Public commenters urge Ojai City to consider land-trust option for 408 North Montgomery property

Ojai City received public comment before moving into closed session on a proposed Habitat for Humanity project at 408 North Montgomery Street, with speakers urging the council to consider alternatives to building on the site.

"Before we pull the trigger on building eight units ... we may want to investigate what that number is worth to us to help more than eight people," said Larry Steingold, arguing the property's value could seed an Ojai land trust or be used for rental subsidies to keep people housed rather than a one-shot construction project.

Starchild, an Ojai resident who identified participation with Habitat for Humanity in past volunteer work, said the city previously signed a memorandum of understanding to lease the property to Habitat for Humanity on a 99-year lease for $1 a year and said the agenda materials listing "price in terms of payment are what are under negotiation" were unclear. "Reading this, I can't tell what it's about," Starchild said, citing the need for the agenda to give the public adequate notice of closed-session subject matter and referencing Carlson v. Paradise Unified School District on agenda notice requirements.

Speakers asked the council to clarify whether the city planned to proceed with the memorandum of understanding or to sell or otherwise monetize the site. Steingold urged staff and council to calculate whether proceeds—he referenced figures discussed in public comment as roughly in the hundreds of thousands—would yield more housing impact if used to seed a permanent housing trust or land trust than by building eight units on the parcel.

The hearing record provided no formal action or vote on the Habitat item at the public-comment stage; the council then moved into closed session. The agenda and staff materials referenced the property and indicated that payment terms were still under negotiation, but no definitive price was stated during public comment.

The public remarks also referenced Ramey and Associates in passing as an expected presence at the meeting; the city did not provide further details about that firm in the public comment record.

Questions raised by public speakers included whether the memorandum of understanding with Habitat would remain in effect and how the city would balance one-time capital uses against ongoing programs that could subsidize rents or expand the number of households served. The council took no public vote on these points before convening to closed session.