectively for the good of Oxnard and not be swayed by by the false promise of reduced traffic the Measure V makes.
No on Measure V, it solves nothing
No on the Flynns, they also solve nothing
Posted by DonnieJ on October 13, 2008 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It seems like the supporters of the Flynn, No Growth Measure (aka Measure V) are getting desperate. Johnmuir just keeps repeating the same old hate speech that he writes with every post. John, get some actual facts, not made up, hypothetical numbers. Also, Jose Sanchez, funny how even your own paper came out against Measure V today. It is very obvious in most of your writings that you are siding with Flynn and his supporters. All anyones asks, is for you to write up both sides equally, not try to stir up controversy with biased facts. I will say that some of your articles have been getting a little better, but be fair and report both sides of the issues.
Back to John Muir now, you're using words like "destruction of our city", and are insinuating that Holden and the rest of the council are "stealing" money from the city. Really???? Really, Really???? What dimension of Oxnard do you live in? Really think back 10 years and honestly tell me that the city does not look better, and have better services. Are there more people? Yes, but think about all the people that come to our state. We have to provide a place for them and their families, don't you want your kids to have a place to live, or do you want them to leave this state and city when the business they work for can't expand here in Oxnard, and packs up and moves to another state?
Stop being such a council hater.... get some facts... Tabsooma even gave you the link to see the City's financial report. These forms are supposed to be discussions about the issues, no one should come here to throw out hate speech. Leave your opinions and ideas of how to fix things. But before you do... take a deep breath, and factor in common sense and reality first.... then go ahead and type. I hate seeing some of the haters come here and ruin these forums for the rest of us that care about our city, its leaders, and the future.
No on V.
Down with the Flynn's
Posted by jsanchezjr on October 13, 2008 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Donnie J, funny how the Star's editorial against Measure V includes a recitation of every argument agaisnt the measure that I have previously included in the many stories I've written about this issue. There are arguments for and against this initiative and I have tried to address them all in my reporting. Any reasonable person would consider this to be fair and balanced reporting. You appear to believe that any reporter who does not write it your way is biased. Joe Sanchez, Oxnard reporter
Posted by DonnieJ on October 13, 2008 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jose Sanchez,
All I mean is that your coverage is one sided. I have to say that it is getting better, but if you have 5 or 6 paragraphs showing one side of an issue, the other side should have the same amount of coverage. It shows bias in your story regardless of what our opinions might be. I always enjoy to read something that reports both sids equally. That is all I meant. I like to read the "other" side of something. Reading their facts and ideas has helped me and others to make a more informed decision and to even change minds about something. I do read your articles when you report on city council meetings, and other issues going on in the city, and will say that you seem to try to cover the whole story. I'm just asking for a little more effort to show both sides equally. If you can't get ahold of someone for a comment then it should be noted in your article. That would inform your readers that you tried to reach the other party involved and that they did not respond to you. Otherwise, keep it up, and most of us appreciate the fact that there is someone covering the issues that affect our city.
Posted by jsanchezjr on October 13, 2008 at 6:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Donnie J. To say that a reporter is one-sided is a pretty serious accusation, and this is something that you have asserted but have not demonstrated. I invite you to pick out any of my stories about the traffic initiative and make a case that it is one-sided. Or examine them all. Joe Sanchez, Oxnard reporter
Posted by JessicaEdwards on October 14, 2008 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
NO FLYNN ZONE
VOTE FOR ZARAGOSA
Posted by ANDREWS on October 14, 2008 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The lies to the public about Measure V are exposed!
The bad part about all this is, the Flynn’s continue to lie to the public and get away with destroying peoples reputations at the publics expense (tax dollars) and then get kickbacks from the same lawyers they hired in campaign contributions.
The Traffic Initiative stance fom John Flynn: John Flynn say’s on the “Martin John Show” that he is in favor of his son’s traffic initiative, then to the “star he say’s he is not taking a position.
Which is it?
Then you have John Flynn bragging about walking 20,000 homes. How is this done, many working people have seen John Flynn do this when they have been on vaction. Well there you have, it, ON TAXPAYER TIME. $60 AN HOUR TO CAMPAIN DOOR TO DOOR. No wonder he is hiding out is South Oxnard, no county officials or workers can hold them accountable.
John Flynn pay's his secretary well over $60,000 a year, she and her husband are out door to door putting campaign signs up on taxpayer time.
Even more so, John Flynn has his paid staff follow him in every Supervisor debate, taking notes and handing out campaign literature on normal working hours. Cost for this, $400,000 year payroll for all these employees to campaign for him. Is this even Legal????
John Flynn has taken thousands of dollars over his thirty-two year term from many developers to include the one who built the Theater in Oxnard. Additionally, he has taken money from developers in this current election.
Who is holding TIM FLYNN and JOHN FLYNN accountable?
Voter's it's up to you, please consider the facts and Vote:
No on the Flynn’s
No on V
Yes on O
Yes on Tom Holden
Yes on John Zaragoza
Posted by littlepear on October 28, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I've observed a few city council meetings. Tim Flynn is the ONLY ONE on the council who fought for my neighborhood when the rest of the council was trying to sneak in a Lowe's into carriage square under the radar.
All Tim wanted was a traffic study of that horrid intersection before approval and remediation if Lowe's would worsen it.
I guess Lowe's isn't going in, but the public never even knew it was before the council, because the name Lowe's wasn't anywhere in the paperwork.
YES on Tim
Yes on V
Yes on Zaragoza
Posted by HDDavis on November 3, 2008 at 8:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Join the Supporters of Zaragoza for Supervisor!
• Oxnard Peace Officers Association
• Operating Engineers Local 501
• Oxnard Fire Fighters Local 1684
• Rose- Perez Funeral Home & Cremation
• California Realty Professionals, Inc.
• Roberto Juarez-Director of Las Clinicas Camino Real Inc.
• Tri-County Central Labor Council
• United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local 1036
• DR THOMAS E HOLDEN, OXNARD MAYOR
• DEAN MAULHARDT, OXNARD CITY MAYOR PRO TEM
• ANDRES HERRERA, OXNARD CITY COUNCILMEMBER
• ROBERT GONZALES, MAYOR OF CITY OF SANTA PAULA
• DENNIS GILLETTE, PAST-MAYOR OF CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS
• MURRAY J ROSENBLUTH, PAST-MAYOR OF CITY OF PORT HUENEME
• DR MANUEL M. LOPEZ, PAST-MAJOR CITY OF OXNARD
• JAMES ACOSTA, IMMEDIATE PAST-PRESIDENT OF CALFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICT OF ASSOCIATION
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:
- Posts that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
- Disparaging remarks, abusive language or obscene comments.
- Threats, whether obvious or veiled.
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.
There are 52 comments to this article.
Comments are found beneath the Yahoo! ad below.