Ten Thousand Pound Gorilla Jumps In

So now we finally know what Hotchkiss means by "common sense": Van Wolfswinkel's dollars.

CORRECTION, please: the No on B raised a little more than $36,000, from realtors' pac in LA ($5K), Home Builders of the Central Coast ($1k) in SLO, Investec, Jordananos, Metropolitan Theatres - each $2,500, Peter Sperling ($5K), The Towbes Group, $2.5K, Victoria STreet Partners, $5K (SF) among others, including planner Suzanne Elledge.

So the people who want to "preserve" are inadvertently aligned with an out of town developer from Moneycito Texas? I already knew there were many good reasons not to vote for Francisco, Self, Hotchkiss and McCammon. These pick's by VanWolfswinkel clarify my decision to vote for Helen Schneider for Mayor and Grant House, David Pritchett and Lane Anderson for council. Measure B should be rejected because it blames "height" as the sole problem and of great urgency when actually the problem is the narrow focus and failure of some in our "environmentalist" organizations as well as the control freak nature of some members on our committees and commissions .

I agree with DonMcDermott. Although B proponents may have good intentions, a measure this narrow and absolute does planners and project designers no good. What about setbacks, openings, tiering, landscaping, and all the other design parameters of a project that work together to create the whole?

A better idea is to give project designers the flexibility to do the give and take on all the design elements to come up with a project with overall acceptable characteristics. As an example, one building might be a little taller, but maybe have greater setback or open spaces in the building. Another might have less setback that is compensated for by a lower roof line.

Don't get me wrong, I am not for totally unregulated growth and gigantic buildings. But to want to narrowly limit just one design parameter (height) is an indication of how little system-level thinking the pro-B folks have done.

So Dale Francisco is a "slow-growth conservative"???

Back in the 70s and 80s, liberal democrats were identified with slow-growth, and conservatives with development. Think Bill Wallace. Why the flip-flop???

" ... So Dale Francisco is a "slow-growth conservative"??? ..."
-- revisionist ---

Dale Francisco is probably pegged that way because he's on the "Yes on Measure B" steering committee along with another conservative, Lanny Ebenstein.

Yes, the liberals were slow growth back in the 70s - 90s. But now they have deserted that environmental philosophy and have thrown themselves in bed with unions, homeless advocates, subsidized housing advocates and developers because their money buys elections. But look at the mess that they have made of the SB budget, the crime, the gangs, the panhandlers, etc.

Santa Barbara used to strive to live within our means. No longer. What is sad is that the Republicans (with the exception of some out of work architects) have become the environmentalists in this town.

Gordo; Santa Barbaran perhaps strived to live within it's means but never has and probably never will accomplish "slow growth." We belong to the United States of America in a global capitalist economy corrupted by lack of enforcement and regulation. I wish we could escape it but I don't see that happening. We certainly won't escape it with campaigns such as the one VanWolfwinkel is funding.

The 70's - 90s that you reference as a period of "slow growth" was not all that slow. I think it is a myth. Santa Barbara has ever had a period of slow growth outside that of the Chumash era. Fairly big growth occurred during the 70's and 90's you reference including numerous freeway projects such as the 101 expansion and widening, Paseo Nuevo, overuse of the Santa Barbara's original working class Westside and Eastside neighborhoods, numerous beach developments, importation of State water, desalination plant, illegal garage unit, condos and conversions to condos, housing authority projects and oh, Goleta. Santa Barbara has always "found" the resources to develop and grow.

But don't blame the social liberals, the unions, homeless advocates and housing advocates or our current liberal council members because they are trying to equalize the failures of the corrupt capitalist economy we are stuck in. We are currently in an terrible economic time brought on by conservative values and principles at the national level.

Clearly it is the organized cross-dressing conservative side of the political spectrum that results in bad behaviors and bad representational picks such as VanWolfwinekl's stealthy right wing slate of Dale Francisco, Michael Self, Frank Hotchkiss. It would be really disappointing for this community to cast blame on the wrong political faction. The VanWolfwinkel mailer and campaign feels to me like that of a violent criminal who convinces the casual observer to blame the victim. It is really sick.

DonMcDermott: "VanWolfwinekl's (sic) stealthy right wing slate of Dale Francisco, Michael Self, Frank Hotchkiss. " That slate also includes LWV activist Cathie McCammon. And it is not exactly "stealthy"!

League of Women Voters, Pearl Chase Society, Cathie McCammon and Bendy White can be trusted as slow growth environmentalists and they say Yes on B. Setbacks, landscaping, etc. are important issues as well, but we only have one Old Town and only one beautiful range of mountains to view so vote to preserve those important assets as well as choose reps who will vote to plant more trees and expand parks.

Van Wolfswinkel, hear this: I think I'll only vote for people you don't support.

And webmaster, why is DorothyD's comment bolded and in green like it was from you....or is that you?

Looks like DorothyD works for the Indy:

http://www.independent.com/contact/

Dorothy, I think you missed my point. Let's take an example. What if the NHTSA, in a zealous effort to increase automobile safety, mandated that all cars must weigh at least 4,000 pounds because heavy cars are safer than light-weight cars? The unintended consequence, of course, would be that fuel economy would become much more difficult to achieve.

So the better approach is not to hamstring auto designers with micro-constraints. Give them the flexibility to vary design parameters to produce both safe *and* fuel efficient cars (as Honda, Toyota, etc. have done).

Measure B is just like that example. Why limit just a single design parameter when much more go into a building project?

The problem is not that the current long-held height limit of 60' is too low. The problem is that the planners & reviewers of the Chapala project didn't do their job. I believe that includes Bill Mahan who is ironically on the Yes on B Steering Committee. And the public, at least those who don't like the Chapala building, is partly to blame for not commenting at the public reviews.

In my opinion, Measure B is an attempt at a lazy quick fix that is going to have unintended negative consequences. Think Proposition 13.

And one more comment ... assuming the Chapala project could have its height magically reduced to 45', do you think everyone would be satisfied? Given there is almost no setback from the street, and no open areas in the buildings, I would guess not.

Sustainability is the issue, not growth. Until the people who work in Santa Barbara--teachers, police, firefighters, grocers, waiters, plumbers, carpenters, and so on--can afford to live in Santa Barbara, our way of life is unsustainable. Forcing working people to commute or live in poverty increases pollution and crime. Reducing building height limits isn't going to solve that problem.

I think jimstoic makes an excellent point. Sustainability is an important issue that the slow/no growthers often ignore. I have lived in SB for most of my life. When I was younger, I was very sympathetic towards the concept of slow growth. That was in part because I equated slow growth with protecting the environment. Now I see that there are many inter-related issues and shades of gray.

In my view, one of the tests of how successful slow growth policies have been on the south coast is whether the children of people like myself, who have lived here for decades and have been proponents of slow growth, have even a fighting chance of staying in town if they want to.

It used to be that with huge sacrifices, the younger generation did have a shot at staying in town. These days, its almost impossible. And I'm talking about couples where at least one is a professional.

So how do I view the Yes on B crowd? Well, they're kinda like the well-established white-haired folks exemplified by Bendy White, Bill Mahan, and Sheila Lodge (she was a good mayor). They've made it in this town, and they understandably want to keep it "nice" for themselves, and extensibly for others.

But it doesn't make for a very sustainable situation.

Of course, if you're one of those "survival of the richest" types, you won't care if your fire/police workers commute from Santa Barbara or India.

Anything or anyone the Sperlings throw money at will cause me to run the other way.

"Sustainability is an important issue that the slow/no growthers often ignore. "

So how is population growth of 500,000 per year or so in California, due entirely to foreign immigration and births to immigrants sustainable? Isn't this massive population growth -- over 5 Santa Barbaras added to California per year at the heart of the problem?

Don McDermott has his hand on the pulse, methinks. This severely misguided and divisive Republican strategy of "blame the victim" is coming home to roost and the only way to scatter dead birds is by planting flowers of truth.

This is precisely why national woes have befallen local ones across the country. Blame victims and maintain the status quo. So long as Republican "values" clang that bell they will remain, thankfully, out of power.

Vote for anyone but the Van Wolfswinkel people! As for true, slow-growthers, voters should remember Bendy White is an agent for developers. He's in the biz of building things. Cathie McCammon is a watchdog on development, and so is David Pritchett. Diane Channing keeps talking about preventing S B from becoming Orange County, so she seems to be a slow growth type. John Tyhne and Bonnie Raisin are in the real estate business. Justin Tevis wants free market enterprise. I think Frank Hotchkiss and MSelf just don't want more poor people here. Get to know the candidates, I keep saying. The Cox Cable government channels have forums, and candidates' statements, etc. Go to channels 17, 18, and 21 for information.

It's pretty unfair to typify all "Yes on B" resident advocates as white haired and rich. Maybe we just like to see views of the mountains in other places than just "view corridors" between giant bulked out buildings that block the sun and whose purpose is not at all to provide workforce housing units, except for possibly a paltry 5%. The rest would sell for upward of a million dollars + per condo likely bringing with it at least 2 cars each too. And if it wasn't for Prop 13 I don't think many of us native born could afford to live here at all, plus prop 13 is bringing in the money to the municipalities consistently as it is increased each year unlike the cascading downward values of new construction condos. Development of high rises hardly assures that emergency workers can or would even want to live here- no, those buildings would likely be for Ritz Carlton timeshare style growth like the City Council tried to approve under Bill Levy's former plan that is now just a hole in the ground for a decade at least. If you want "sustainability" that means building a livable city around it's residents so they can easily circulate by bike and walking- how about some painted in crosswalks and creating more green space, parks, and edible gardens maybe? Let's not just build for more tourists and increasing student populations like we have been. In fact, the population isn't increasing much and there are alot of rentals out there, and some great deals on homes too. Why do people want to change Santa Barbara so much- if you want to buy into new construction so badly have you looked in Santa Maria?

"Part-time resident...."

Sorry, I can't get past that part.

I am sure that Van Wolfswinkle is offically a resident of Texas so that he can avoid having to pay California income tax. I would not be surprised if his vehicles all have Texas registrations so to avoid California reg fees. A popular game for the well healed is to try to avoid paying their fair share of taxes and fees.

Thank you Nick Welsh for doing the real work of the media! Without an Independent, probing media our democracy is truly compromised by the big money like that that is behind Measure B. We should be able to conduct a local election like this one without having hundreds of thousands of dollars poured into creating tons of porch and mailbox litter that usually goes into the trash before it is read. Things like this are the reason I have refused all campaign contributions.
Lane Anderson www.LaneAnderson.org

I think Lane's got some good ideas, and clearly he's not dancing to anyone else's beat if he's not taking money. I don't know what he intends by alternatives to air conditioning, but if those alternatives keep the temperature and humidity down, then go for it.

Since we're talking about saving energy, might I suggest spending extra $$$ up front and converting from incandescent to compact fluorescent bulbs. They pay for themselves in longevity (less man-hours changing bulbs) and a CFL bulb that gives off the same amount of light as a 100-watt incandescent only uses 23 watts. Some other comparative watt-use ratios are 75/20, 60/15, and 40/10.

I have no problem with 100-foot buildings being built in Santa Barbara as long as the first 55 feet are underground.

Steve Cushman is the best choice for mayor of Santa Barbara. His ability to balance a budget will be key in resolving the budget crisis currently facing Santa Barbara. He also truly cares about the residents as has been proven with his swift renovation of the Kid's world playground. Helene Shneider and Dale Francicsco on the other hand, are both idealists at opposite sides of the political spectrum. They both preach theories of perfection, however keep in mind, that idealist theories rarely workout perfectly in practice. Furthermore, Dale Francicsco is a homophobic bigot who voted against the equality to marry. Dale, go live in the past where you belong and Helene, stay away from the city budget, your inexperience has proven completely detrimental. Steve Cushman for mayor!!!!