Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Facebook
Twitter
Google+1
del.icio.us.
Digg!
Yahoo! Buzz
Diigo
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Yahoo!
MyspaceA Santa Barbara sojourn is only complete with a stay at a beachfront hotel, and the California Coastal Commission thinks the opportunity should be an economically equal one. Hotelier and former actor Fess Parker holds the right to build a hotel across the street from the DoubleTree Resort on Cabrillo Boulevard, as long as he builds a youth hostel at the property he owns at State and Montecito streets. But on January 4, Parker, speaking at a Rotary Club luncheon, proposed selling that corner lot-estimated to be worth $5 million-and giving the profits to the city to use to combat youth gangs in exchange for a waiver from the Coastal Commission for the necessity of building the hostel.
Hollywood’s “king of the wild frontier”-Parker played Davy Crockett in Disney’s 1950s film series and also Daniel Boone on TV in the ‘60s-proposed that the donation be given in $500,000 increments for 10 years. In his speech to the Rotarians, members of an organization dedicated to promoting business and community, Parker said, “Businesses here don’t want a scandal to sully their reputations. It’s gang-against-gang at the moment, but inadvertently, certain accidents can happen-bystanders killed. The fact that the city would be known for gang violence is what we have at risk. If tourism falls off, what do we have in Santa Barbara to make up for it?”
The youth hostel requirement is not a new one, and the hostel has already received approval to be built from the city’s Planning Commission. The DoubleTree-formerly the Red Lion Hotel-went up in 1983. The stipulation existed then, but the city agreed to delay it as long as it was constructed before a second hotel was built. Parker submitted plans for the second hotel in the early ‘90s, at which time the youth hostel requirement was reauthorized by both the city and the Coastal Commission. He attempted to increase the number of rooms by 50 percent in the new facility in the late ‘90s, but the plan was denied by the city. Not to be deterred, he had the proposed expansion put on a ballot measure, which was soundly defeated by the public in 1999.
Parker stated that his offer is good until March 1, 2008. The financing requirements for the new hotel call for construction to be completed by a certain date, and the hostel would also have to be started by then. “I’m not against hostels or the use of them,” he said, “but I think there’s something that has a higher priority, and that’s the safety of our community. There’s a hostel half a block away and this would put it out of business. It’s not operating at 100 percent.” The establishment in question, Santa Barbara International Hostel, has not consistently been operating at full capacity in recent weeks, said a desk attendant there, but peak tourist season runs from April to October. During that time, the attendant said, hostel staff regularly must turn away potential customers.
Parker also stated that there would be no profitability in running a hostel. The one in question is to be run by a nonprofit organization.
Community activist Lee Moldaver expressed doubt that Parker will be able to get past the Coastal Commission in order to follow through with the plan. “I haven’t seen any support from the city or the state to exempt him from the requirement,” he said. “He sincerely believes that government should have no say in what someone does with his property.” So far, however, Parker’s proposal has not been brought to the city. “He hasn’t approached the city formally,” said City Public Works Director Paul Casey.
“The Coastal Commission and their staff made it clear that they wanted to protect access to the beach for people of all incomes,” said Moldaver. “[Parker] made a promise to the people of this community and now he’s trying to wiggle out of it.”
Previous Month
Comments
"Businesses here don't want a scandal to sully their reputations. It's gang-against-gang at the moment, but inadvertently, certain accidents can happen-bystanders killed. The fact that the city would be known for gang violence is what we have at risk. If tourism falls off, what do we have in Santa Barbara to make up for it?"
First of all, the approach Fess Parker is proposing is merely symptomatic and typical of the local approach to dealing with this problem. The gang problem is a national one and is the result of a national policy so throwing money at it locally (And is there going to be an oversight committe for how that money is spent?) is the usual pallative approach. While I mention this, is Parker addressing the underlying national policy approach that's causing this gang problem which is finally manifesting itself locally? After all, some Sacred Cows in Washington in the Republicrat duopoly would come under scrutiny if he (or for that matter, the city coucil/mayor/local political activists with ties to either party did.
The approach of worrying about bystanders getting shot and killed is essentially saying "if they want to kill each other fine, but just don't kill one of our cash-cow tourists". This reminds me of the "Wrong way" shooting about ten years back. In the shooting I mention, it was a White family that was fired upon (with the three year old girl in the car being killed) and all of a sudden is was front-page news because people in the comfort zone outside the Barrio realized that "one of us" could get killed. When a Black or Mexican person is killed in the crossfire--be it a child or adult, it's also-ran news in mainstream America.
Also, as Preston point out, tourism has a peak season so Parker's argument goes out the door.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
January 10, 2008 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How long can this comedy go on? Parker has tried (and been successful, actually) to get out of this commitment for a very long time. I didn't realize until reading the article that his agreement to build the hostel goes back to 1983. He has stonewalled the city and evidently the Coastal Commission for 25 years. The deal was that he could build his hotel if he also built the hostel. He's successfully avoided doing that.
I never understood why he was allowed to renege on the original agreement, but it looks as though the Coastal Commission is now in a position to force him to complete his end of the bargain before he can build another hotel. But now, after decades of stonewalling, he has a last second plan to help the city by not building the hostel and, instead, selling off land he owns that would be used for the hostel.
You've got to give the guy credit. He only agreed to build the hostel because he was forced into it, and he's successfully thumbed his nose at the city for 25 years. I do think, however, that this last-second plan to kill the project and claim that he's doing it for the city's benefit is a little much to swallow. It's okay for Santa Barbara to be gullible, foolish, and obsequious for 25 years, but we draw the line at one quarter century.
johnvasi (anonymous profile)
January 10, 2008 at 10:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
He ceratinly sucked the first commenter into talking about the gang issue. Why not just give the money to space exploration, medical research, or the homeless? Fess can debate the merits of those noble issues as well, but the bottom line is that it simply costs him more money to build a youth hostel. Does anyone here believe he has any concern at all for the revenue of the other hostel in town? Or tourism in Santa Barbara, except to the extent that it affects his own income?
And whether or not anyone agrees that businesses should be forced into concessions by the Coastal Commission is likewise not the issue. He agreed to do this twenty five years ago. It is hardly believable that the public was deprived for 25 years of it's entitlement under the agreement. Fess made his money for the last quarter centruy without fulfilling his end of the deal, and now he wants to change the deal .... by talking about the gang problem???
He says "its gang-against-gang" in Santa Barbara. The only gang-against-gang problem in that part of town is which gang of white old men can make the most money off of beachfront development. You'd think that old Daniel Boone would be at a point in his life where he'd like to leave a legacy of a youth hostel that bears his name. Instead it appears to always be about money, no matter how much you already have, until the day you die.
RonAustin (anonymous profile)
January 14, 2008 at 1:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The existing hostels in town losing money? Not true, the owner of the SB Tourist Hostel that started in 1993 sold his business last year for $4,000,000! Now that's a success story for a young Australian guy who arrived here with less than $10,000 in his pocket.
Fess should build the hostel, it was a proper requirement and will allow tourists on a smaller budget to see the beauty of Santa Barra that otherwise wouldn't be able to due to the high hotel costs. Remember the backpacking student tourists of today are the business and leisure tourists of tomorrow (most backpackers are international students, who will, presumably, get well-paid jobs when they start work).
Ollie (anonymous profile)
February 9, 2008 at 1:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)