Judge Thomas Anderle apparently goofed when he issued a ruling last week setting aside the results of last November’s countywide Measure A election, in which Santa Barbara voters approved the continuation of a half-cent sales tax known as Meaure D for another 30 years, ensuring $1 billion in funds for in road repairs, improvements, and congestion relief measures. The ruling, issued June 22, caught just about everyone off guard with the exception of Eugene Wilson, attorney and chief activist for Sustainable Transportation Advocates of Santa Barbara, which argued in court filings that Measure A — and the election that ratified it — was legally flawed because it lacked environmental review. Although Anderle ruled against Wilson in this regard several months ago, last week he issued a ruling setting aside Measure A and barring the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) from re-approving “any regional transportation plan or sales tax measure until it has first prepared and certified a revised final EIR.”
In the past, Anderle had ruled that the EIR for the county’s Regional Transportation Plan — a separate planning document — failed to address issues of energy conservation and ordered SBCAG to fix it. For a few days, Wilson — an alternative transportation advocate who in the past blasted Measure A as a “19th-century plan for a 21st-century problem” — could savor victory and SBCAG frantically sought to reconcile the judge’s two contradictory rulings. Had the ruling stood, Wilson claimed Measure A was dead unless re-ratified by county voters. While both sides agree on very little, they did agree that Anderle’s ruling was issued in error and that the judge will issue a corrected version. How Anderle made this mistake, however, remains unclear.
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
Previous Month


Comments
Discussion Guidelines
Nick - very difficult to understand what happened. Did the judge indicate his decision was wrong and that he intends to reverse it? Has he already withdrawn it but not yet issued a corrected one? What was the mistake - requiring an EIR after previously having ruled one was not required?
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
Justice (anonymous profile)
July 3, 2009 at 6:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Honestly how does a judge "sign" the wrong order? Couldn't Judge Aderle simply have claimed this was a huge mistake to justify changing his mind after being politically willed by his supporters? It is very very rare for a judge to "sign the wrong order".
Here is the link to the Measure A judgement that was apparently "incorrectly signed".
http://eugeneswilson.com/blog/wp-content...
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
brianhoward (anonymous profile)
July 3, 2009 at 7:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh, how delicious. The county gets hung up in its own EIR snafu!
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
July 3, 2009 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)
While I consider the Independent more of an p.r. tabloid for the local entertainment industry it does have at least a few good contributors. Nick Welsh is usually one that gets to the grit of local politics and gets our interest piqued and even humorously pissed with all the nuances. So, this little news blurb is disappointing. Perhaps Mr. Welsh could get to the bottom of this "error" and with at least an explanation of how an error'd judgement can be written so eloquently. Perhaps next week's edition. Otherwise for those who care, the conspiracy theories will develop. BTW the concept of "induced traffic" is as easy as traveling to the any local intersection that intersects HWY101. Try visiting Las Positas, Mission Street, Carrillo all at the inconvenient Hwy 101, don't drive to get the real flavor. Review the history of these debauched places and that way you won't have to go as far as the HWY 405 in Las Angileees, which like most highways and surrounding intersections have been in the state of expansion because of "induced traffic" since it was first built many decades ago.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
July 4, 2009 at 7:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment