You Missed Me, Lady

Dear Barney,

Since you've declared yourself “listening” regarding increased density housing in our city:

How do you regard those in our city government – read Frank Hotchkiss, Dale Francisco, Michael Self and Randy Rouse – who put Santa Barbara in default for one year with regard to California law mandating a five year revision of the city's General Plan, a plan which, after many concessions from all parties, stipulated only the possibility of additional workforce housing in downtown areas of the city? How do you regard these same politicians who hastily changed their minds and permitted passage of the Plan only with elections looming?

On a separate, but perhaps equally important matter, how do you regard those in city government – read Frank Hotchkiss, Dale Francisco, Michael Self and Randy Rouse – who voted that they would like to see eliminated the key provision of the state's Open Meeting Law preventing a majority of a deliberative body operating under California law from meeting in secret? And once again, beating a retreat when a justifiable citizen furor resulted?

Are these people's hearts and minds, do you think, devoted to abiding by a law though they may not favor it and on upholding the procedures of a transparent democracy?

I hope you keep on listening.

William Smithers

There is one huge, unrecognized problem with high density, and that is that it destroys forever the possibility of community self-sufficiency. Without access to open land, the community is forever dependent upon the outside world. Everything that is needed – food, building materials, clothing, the works – has to be brought in from somewhere else, because there is no possibility of growing even so much as a stalk of corn. And all the waste has to be exported too. This condemns the community to a dangerous dependency that is also troublesome to both the outside communities that are called upon to deal with the immense needs of this hungry monster and upon the environment, which reels under the impact. Land is destroyed, and the people become like chickens penned in cages of their own making, helpless and utterly vulnerable. Density is neither environmentally sound (despite the pleadings of its proponents) nor socially beneficial.

The tepid argument that residents will be able to walk to work is not sufficient to compensate for the massive negative impacts of high density, even if it were magically to happen (which it does not).

According to research by the World Watch Institute, there is a three-day food supply in urban areas. With an increasingly brittle agricultural system, we are all in peril, and especially so if we are rendered helpless by the complete usurpation of the land for buildings and infrastructure. On the fourth day we must eat each other. That's just how serious this matter is.

Those who propose increased density for Santa Barbara may be naively well-meaning. Or they may know very well that they are sacrificing the well-being of the community for their own profits. Whatever the motive, they are wrong about density.

I am politically as far to the left as anyone I know. I would never vote for the Self-Rowse-Francisco cabal because I am utterly opposed to their philosophy. But I also share Sheila Lodge's concerns about the planning agenda of the liberal candidates. I really have no idea what to do, and find this election to be one of the most vexing in memory.

This will in fact be one of the most interesting City elections in my over 50 year life in SB. In the past the so called liberals always were "No-Growthers" against the big bad developers. In the last few years the suppposedly "smart growthers" came along and took over Demo politics. Who is Daraka whomever? Where did he come from? For us life longers, over development has always been the most important local issue.

The fact that Mayor Lodge, who has always been perceived as the Demo, liberal leader of the City for decades, can support Dale Francisco, who supported Prop 8, is the best evidence of the sea change in local politics. I am vehemently anti-growth. I support Randy Rowse as he has been here and involved for decades volunteering, and is a good person. Dale is smart and hard working and against "smart growth." I will hold my nose on his support of Prop 8 (no I am not gay and as Seinfeld would say, "so what"). I cannot stand Michael Self so I will vote for Iya and hope she does her job and does not tip the scales on the development issues. Yes I support the Cops. Give them as much money as they need to stay here and keep my family safe.

Lodge, Rowse, Francisco, Self, Hothckiss et at only represent this very narrow focus that is the el Pueblo Viejo District. Any other districts and most residents really need to incorporate if they want representation from this group of self servers who have all stuffed themselves with the many amenities that this region has to offer and would then slam shut the door in your face.

I am nearly certain that Rowse is the worst of these candidates. Being good looking, successful, a businessman and yatchsman does not necessarily make for good representation.

Randy Rowse has been volunteering on the downtown parking committee for 2 decades but that committee is a very narrow and self-serving committee. And what else is that committee going to promote; parking garages and along with it congestion.

Rowse Randy has proven very self serving as a council member. Not only did he vote to narrow Cliff Drive (his very own neighborhood) but then within the next couple weeks denied a project that would have greatly improved two downtown neighborhood intersections on de la Vina at Figueroa and Canon Perdido steets.

Closely following that; Randy Rowse joined Kathleen Michael Self in making a special request; making it much more difficult to consider other well thought out requests from residential and business groups seeking similar relief as Rowse had just promoted in his very own Cliff Drive neighborhood. And although Kathleen Michael Self would normally be against that type of project, Self went along with it for her good friend Randy Rowse.

And I am not certain that if 3fingasdown Randy Rowse was of any other race or ethnicity that he would have been given a pass for his performance and comments and the Cliff Drive hearing.

Santa Barbara politics has always been about growth issues and protecting the environment.

The irony in this election is that Falcone, Murrillo, and Schwartz are the actual conservatives. They are being backed by the developers. They're pro-growth agenda will put more cars into Santa Barbara and create more air and noise pollution.

It will be interesting to see if liberal voters vote on the issues or vote for party loyalty. I can't think of a previous election where this was the case.

SBReader: if you're looking for a third choice who's not high density, don't vote for Iya (or Schwartz or Murillo) who have all strongly advocated for high/increased density. Those who don't are Francisco, Rowse, Self and Sharon Byrne who has a particularly thoughtful comment in the recent SBView: http://www.santabarbaraview.com/quest... . Maybe there are other candidates who also don't support high density - Sebastian Aldana, I think, for one.

And OwenDell: I sympathize, though nowhere near (any longer) to the left as you. However, there is one major issue in this election and it is density. Not only for food production but healthy states of mind we need open space. Although a Democrat, I can not vote for any of the Democratic slate.

404 error on your link.

And as to what to do about the reckless drivers, the law breaking skate boarders on the sidewalks on State Street and the cyclists...carry your cell phone. Take their photos.

Sooner or later you'll have a readable license plate or an identifiable image of the teen punk who just slalomed around you on the side walk.

Sign a citizen's complaint. Bring the images of the skateboarders to the local school principals.

That is if you want to do something that might be effective.

B.Brantinghams comments that "There’s way too much money to be made by cramming more people into available space, and that makes me suspicious of the noble arguments I hear."

Counter points to be made are: there is also a bit of money to be made by not legally and properly developing, illegal units and property owners and property hoarders who are not paying property taxes to support their properties' services and uses. Prop 13 pretty much requires growth to compensate for municipalities' inabilities to adjust property taxes upward for inflation and increased expenditures for technology upgrades, repairs and improvements. That is the reality and any degradation that you perceive has nothing to do with proper development or Smart-Growth. We have not really had proper Smart-Growth so lets not blame it for any of your discomfort.

Other counter-comments; The city is not loosing open space. The development zones in question are well within the citys' core and the developments and proposed developements are upgrades and will contribute to a stable property tax base. Chapala Street has had a good start but much more needs to occur to really be considered Smart.

Another counter-comment; people generally feel most cramped when they've adopted and automobile-centric suburban lifestyle. Self, Francisco, Rowse, Hotchkiss are in a strange position to complain about this cramped feeling while at the same time being reluctant to build really nice, enjoyable and generous housing units that supports our local economy. "It's The Economy Stupid."

The last election was about 'height limits' and Self, Hotchkiss, Francisco and Lodge lost on Measure B. Reasons why Self and Hotchkiss were elected was because of their freakish phobias that people identify with and because of the massive funding by Moneycityo/Texan millionaire and sprawl developer Van Wolfswinkel.

This current election should be about the economy. The city has been holding things together for 15 + years with sloppy seal and neglect. We really need technology upgrades, new amenities, better police service, nice public schools as well as infrastructure repairs in multiple millions of dollars. We cannot do that with our current property tax base. We need really good SMART growth to accomplish new generous residential units, good transit routes, a local tax base to accomplish those amenities and of course the people who will use it, appreciate it and contribute more efficiently to the local economy.

Sorry! The link seems to be defective: it becomes one with %'s, leading to a 404. Best is to scroll down from the homepage: http://www.santabarbaraview.com
to Questions for Candidates. Unfortunately, few of them bothered to reply; Iya is an exception, as are Cathy and Sharon, most recently.

jfklbj; you have far too many initials and personalities to figure out anything slightly complicated. Yes I do support traffic calming and specifically the changes to Cliff Dr.

But 3fingasdown Randy Rowse should have stepped down if he is not going to represent other busy locations citywide and in Rowses' purview. Otherwise Randy Rowse is just playing favorites and appearing to be doing favors for his select homogeneous Mesa neighbors.

I urge fair-minded Mesa residents to thank Rowse for his vote on Cliff Drive but realize that Rowse is not fair minded for others in the city that need fair representation and withhold voting for Rowse as well as Dale Francisco and Michael Self for identical reasons.

Rowses' questionable performance is a matter of video public record here >>> http://santabarbara.granicus.com/Medi...
jump to Item 31 then skip through all the public comment. After viewing Randy Rowses' performances I suspect that
Rowse is a caste classist at best and racist at worst.

Randy Rowse (and Randy Rouse too) have a habit of flashing gang signs before speaking at city council. Yes, he did that.

Is that the kind of person we want as an elected representative?