Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us.
Digg!
furl
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Facebook
Yahoo!The Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce came out against two citywide initiative proposals designed to limit the size of new buildings in Santa Barbara even before either measure had qualified for the November ballot. One of the two measures would limit the height of new structures to no more than 40-feet, while the other would set the maximum allowable bar at 38 feet. Supporters of the measures say the city’s current height limit of 60 feet is too much and that the spate of new tall buildings—as exemplified by those sprouting up on Chapala Street — threatens to destroy the city’s historic character and charm. Opponents, like the chamber, counter the new limits would be bad for business and hamper developers’ ability to provide affordable housing.
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.
Previous Month
Comments
Discussion Guidelines
So those such as the the Chamber of Commerce tell us that this would affect the construction of "affordable" housing.
I have a question: Does "affordable" mean that a kid growing up in Santa Barbara whose parents bought in before the prices spiked has a chance of being able to buy in even if they are working class or is this just a euphemism to justify other agendas?
Which economic demographic will benefit from this?
billclausen (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2008 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The actual initiative would limit heights to 45 feet (citywide) - not 40 feet - from the presently allowed 60 feet. EXCEPT n the historic core of the city, the El Pueblo Viejo Landmark District, the height would be 40 feet. The present 30 foot height for single-family/two-family residence zones would remain.
Presently, 60 feet are allowed for areas zoned for industrial, manufacturing and other commercial uses; that is what would change to 45 feet.
It is odd to say that limiting heights, which would decrease the value of the particular property, would "hamper developers' ability to provide affordable housing." Quite the contrary! By lowering the value of the property, housing - if built - would be (more) affordable. Are those behemoths on Chapala Street examples of the "affordable housing" that the developers won't be able to build? If so, one wonders, affordable for whom? And those massive buildings - go stand on Guiterrez and look towards Chapala at what is looming there - are simply not what Santa Barbara was/is/should be.
The real issue is do we want to maintain the historic core of Santa Barbara for present and future generations or is it a free-for-all for the highest bidder and developer? .
at_large (anonymous profile)
April 9, 2008 at 9:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment