Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article
Facebook
Twitter
Google+1
del.icio.us.
Digg!
Yahoo! Buzz
Diigo
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Yahoo!
MyspaceThe battle over proposed new building height restrictions got downright personal this week during a hearing by a Santa Barbara City Council subcommittee, when Councilmember Das Williams lashed out at supporters of a strict limit on the heights of new buildings both downtown and citywide. Complaining that activists with El Pueblo Viejo-the grass-roots group that collected more than 11,000 signatures to place the matter before city voters on this November’s ballot-kept changing their bottom-line bargaining posture, Williams charged, “Bargaining with you is like bargaining with Darth Vader, where the deal gets worse and worse and worse.”
Williams’s comments were most pointedly directed at former planning commissioner Bill Mahan, who spearheaded with almost evangelical passion the initiative to limit the height of new buildings downtown to no more than 40 feet, and the height of new buildings elsewhere throughout the city to 45 feet. Mahan left the council proceedings without responding, but afterward commented, “That’s right, we’ve changed. We’ve evolved. When we started this, we were rank amateurs. But based on what we’ve experienced and learned since starting, we’ve evolved. Das, it seems, has not.”
Far more than a testy exchange between Williams and Mahan is at issue. The debate underscores a seemingly irreconcilable split within the environmental community over how much growth should be allowed, what kind, where, and for whom. Lining up behind the ballot initiative are traditional slow-growth organizations like Citizens Planning Association, the League of Women Voters, and a host of well-established homeowner associations. Also in support are traffic activists worried that City Hall is determined-as part of its push toward so-called “smart growth” in the urban core-to make driving so inconvenient that all but the most intrepid motorists will abandon their cars for mass transit or bicycles.
In opposition to the height-limiting measure are developers and architects who fret that it would adversely affect their flexibility of design as well as their bottom line. Affordable housing advocates are concerned that reducing building heights from the current 60-foot maximum will also reduce the amount of new affordable housing that gets built: Developers will have less of the financial cushion that might otherwise allow them to include affordable units, the housing advocates reckon. The sustainable smart-growth crowd has expressed grave concern that lowering building heights will promote sprawl and, by limiting the intensity of development in the city, undermine the emergence of a more “walkable,” pedestrian-friendly downtown where mass transit can supplant the supremacy of the automobile.
Making this iteration of a long festering split even more dramatic are the identities of the two chief combatants: Mahan and Williams. Of all the elected officials on the Souith Coast, none have sought to embrace the conflicting impulses of the environmental movement as much as Williams has. Williams has consistently sought to embody both smart growth and slow growth principles throughout his years in office. Certainly, he’s voted against more development than any other member of the current council. But with the proposed new height limit, Williams’s ability to straddle the two has been put sorely to the test.
And Mahan makes for an intriguingly incongruous, born-again slow-growther. Mahan, an architect by profession, was largely regarded as a solid pro-growth vote when he sat on the Planning Commission. Even so, he was always quick to criticize proposed developments that violated his intuitive sense of what was right or wrong for Santa Barbara. Mahan voted in favor of all the large Chapala Street projects that critics contend will gobble up Santa Barbara’s prized and historic skyline, and which gave rise to Save El Pueblo Viejo’s current campaign to limit building heights.
About a year ago, Williams sought to engineer a compromise deal that would have kept the height limit off the ballot, meeting with Mahan to craft an alternative that would be acceptable to both the smart-growth and slow-growth camps. Williams, an ardent supporter of affordable housing, wanted language that would allow buildings to exceed the height limit if developers provided more affordable housing than they’re currently required to provide, as well as more open space. For a brief moment, it appeared that peace might break out. To much fanfare, Williams announced at a hastily arranged press conference in front of City Hall last summer that an historic accord had been brokered. But before the ink had dried, Mahan and the slow-growthers had disavowed the deal.
Under terms of the compromise, Mahan and his confederates with Save El Pueblo Viejo would pull the petition-which had not yet qualified for the City Council ballot-and in exchange the City Council would draft its own new height-limit charter amendment acceptable to both camps. But both sides worried they’d given away the store. The architects fully expected Mahan to cease gathering signatures to qualify the original Save El Pueblo Viejo initiative for the ballot; Mahan insisted the signature gathering was essential to keep City Hall honest in its effort to craft a compromise height limit. The architects cried foul. The deal was off.
Though that particular deal went sour, Mahan and other key strategists in his group, like Planning Commissioner Bendy White, recognized that a ballot-box initiative is a crude tool with which to craft a nuanced policy change. By holding the initiative as a gun to City Hall’s head, they initially had hoped to pressure the City Council into crafting a superior ordinance. While certain die-hards within their camp might not like this, they would.
For a while, the new plan was for the City Council to craft an ordinance of its own and place that on the November ballot to compete with the Save El Pueblo Viejo ballot initiative. The council’s measure would contain exceptions for affordability, setbacks, and open space. But Mahan and White have experienced a dramatic change of heart in recent months. They have disavowed any interest in considering a City Council alternative, arguing instead that the height limit proposed by Save El Pueblo Viejo should go to the people for a straight up or down vote. In part, this change of heart was guided by the perception that City Hall’s effort to craft a substitute was half-hearted and half-assed. And it became increasingly uncertain whether there was sufficient support for creating such a measure among City Council members themselves. In addition, Mahan and White were genuinely moved by the sheer number of signatures they’d collected.
Two weeks ago, members of the Planning Commission voiced opposition to the notion of a competing height limit ordinance by a vote of 6-1, and other advisory bodies within City Hall weighed in similarly. But a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the City Council, Sheila Lodge-former mayor, ardent slow-growther, and current planning commissioner-suggested yet another alternative. Lodge suggested the council place “a supplemental measure” on the ballot in November that could refine the height limits of the Save El Pueblo Viejo initiative, should the initiative pass.
Going into last Tuesday’s meeting of the council’s Ordinance Committee, the big issue on the table was whether to support Lodge’s supplemental approach, or the competing-alternative approach-or do nothing at all.
Even though the supplemental approach had been suggested by one of their own, slow-growthers packed the chambers to oppose anything but a straight up-or-down vote. Anything else, they warned, would look like a carefully orchestrated ruse, designed at the behest of developers and other special interests intent on pillaging the city’s skyline, to thwart the political will of at least 11,000 voters. They also objected that the specific language that would have allowed exceptions to the 40-foot height limit was open for abuse and mischief in the hands of future councils. Exceptions would be allowed for developments deemed of “community benefit,” a term they argued was far too subjective and subject to interpretation.
But it was Mahan who really sought to lower the boom. Forty years ago this March, he noted, a majority of the City Council voted to approve two nine-story buildings at the site of the present Alice Keck Park Memorial Gardens. Led by civic powerhouse and now patron saint of all things Santa Barbaran Pearl Chase, the community took to the ballot box in response, amending the city charter to allow the construction of no buildings downtown taller than 60 feet. By placing this restriction in the city charter-which functions with the equivalent authority of a constitution-Chase and city voters stripped that City Council and all future councils of the ability to approve anything taller than 60 feet. (At the time, the city already had a 60-foot height limit. However, that was established by ordinance-which can be changed by any given council on any given Tuesday-rather than by charter, which can be changed only by a vote of the people.)
“Now you want to take that power and give it back to future city councils,” Mahan warned. “And we don’t know who they’ll be.” Mahan read off the names of the four councilmembers who voted in favor of the nine-story towers-which never were built. Their names, he said, have been lost to history, but they were swept out of office in the next election and the effrontery of their action has neither been forgiven nor forgotten. “What is our legacy going to be?” he asked members of the Ordinance Committee. “That City Council, nobody can remember their names anymore.”
Other supporters of the Save El Pueblo Viejo initiative pled with the council not to sell out the city’s skylines to developers. This provoked Mickey Flacks, a longtime affordable housing advocate who strenuously opposes the initiative, to sarcastically identify herself “as a developer who profits by the destruction of Santa Barbara.” Flacks, who argued that voters need to be given a clear alternative come election, also hyperventilated slightly with her own rhetoric. “It is the future,” she intoned, “that’s at stake.” As an aside, Flacks noted that if 60 feet was good enough for Pearl Chase, that should be good enough for the rest of us. This, in turn, sparked a mini-debate about what precisely Pearl Chase thought. And this prompted Councilmember Williams to ask for documentation on the seances held in which Chase, dead nearly 40 years, expressed herself on the subject.
Jim Westby of Safe Streets for Santa Barbara argued that thanks to the economic recession, no new buildings would be darkening Santa Barbara’s skyline in the next few years anyway. Given that, he suggested that the council allow the Save El Pueblo Viejo initiative to go to the ballot box unencumbered by any alternatives or supplements. If in a few years problems emerged, he said, the council could then go to the voters with whatever amendments it saw fit. Councilmember Williams responded that he’d have no reason to trust the slow-growth community given how much their position had changed already.
Williams lamented the deep distrust that’s marked the debate and dismissed the tone of the discussion as “ridiculous. … When we are threatened with ignominy and obscurity for supporting the status quo, I just feel that it’s a little insulting. I never voted for these projects and we’re being accused by someone who supported all these projects,” he said, referring to Mahan. Williams strongly objected to being compared to the council members who 40 years ago supported the construction of the nine-story towers. “I can’t tell you how heart-wrenching it is to be told that, when I’ve been an ardent foe of unencumbered development and sprawl.”
Councilmember Grant House joined Williams in voting to place a ballot alternative before voters. Williams sought to “tighten up” the language allowing exceptions to projects deemed by future councils a “community priority,” but City Attorney Steve Wiley argued that it was all but impossible to further define and restrict language that is inherently subjective. The third member of the Ordinance Committee, Councilmember Dale Francisco, abstained, arguing against any substitute measures at all, terming the effort a waste of city staff time. The matter goes before the entire City Council on March 24, where its fate is highly uncertain.
Previous Month
Comments
Fascinating article . . . . . . not.
I'm a real estate dude, but not a developer, and I agree the new Chapala condos are too damn big.
The idea of building affordable housing somewhere as unaffordable as Santa Barbara is absurd. If middle class folks can't afford to live here, why should lower class folks?
Getting rid of the homeless clogging State Street is the biggest single problem Santa Barbara faces.
In the good old days, they only congregated on Lower State. Now they're everywhere and ruining Santa Barbara for folks like myself who work and take showers.
Lars (anonymous profile)
March 8, 2009 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I would hope people on both sides of the growth issue, and the press, doesn't belittle this or try to turn it into a personality contest.
The growth issue has always been thee most important issue in Santa Barbara. Let's leave out the sarcasm and pettiness.
Georgy (anonymous profile)
March 8, 2009 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The good thing about this debate is that it has and will focus the community on the upcoming Council election and the General Plan Update, and how important and intertwined all three are. As so vividly shown by the monsters on Chapala Street, which ironically at this point are a financial albatros for their owners, our Community Development staff and many of the current decisionmakers have become pro-growth, so called affordable housing advocates, where maximizing development on land with no landscaping and no parking are an accepted part of their goals. Like Mickey Flacks says, this is about our future. How many home owning voters in the City really want to see more Chapala monsters built, and have the Community Development staff run our City making it as "inconvenient" as possible to drive a car and park, while attempting to house 20, 30, 40 thousand more people! Not me! I hope that this debate about the height initiative also brings out the voters who are going to make sure the Council candidates make it clear how they will vote on these development issues and we elect people who understand the local's long time cherished effort to preserve our quality of life for those of us who now live here. We need to take back City planning from the City staff and give the authority and voice to the people who live here and pay to support our City government.
sbreader (anonymous profile)
March 8, 2009 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
More affordable housing+denser development = more Democratic voters to maintain the Das Williams political machine. Its that simple.
revisionist (anonymous profile)
March 8, 2009 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The environmentalists and pro-car advocates supporting this initiative have good intentions I guess but I think they are incorrect in their assessments and the results is this selfish initiative. They are using these recent Chapala street structures as bad examples when in actuality they are quite nice. Whether I am driving, walking or riding a bicycle in this area I find the architecture and the change to the Chapala Street atmosphere very nice and interesting. The parts of Chapala street untouched by development and stuck in a time warp seem in the least a little lacking.
What you probably don't notice from the car though are the interesting details, arches, tiles, iron filigree, spitting dragon rain spouts, creek setbacks and native plantings along the creek. The size of the buildings may seem a bit large but really nothing that should be foreign to our downtown and other business districts.
I do need to clarify the selfish charge I made earlier. The position on this issue that those living in these buildings, in order to accommodate this height-fright initiative, should not have the 8 to10 foot ceilings and the units should be smaller. I think this is an odd and yes selfish assessment coming from some fairly privileged individuals.
The selfish perspective comes from a largely rural and suburban populace often living behind generous driveways, gracious lawns and even large homes sometimes with 8 and 10 foot ceilings. And for some strange reason there just shouldn't be generosity for these homes on Chapala? What is also selfish is that perhaps many of the height-fight "environmentalists" own and profit from at least one, two or more homes. Nothing necessarily wrong with that except perhaps this is contributing to the problems of housing and traffic especially should they have an property-tax deficient parcel with an illegal unit or two.
I don't mean to inflame but people need to get real. Santa Barbara has problems but it is not a "ghetto" and Chapala is much improved now by comparison. There are some areas in town that are degraded but development and re-development can be the solution.
Everyone who considers this new Chapala street area horrible, go there. Walk around. Eat in one of the restaurants. Enjoy the day, evaluate the area yourself rather the accept this chatter of political operatives who would have you believe someone will harm you, the Chapala "canyon" will swallow you alive and that life as you know it will come to an end. Things just aren't so bad as some would make it be and are using this initiative for their political advantage or agenda.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
March 8, 2009 at 3:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, with everything going on in this small town all you guys are worried about five feet? I grew up in this town and Chapala st used to be nothing but used car dealers. Been back, buildings look nice and VACANT I'm sure they will fill up by summer. Sure the Homeless have taken over SANTA BARBARA, and the streets look even nicer with the drunks pan handling all day. For the guy who said SB is turning Ghetto take a look around it is too late. People get out of your MAYBERRY BUBBLE and get a Life. SB is a dirty small town with bigger fish to fry than 5 ft.
manolovta (anonymous profile)
March 8, 2009 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good reporting by Nick Welsh on such a contentious subject.
Speaking as someone who was born in SB and still surprised I'm living here after all these decades, I am sympathetic with the last two posters. The environment is very important to me but so is this town. One of the biggest problems with SB IMHO is we have created a town where only wealthy older people can live comfortably. And these people aren't necessarily interested in a vibrant economy with opportunities for a healthy mix of blue and white collar workers. I would wager they're more interested in having nice restaurants to go to and a certain aesthetic and (near) retirement lifestyle that differentiates us on the surface from other towns.
If you visit other cities, there are plenty of working people in the 20-40 yr age bracket. That demographic is almost non-existent in this town. I would wager the children of most of the people behind El Pueblo Viejo would not be able to make a decent living in SB. While the financial sector seems to do relatively well here, take a look at other professions such as the technology companies in Goleta. They form a significant portion of the "middle class" white collar workers in this area, but that group is aging rapidly and in another decade, many of them will be retired. This is partly because the housing affordability index for this area has only zoomed up over the past 4 decades which makes it extremely difficult to attract younger professionals here. My point is the environment should always be a consideration, but affordable housing, however it can be achieved, has and is being neglected to the detriment of this town. I don't always agree with Das William's priorities, but I think he's got it right on this one.
One last point .. I often visit urban areas like San Jose, Orange County, and San Diego. Nobody can claim all that urban spawl is good for the environment because everyone has to drive everywhere! What we need, and what I enjoy, are places where to the extent possible, I can park my car and walk to work, shopping, services, and entertainment. If it takes a little higher density and higher ceilings, I believe thats a good tradeoff and good for the environment.
I lied, one more point ... isn't it ironic that so many pro-environment groups (many of which I respect) are aligned with those wack job "car rights" groups on this issue? The latter are so paranoid, they think any initiative which is pedestrian or cyclist-friendly is an attempt by government to take their steering wheel from "their cold dead hands". Sorry, I couldn't resist the NRA analogy :)
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
March 8, 2009 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well put EastBeach.
manolovta (anonymous profile)
March 8, 2009 at 6:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As I said earlier today, this has sparked a good debate, and it will. It comes down to quality of life for those of us who live here, yes who can afford to live here and have no plans on moving anywhere for the duration of this life. I see it as up to me to make sure my daughter can live here too if she wants to. The election on the initiative and on the next City Council, the Council who will approve our new General Plan, is about what I grew up with in SB, grow vs. no-growth, quality of life for locals vs. so called affordable housing for the masses. By the way, most of those "affordable" condos on Chapala are currently unsold and a financial disaster for their owners, as well as an eyesore.
sbreader (anonymous profile)
March 8, 2009 at 6:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The mere idea of affordable housing in Santa Barbara is a complete joke. There's plenty of affordable housing in Santa Maria for folks who want it. And the commute is the same as for most folks who live and work in LA!
Not to mention, with the tanking economy, real estate prices will fall big time -- I'd guess by up to 50% before all is said and done.
Simply stated, of course Santa Barbara shouldn't allow higher buildings to be built. There are plenty of other strip mall loving, high rise centric towns all along the South Coast and certainly throughout the Inland Empire for folks who want high density sprawl.
Face it, if you don't make a lot of money, and don't already own a house in Santa Barbara, you'll probably never own one.
But if you really love Santa Barbara, there are plenty of nearby communities like Santa Maria or Oxnard that are much cheaper and provide affordable housing up the wazoo.
And believe it or not, there are 30-40 year olds (myself included) who don't mind the high real estate prices. Prices are high for a reason -- compared with most of the rest of the US, Santa Barbara is paradise!
Mr. Williams should focus on the homeless problem and the gang problem. Of course he gets votes by pretending to promote "affordable housing," but we all know political pandering when we see it.
Lars (anonymous profile)
March 8, 2009 at 11:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'd comment on this but I have to admit that it's over my head.
sixdolphins (anonymous profile)
March 9, 2009 at 2:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I would love to comment but Lars said it all for me.
I will say Mr. Williams is a huge disappointment to me.
AndyG (anonymous profile)
March 9, 2009 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bill Mayhan and Sheila Lodge will both be dead (and forgotten) in 20 years. Nothing personal guys.
The city must evolve--Stopping the inevitable building 'up' of our city is the best that these people can do?
"El Pueblo Viejo" (the old town) should be called las maneras viejas (the old ways)
Hey lets call it something catchy. Yea. And Spanish... That's how we can garner support from the average joe (or Jose) who is too busy working his F****n fanny off to pay for his high rent- (probably in a building that Mayhan designed and Lodge owns) to pay attention to the goings on of our dear city counsel.
As if the Hispanic working class of Santa Barbara came up with the name. Is Mayhan Spanish? Oh yea they want to 'preserve' their way of life too. We should all live 3 families to one room in Santa Barbara...so that a few select can still see the tip of La Cumbre peak from their single story multi-million dollar Spanish colonial homes.
take a tour of a 2500 year old city like Rome and you will see a rich culture like nothing else-- yet the buildings are all above 45 feet. Hmmmm. How did they do that?
The up and coming generation (not to mention my own generation) will no longer tolerate the widening divide between the haves and have nots. There is a breaking point. Ample opportunity to 'own' a piece of our city will be afforded to more people when the slow thinking people like Lodge and Mayhan are gone. Ownership by the working class will correct the current imbalance that exists in our "Beautiful" city.
Smart growth includes taller buildings. Sorry Bill.... your legacy is less than a blip in the history and future of this city.
ST
Apologies to to Bill Mayhan and Sheila Lodge for the rudeness.
speaktruth (anonymous profile)
March 9, 2009 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bill Mahan is absolutely right that future City Councils will not be able to resist the pressure and money from pro-growth State and Local Govt. Agencies and developers. (They never have.) No knock to Das Williams, he's been better than most.
This article is a good one for the opinion section. Using words like "evangelical" and "confederate" to describe Mahan leaves a bad taste in my math. It's pretty clear which side of the "battle" the writer prefers. Remember the separation of the news and the opinion(editorial) principle that got the Newspress into trouble?
East_Fork (anonymous profile)
March 9, 2009 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't think you represent the News-Press problems properly, however, I object to your objection to Welsh's objectivity.
One of the finest definitions of how reporting should be approached comes from a funny little religious website called Bene Diction Blogs On, written by a Canadian journalist:
::: "The notion here is that because journalists, like other human beings, have thoughts and opinions about the world around them, those sentiments must ultimately contaminate their journalism. According to this argument, no amount of training, no adherence to principle, no form of self-discipline is sufficient to guarantee unbiased, dispassionate reporting.
::: "Facts may be facts, in other words, but they still have been selected by a biased mind. The only remedy is to admit that everything we call journalism is the continuation of opinion by other means. What's required is that our media stop the hypocrisy of pretending to inform and wade into the argument with all biases blazing."
binky (anonymous profile)
March 9, 2009 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have been to Rome, and I hope this city never comes close to it's 'rich culture', if that's what some think of that dirty old city.
spacey (anonymous profile)
March 9, 2009 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This argument no longer bothers me as I don't go downtown in santa Barbara anymore. It is too unpleasant and will get even more so. Mail order shopping and malls work just fine for me. I suspect I am not the only one who shuns State St. and environs. Planners might consider this.
lmeoriole (anonymous profile)
March 9, 2009 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is nice when the buildings are not completely vertical and allow the sun to reach the street. Height limits could be based on the rule of not substantially blocking views and light to neighbors, unless agreed on. A little more growth in SB will allow for business and hotel taxes to cover expenses better. The City has to meet the regulations required of bigger cities with an economy of a small city.
Turning State Street into a walking park would help meet the valid lack of nature complaint. State Street and Cabrillo should be sold to regulated private associations that could keep the bums out of the area. Anacapa and Chapala provide plenty of room for vehicle access.
For now, until the alcoholics and gangs are cleaned up, I will spend my money in Goleta and over the internet via UPS.
sbindyreader (anonymous profile)
March 9, 2009 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Will everybody, for cripes sake, quit characterizing this issue in terms of ideologies (slow-growthers vs. environmentalists vs. car junkies vs. who knows what), and personalities (Williams vs. Mahan, etc.)!
Most of us who helped create this measure and qualify it for the ballot simply wanted to preserve our low-profile skyline and, to that end, limit new buildings to 40 and 45 feet. Period. What the hell ideological camp does that condemn us to?
joer43 (anonymous profile)
March 9, 2009 at 6:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's all about the money.
Das and the rest of the City Council (and County Supervisors) are really after short term revenue not affordable housing. If affordable housing was the goal why haven't they gone after the 25% of the the 'for sale' affordable home owners that are out of compliance with their contracts? Kick them out and you have 100+ affordable homes to give to people that need them.
Instead they want to trade high density building rights to developers so they can get state funding and developer fees.
practical101 (anonymous profile)
March 9, 2009 at 6:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"More affordable housing+denser development = more Democratic voters to maintain the Das Williams political machine. Its that simple."
Simple-minded is more like it (and that's being generous). As the article notes, "Certainly, he's voted against more development than any other member of the current council."
JayB (anonymous profile)
March 9, 2009 at 10:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Most of us who helped create this measure and qualify it for the ballot simply wanted to preserve our low-profile skyline and, to that end, limit new buildings to 40 and 45 feet" - Joer43
OK, so on the issue of aesthetics ...
At the intersection of Figueroa and Anacapa, its absolutely horrible how the Courthouse blocks the view of the mountains.
I have worked downtown for many years. How many of the height limit proponents regularly or even occassionally walk on lower Chapala? I can tell you not many people walk there at all. Its more of a traffic corridor for people to get to the mall and to/from the freeway or the mesa. So from my perspective, the new buildings don't bother me at all. In fact, I like walking to Silvergreens and not having to pass by those used car dealerships that used to be there.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
March 10, 2009 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Joer43: I guess then this initiative just boils down to what tiny people determine is "low profile" for crissakes.
The "preservation" groups have quite a bit of credit with regards to the look of this city. I just think the 20 foot difference between the current 60 and proposed 40 height limit is minute and there is a lot more going on and said besides this preservation of our "low profile" skyline.
The preservationists are also known for creating and maintaining some very degrading areas around town often while worrying or marveling about how things "look" from a tiny 5' 4" frame while doing their 15 second drive-by assessment.
I also don't think most people will look at this initiative in just simple terms of "skyline" preservation. There are other agendas associated with this initiative. It is apparent that there are many proponents who by their omnipresence dictate their sense of approval and disapproval without taking into consideration the negative effects of their availability, opportunism and activism.
I understand the community may have the right to make these limitations but I disagree with the premise that the new limitations will preserve or improve the skyline. The Chapala street skyline is not a closed in canyon and it is usually very sunny, the sky is very blue, there is lots of air circulating about and these newer developments are very interesting. Chapala is a decent model to start from for many other developable parts of the city.
Some property owners and activists might consider this initiative as "down zoning" or a taking of property rights along with their ability to profit from those property rights. Teamed up with housing advocates, certain factions of environmentalists, etc this battle could be far from over presuming it wins at the ballot box. We must be careful when at the ballot box we deny or remove peoples rights.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
March 10, 2009 at 8:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)