Yellow Dogs Dancing
BLUE AND RED: Why the conservative ascendancy at City Hall might be a blip on the screen
Thursday, August 25, 2011
BLUE AND RED: The race for the Santa Barbara City Council is now officially afoot — the first candidates’ forum was held last Friday night — and amazingly, the Democrats have managed to refrain from their habit of self-immolation. But with 11 weeks to go before November’s election, there’s still time to call out the circular firing squad. For the time being, however, it appears that the area’s conservatives — perhaps a little drunk from their recent and historically unaccustomed successes — are in serious disarray. Based on my semiliterate reading of the tea leaves, the conservatives show every sign of losing the council majority they’ve held since January. Democrats can still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, however. Without regurgitating all the gory details, it’s only because the Dems seriously misplayed their hand that the conservatives managed to gain a council majority late last year. That’s the first time since the 1970s. Scalded by the gratuitousness of their stupidity, local Dems — a term that implies far greater cohesion than actually exists — set out to select three (and only three) candidates they could unify behind early on. Spoilers and vote-splitters would be ruthlessly chased from the field. By February — and that’s ridiculously early by Santa Barbara standards — “The Machine” had bequeathed the imprimatur of destiny upon the brows of Cathy Murillo, Iya Falcone, and Deborah Schwartz. They would run as a slate, meaning they would grit their teeth and say nice things about one another. Initially, I was underwhelmed in the extreme. Hardly anybody knew Schwartz, who’d left town for 20 years back in the 1980s. The most compelling thing about her was her mother, Naomi Schwartz, a political power broker involved in Democratic-environmental circles long enough to qualify as a geologic force. Falcone, it’s true, had served two terms on the council, but in that time had seemed to amass more baggage than a Samsonite factory. And Murillo — with whom I worked for many years — seemed too much the in-your-face activist for Santa Barbara’s more genteel brand of pastel politics.
Angry Poodle
On the other side is the much more conservative machine assembled by talented political consigliere Jim Westby, a former executive with General Motors and a relatively recent transplant to the area. Westby’s backing incumbent councilmembers Dale Francisco (a card-carrying Republican) and Michael Self (a card-carrying declined-to-state), who got politically involved out of their hatred for bulb-outs and other traffic-calming devices. Westby’s also backing council appointee Randy Rowse, owner of the Paradise Café, and another declined-to-state. As usual, the conservatives are clearer about what they like, and more emphatically, what they don’t like. Aside from not liking bulb-outs, they don’t like medical pot shops and have tried to get them banned. They don’t like the proliferation of street people and panhandlers and pushed hard to hire more cops — (what programs will get slashed to pay for these?) — to write them tickets that can’t be enforced because there’s no jail space anyway. And they really don’t like the idea of increased residential densities or relaxed parking requirements — which the other side says are necessary to bring down the cost of housing to a level more affordable to the middle class — which they claim will destroy Santa Barbara’s character. As Westby discovered, life doesn’t always follow the script. For a host of reasons, Francisco and Rowse proved extremely slow or noncommittal about declaring. As a back-up candidate, Westby had been nurturing Sharon Byrne, a rising star with the Milpas Community Association (MCA). In the past two years, Byrne has banged the gong loudly against pot parlors and campaigned hard against homeless-related street crime. Westby had helped fund the MCA. By the time Rowse and Francisco got around to declaring, the genie could not be shoved back into Byrne’s bottle. Byrne looked at the incumbents’ game plan and found it seriously wanting. And she would not be told what to do. Despite the best efforts by Westby and the Republican machine, Byrne jumped in. Although Byrne is nondenominational — and can claim the endorsement of Democrat Pedro Nava — she’ll clearly be drawing more from the same pool of voters targeted by the Westby Machine for Francisco, Rowse, and Self. And given that registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by a margin of nearly two to one in Santa Barbara, that’s a very limited resource. Republicans and conservatives can’t afford to act like Democrats and escape unscathed.
At last Friday night’s candidates forum — attended by 200 — the incumbents were not looking crisp. Francisco, normally smart, polished, and articulate, was uncharacteristically lackluster. Self may have won votes from the agoraphobe crowd when she exclaimed how the homeless “are terrorizing our community,” but to most people — even those ill disposed toward the homeless — such remarks seem a little unhinged. Quote-of-the-night honors clearly went to Byrne, who stated, “I’d like to walk down Milpas Street without being asked if I’m a prostitute.” That’s a first. Falcone and Rowse both did okay, but did not dispel lingering concerns among respective backers about whether their hearts — and heads — are really in it. No such questions for Murillo and Deborah Schwartz. If Murillo is merely impersonating a mainstream candidate, as some have suggested, she’s been doing a good job, having raised the most money to date and coming off with measured passion at the forum. When Francisco presented himself as someone trying to broker a compromise between the two sides when it’s come to updating the General Plan, a fiasco that’s consumed five years and $3 million, Murillo called him out. Francisco, she said, has bottled up the General Plan in a subcommittee, where’s he’s been holding it hostage. Having watched more than my fair share of such proceedings, I’d say that’s pretty accurate. And Schwartz — who has a tendency to over-explain things — spoke with surprising clarity, fusing her adopted big-brain Über-Wonk, data-driven persona with a bleeding-heart agenda.
Like I say, it’s not over. It’s hardly even started. But the fat lady has definitely arrived, and she’s getting warmed up.
Related Links
Comments
Captain Willard, lying alone in a grungy Saigon hotel room, imagined a scenario similar to how the campaign is going for the incumbents looking to get reelected:
"I'm here a week now... waiting for a mission... getting softer. Every minute I stay in this room, I get weaker, and every minute Charlie squats in the bush, he gets stronger. Each time I looked around the walls moved in a little tighter."
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2011 at 5:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Nick, in his usual pro Demachine view, will be proven wrong. Too much waste by the Dems in the past.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2011 at 7:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The people voted to support marijuana dispensaries. Remember Measure T? Anti-pot candidates have exposed their stripes on that issue, and the Angry Poodle's correct about powers shifting back. I admit to recreational use, and stand by people who need pot for medical purposes. Maybe Dale needs a toke?
BongHit (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2011 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So Westby is the godfather of these too sheepish or 'declined to state' or 'nondenominational' candidates. Make no mistake about these Westby candidates. Most fair minded voters in this city wouldn't have voted for Sarah Palin, Meg Whitman, Tom Watson, Tony Strickland or George Bush. Why. Because they're all nuttier than a holiday fruitcake. That is the genre of candidate that Westbys' picks are. So why would you vote for these irrational, narrow and phobic and scapegoating extremists.
Democrats can be criticized for 'self-immolation,' which is normally healthy for democracy. But crazy as Sarah Palin candidates can squeak in by promoting phobias and scapegoating the least among us for political gain and by being a 'decline-to-state' republican? What else are the Westby candidates in the closet about.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2011 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Westby is a genius. He called it weeks ago in the Daily Sound article that the biggest issues facing Santa Barbara are bulbouts and prostitution.
http://www.thedailysound.com/results/...
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2011 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"The answer is to cut down on these expensive traffic calming measures ..."
-- jfklbj
That sounds like pure rationalization to me. The bulbout and other safety improvements recommended by City Transportation staff and their engineers for the intersection @DLV and Figueroa would have been funded largely by a state grant the city successfully applied for. Despite that, the conservative council members *still* didn't like it.
What conservatives on the council *really* like about bulbouts is it gives them a way to get attention. I don't doubt that's what their campaign managers are telling them.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2011 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bulbouts are causing traffic hazards like immigrants are taking away jobs from Americans who want to pick strawberries.
Sorry, random letters, a state grant is free. Or at least we already paid for it through prior state taxes and fees, and now we locals would be getting some of that back because that street has a project that merits the funds. The same way that Medicare and Social Security are free except for how we all pay into those are entire working lives.
But do show us all the scientifically accurate polling that backs up all your allegations about what the public wants or not.
And Michael Self is still unhinged.
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2011 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@jfklbj "Has anybody wondered why we have elected conservatives with a liberal majority in town?"
The conservative majority wasn't elected. Rowse was appointed - a mistake soon to be corrected by the upcoming election. I will miss the hilarious sound-bytes provided by Michael Self, however...
EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2011 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@jfklbj: "But I guess that's why they're liberal. Many people really do believe money does grow on trees."
How I miss the frugality of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush...
EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2011 at 6:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The "conservative" majority would be considered centrist anywhere but here, Berkeley, Santa Cruz, or Madison, WI. When enough people understand that "progressive" in SB politics means progressively stealing the taxpayer blind while enriching the government unionized employees, the "progressives" will become permanently irrevelant. This may have already happened - Nick, Taxin Jackson, and their big gov buddies notwithstanding.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2011 at 7:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
John locke- i can think of nowhere that statements
--denying plastic bags are harmful to sealife;
--references to homeless persons as terrorists
--voting to support secret meetings and gutting of Brown Act
Would be considered "moderate". And those examples are just from the past three months.
Online city council video is a treasure trove
Deborah_Samson (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2011 at 10:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe, they could round up the 'homeless', and send them to the Police Academy. Two birds, one stone. . . .
equus_posteriori (anonymous profile)
August 26, 2011 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'd still like to know where all these conservatives are. I find it laughable that you all refer to these people as "conservatives" because they may have an "R" behind their name, or they once held a private sector job, or they belong to the chamber of commerce, or they wear a suit, etc. These guys are far from having real conservative values. No. Taking some weak cheese stance against the idiotic banning of plastic bags, acknowledging the fact that many of the homeless in Santa Barabara do pose a risk to public safety, and not giving their full-fledged support to some absurd act that would reward illegal aliens, put forth by some old, burned-out, ultra-liberal, gubernatorial re-tread, is not being conservative. It's simply exercising what little common sense anyone in the city council may possess. I seriously doubt that it was any of those "conservatives" who proposed or supported the painting of that idiotic blue line. But, I'll bet I can tell you who some of the voices of reason were that helped stop such a stupid idea in its tracks.
waz (anonymous profile)
August 26, 2011 at 8:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)