Debate on Hill Canyon Project Shows That the Process Works

The public debate over the Hill Canyon recreation facility, as it played out on Tuesday nights in front of the televised Thousand Oaks City Council meetings, brought out both the best and the worst of our community.

To oppose a project on legitimate grounds--or, for that matter, simply because you disagree with it--is a valid position. When the line is crossed and information is intentionally manipulated and distorted for the sole purpose of creating anger and anguish, the value of any process is significantly reduced.

For nearly three years, the 10 elected members of the Hill Canyon Recreational Resources Authority have discussed, evaluated and debated issues related to creating this facility: an 18-hole championship golf course, a series of equestrian, hiking and biking trails, a driving range, banquet facilities and an interpretive center that would help local schoolchildren develop a better understanding of the topography, vegetation and animal habitat in the nearly 14,000 acres of publicly held open space that surrounds our city.

From the beginning, the overriding commitment was to create the most environmentally sensitive recreation facility that could possibly be built. One of the major objectives of the golf course was to not only pay for its own operation and maintenance but to generate surplus revenue to acquire and maintain additional open space. Both the city of Thousand Oaks and the Conejo Recreation and Parks District entered into this agreement hopeful that something beneficial to the residents of our community would be the outcome.

A process was established to carefully work through the various analysis and planning aspects of such a complex project, to ensure that all environmental concerns would be addressed, the project would be financially sound and there would be merit in proceeding.

Initially there appeared to be widespread support, which encouraged the planners and elected representatives working on it. About a year ago, the real or perceived community support began to erode. This happened for a number of reasons, some of which were legitimate and some of which were the result of misleading manipulation of factual issues by a well-orchestrated campaign to stop the project.

Some of those opposed to the project worked within the bounds of honesty, integrity and ethical behavior, arguing logic and working to stop the project for what can well be considered justifiable reasons. Others adopted the philosophy and methodology of “the end justifies the means,” and engaged in a campaign of misinformation, intimidation, personal attacks and, most unfortunately, political posturing. There was considerable out-of-community assistance to help persuade the community to reject this project for myriad reasons. Well-funded environmental activists from Ventura and Agoura Hills came into our community to help enlighten the public to the evils of such a project.

A group of residents who strongly supported the project used various opportunities to voice their perspective of the value of such a facility. Their views were routinely outnumbered and out-issued.

As my research into the project’s feasibility and acceptance level broadened, I began to decide whether to support it. I have been a resident of Thousand Oaks for 35 years. I have watched the community develop, and I have watched the time, effort and energy put into that development to direct it in a positive manner by elected officials, administrative staffs and the community at large. We have a magnificently beautiful community, and it didn’t just happen.

I asked myself questions such as “Are there more of us here now than I would like to see?” The answer is probably yes.

“Is there more traffic congestion than I want?” Absolutely, yes.

“Do I feel that the decision to downsize the ultimate population of our city from an early ‘60s target of 250,000 to the current 140,000 was a good decision?” No question.

“Do we need additional recreation venues?” Absolutely.

“Was the development of the recreation facility at Hill Canyon the right project at the right time?” No, I don’t believe it was. Perhaps it was 25 years ago, maybe even 15 to 10 years ago. When we experience the difficulty of trying to drive from Thousand Oaks to Camarillo at 4 p.m. on the freeway, we begin to understand the resistance to additional public development.

After the motion to abandon the project was made last Tuesday, I carefully listened to each of my nine colleagues as they expressed the reasons for their votes. The process, which had been so thoroughly criticized and ridiculed, had worked and worked extremely well.

It is my hope and it is my belief that the residents of the community were well served by the process pursued by their elected representatives.

Panel rose above sometimes unfair campaign against the recreation facility and voted with reason.