Williams Explains No Show on BevMo!

It is not unlikely that I would not vote for Williams. He is thoughtful, knowledgeable, genuine and honest; except perhaps these few times that a politician is not allowed to be. So I agree with Williams on policy issues and nearly all of his decisions.

But once in a while I'd appreciate it if a an elected representative could tell their constituent base that they are cuckoo crazy. But I guess the kids in the audience would have a tantrum and threaten a recall.

So it is time for all the kids in the classroom to go stand in the corner for a half an hour. Go think about the impact you create in this world and why you want to stop a legally operating business from opening and why you're blaming everyone else for the traffic and the associated problems you create.

New SB marketing slogan "Visit State Street, 3 miles of bars and liquor stores."

This just shows once again what moral integrity this fine young man possesses. I will be working hard to make him our next CA State Assembly representative! Thanks to Das for never letting us down.

moral integrity? I;'m presuming, VLHAMILTON, that you are being sarcastic; by not showing up for the hearing on an important neighborhood appeal, Das demonstrated the lack of courage to participate in the public process he was elected to. shame on him.

Amen, lordleadbetter...SB is one big bar and liquor store.

And was there EVER any doubt that this booze warehouse ("high-end liquor superstore"...WTH??) was going to be approved? In SANTA BARBARA? Why waste your time "giving input" when it comes to these "done deals"?

Please...anyone who ever was fool enough to believe that the wishes of the taxpaying, law abiding residents and neighbors of SB actually matter to the City Council has probably been spending too much time in one of SB's many alcohol establishments or at the very least is completely delusional. Definitely not been smoking anything because SB is VERY concerned about (GASP!) marijuana smoking. Booze...yes; pot...never!

I am incredibly glad I got out of there when I did; seeing the proliferation of bars and liquor stores sprouting everywhere is just heartbreaking and revolting. It's becoming L.A. with red tile and white stucco, complete with ugly strip malls, traffic, road rage, gangs, long lines everywhere, angry, frantic people, and booze, payday loan places, bars on windows, etc. Sad. Really sad.

And oh yeah...Das William's latest fundraiser and gathering of the elite is a wine swilling party...so it's pretty clear that he has NOOOO problem with inflicting a huge liquor store on SB, then cutting and running to Sacramento if he can at all get away with it and find enough suckers to vote for him; he just doesn't want to get caught with his hands all over it.

How nice it would be if instead of following the $$$ we had politicians who could actually see past the rhetoric and realize that all this BevMo store is going to do is increase traffic in an already overcrowded area.

Does Das Williams speak out about the negative impact on the quality of life the bars have downtown?

It's all about follow the money, grease the right palms, seduce people with the "progressive" talk about how things are going to get better, and let those developers get their way at the expense of the neighborhood.

The truth is all that matters to most people is that their party's candidate wins. So what if your city is overcrowded and infested with gangs, traffic, and an overall sense of malaise? After all, it's called progress and as long as one lives in paradise so what if they pave it all over and and turn it into one big drunken party?

What a bunch of insipid whiners. If they vote for the project, they're pushovers. If they vote against the project, they're a bunch of NIMBYs.

Grow up. And if you don't like it, get out like Holly did. Makes it better for the rest of us if there's not so much hot air wafting about.

The level of easily-triggered anger and political vitriol among Independent readers doesn't speak well for Santa Barbara's capacity for rational self-government.

A law-abiding business leases property, agrees to improve that property substantially, applies for the necessary permits to do business, and takes its chances with a politically divided city council. The neighbors protest and appeal to the council, arguing that their comfort and well-being should take precedence over out-of-town corporate interests.

A BevMo! in town means a vacant commercial property will be occupied with a stable tenant that will generate significant tax revenue for the city. It also means that residents whose homes are already close to a variety of State St. businesses, each generating its own noises and nuisances, will have to adjust to something different.

On this issue, though, the council is not divided at all. The neighbors are given a fair hearing and their appeal is denied. Because he has a separate, official affiliation (Charter School Trustee) with one of the petitioning neighbors, Das Williams removes his voice and his vote from the mix. What could be more logical, ethical, and worthy of praise? And what outcome could speak better of the common sense and impartial judgment of elected officials?

I don't mean to say everyone is happy with the result, but objectively, where is the basis for charges of corruption, debauchery, insensitivity to voters, or political cowardice?

That's too bad! I actually really wanted a BevMo! in town but I think that's a bad area to put one. They should put it out in Goleta where there's more room and more parking and the area can allow for a higher volume of cars and people. High end?? I think everything's at a normal price.

"The neighbors protest and appeal to the council, arguing that their comfort and well-being should take precedence over out-of-town corporate interests. "

"I don't mean to say everyone is happy with the result, but objectively, where is the basis for charges of corruption, debauchery, insensitivity to voters, or political cowardice? "

As for insensitivity to voters, if the voters who lived in the neighborhood didn't want this to go through, and the council went ahead and did it anyway, then the argument of insensitivity speaks for itself.

The issue is quality of life, and that's what is being ignored.

I think Williams simply copped out: he gets paid by the taxpayers to be present, to listen to the arguments and to vote --- and if he can't do it, well, to say that his mind says one thing and his heart says another so he will leave the room is a cheat on those of us who pay his salary. He's no longer a young man, at 36, and is nothing but a career politician who spends the major amount of his time either running for office or preparing to run for another. Would that we had a choice of "none of the above" for this November!

I was going to add to my previous post but citti beat me to it. What I wanted to say was that as a public servent, and as one who *chose* that life, Williams works for the people, not the special interests. The same goes for the rest of elected officials. Anyone who thinks the city council is working in their interests and are preserving the small-town atmosphere need to take a look at the vote on BevMo.

If the people of Santa Barbara wanted a big-city feel to their neighborhoods, they would have moved to a big city yet the council has chosed to foist this upon the neighbors. I would remind people that if former governor Davis could be thrown out of office, so can these people, but the voters themselves are the only ones who can chart their course.

P.S. As a private citizen, Williams can come out and take a moral stance on this issue or any other issue for that matter. I don't know what he means when he says he can't render an impartial vote. He could at least come out and take a personal stance against this. I also fail to see how his being on the board of Peabody school conflicts with a decision which affects people of a given neighborhood, even if that neighborhood is the same in which that school is located.

Also, people should take note and wake up: the argument about "revenue" is a Red Herring. The city's survival doesn't hinge on BevMo's being approved, but the day-to-day life of those who live in that area will be affected. Once again, it's up to the voters.

Thats cause now he too can get cheap booze. Why would you vote against something you would use? I remember him partying it up at the Wild Kitty back in the day.

I always gag a bit when I hear Santa Barbarans invoking their desire for "preserving the small town atmosphere" or saying things like "If the people of Santa Barbara wanted a big-city feel to their neighborhoods, they would have moved to a big city." What ill wind sucked us all up and landed us in rural Kansas?

Face it, we live in a city--not a "big" city, but nonetheless a city with a certain amount of the standard urban challenges that come with packing people in by the dozens per acre.

But we also have an excellent mix of urban amenities--performing arts venues, museums, galleries, pretty decent restaurants, world class health facilities, a good spectrum of educational institutions, and a broad mix of retail outlets--all despite a deep-rooted aversion to growth and skepticism about the benefits of development. We haven't done so bad over the past century at maintaining a quality of life that we can be proud of, and to a great extent we can thank our elected officials--including Das Williams--for their service.

I realize that a change in retail tenants from a vacant furniture store to a BevMo! can feel like an unwelcome shock for the neighbors, but let's try to keep a sense of perspective. The city (or town...whatever you want to call it) is not collapsing into blight and decay.

"As for insensitivity to voters, if the voters who lived in the neighborhood didn't want this to go through, and the council went ahead and did it anyway, then the argument of insensitivity speaks for itself.
--billclausen

This is just nuts. We have zoning laws and other restrictions on commercial enterprises. BevMo's proposal fit within those restrictions. Yet, you think their proposal should be rejected just because some people didn't like it.

There were probably some people who were for the project. Would the council have been insensitive to them if they had rejected the proposal.

Your argument makes absolutely no sense.

@SezMe: so why waste time taking the input of the neighbors if it's already a done deal? "There were probably some people who were for the project. Would the council have been insensitive to them if they had rejected the proposal." To answer your question: Yes they would have. But that's life. Sometimes you can't please everyone and my point is that the well being of a neighborhood is better than what a few people with a vested interest want. If your first point about zoning laws is valid--and I'm not saying it isn't--why did they waste their time receiving input? They should have just told the voters up front "Don't waste our time with this, it's the law and you're just going to have to deal with that".

@Chas: "But we also have an excellent mix of urban amenities--performing arts venues, museums, galleries, pretty decent restaurants, world class health facilities, a good spectrum of educational institutions, and a broad mix of retail outlets"..

Nothing more than an attempt to get the subject off topic.Santa Barbara had these assets back as far as I remember. (The early 70's) So I think it would survive without having a BevMo crammed into the chosen location.

By the way, I find one of your quotes from a past thread to be interesting, It goes as follows: "Obviously the News-Press is no longer a Pulitzer caliber newspaper, but I wonder if Santa Barbara is still a town that deserves one."

April 26, 2007 at 6:59 p.m (http://www.independent.com/news/2007/...)

Between your quote "I always gag a bit when I hear Santa Barbarans invoking their desire for "preserving the small town atmosphere" and the one I cite, you seem to not think much of your fellow inhabitants.