For the Santa Barbara City Council, it was the eighth time that proved the charm. Only after seven deadlocked votes did the politically polarized council eventually agree to appoint Randy Rowse, longtime owner of the Paradise Café, to fill the council vacancy created by the election of former councilmember Das Williams to the State Assembly in Sacramento. One of 46 applicants, Rowse’s appointment came as a dramatic surprise both to himself and to many of the city hall insiders attempting to handicap the appointment deliberations.
With Rowse’s selection, the council will shift decidedly more to the right than it had during the past seven years when Williams was on board. Where Williams was an outspoken progressive populist and Democratic Party activist, Rowse is a declined-to-state downtown business owner active with the Downtown Organization who hosted a fundraiser for unsuccessful Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman at his restaurant. Rowse said his agenda was to keep Santa Barbara clean, safe, and fiscally sound. During the last council election, Rowse supported two of three members of the council’s conservative bloc—Frank Hotchkiss and Michael Self. But he also supported Bendy White, a moderate to liberal Democrat, and part of the council’s more liberal faction.
Rowse observed that relations between the feuding council factions have grown increasingly divisive, and expressed hope that he could help “moderate and dial it back a bit.” Long active in business and civic affairs, Rowse—who moved to Santa Barbara from West Covina in 1972 and opened the Paradise in 1983—has established amicable working relationships with many city administrators over the years (not to mention elected officials), some of whom frequent his restaurant. As such, he is less inclined to be suspicious and distrustful of their motives than relative newcomers like Hotchkiss and Self. Liberal activists who’ve lined up on the other side of Rowse regard him as approachable and not doctrinaire. But on the issues, Rowse is clearly more in sync with Hotchkiss, Self, and Dale Francisco, the strategic leader of the conservative faction.
In the past year, for example, Rowse has been an outspoken critic of medical marijuana dispensaries and lobbied actively for the outright ban backed by the conservatives. Williams, by contrast, was one of the most ardent proponents of dispensaries on the council. Where Williams—and a slim majority of the council—argued increased housing densities are essential to provide expanded affordable housing opportunities for Santa Barbara’s imperiled middle class, Rowse expressed skepticism that such densities could achieve their desired results and concern that they’d only breed increased traffic congestion. “I don’t want to see change for change’s sake,” he said. Rowse, however, did not support the lower building height restrictions backed most energetically, if unsuccessfully, by the new slow-growth conservative wing.
Over the years, Rowse has served on various committees to provide ample parking for downtown shoppers. When draft changes to the city’s General Plan were unveiled that called for the elimination of free parking downtown, Rowse helped lead the charge—on behalf of the Downtown Organization—to kill it. While those plans were not expunged entirely from the text of the proposed new General Plan, they have been included as only a remote future possibility. (That plan has not been approved yet.) Some alternative transportation supporters—and city traffic engineers—have argued the most effective way to discourage downtown congestion is to charge for parking.
Rowse ultimately got the nod at the instigation of Dale Francisco. It was Francisco, after all, who single-handedly kept Rowse’s name in the mix as the councilmembers winnowed the roster of 46 applicants down to nine semi-finalists and then to eight finalists. After that, the councilmembers were free to nominate any of the remaining applicants. For the first six rounds of nominations, the conservative bloc unanimously backed Planning Commissioner—and former mayor—Sheila Lodge. Though a liberal Democrat on national issues, Lodge has opposed increased housing densities favored by the “smart-growthers” making up the liberal wing. On the Planning Commission, she cast the sole vote against the proposed plans to change the city’s General Plan. Lodge’s favor with the conservative faction illustrates just how starkly Santa Barbara’s political winds have shifted over the past 15 years. Francisco acknowledged that he and Lodge differed sharply on national politics, but praised her knowledge and experience. Hotchkiss likewise noted that he and Lodge differ on many national political issues, but said their disagreements were so painless as to be “a delightful experience.”
The liberal bloc—Mayor Helene Schneider and Councilmembers Grant House and White—could not bring themselves to support Lodge. Instead, they pushed former councilmember Brian Barnwell, current Planning Commissioner John Jostes—an ardent and effective promoter of increased residential densities—and former county administrator John Torell. They went so far as to support David Hughes, who enjoys a reputation as a compassionate conservative. Hughes served as assistant city attorney back in the 1980s and now serves on the Housing Authority. He’s also been an outspoken foe of medical marijuana dispensaries. But the conservative faction would not bite. Instead, they dropped Lodge and just as steadfastly backed Rowse.
Councilmember House opined he was looking for someone fresh—like Torrell or Hughes—who pledged not to run once the year left on Williams’s term expired next December. Neither side wanted to give any candidate backed by their rivals the obvious advantage that incumbency conveyed. Francisco replied that Rowse had also promised not to seek reelection. After the conservatives withstood successive motions to appoint Jostes and then Hughes—sticking with Rowse—House changed course and nominated Rowse, who secured the appointment with four votes. House’s action may cause significant agitation among some liberal Democrats, but he said, “Randy is a fair guy with a moral heart who will help the council make better decisions.” The council was under pressure not to succumb to gridlock and not appoint anyone. Before the vote, many councilmembers expressed serious doubt they could get past a stalemate.
Speaking to reporters afterward, a happy and expansive Rowse was less than 100 percent absolute about his lack of future political ambitions, but he came pretty close. “I have zero plans to run in November,” he said. “I do not have plans to be a politician.”
Comments
Randy is a most excellent gentleman and will serve with distinction. He may not even need a parking place.
drdan93109 (anonymous profile)
December 15, 2010 at 6:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It will be very interesting to see how the appointment of a level-headed, non-politician will play out in this arena. I hope it doesn't play out like "The Candidate."
Randy is a smart, savvy, and involved citizen, and I wish him well in this post.
Chester_Arthur_Burnett (anonymous profile)
December 15, 2010 at 7:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Awesome quip, Dr. Dan, but I heard that Randy will be riding MTD Line 17.
With the four or more conflicting news reports so far about the intentions of Randy Rowse to run, or not, for election next year --and considering that Grant House seems to have based his "swing" nomination and vote for Randy on a presumption that Randy would not be running for election-- I suggest that Randy should definitively state his intentions by the end of the week. His intention, or not, to be a candidate for a real election next year will greatly influence what gets done on the City Council during the next 10 months and how various community interests perceive his actions as a Councilmember and chose to cooperate or to be wary.
I suggest the public deserves, and is entitled to, some crystal clarity on this and I hope Randy lets us all know with the top story in the news for Friday or Saturday.
Whatever he announces, I am glad to see a fellow graduate of the UCSB Environmental Studies program now on the Santa Barbara City Council.
David_Pritchett (David Pritchett)
December 15, 2010 at 8:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"No plans," is the common statement of all but the most dedicated wanna-be politicians.He did not say, "no intention of running." Just "no plans." Very different and it's what White said for months, for instance, before filing to run. In the same way, almost all say they aren't politicians.
A city clean, safe and maintaining fiscal sovereignty have been said for many, many years, in several different contexts. Indeed, "Familiarity with the council members," as Rowse said, prevailed. Notably, even though he did support White's council candidacy, but did not endorse Schneider's mayoral candidacy, Schneider and White did not make it unanimous. It was House nominating, supported by Francisco, Hotchkiss and Self.
Strange bedfellows: House has been a fierce supporter of medical marijuana; Rowse and his wife have been even more fierce opponents.
And the anti-density right-wingers are delighted. Thanks, Das Williams; how do you like dem apples, Mickey Flacks? Being dog-in-mangerish, unable to cooperate - forming the ridiculous "coalition" of builders and women with ego issues - has brought a conservative majority to the city council.
at_large (anonymous profile)
December 15, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
House, you have some explaining to do!
Chato (anonymous profile)
December 15, 2010 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh Randy, what have you stepped into?
A regular church goer.
dalplan (anonymous profile)
December 15, 2010 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I love Paradise but not Meg. What will Grant give up with this vote?
local (anonymous profile)
December 15, 2010 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe those liberal organizations that endorsed House should have asked more questions?
LC (anonymous profile)
December 15, 2010 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How nice, someone completely out of touch with Santa Barbara. Maybe he should put his money where his mouth is and stop selling booze before he tries to ban medical dispensaries. No doubt drunk drivers from his bar are responsible for some of the pain medical marijuana dispensary patients have. Won't be patronizing The Paradise any longer if that's where my money goes.
EZK (anonymous profile)
December 15, 2010 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A street corner salesman of booze wants to ignore California voters and shut out in-town medical weed outlets? Oh yeah, great choice.
genamethuen (anonymous profile)
December 15, 2010 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Despite all the speculation, Rowse's own comments appear to put him somewhere in the middle of the spectrum and able to jump party lines to support individual candidates or issues.
And Pritchett's belief that he's entitled to know Rowse's future intentions regarding the next election is absurd. Hopefully neither Rowse nor the rest of the council will make decisions based on who is running in the next election. We need to address our problems now, not wait until the future.
WilliamMunny (anonymous profile)
December 15, 2010 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Better not to say anything about ones intent to run for office in advance -- remember Lois Capps "I will not run for re-election"
loneranger (anonymous profile)
December 15, 2010 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Das the Golden Boy bails out on yet another position and now the liberals like Daraka Larimore-Hall are beside themselves with the "we weren't consulted" whines about Rowse's appoinment. You really thought Das would stick around? Classic.
Scooter (anonymous profile)
December 15, 2010 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How may of those critical of Rowse have lived in Santa Barbara before 1982, like Mr. Rowse???? I'd say he knows the town. This is from someone born here in 1958. Since I haven't seen a lot of articles where he is vocal on extreme issues, left of right, I think he is a good choice. We need someone with fiscal insight in these tough times. Too bad we don't have it on the Board of Supervisors.
BeachFan (anonymous profile)
December 15, 2010 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I know that Council Member Grant House has a big reasonable heart and assumes that everyone else has one too. But Grant House also seems to think that most people can use their intelligence, information and experience to think and even project beyond their own paradigms; even though House is already dealing with 3 stuck, irrational and even mean council members. I do hope that House and Rowse can break the barriers of that "conservative" Trio that I detest so.
But I am concerned that Randy Rowse, even though a celebrated business owner is not a well rounded individual that is required in a representational body.
Rowse, the host for the local Meg Whitman campaign fundraiser is already indicating irrational choices. And his approach to the dispensaries is of course also hypocritical since he has a conflict of interest of sorts as he runs a bar in his restaurant.
"West Covina" roots is what we already have with the ordinary Michael Self and that demographic is already overly represented here. Combined with the Orange County mindset of Dale Francisco and the LA/Malibu mindset of Frank Hotchkiss I presume that the pro-car club demographic that already dominates everywhere, including Santa Barbara, will persist.
But locally Rowse's business groups involvements and especially the city's Downtown Parking Committee is such an easy job or position considering their own narrow objectives. Popular I know but above all other needs in the community we have a committee dedicated to developing parking garages? And if you think about how most business operate and what they lobby for, most businesses are not fiscally "conservative" at all. "Free Parking." Isn't "free" part of some kind of socialist agenda.
So this squeaky conservative quartet platform apparently is fast cars, lots of fare and booze, free parking and oh yeah "no vagrants."
BTW we all know what Rowse does for a living. Does anyone know what O.C. vagrant Dale Francisco does to support himself in the Santa Barbara lifestyle?
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
December 16, 2010 at 6:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Really? You want this guy to state his re-election intentions before he replaces a guy who was seeking to leave his post from the get go ( during both terms) and never intended to serve out either term? And perhaps someone should publish a list of the progressive/non-progressive restaurants and bars, the political ties of their owners so everyone can do the right thing. Hell, why stop at that, every business should have to post their stand on all pressing issues in a position paper in their windows. It might be little labor intensive in terms of enforcement but at least we would know what to do when we need to eat, drink or shop. Now that is a Santa Barbara with values! Really?
Tiredofidiots (anonymous profile)
December 16, 2010 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There was NO fundraiser for the person you mentioned at Paradise Cafe. Were you intentionally trying to malign Rowse or the Paradise by printing this in your left leaning publication, or was this just poor reporting?
OneReader (anonymous profile)
December 16, 2010 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe it was more of a campaign stop than a fundraiser but it did happen and a simple two seconds of Google research confirms it:
http://www.independent.com/news/2010/...
http://www.thedailysound.com/102310ME...
CompetentObserver (anonymous profile)
December 16, 2010 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Issues aside I look for principaled candidates who are smart, have a calm demeanor and understand democratic principals regardless of their ideological beliefs."
That quote is from one of the more left-leaning posters here leading up to last year's mayoral election. Wow, he sure can talk the talk -- until someone's ideological beliefs aren't an exact match. Then it's daggers out on folks like Rowse, right Don?
Scooter (anonymous profile)
December 16, 2010 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
scooty poo; I don't normally like to respond to people hiding behind pseudonyms but I want you to know that I am very willing to give Rowse a chance to be fair. But Rowse has a history and I am not alone in pointing out that this pro-car chamber of commerce activist is not the most well rounded individual. Grant House can be very factual, persuasive, negotiable and hopefully for our city he will have better luck with Randy Rowse than the other three ordinary closed books.
And et al; there is no difference between fundraiser and campaign stop except in word only.
BTW does anyone know what the relatively young and previously vaguely employed vagrant Dale Francisco does for his highfalutin lifestyle here in Santa Barbara?
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
December 16, 2010 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. McDermott it's my understanding that Mr. Francisco works for a wealthy Texas developer.
EZK (anonymous profile)
December 16, 2010 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
''l think l feel a change in the wind ,'' says l
Georgy (anonymous profile)
December 16, 2010 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How will this make a difference in the day-to-day lives of those who live in Santa Barbara?
billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 16, 2010 at 8:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. EZK; humm I see. But does he take a salary from R.V.W.?
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2010 at 5:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Pritchett and McD - as usual criticizing anything they perceive as in even possible conflict with their far left agenda. And as always, proferring rumor and innuendo without factual support. Maybe we could get these guys their own private blog. We could call it moveon.please.
Let's see what Rowse does before judging shall we? And as to his intentions regarding election - that's his business until he decides to announce.
BTW, anyone recall our most self-assured hyperpartisan (that would be Das) confidently proclaiming that our Council would not move to the center (actually, he said 'to the right', not capable of understanding the distinction). Wrong again, Das.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2010 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
JohnLocke, why don't you call or email Don or me and discuss this, like humans with an identity?
We are really interested in knowing what facts we present that may be incorrect or not supported in our "far left agenda", whatever that means. I know inflammatory labels are fun and all that, but does that really help inform and educate anyone in a civil discussion?
Have a nice day.
David_Pritchett (David Pritchett)
December 17, 2010 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Randy might just be the only City Council Member to own a surfboard. Let's hope he still uses it.
easternpacific (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2010 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Pritchett - because it would be a waste of my time. You guys are beyond redemption. And 'far left agenda' is hardly an inflammatory label - it simply describes your political views, as often exhibited. For you to talk about civil discussion is a joke.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
December 17, 2010 at 5:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well I'm not seeking redemption just really good representation for all.
As I pointed out I am willing to give this narrowly focused, passionate, seemingly forever dedicated Downtown Parking Committee member a chance to be a well rounded representative.
But Rowse has already proven to be a very introspective and ordinary on many other issues and probably has no solutions; very similar to Francisco, Self and Hotchkiss. Not to wanting to denigrate the communities they all come from but they really do embody the very ordinary auto-centric sprawl of O.C., L.A./Malibu, West Covina mentality that we all presumably detest here. And yet that is what they are advocating for in Santa Barbara.
Perhaps the car-centric sheeple could consider that perhaps it is this new Council Member Rowse's persistent lobbying for an abundance of free parking, in the form of far to many over-sized parking structures, is at least somewhat responsible for all the high speed traffic in neighborhoods and all that congestion intersections around town.
BTW if Rowse really is a fiscally conservative business owner who would want fair representation for all of this city's inhabitants he should have long ago suggested disbanding the parking committee he serves. I mean what a horribly pre-determined agenda and narrowly focused group. And what a waste of staff time and city money. Pretty self serving and not very thoughtful or conservative in my opinion.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2010 at 7:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
By all means, let people pay for parking downtown instead of the merchants paying for it for them. Oh, but then they just might shop elsewhere. Duh.
And what's wrong with a narrow focussed group? This town is full of them - they're called special interest groups, like the Save the Gaviota Coast bunch, Heal the Ocean, the Committee to provide free housing to the poor (PUEBLO??), etc. But then I guess those are "good" causes....
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
December 18, 2010 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Indeed Mr. Locke those are good causes that benefit all of us now and future generations. The planet including our coast isn't a cigarette we can just burn up and throw away. But I guess most dead authors can only think short term.
EZK (anonymous profile)
December 19, 2010 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Short term? Well, yes, I suppose, when compared to the long term health of the planet, but then surviving the short term is a rather important precondition for addressing the long term.
And since government and NGOs generate no wealth in economic terms, and since the government and NGOs therefore depend on a healthy private sector to provide funding, a true thinker might realize that the health and welfare of the business community, from which revenue to support government and NGO actions flow and which provides at least a few private sector (i.e. not depending on taxpayer revenue), is rather important. Even in The Peoples' Republic of Santa Barbara (fortunately now swinging away from that extreme).
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
December 20, 2010 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry, left out the word 'jobs' after the word 'sector'. Trying to type too fast.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
December 20, 2010 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)