Although the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden’s Vital Mission Plan doesn’t hit the Board of Supervisors until May 4, the war of words over the controversial development project is already in full swing. From 30-second television commercials and 10-minute mailed DVDs to phone bank-powered telemarketing, supermarket-front petitions, and a free breakfast offered to supporters, the Garden’s administration is pulling out all of the public relations stops. Meanwhile, opponents of the project — concerned about fire safety, increased visitation, historical landmarks, Chumash villages, and more — have been running their own outreach efforts, including one widely circulating email that shows two young kids begging for help because they just barely escaped the Jesusita Fire and, presumably, will likely not escape the next time if the Garden expands.
It’s the Garden’s tactics, however, that’s creating the most blowback, even from people who don’t know much about the project. That includes Sol Morrison, a San Roque resident who was nearly named Santa Barbara’s official court jester years ago. This week, he received a “big, beautiful white envelope” that had been hand-addressed to him. Inside was a postage-paid envelope hand-addressed to the county supervisors and a pre-written letter for him to sign and send. Morrison asked some neighbors about the letter’s claims, and learned that it wasn’t the whole story. “They really seem to be obfuscating at the Garden,” said Morrison. “Didn’t they have to let staff members go?” he asked, referring to the spring 2009 layoffs. “Look at all the money spent on one iffy letter. It’s a weird expenditure of funds.”
Like Morrison, Marie Janisse has always enjoyed the Garden — she was even once a member — but is only remotely following the Vital Mission Plan. She was recently telephoned out of the blue and invited to breakfast at Elements Restaurant on the day of the hearing, where she could gather with others to support the Garden. “Their persuasive talk is well honed,” said the physical trainer, who said the caller also offered to put her through to the county supervisors’ offices so she could speak in support. Janisse said she’s sad that such an important community decision has been belittled to a PR campaign. “The issue here is fire safety and that’s not something you should hire somebody to sweet talk everybody about and take them out to breakfast,” said Janisse. “That’s too cheap.”
Paulina Conn, who’s battled the Garden over historical landmarks, was also lobbied on the phone by someone from Minnesota, and the pitch was that the project was simply to recover from the Jesusita Fire. “The Botanic Garden knows what my stance is,” she said. “That they haven’t even bothered to screen their contacts is quite surprising.”
Steve Sherrill got a similar call from someone in Wisconsin. After debating the caller, Sherrill decided to write a letter to the newspaper, in which he asked, “If the Botanic Garden expansion plan is so noble and the garden management is so sincere and upstanding, why do they find it necessary to stoop to such unscrupulous and dishonest tactics?”
Frank Arredondo, who is appealing the project on May 4 due to concerns over the disruption of possible Chumash village sites, concurred. He was approached at a supermarket in Goleta a couple months ago by someone asking for his signature to help “save the Botanic Garden” and allow it to recover from the fire. “The information was premised on the idea that, because of the fire, we have to push this plan through,” said Arredondo. “I didn’t think that was cool at all. That’s complete misinformation.”
Most recently, the Garden has sent out a letter inviting possible supporters to a free breakfast at Elements Restaurant on May 4, and claiming that “one neighbor — a specialist at opposing things — is leading a nasty effort to not only defeat this plan but also to change the Garden into a park for the neighborhood and eliminate our ability to conduct research and provide educational programs.” That man, everyone knows, is attorney Marc Chytilo, who lives upstream and has fought the project with Friends of Mission Canyon.
“Fortunately, anyone paying attention to the Botanic Garden’s antics in the past few years knows their leadership is completely out of touch,” responded Chytilo this week. “These smear pieces only reinforce this conclusion. Although we in the community don’t have the funds to respond in kind, we don’t really need to — the misleading petitions, uninformed phone calls, TV ads, and slick mailers tell the story all too well: another developer trying to bully their way to approval for an inappropriate project. That’s not how it works in Santa Barbara, and it’s a crying shame the Garden has wasted so much money this way.”
The Garden’s spokesperson Nancy Johnson bristled at the idea of this being a propaganda war, referring to call it an informational campaign. “We’re an educational institution,” she explained. “When we see the need for people to have information, we like to fill that need.”
Johnson said that the people contacted had “indicated to us in some manner that they are supportive of the project and wanted more information,” but didn’t have an explanation for why Conn was approached. The sponsored breakfast was a way to thank supporters for their help, said Johnson, but it was also practical, as those in attendance who wished to speak out at the hearing could be trained in the proper procedures.
Johnson defended the repeated linkage of the Vital Mission Plan to the Jesusita Fire, explaining that the disaster’s destruction of equipment, tools, and buildings “pushed us beyond the point of necessity.” As to the singling out of Chytilo, Johnson did not confirm he was the target of the letter, but explained, “We are not trying to vilify an individual, but we’re trying to get a responsible plan to continue the work we do here.”
Whatever the message, the Garden’s campaign has paid off, as more than 12,000 people have signed petitions in support of the project. That leaves Johnson and her colleagues “excited” for Tuesday. “We feel we can reassure the community not only of the need for this project, but that we have taken extraordinary measures to make this a very fire-safe garden,” said Johnson. “We’ve done as much as humanly possible and we feel we’ve acted in a very responsible manner.”



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
First off, I agree that fire safety in the area must be a priority. I attended a Planning Commission hearing on the issue in which representatives from the SB Fire Dept. spoke of how the the Vital Mission Plan would greatly IMPROVE fire safety in the area. How is there still debate about this issue? Is there anyone who would know more about this issue than the Fire Dept.?
Also, the plan will keep the Garden 99% open space, it will limit the number of guest/events for the first time, and the Garden will shut down on "red flag" fire warning days. All of these things will keep the facilities as a beautiful, natural open-space while still providing updates to the scientific aspects of the Garden that are much needed.
I recommend that individuals form their opinions on the plan by reviewing the facts - not on someone's critique of the Garden's plan for getting the issue out there.
GauchoScott (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2010 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why is it that you mention 12,000 petition signors at the very end of the article. That’s an incredible statistic. Over 13% of the city of Santa Barbara has signed their name showing support for the Vital Mission Plan?! I know that most of my friends, colleagues, family, and I support the Garden and their plan, but I had no idea that many other Santa Barbara locals felt the same way.
It seems like fire safety is a big issue for the opponents – and justifiably so. I know a number of people who either lost homes or were threatened in that area. If I lived up there I would want to be reassured that any changes being made would help decrease fire danger. I hope those same opponents will allow me the assumption that they trust the Santa Barbara County Fire Department – the same department that saved many of their homes – when they declare that the Vital Mission Plan will improve fire safety. What a relief that something is actively being done to improve fire safety in that very dangerous area. Worries about fire safety seem like a very good reason to SUPPORT the Vital Mission Plan.
Matt lists “increased visitation” as another concern of the opponents. I can’t help but point out that the Garden is imposing upon itself – for the first time in the Garden’s history – a visitation cap. Events and visitors will be capped at a number lower than the average attendance over the years. Another reason to SUPPORT the Vital Mission Plan is that, simply put, it removes any worry of increased visitation.
Breakfast. My favorite meal. I wish I was on the call list to be reminded about an upcoming hearing, given a chance to share my opinions about the Garden, AND be offered breakfast on the day of the hearing. I’m very confused about what Mr. Sherrill finds “unscrupulous” or “dishonest” about this. It’s very true that there’s no such thing as a free lunch, but this sounds awfully close to a free breakfast.
I’m more worried about the dishonesty of people who oppose a project for one reason, then make up other reasons when the first attempt doesn’t pan out…
Jfitz (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2010 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wait a minute- the people opposing the Botanic Garden sent around an email with a photo of two weeping children saying "Please save us from the Fire" ?? Who’s children are these, and why would they allow this group to
exploit them? These same people are attacking the Garden for making calls and sending brochures to educate the public? Sounds like hypocrisy to me.
I can’t wait for this stupid saga to be over next Tuesday when the Board of Supervisors uphold the Planning Commission and HLAC approval of the Vital
Mission Plan, and denies the unfounded appeals. Those opposed are obviously taking some low blows to the Garden’s campaign, because they
can’t fight their plans based on the facts. When it comes down to it, the Garden is a scientific and educational resource and they need new facilities. Period. Everything else is just drama and nonsense.
radplace (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2010 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Gaucho - you've been a consistent supporter of the Garden's plan, but it appears you get your facts from an unreliable and tainted source. You cite the 99% open space figure that is prominent in the Garden's propaganda, but in fact the EIR concluded that nearly 9% of the site will be covered with buildings, parking lots, pavers or other development, and thus the fact is that 91% will be undeveloped open space. EIR page 1-5 & 6. Should a developer be allowed to count a parking lot as undeveloped open space? I don't think so, nor does the EIR.
If you attended the PC hearing, you should have been surprised when, at the last minute, the Fire Department announced they would not declare red flag warnings, but intended in the future to rely on a regional forecast by the National Weather Service. We certainly were, and so was the PC. Our core concern is there's one road in and one road out of Mission Canyon and the Botanic Garden. The Jesusita fire burned from the top of the Canyon into Mission Heights in 25 minutes. The Garden's Fire Plan promises they can clear their average 100 visitors from the Garden and get them out of the Canyon in under one hour. We know from experience the panic and chaos when the fire front threatens amid blinding smoke, whipping winds, and suffocating temperatures. Several independent studies have concluded that Mission Canyon is at or beyond its safe evacuation capacity. Does it make sense to add more people, more cars and busses, and more buildings in an extremely high fire hazard zone? Garden leadership seems to have lost sight of the many constraints on their location - from the high fire hazard and single road to the Chumash village site to the landmarked historical 23 acres. The leadership has shown indifference to these constraints, by suing the County over actions of the Historical Landmark Committee, by proposing a road through the village site and then claiming the fire department made them do it, by proposing a development plan so aggressive it will take TEN YEARS to construct, and by signing a contract in September 2009 to reportedly pay John Davies $900,000 for the PR campaign we are facing.
Santa Barbara is a community that takes its land use issues seriously - if it didn't, we'd all be living in a very different community indistinguishable from those to the south.
Gaucho, you suggest people should form their own opinions by reviewing the facts and not relying on someone else's spin, so go do it. The four appeals are items 4-7 on the supervisor's May 4 agenda, with the appeal documents, staff reports and EIR available. http://santabarbara.legistar.com/Cale...
Marc_Chytilo (Marc Chytilo)
April 29, 2010 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What am I missing, Santa Barbara?
People of Santa Barbara I need your help. Please tell me what is it about the Santa Barbara Botanic Gardens “Vital Mission Plan” that does not make sense? I am stymied as to why a commitment to continuing an 80-year mission of research, while leaving virtually 99 percent of the Gardens undeveloped and improving fire safety for Mission Canyon is not applauded and embraced by all Santa Barbara residents.
It seems that many knowledgeable people think the Vital Mission Plan is a great thing for the Botanic Garden, and a benefit to our community. Both the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmark Advisory Commission agree that the plans for the Gardens are modest in scope and in keeping with the environment. The County Fire Department believes that fire safety will be improved for Mission Canyon with the implementation of the Vital Mission Plan.
What about the neighbors of the Botanic Garden? Well, it appears many of them support the plan as it introduces a cap on the number of guests that can visit the Garden each year. That is something new that comes with the Vital Mission Plan, which I’m sure the neighbors find very appealing.
So where is the rub? Is there something I am missing? Can’t I see the Forest for the Trees?
The benefits of the Botanic Garden’s plans far outweigh any negative impacts, especially because there are no impacts. Let’s allow this world-class environmental non-profit to continue their mission.
dennismo2 (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2010 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Marc Chytilo - prior to the VMP I heard no complaints about the SBBG. Now, your argument is the fire danger in Mission Canyon.
a) SBBG wanted to improve fire safety by adding water hydrants - your group opposed them.
b) SBBG VMP plan will improve fire safety in the Garden and Mission Canyon. Your group opposes the VMP plan - so you want to remain at current unsafe conditions?
c) SBBG will be capping visitor numbers even more than before - but it seems you want to maintain the current higher numbers?
I don't get it. Are you really for fire safety, because it sure does not seem so.
As dennismo2 said, "What am I missing?"
tabatha (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2010 at 5:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Chytilo, yes I have been following the Garden’s plans and have gotten a tour of the Garden where their staff graciously showed me where the new buildings will be. Whether it’s 91% open space or 99% open space – it still stands as a very small plan. I understand your concerns for fire safety being a neighbor of the Garden, but I don’t understand why you believe the Garden is going to bring so many more people. Currently the Garden has no limitations on visitors or events. With their plans, they are going to put a cap on visitation at a level that is far below the number of visitors they’ve had in the past – only around 1.5% increase. Why are you so afraid of classroom children coming to the Garden to learn about nature, and having guest professors do research and give lectures to the Garden? Do you just not want anyone coming through “your neighborhood” to enjoy the Garden if they’re not a “local”?
GauchoScott (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2010 at 5:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Regardless of whether one believes that 25,800 square feet of new development on the site of the Botanic Garden - ten years of heavy construction, 42 offices and 23 bathrooms, the destruction of scores of mature trees, over seven acres of new hard-paved surfaces including the paving of natural trails (most far too steep for wheel chairs), commercial food sales, substantial increases of non-garden related events such as weddings, festivals and catered parties including alcoholic beverages and amplified music, and 91,000 additional vehicle trips to and from the Garden each year (Garden's own figures) - is "vital" or a gross over development - one cannot ignore the fact that the single two lane road and only escape route for hundreds of families who live in Mission Canyon, is inadequate to accommodate the size of the proposed project. Fire hydrants are great (if fire crews can get to them) but a wind driven wild fire can overrun the best equipment and man power money can buy in a matter of minutes. My next door neighbor is a County Fire Captain. He said that sometimes the only thing you can do is run like hell. But what if the only way to run is jammed with cars and hundreds of panicked visitors scrambling out of the Botanic Garden? One collision, one stalled vehicle, one stuck tourist bus, one car in the ditch, can block everyone from reaching safety. In the 1991 Oakland fire, in one hour the wind driven flames consumed 790 homes and killed 25 people, many of them trapped in their cars while trying to escape. Go ahead. Ignore that. I dare you.
sfsherrill (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2010 at 8:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There is a fair amount of exaggeration and there are some inflammatory statements in that comment.
42 offices and 23 bathrooms per 78 acres = 0.5 offices and .3 bathrooms per acre. How many homes in Mission Canyon have that low ratio?
"destruction of scores of mature trees" ......... SBBG is replacing the removed trees by a substantially larger number of the same species
"paving of natural trails" ........... SBBG may not pave over more than 10% of what is now paved over, per the Planning Commission.
"most far too steep for wheel chairs" ....... not according to those who have already used the paved trails
With a property of 78 acres, if Mission Canyon homes each have 1 car per acre, SBBG is entitled to have 78 cars in their parking lot.
If there were homes on the 78 acres instead of the SBBG, I can guarantee that the car number would be worse.
"One collision, one stalled vehicle, one stuck tourist bus, one car in the ditch, can block everyone from reaching safety" this would be true if there were 10 or 100 cars.
"In the 1991 Oakland fire, in one hour the wind driven flames consumed 790 homes and killed 25 people, many of them trapped in their cars while trying to escape. Go ahead. Ignore that"
No, SBBG is not ignoring that. They are taking steps to make both SBBG and Mission Canyon safer, fire-wise in cooperation with the Fire Department. SBBG will be closed on high-fire days, and will be constantly vigilant about fires in the area. Lessons have been learned from all California fires - and these steps would be absent if the VMP were NOT implemented.
Lessons learned from the 1991 Oakland Fire - Please see next post.
tabatha (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2010 at 9:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lessons learned from the 1991 Oakland Fire. Please see next post.
"The most significant factor that should be recognized from this incident is that the fire was beyond the capability of fire suppression forces to control. Even if the Oakland Fire Department did not have communication problems or bottlenecks, the situation still would have been dangerous. The conditions on October 20, 1991 were so prime for a nasty wildfire that virtually no measures would have helped in mitigating the extent of this fire.
The biggest lesson that was learned in this fire is that mitigation factors should be enacted well before an event like this happens. Things like clearing of dead wood, cutting of tall grass and brush and regular controlled burns should be a regular occurrence in areas that are susceptible to raging wildfires. The second biggest lesson that was learned is that there should be an efficient fire communications center, where different elements are instructing different agencies to their job and helping those agencies communicate information with one another. There should also be adequate access to roadways for emergency vehicles and exit roadways for residents. Transportation out of the Oakland hills contributed to traffic jams and roadblocks that inhibited the fire fighting effort. The fire departments in Oakland, Berkeley and all surrounding areas provided a valuable lesson by demonstrating the need for risk assessment and planning for disasters that overwhelm emergency response systems.
There were many other elements that the Oakland fire department has learned as a result of the 1991 Oakland hills fire. An especially important element was the provision for adequate water storage and distribution systems for fire protection services. There were water issues in the 1991 fires that resulted in complications for many of the engine companies in fighting the fire to its full potential. There must also be modern communication equipment in place in order for there to be a sufficient attempt at fighting the fire.
The Oakland fires of 1991 taught the firefighting community a lot about mitigating hazards to the public. The main issue of mitigating wildfire danger deals with building dense settlements in wildfire prone areas. The denser the settlements in these areas, the more powerful and fast moving these fires will become as the houses act as fuel for the fire. Clearing dry brush, dead wood and using controlled burns are also methods of mitigating against wildfire disaster. An efficient communication system must also be in place in order to handle the vast responsibilities of directing different agencies to their respective locations in the event of another major wildfire. The firefighting community has learned many lessons since the Oakland 1991 fires."
http://www.csulb.edu/~djeffrey/hazard...
tabatha (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2010 at 9:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you, Tabatha, for some real and much more factual information about the Oakland Fire. One things that amazes me is the fact that the Garden has ALWAYS had events, classes, and large groups - and yet now their opponents argue against their plans because of having large groups? The Garden has always had classes, and large groups from time to time - they have no limitations on events as it is. Nothing is changing just because they want better facilities.
radplace (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2010 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"There is a fair amount of exaggeration and there are some inflammatory statements in that comment."
The exaggerations I read are in the response.
"42 offices and 23 bathrooms per 78 acres = 0.5 offices and .3 bathrooms per acre. How many homes in Mission Canyon have that low ratio?"
A ridiculous statement which would be true if there were 78 acres of BUILDINGS. Does anyone wonder what the NEED for 42 offices and 23 bathrooms might be?
"SBBG is replacing the removed trees by a substantially larger number of the same species"
How does one "replace" an 80 year old tree? Dig a hole, stick in a new one, stand back and wait 80 years? Or perhaps we could crane in some 20 year old trees. Then we'll only have to wait 60 years!
"SBBG may not pave over more than 10% of what is now paved over, per the Planning Commission."
There should be NO paving of natural trails. It violates the original landscape design concept. Most people appreciate the difference between nature and concrete.
"most [trails are] far too steep for wheel chairs" ....... not according to those who have already used the paved trails"
Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines states: "Any part of an accessible route with a slope greater than 1:20 shall be considered a ramp and shall comply with 4.8. Ramp slopes between 1:12 and 1:20 are preferred. The ability to manage an incline is related to both its slope and its length. Wheelchair users with disabilities affecting their arms or with low stamina have serious difficulty using inclines. The maximum slope of a ramp shall be 1:12. The maximum rise for any run shall be 30 in (760 mm)"
Most of the existing trails in the Botanic Garden are so steep that if a wheel chair were lose control, it would be a disaster, not to mention the law suits that would follow.
"With a property of 78 acres, if Mission Canyon homes each have 1 car per acre, SBBG is entitled to have 78 cars in their parking lot.
If there were homes on the 78 acres instead of the SBBG, I can guarantee that the car number would be worse."
Mission Canyon is currently at or near build out capacity. The greater interests of the Canyon and the hundreds of families who live there, take precedence over any single land owner.
""One collision, one stalled vehicle, one stuck tourist bus, one car in the ditch, can block everyone from reaching safety" this would be true if there were 10 or 100 cars" "No, SBBG is not ignoring that. They are taking steps to make both SBBG and Mission Canyon safer, fire-wise in cooperation with the Fire Department.
So let me get this straight - to make Mission Canyon "safer", we should add MORE buildings, MORE people, MORE traffic, and MORE congestion to an area that has already reached or exceeded its evacuation capacity????? I think that logic would escape most intelligent people.
sfsherrill (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2010 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is all just so Santa Barbara. With all the really important stuff going on in the world - financial chicanery in New York, massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, death of the entire top layer of government in Poland, contested elections in Iraq - you focus on this little tempest in a teapot. Get some perspective, people.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2010 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What an incredibly skewed article. At least 75% vilified the efforts that the SBBG has made to inform the community of the reasons for and details of the VMP.
The SBBG wants and needs better facilities so that it can continue to do what it always has- so give it to them!
And I just have to mention the absolute ridiculousness of one specific argument: the stone pavers. Who cares about the stone pavers this much?! The SBBG simply proposed that during this rebuilding process they could make some of the paths (aka: the flat ones!!!) accessible for persons in wheelchairs or using walkers. If the stone pavers aren't approved it won't be the end of the world. I personally think that it would be a shame, but the SBBG will clearly survive without stone pavers. The pavers are not a crucial part of this plan so honing in on it is completely unnecessary.
nginther (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2010 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
inFLAM(e)matory comments indeed!!!
Not quite accepting the argument that Iraq and oil spills are a mess so we should no longer care about overdevelopment of Misson Canyon.
David_Pritchett (David Pritchett)
April 30, 2010 at 8:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
JohnLocke, that idiotic comment is beneath you. Citizens should engage at all levels: international, national, state and local. Involvement at one level does not preclude engagement at another. In fact, one could argue that the local is the most important because "all politics is local".
I'll forgive you this time by assuming that you're rereading Atlas Shrugged and are Posting Under the Influence.
SezMe (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2010 at 9:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
SezMe, obviously I agree that citizens should engage at all levels, but there is so little evidence of anything other than local involvement in SB that I consider my comment to be totally justified. For example, most objection to offshore drilling here is concern about "OUR" beaches - what about the rest of the world, huh? How much of the local media (print and online) is devoted to other than SB news and issues? Very little. BTW, I read Atlas Shrugged 50 years ago - have you read it (the entire seemingy endless book) or do you just use it as an attempted insult (which failed)?
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
May 1, 2010 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah, I read it...Fountainhead too. Objectivism, like communism, only work in an ideal world which does not exist.
I disagree that local objection to offshore drilling is solely local. Most folks who are against it cite climate change as well as our local beaches.
I think it is natural for the local media to focus locally because that is the only niche left to them. The LA Times is so close that it can cover the print world while there are an uncountable number of national and international online news sources. Why would a local news outlet try to compete in that arena?
Finally, I wasn't trying to insult. Maybe some smilies in the future will help with the humor.
SezMe (anonymous profile)
May 1, 2010 at 7:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
:-)
I actually liked The Fountainhead better than Atlas Shrugged, but the whole objectivism thing always seemed oversimplified and rather cold to me. Didn't really allow for altruism, even though Ms. Rand tried to say it did.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
May 1, 2010 at 8:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am distressed by many of the projects that the Santa Barbara Botanical Garden is proposing. Many of them would change the nature and quality of Mission Canyon. They would increase traffic and noise in our canyon. The proposed projects will change the garden from a nature preserve to a commercial tourist destination. The structures being built and associated paving will remove the irreplaceable natural areas that the Santa Barbara Botanical Garden should be preserving and that we all value.
Has the Santa Barbara Botanical Garden explored alternatives for many of the structures it is proposing to build? Wouldn’t the garden and community be better served if many of the proposed facilities were located off site? There are many fine buildings currently for lease and sale in the Santa Barbara area. Because these buildings are available now the garden could better use and protect its holdings immediately. Leasing or buying vacant buildings would also help the Santa Barbara economy in the current downturn.
The many rare books would be better protected in a less fire prone area. Why put these valuable books at risk? If the library were located downtown, the library would have easer access for the public and scholars with out adding traffic to Mission Canyon. The seed and plant collections would also be better protected from fire if they were located in a safer part of Santa Barbara.
Why does the Santa Barbara Botanical Garden need to remove our natural areas to provide housing for its employees? In the current recession there are many fine homes and condos in Santa Barbara for sale and lease at ever more affordable prices.
Why remove our natural areas for classrooms. The natural outdoor areas of the garden are the best classrooms our children could have.
At a recent public meeting given by a Garden employee regarding the Gardens expansion plans. She stated “the Garden employees deserved” these new facilities. This is an example of the Gardens faulty point of view. The Garden and its employees should be serving the community. The community and natural areas should not suffer in order to enhance the position of those who work for the garden.
There is no justification to remove our valuable and irreplaceable natural areas especially when doing so will adversely affect all of the Gardens neighbors and when alternative locations and solutions are available.
silvercloud (anonymous profile)
May 2, 2010 at 10:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I can’t help but laugh noticing that the comments broke down to a contest of “who’s read the most Ayn Rand books” when out of nowhere Silvercloud posts a comment recommending some truly ridiculous ideas.
Just to set the record straight, the Botanic (if you’re going to trash this lovely place with your words please at least get the name right) Garden is not a “nature preserve.” Just because the neighbors of the Garden want it to be their favorite dog-walking park doesn’t mean it actually is that. The Garden is an “educational and scientific institution.” It was tough to read the rest of Silvercloud’s fabrications when the first paragraph called the Garden by the wrong name and described it as something it’s not, but I did.
Asking the Garden to locate their facilities offsite is like asking you to keep your garage and your bookshelves at two separate locations away from your house. The Garden is building and renovating these facilities because they NEED them there. What they are building will not bring more people to Mission Canyon. These opponents are fighting the Garden’s Vital Mission Plan – the same Plan that will impose a cap on visitations for the first time ever.
The Garden has been in Mission Canyon since 1926. They have watched as hundreds of homes were built in Mission Canyon, helping “remove our valuable and irreplaceable natural areas.” What must have been frustrating was that these homes were built there even though “alternative locations and solutions are available.” The Garden is simply trying to update their facilities – just like the hundreds of homes in that area have been doing for the last 50 years.
Jfitz (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2010 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Unfortunately it isn't all that simple.
It is funny how people speak about this being here since 1926..that's only 84 years....there is something that has been there for over 800 years and no body talks about that. Not to mention all the rules that are being broken along the way. The people who are in the trenches reading every line of the proposals, documents and technical brief all come back with the same rational..nothing adds up. We go from a to b then jump to m, then z. The EIR didn't review certain items and some parts of the proposal just don't make any sense. So yes before we just write a blank check allowing this development to come into an area, all steps should be taken to assure that we are doing it right.
Give kudos to the people who devote their personal time to review all aspects of this project, the Garden has hired guns to fight with. It is a clear uneven fight.
Ksen Sku
KsenSku (anonymous profile)
May 4, 2010 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)