Page 1 of 2
Posted on May 10 at 10:23 a.m.
Sam_Tababa never lets facts get in his way. I know who he is! It is true that several years ago, my wife and I negotiated with SUBWAY to open in a COMMERCIAL BUILDING that we own in Ojai. The building is C-2 Zoned! At the time, there was no restriction against a SUBWAY in Ojai. AFTER we had a signed lease, the City of Ojai decided to pass an ordinance banning any more chain store operations in Ojai, other than the ones already there. The space in question was 853 square feet out of a 14,000 square foot building. It was no big deal for us and not worth a legal slugfest. SUBWAY was understanding and we mutually canceled the lease and then leased the space to another tenant, Made in Ojai.
Sam: If you cannot discuss an issue intelligently and without name calling and personal attacks, then I suggest that you slither back into your pit!.
On Vacation Rentals Take Homes Away
Posted on May 9 at 1:44 p.m.
If shortrees wants zoning law changes, then he should advocate for them.
My "typical Santa Barbara self entitled, liberal NIMBIism" op-ed has one purpose: To make the Santa Barbara City Council enforce our Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 28. If the people of our city want motels and hotels in our R zoned neighborhoods, then they will change the ordinance. But vacation rentals are now 100% illegal!
As many others I have communicated with have expressed to me and speaking for my wife and me, we do not want a motel or hotel next door to our house or on our street.
Posted on December 5 at 12:37 p.m.
Here are the facts that support my contention that SBCC's outside students severally disrupt our local residents ability to live here and why we need a just cause eviction ordinance, among other actions. They also have a negative impact on available jobs and push down wages for locals. There are in (rounded by me) figures provided in writing to me by SBCC on 8/25/14, 1,300 out of state, 1,700 international and I estimate 600 foreign students at for profit Kaplan Schools attending their leased space at SBCC. This totals 3,600 out of state and foreign students. If you guess three students to each apartment/home as an average, and it is a guess, these people have taken 1,200 local apartments and homes. Prior to 2009 - it was 500 foreign students - then 5% and only temporarily was increased to 8% in response to the 2008 budget cuts. Now it is permanently 8% of the "head count" numbers of credit students. http://international.sbcc.edu/Welcome to the Santa Barbara City College International Student Site!If you are thinking about studying abroad, learn why coming to Santa Barbara City College is not only a great decision because of SBCC's scenic location, but also because of SBCC's comprehensive student support programs, its outstanding academic programs, and its strong transfer relationships with other schools.
http://www.sbcc.edu/boardoftrustees/f... Santa Barbara Board PolicyCommunity College District Chapter 5, Student ServicesPage 1 of 1BP 5012 INTERNATIONAL STUDENTSReferences:Education Code Sections 76141 and 76142;Title 5 Section 54045;Title 8, U.S. Code Sections 1101 et seq.International students enrich the teaching and learning experience at Santa Barbara City College (SBCC) and support the mission by contributing to a diverse learning environment and promoting global responsibility.International students may be permitted to enroll provided they meet the applicable requirements for admission and enrollment limitations. International student enrollment at SBCC is limited to 8% of the average of fall and spring credit unduplicated head count from the preceding academic year. The Superintendent/President, in consultation with appropriate participatory governance groups, shall establish standards and procedures defining the admission and academic requirements and code of conduct for international students.Tuition for international students is established by the Board of Trustees in accordance with state requirements and direct programmatic costs should not exceed revenues generated from the program. International students are not supported by state apportionment.Date Adopted: May 22, 2014(Replaces former SBCC Policy 5130) (#5130 is financial aid)NOTE: The 8% limit on international student enrollment was adopted by the Board of Trustees on June 25, 2009.
On Geoff Green Takes City College Post
Posted on November 13 at 10:30 a.m.
Thank's to all who are keeping this conversation about SBCC out there. You will make change happen!
It is time for President Lori Gaskin and the Board of Trustees to start doing their jobs as to the criminal element attending SBCC. Zero tolerance and.. throw them out for even minor offences.
It is time for the administration to limit the number of out of state and foreign students and to have Kaplan School leave the campus as soon as their lease permits.
The City of Santa Barbara must pass a just cause eviction ordinance to prevent the continuing eviction of our local population so that outside students can move into their homes at higher and higher rents. Let SBCC students from outside the district commute instead of our local residents!
SBCC should not get one more cent of local district taxpayer's money until the reality of change and progress at the school meets their promises.
To all of you: Keep the pressure on!
On City College Mending Fences with Neighbors?
Posted on November 7 at 8:28 p.m.
Dr.Dan: Line by line building and other needs and numbers and a 4-year funding period on any new bond measure is exactly what I suggested in a separate email I sent out on Nov. 5. The plan to build an Aquatics Center was deleted by SBCC in early 2014. You should trust the public, but...had the true facts and consequences of Measure S not been made public, Measure S would have passed. Why? Because the trusting public would have relied only on the pro Measure S $600,000 propaganda machine and the praise it received from all the elected and education officials that supported it. Remember that even with all the facts out there, about 50% of the voters voted Yes. I would bet that most did not know what they were even voting for in content and in cost for the next 38 years."Measure S is for our local students." is all they would have heard.
Your $150,000,000 "ballpark figure" for a new SBCC bond issue is not valid because neither you nor anyone else in the SBCC district knows how much is really necessary for repairs and replacement of facilities.
First, SBCC has to present a by facility, dollar by dollar laundry list of construction and other needs and only then can anyone talk about a "ballpark figure" for a new bond issue. You are putting the cart before the horse much like Gaskin and Co. did with Measure S.
On Election Day Takeaways
Posted on November 7 at 5:45 p.m.
Much of the writing I did went to the media with facts and figures, though I had some letters posted. I started this campaign against Measure S in September and was a forming member of the No on S Committee. I left the committee for the only reason that committees by nature are slow to react and the fact that all communications over the name of the committee required a lot of time and back and forth.
This is what I sent to my Measure S mail list on Nov. 5th:
("The media in most cases, learned many of the difficult facts of Measure S and their coverage was fair. Special thanks to Jim Buckley and the Montecito Journal, Giana Magnoli and Noozhawk, EdHat, Nick Welsh and Kelsey Brugger of the Independent and Don Katich and the News Press reporting team. With Measure S, KEYT had a complicated subject to cover on a news broadcast. My thanks to Victoria Sanchez and Tracy Lehr and CJ Ward for their efforts and KEYT's story on the unholy eviction of wheel chair bound and MS patient, Ms. Strong-Smith by PAC Properties, The Landlord with a Soul!
Special Thanks to The Montecito Journal, News-Press and the UCSB Daily Nexus for their editorial opposition to Measure S.
There were many people who worked hard to defeat Measure S against tough odds and a big money funded campaign. I want to name a few: Glen Mowrer and Lou Siegal worked hard with the tiny No on S Committee and me. NO on S had very little money to work with; Yes on S had tons of money from the building businesses, bond sellers, advisors and lawyers who would have profited from Measure S and they even used about $260,000 of SBCC Foundation money that donors had given to support education and got into trouble with the FPPC for not naming the SBCC Foundation as a big donor
Last, but by no means least, I thank the of thousands of voters in our area who took the time to read, listen and to learn the facts of Measure S. Not an easy task. Bond measures and money are not a simple art.")
I did what I did because it was the right thing to do and for no other reason. The committee did not receive much outside help and received little in the nature of outside donations. We were outspent 200 to 1!
The only thing that matters is that Measure S was defeated. SBCC's administration has to go back to the drawing board and present sensible future bond requests that are not an open ended spendathon. The major issues of out of state and foreign students also have to be addressed, along with the schools mission to provide education and enrichment to our local population. The city also must pass a just cause eviction ordinance!
There is much to be done. To all of you: JOIN US!
Posted on October 18 at 10:50 a.m.
This is how owner Marianne Partridge expresses her support of Measure P in the paper's endorsement of Measure P: "If fears of climate change trump your concerns about good governance, vote “yes.” But if not, vote “no.”
In my words: If your fears about the very existence of the world as we know it trump your concerns about good government, vote Yes. But if you are not concerned about our very existence and are more concerned about good government, Vote No.
Marianne has chosen good governance. So what if eventually there is no good governance left, and no one left to govern because of climate change.
Marianne, there is only one logical choice between the two as you frame them!
On Endorsements 2014
Posted on October 17 at 12:41 p.m.
Firstly, the paper has a right to do what it wants to do. It is a business enterprise and no doubt business considerations played a part in your Measure S endorsement, even though a great percentage of your readers are against Measure S from the polls that I understand the paper has taken. You have stabbed your paper's constituents and the people of the SBCC school district in the back. SBCC and its 12,000 or more outside students is a growing cancer on our community, especially on the Westside of Santa Barbara and Isle Vista. These students are a growing menace to other residents' quiet enjoyment and a portion of them are nothing but common criminals. Measure S is a blank check for Lori Gaskin & Co. to spend almost $300 million dollars as they see fit with no oversight on what the money is spent for. The Measure itself has no specific spending objectives listed. The present oversight committee for measure V is a group of political cronies, who for the most part don't have any background in financial matters and construction. The Measure V oversight committee's applications are sent to Lori Gaskin and then they will be chosen by the SBCC trustees, the very people that they are supposed to ove see. The Measure S oversight committee will be chosen in the same manner.
Any existing housing for outside the SBCC district students that is purchased with Measure V or Measure S money will cause the forced move of existing non-student renters, including workers, the poor, the elderly and those on fixed income. Many will have to leave Santa Barbara and commute. It will also take those apartment complexes off the property tax rolls, just as the purchase of Torres Towers did by UCSB. This purchase resulted in a loss of property taxes and assessments of at least one million dollars per year and contributes to the reduction in law enforcement funding and the reduced funding of other public agencies in Isle Vista. Because of this purchased by UCSB, Isle Vista has a poor tax base for public service. SBCC buying apartment complexes will have the same results. For the Independent to take the position of first giving Gaskin & Co. $288 million and then she and the school will solve the many problems that the school has dumped on the district is an Orwellian concept. You have it backwards! The Independent has done a gross injustice to our people by supporting Measure S, but then business is business.
Posted on October 10 at 9:15 p.m.
Those of you that have taken the time to understand Measure S and have expressed your views should be proud of yourselves. Many voters have not learned anything about Measure S.
SBCC tried to buy a 100 unit apartment complex on the Mesa this year and offered $30 million. Gaskin & Co. was outbid by a private party who bought it for $33 million. SBCC wanted to buy the complex to house some of the over 12,000 students at SBCC who come from everywhere but the SBCC District.
Here are the effects of what will happen when SBCC buys existing apartment complexes to house outside students because SBCC pays no taxes:
The building(s) will go off the property tax rolls. Had SBCC purchased this particular complex, it would have REDUCED local property taxes by about $300,000 a year and in ten years it would amount to a reduction of $3 million dollars, plus assessments. Conversely, the new owners will pay about $350,000 yearly and $3.5 million dollars over ten years, again plus assessments.
Interest on any money used by SBCC to purchase an existing apartment complex, such as the $30 million dollar deal that they lost, would bring the cost to district property owners to around $50+ million dollars over the lifetime of any bonds used to pay it.
Existing non-student renters would be forced out of their apartments to allow out of area SBCC students to move in. Existing renters would either have to find a vacant local apartment to move into, or to move away from Santa Barbara and commute, as so many workers have been forced to do already.
Any apartment complex purchased by SBCC will reduce the already short supply of local apartments available for our working people and will increase rents.
SBCC President Lori Gaskin just stated that there is no room on the campus to build student housing. There is no room in Santa Barbara to build student housing either. The buying of apartments by SBCC will only make an already housing market worse.
Bottom Line: Should SBCC District property owners and renters pay for the housing of SBCC students who come from everywhere but the SBCC District?
In my opinion, SBCC is becoming a financial and social cancer to SBCC district citizens. Harsh words yes, but the reality is harsh as well. The school has lost its way and is starting to do more harm than good to our community!
Gaskin and Co. need to go back to the drawing boards!
VOTE NO ON S!
On City College's Sprawling Impact
Posted on October 7 at 9:56 a.m.
Firstly, my thanks to Mark Taylor's excellent piece outlining the core social impact reasons that Measure S must be defeated.
I got involved in working all my waking hours to defeat Measure S when I found out how many outside students from all over the map attend SBCC and the horrlible cost that local working class people, especially those renting on the Westside and in Isle Vista, have paid because they have not only faced higher and higher rents, but in many cases they have actually been forced out of their residences and have had to leave Santa Barbara and commute to work here. I know of one person who lived here for 14 years and was forced to move to North County because his Westside apartments rent went into the ozones. The apartment was then rented to two SBCC students.
If you look at all the negative impacts concerning the cost of Measure S, both financial and social, you will join the thousands other SBCC District voters who have decided to VOTE NO ON MEASURE S!
Check out www.votenoons.com and get the real deal on S
On Don't Reward the Wayward College