Measure A Draws Fans, Detractors

This article misportrays the scope and emphasis of the opponents’ opposition to Measure A. Their primary opposition is their belief that local issues and candidates will get lost in even-year elections when forced to compete for the attention of the voter with State and Federal measures and politicians. The opponents’ Ballot Argument in Opposition emphasizes that the opponents strongly object to the substantive content of Measure A and states “Measure A greatly alters the nature of local elections by moving them from odd-numbered years to even-numbered years. Our current system allows citizens to focus on local candidates and issues because they are the only ones on the ballot. Local issues and candidates will get lost when forced to compete for the attention of the voter with State and Federal measures and politicians.”

The opponents’ Rebuttal, which the City refused to accept, reiterated this major substantive objection when it stated “The issues Santa Barbarans care about—growth and development, public safety, traffic congestion—are nonpartisan and are important to all citizens regardless of party affiliation. No one wants City Council elections to become an afterthought to Federal, State and County races.”

The full story is at the Yes-on-A website, where even the theories of the critics are recognized and then analyzed for what their claims really are.

www.YesOnMeasureA.blogspot.com

Fair news coverage by the Independent is critical because the opponents of Measure A have and certainly will again get their writings injected directly into the News-Press editorials (not an opinion letter to editor, but the actual lead editorial is what Ebenstein wrote).

As for this article by Meagher, some clarifications:

The Goleta special districts mentioned may have elections scheduled for 2007, but they often never have enough candidates filed so no election happens. Therefore, Santa Barbara City usually is the ONLY jurisdiction in the County.

Along with former Mayor Hal Conklin, former 4-term County Registrar of Voters Ken Pettit also is one of the signatories on the Ballot Argument for Measure A. Pettit knows a thing or ten about voter behaviour and how to increase voter turnout. The past 12+ years of data show a consistently wide gap between voter turnout during odd-year elections and even years; the discrepancy is nearly double the voter turnout during even years.

Some opponents of Measure A really seem to be motivated by a political desire to keep voter turnout low, so their kinds of candidates would get elected instead. “Bigger turnout by itself does not mean better” wrote Ebenstein on their behalf, published as the News-Press editorial on 28th August.

The deflecting complaints about the necessary one-time, 1-year extension on one of the City Council terms --a necessary transition and catch up to the even-year election cycles-- is all designed as a cynical, Karl-Rovian distraction to motivate a political base for voting this year for Council candidates who are anyone but the incumbents. One of the signatories in the Ballot Argument against Measure A is one of those candidates.

If they were so concerned about the true democracy and accountability of the Council, they would support Measure A because it would lead to nearly double the voter turnout... unless the boost of voters during even years are not the kinds of voters the opponents of Measure A like.

As for reporting that I am "sympathetic" to the Council members, that is a stretch over the top.
While I try to maintian a civil and cordial relationship with all of them, I hardly am sympathetic. They only agree with my requests or suggestions about 80% of the time, and that is on a good day. Recall the Veronica Creek mess from a year ago, and many other examples. Those Council votes then are nothing to be "sympathetic" about.

The ultimate test and indicator of a City election getting lost in the shuffle is whether voters bother to vote. Thus, little is getting lost, by definition, if nearly twice the numbers of eligible voters are voting during elections held during the even years, when the State and Federal issues are enticing voters to vote.

correction:
the Council only agrees with my suggestions or requests only 20% of the time, so thus DISAGREE about 80% of the time.

Kahan and his pals are big crybabies.

The city indicated in many reports during the past few months and a history going back more than 20 years that rebuttal arguments are not included in the city policy and thus would not be accepted because they never are.

Kahan and Lanny-Boy knew that but wrote up their "rebuttal" and presented to the city clerk in the last few hours of the last of the 10 days in the public inspection period.

Then, when the city told them then what the city has been telling them for months, the opponents of Measure A then threw a fit, all staged for some rightous indignation so they would have more to bitch about later and put on a big show that the city done them wrong.

This is all a game that is purposely distracting from what the ballot measure really is about, saving city money from the escalating costs of elections, with a bonus of higher voter turnout as well.
What is wrong with higher voter turnout?
Nothing, unless you are a Libertarian as the opponents of Measure A all are.

In this Indy article, the quote by Cathy Murillo --the Better Half of the "activist power couple"-- reminds readers of exactly what City Councilmember Iya Falcone pointed out during the Council meeting early last July.

As reported by SB Daily Sound:
"The City Council agreed that it should not take a stance on the proposed amendment, since it will affect those term limits.
“We’re not impartial, so we have no business writing a pro or con,” Councilmember Iya Falcone said."

See the full article here:
http://sbdailysound.blogspot.com/2007/07...

this issue/post seems dominated by one person...why? what's the agenda?

most disturbing is the outrageous statement by Mr. Pritchett that opposition to this Measure is a "conspiracy".......I was just beginning to familiarize myself with the issues associated with Measure A, but reading that chilling statement gives me pause.....you're with us or against us? scary.

Seems like the agenda is to increase voter turnout and save money for the city.

Anything else indeed seems like a Conspiracy because some people keep making up chit to deflect from their own agenda to keep voter turnout low in city elections.

Are the opponents of Measure A now trying to attack its advocates as yet more deflection?

?
?
?