Vol. 9, No. 18 – June 8 – June 21, 2016 – Opinion/Editorial

SheldonPic•  In our last issue I had the following comments regarding a Ventura’s Historical Preservation Committee‘s vote. I have more to say about this.

“On May 23 Ventura’s Historical Preservation Committee, by a 3-2 vote, decided that the building at 567 Sanjon (most recently Joes Crab Shack and previously the Chart House) is not historically significant. Several third party experts had determined that the building is “not historically significant” and I certainly agree. Just because it is old does not make it a significant building and its architecture certainly doesn’t warrant this designation.”

The proposed large project on this site does not include preserving the restaurant building.

The Preservation Committee was to determine whether the structure – built in 1981 – in the organic architecture style is “historically significant” per State and National guidelines.

According to separate historic assessments conducted by the firms Rincon Consultants, Inc., of Ventura, and Historic Resources Group of Pasadena, the building fails to meet any of the guidelines.

In part, Rincon Consultants stated, “Rincon finds that the building located at 567 San Jon Rd. does not appear eligible for historic designation at the National, State or local levels of historic significance.  As such, the building located within the subject property is not considered a historical resource in accordance  with CEQA.”

Perhaps the building was historical when originally constructed (some Committee members reluctantly voting no because they thought so) but that is not the point it needs to be evaluated as it now exists. There have been many, many revisions to the building including some previously approved by the City Council. Today it certainly does not meet any of the conditions to deem it historical.

“Yes” votes, to deem it historical, were cast by Sherry Schafer and Committee Chair Pamela Huckins. I believe (as do several at City Hall) that they were negligent and remise in their responsibility as members of the Committee in voting for this building to be historical based upon all of the guidelines and as it now sits. I feel that they voted with their hearts and not their brains.

•  Ventura Police Chief Ken Corney has stated his opposition to a November ballot measure that seeks to legalize recreational marijuana use in California known as the Adult Use of Marijuana Act – a statewide ballot measure to control and regulate the adult use of marijuana.

Chief Corney, along with the California Police Chiefs Association (he is president of the organization), are opposed to the Adult Use of Marijuana Act.

California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and other supporters say the 62 page initiative will make it harder for those under 21 years old to obtain pot and easier for police to crack down on illicit sales (most police do not agree).

 

The November measure allows for possession of an ounce of marijuana as well as cultivation of six marijuana plants for those over age 21.

California voters defeated a 2010 marijuana legalization measure. A recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 55% of likely California voters now support such a measure.

Corney said the measure is backed by big corporations, including those in the tobacco industry.

And that, unlike alcohol, there is no scientifically recognized test to administer to drivers by the police to determine whether people are under the influence of marijuana.

The following is a portion of a recent police report that has helped me with my thoughts regarding this issue:

“On the above date and time the Ventura Police Department Command Center received a report of a strong armed robbery that had just occurred in the 900 block of S Wells Rd. The victim, Edgar Aguilar, an employee of a medical marijuana delivery service in Paso Robles was in Ventura making a delivery to a medical marijuana patient.”

“However when Aguilar met with the patient on Wells Rd the patient and two other male suspects entered his vehicle, physically assaulted him, and demanded his property and all the marijuana that he was transporting.”  By the way, the suspects were caught.

This is an issue that I have had a difficult time deciding what’s most appropriate, but as I study this more I now feel that the proposed State initiative should be passed (if the 62 page initiative is what I believe it to be) as it will include definite limitations on the growing and use of marijuana, but I am opposed to the “retail” industry now legal in many states and places.

As the Chief stated, big business, including the tobacco industry will take over this new industry and marijuana use will greatly increase.  I think individuals should have the right to grow a small amount of marijuana and use it medicinally (or not), but it should not be a product that you can go to the local store and purchase. Folks who use marijuana for medical reasons (which I strongly support) can be taught how to prepare dishes for their use or can get assistance from friends.

•  I need help from you intelligent Breeze readers. I assume that you know that recently a 4-year old boy fell into a gorilla’s enclosure at a zoo and it was decided that in order to save the child that the gorilla had to be shot and killed.

The mother of the child thanked the lord for saving her child. Why didn’t the lord also save the life of a 19-year old magnificent animal (and father) at the same time and why did the lord let the child fall in the enclosure in the first place?

I really hope to hear from you regarding this.

Print Friendly