2064 Visioning Project City of Thousand Oaks looks into the future

By Daniel Gelman

T.O. Council

T.O. Council

“Over 50% of Thousand Oaks residents will be over 60 years of age by 2030 or sooner. Some of the nation’s top demographers are concerned about a possible emerging sell-off of homes by senior ‘Baby Boomers.’ But the ‘Millennial Generation’ cannot afford the houses. Some observers say this could lead to the next major housing bubble in certain parts of the country.”

Mel Silberberg, pharmacy a senior resident active in the Ventura County Area Agency on Aging and the City of Thousand Oaks Council on Aging reminded city officials and his fellow residents at the Thousand Oaks City Council meeting on Tuesday, treatment February 11. He shared his concern for the future demographics of the city regarding its 2064 Visioning Project. The council spent more than an hour brainstorming the subject at the meeting.

The project is designed to create a planning vision for the next 50 years of civic life in Thousand Oaks. Mayor Andrew Fox and City Councilmember Claudia Bill de la Pena told the audience at California Lutheran University (CLU), that the idea emerged from a conversation between the two of them. They were discussing the city’s 50 year anniversary coming this Fall, and the previous plan designed by their predecessors in 1970.

They said that having the meeting at the university was part of the city’s effort to reach out to the community. The council stated repeatedly that the “Visioning Project” will also include major community involvement. “This will be a very collaborative process with a tremendous amount of community outreach. It’s a fluid process and what staff attempted to do was just a starting point,” said the Mayor.

City staff divided the plan into categories and sub-categories. These include: Environment, Infrastructure, Economy, Physical Form, and Municipal Services. Subcategories include: open space protection, alternative energy, conservation, sustainability, utilities, transportation, economic development, tourism, education, recreation, housing, demographics, seniors and youth.

“I don’t anticipate this being as involved as it was years ago, but I do see us spending money on a professional demographer regarding seniors and the economy,” said

TO Blvd. Specific Plan with High Density Housing

TO Blvd. Specific Plan with High Density Housing

Councilmember Bill de la Pena. “Do we want another document that just collects dust on a shelf? No, that’s not the case at all,” she said, acknowledging the seriousness of the project and the city’s intent to certify results.

Councilmember Al Adam suggested a focus on maximizing use of the city’s Hill Canyon Wastewater Treatment Plant, with its’ potential to generate hydrogen. He also mentioned reviewing the city’s oak tree policy. “They (oak trees) are our heritage, our namesake, and our legacy,” he said. “We need to attract younger people here with the right jobs and the right kind of housing,” he added.

He also spoke about the economic potential of vacant industrial and retail properties like the old KMART building on Hampshire Road and others in Newbury Park.

Councilmember Joel Price remarked on the significance of the project. “I think a lot of cities our age just take it for granted that they will continue. This was very visionary that the two of you (Fox and Bill de la Pena) came up with this concept.” He also mentioned making Thousand Oaks Boulevard more pedestrian and bike friendly. Councilmember Jacqui Irwin stressed a focus on recycling.

The council agreed to hold public committee meetings over the next several months, with one councilmember heading a committee for each of the five broad categories of discussion. More information about the times and places will be posted on the city’s web site in the coming weeks. Assistant City Manger Andrew Powers said the city will utilize social media to get the word out.

“We encourage participation across a wide spectrum of the community,” he concluded.

 

___________________________________

Daniel Gelman has been a Reporter/Writer for several years, specializing in News, Business, Feature, and Op-Ed.

 

Get free Citizensjournal.us BULLETINS. Please patronize our advertisers below to keep us publishing and/or DONATE.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
4 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Susan Kline
6 years ago

Wow! This sounds like the same old “Delphi” meetings we had for TO Blvd Specific Plan where the conclusion is drawn and citizens are directed to the answer previously determined by Mr. Fox and company. I suggest these folks check with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to see how the SCAG “Compass Blueprint 2035″ stacks up with their visioning project. I wonder if they understand that in the plan for sustainable development there is NO private property.

Sustainable Development vs. Private Property Rights
Henry Lamb
Monday, October 24, 2005
…Why did the federal government decide to get into the business of telling private citizens how to use their private property? Because George H.W. Bush, under heavy public pressure from then-Senator Al Gore, and EPA administrator William K. Reilly, signed Agenda 21, the bible of sustainable development, adopted at the U.N. conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.Sixteen years earlier, this same William K. Reilly, then-head of the Conservation Foundation, was a member of the U.S. delegation to the U.N. Conference on Human Settlements in Vancouver, British Columbia. On behalf of the United States, he and the other delegates signed a document that was the pre-cursor of Agenda 21. For the first time, this document set forth the U.N.’s policy on private property. The preamble to the document says:
“Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice…. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable….”
We love our cars. Within the next decade there will be self-navigating autos and the trains, bikes walking paths will be incidental to progress. Your visioning project sounds like more unnecessary spending and another attempt by the city to grab power. Do they know that it doesn’t matter what they plan? It’s all in the Compass Blueprint of SCAG. Maybe we should all back up and give the decision making back to the people and the free market.

Greg Muller
Greg Muller
6 years ago

Hey Citizen Journal- I hope you weren’t fooled by all that bureaucratic doubletalk. You should try reading the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Plan you linked. It looks like typical politically correct vintage Agenda 21 Sustainability BS. If this was just an exercise in bureaucratic vanity, it might be tolerated, but all indications are that it will be brutally enforced.