Saying No in Noleta

Im confused. Were all of these frightened Noletans direct descendants of the areas first inhabitants? Are they living in a dreamworld that tells them once theyve "arrived" they may shut the door on all future growth and change?

Im confused too. Why in the world would anyone actually prefer more density, more crowded streets and schools, more traffic etc? Only one reason I can think of...money. If there's another reason can someone tell me. Maybe Deborah Samson knows. Our local population numbers have gone down in recent years which means our kids will be able to live here if they can afford to so don't give me that one.

previous post by Deborah_Samson:

Posted on August 16 at 10:52 p.m.
"Donna thank you for passing on this vital information- since the Baupost group first purchased the treasured Bixby ranch, many of us in the community have tried to discern their long term plans - we must remain vigilant- the degradation of farmland for the purpose of future devlopment must not be allowed to continue."
On Beware the Buyers of Ag Land

I think she is confused.

Take a drive down highway 101. Keep your eyes open as you reach Calabasas. Drive to Dana Point, about an hour to an hour and a half, depending on traffic. You'll notice 100 miles of city. Much of this used to be ag land. Now it is polution land. We really don't need this in Santa Barbara county.

Keep in mind that the Developer's, and their lobbyists who represent them, get paid to be at these important meetings (especially the initial ones) where we, the citizens who live here and pay taxes here, have to get off work, or hire child care to voice concerns about changing the character of our rural, agricultural community.

Zoning changes should be put to a vote. If not, keep holding the iron to the fire in accountability in local government. They work for us, not them!

It is hard sell to do planning to provide homes for people who are not residents there already.

As much as we may or perhaps may not need more housing and perhaps greater urban density we need food and thus ag lands a heck of a lot more. How to compromise? Well perhaps a few ( very few IMHO) multi unit dwellings, what I imagine some would call "apartment buildings". I can't say that I really want to see them in Noleta but if we must compromise that would be the least land intensive way to get the most housing units with the least loss of ag land and open space. As a relative newcomer to Noleta, only been living here a quarter of a century, I must say it is wonderful and I would really hate to see it get more crowded and less livable. Sadly not everyone can always live exactly where they want, growth must have its limits or it is a cancer.

The People Vs. The Developers

Who will the politicians side with?

I agree with eastern pacific.

Zoning changes should be put to a vote. What would take for this to become law?

TG

In Ventura County they passed an initiative to protect agriculture zoning. It has stopped many massive high-density, mixed-use developments that would have sailed through Ventura County Government.

Since agriculture is the backbone of Santa Barbara Counties local economy, producing food made in the USA, it makes economic and environmental sense to protect Ag Zoning. It would protect Bishop Ranch as well, which if passed, will create many serious problems.

The situation in Noleta is different, but SOAR creates a model to follow for other types of zoning.

http://www.soarusa.org/

This is a case of staff overreaching after the advisory panel rejected the staff recommendations. There are some social engineers in Sacramento who think that the South Coast of Santa Barbara County is not taking our fair share of the poor by pricing them out of the housing market. These social engineers make the same comments on every plan submitted to them by the cities of Carpinteria, Santa Barbara, and Goleta and the County. Ho hum, ignore them. There is a much larger demand for housing on the South Coast of Santa Barbara than any amount of supply could keep the price down. So give up already! We know the character of the community in which we want to live. There are plenty of places for high density housing in California; in fact we have our very own Isla Vista. We don’t need to redesign Noleta to accommodate a bunch of grumpy people in Sacramento. Who can blame them? If I lived in Sacramento, I would be grumpy too.

"It is hard sell to do planning to provide homes for people who are not residents there already."
-- John_Adams

I have absolutely no idea what your point is. There are two possibilities. One, I'm dense and have no clue. Two, you're a really crappy writer and need to express yourself more clearly. Pending input from the masses, I'll go with #2..

We have heard this debate for the last 40 years. Of course current residents want minimal further development; it is in their self interest. And current residents will say "Not everyone can live in Santa Barbara". Of course, they did not say that before moving here. The State of California has an interest in ensuring that all State residents can obtaining housing. Bakersfield may not want to house all the poor, and Bakersfield has more voters than Santa Barbara. So the State is going to continue to pressure us to accept more low cost housing.

So why not adopt Portland's approach? Define an urban boundary, and limit high density to the urban core. The south coast has two obvious urban cores at present: downtown Santa Barbara, and Isla Vista. Put the high density there.

How wonderful my home in the Eastern Goleta Valley would be if all my neighbors would just donate their land to the Land Trust and move away. I'd have so much more open space around me! Maybe the songbirds that my neighbor's cats have eaten would return.

Strange how my great-great-grandfather, a local farmer, *wanted* development. So do some of my cousins still... they are tired of farming and want to sell out. But they need the money, although they'd rather have more money from selling their land. But no... all the newcomers who've come in the last 60 years want their farm to stay.

So maybe we can arrange a deal... all the newcomers, give up your property to open space, and let my cousins develop their land. A net change of 0.

Sez, it seems to be your first option. And everyone else should enjoy eating lima beans, as that is about all that will grow there without massive water subsidies.

Upzoning for semi-affordable housing is to provide direct benefits for people who do not already reside there and need a better home that is bigger, safer, and/or closer to their work. Those who already reside nearby typically see no benefit to that and instead will just hope their waiters, landscapers, firefighters, car mechanics, and other service providers somehow can get to work and tolerate dense traffic congestion to get there.

Political leadership is tough on issues like this when those who benefit directly from new housing cannot be identified by name and probably do not reside nearby or even in the voting district. Promoting and approving projects like these are all a question of scale for how broad should the benefits be and how narrow should the costs be accepted, all as the fine art of politics.

I am confused --
Hasn't California had a net population been pretty flat and even declining over the last few years?
Don't we have tons of vacant homes, mostly in the central CA area?

Are these facts true?
1. The infrastructure is not present to support the high-density housing in Noleta.
a. Emergency evacuation routes contradict Public Safety & Safety responsibilities.
b. During current commute times our intersections are already at D & F service levels.
c. There is not an infinite supply of potable water in the event of inevitable droughts.

2. The Eastern Goleta Valley has already provided
1 subsidized housing unit/18 residents - the highest ratio per capita on the So Coast.

3. We currently provide more than enough housing to satisfy the State-mandated Housing Element requirements.

4. There is no definition of the "Urban Agricultural Districts." This type of rezoning gives NO protection to farmlands & removes any control over farmlands & high density housing from residents in Noleta.

Oh yes - and I have a personal agenda: What happens to the already declining value of my home? I am a single mother & it is my primary asset.

As Steve Johnson said, we need to define an urban boundary, and limit high density to the urban core. Otherwise, they will continue to build sprawl.