Comments by LansingDuncan
Page 1 of 1
Posted on May 27 at 6:09 p.m.
Wild horses wouldn't get me to run!
But Thanks Pardall.
Posted on May 25 at 4:59 p.m.
Posting #2
As to the “high-density” question - The Ecological Village conceptual proposal sought to arrange the new units in a manner that would preserve the southern gateway to Los Olivos, protect the creek corridor, preserve the historic market, create a 5 acre organic farm, preserve the existing single family dwelling for one of the Montanaro sisters, and create a 1.8 acre public park. To achieve that goal the units were clustered around the public park in the northern half of the property. A uniform distribution of the units across the acreage was neither practical nor desirable. To describe the project as “high-density” requires looking at a particular component to the exclusion of all others. It omits more than a few important details. It does not tell the whole story but it might tell the story you want to tell.
However you describe the conceptual project, the property itself was not “in the final stages of being converted into a high-density condominium project”.
As to the “second units” question – the conceptual proposal included “detached garages with usable office space above”. The proposal did not include bathrooms or kitchens above the garages.
As to the question regarding the Housing Element Update inquiry letter – I can’t speak to the timing of the letter and POLO’s negotiations. As I noted in my original letter above, staff blindsided everybody but nobody supported their proposal for the Montanaro property. Supervisor Marshall had Planning & Development immediately withdraw the proposal. I doubt the newly-hired Val Alexeef (who worked for the entire Board of Supervisors) had any idea what he was signing. It was the classic bureaucratic malfunction of the left hand not telling the right what it was doing. Ultimately the countywide Housing Element Update was delayed and decisions for Santa Ynez were deferred to the community specific Community Plan.
As to the suggestion that my authorship or my amateur status is in question, this is a pretty weak assertion. My name is on my original letter and all my subsequent postings. I am not sure whether jmoor has or has not identified himself.
Posted on May 25 at 4:54 p.m.
Posting #1
Jmoor’s questions are interesting but I am not sure the answers prove the point he wants to make or sharpen the axe he seeks to grind.
As we saw in the case of the Landfill / Contamination issue, real world events are complex and full of shades of gray, demanding thoughtful consideration. Knee-jerk reactions based on fear can drive us into danger as often as they prompt our escape.
The mere fact that jmoor has to pose his questions in the form of a Socratic dialogue with every answer framed suggests that context is all important. He only seeks “a few more details” but they are very specific. I will answer his questions by considering them in both a narrow and broad context where appropriate.
To begin with, jmoor takes my comments out of context by mischaracterizing my letter as an “article”. As a letter I have limited space and circulation.
Candidate Pappas, on the other hand has chosen to make his version of history the basis of his campaign and tout it far and wide, even broadcasting it into outer space with “I Love Lucy”. Pappas has chosen to ask the citizens of the Third District to place their confidence in him based on this history, If he is the candidate he makes himself out to be he should withstand closer scrutiny.
As to the “farmland” question - a more accurate portrayal of the land would have been “residentially–zoned land that has been historically farmed”. But that would not have served as well to tell the story he wanted to tell. It doesn’t make a very good sound bite. But Valley residents have discovered, zoning is important. Certainly every time the Montanaro’s paid their taxes they were aware that their land was residentially zoned.
Any neighbor of the Montanaros who had performed their own due diligence should have been aware of it. I suspect Pappas’s motivation to preserve this “farmland” had a lot more to do with proximity than land use. I don’t hear him talking about the agriculturally-zoned farmland west of Buellton that was proposed to be downzoned (increasing the minimum parcel size) in the previous community plan but has virtually no protection in the current plan.
I don’t hear Pappas talking about the 385 acre triangle of agriculturally-zoned ranchland east of Santa Ynez that was proposed to be downzoned in the previous community plan but has virtually no protection in the current plan and could potentially be turned into 77 five acre ranchettes.
Instead, Pappas’s website describes the downzoning of Agricultural land as a “devaluation” of the property and characterizes himself as a leader in the battle against it. Instead, he wants to maintain the development potential of Agricultural land. Only in the case of the land near him did he seek to have Agricultural land rezoned in a manner that would reduce the potential for development.
See Posting #2
Posted on May 25 at 4:36 p.m.
This link should get you to the News-Press Archives and my Opinion piece, "On a Collision Course with the Community" of Dec 10, 2000.
But I didn't actually check to make sure they have my article where they say it is. If they do, I think you will find it interesting. Paste if the link is not activated. Let me know what you find.
I am sure you found all kinds of interesting things when you googled my name including that I have been in a position to know what I am writing about.
Posted on May 24 at 1:49 p.m.
jmoors and any one else interested in the topic mentioned above,
If you want to see something earlier on the issue of Casino Expansion and Tribal Annexation see if you can find my Opinion piece published in the Voices section, page G1 in the Santa Barbara News-Press of Dec. 10, 2000. It is entitled, "On a Collision Course with the Community". If you can't find it in the SBNP archives, I will see if I can dig up the text and post some relevant paragraphs, assuming anyone is interested.
Regarding your question, I do support a particular candidate in this race but I am not writing on the behalf of any candidate. I am writing because there needs to be some reality checks on the propaganda that passes for truth in campaigning. In the era of modern media and an ever-shortening news cycle, a community that remakes itself as frequently as ours needs some "institutional memory".
Posted on May 23 at 9:05 p.m.
The comment regarding trails above and the comments of sbcres regarding the clean-closure of the Airport Landfill point out the challenge of balancing what individual residents perceive as an immediate personal threat with what is beneficial for the community at-large in the long term.
I grant sbcres that the clean-closure of the Airport Landfill would have been a messy process but the Regional Water Quality Control Board that Pappas claims to have alerted in his ad supported a clean-closure as the paragraph below from a report for the Board's meeting of Dec. 17, 2007 shows:...
“The County originally intended to clean-close the Landfill by removing the waste and preventing additional impacts to groundwater, but in 2004 efforts to clean-close the site were stopped due to local opposition. Water Board staff supported clean-closure as source removal is proven, effective strategy in groundwater remediation. As a result, the CEQA process associated with proposed clean-closure activities were also stopped. The nearby Foxen Canyon Landfill with more than 1.5 million cubic yards of waste in place had enough remaining capacity to accept the Santa Ynez Airport Landfill’s 55,000 cubic yards of waste. Since the waste from the Santa Ynez Airport Landfill would have been a relatively small volume on top of waste already in place at the Foxen Canyon Landfill, the depth to groundwater at Foxen Canyon Landfill is approximately 100 feet greater than the Santa Ynez Airport Landfill, and the waste at each site was similar, being municipal solid waste from the same community, the potential to further impact groundwater would have been greatly reduced.”
Pappas and POLO may have felt they were protecting Los Olivos when they opposed the project, but they may have increased the danger to the community's water supply. Perhaps a more effective Supervisor could have provided the leadership necessary to address the problem while addressing their concerns. But Pappas is not telling us the whole picture when he now casts himself as a righteous "whistle-blower" protecting the community.
Posted on May 23 at 5:37 p.m.
Actually I did not make that explicit assertion. But two other readers did.
Posted on May 23 at 3:09 p.m.
As the author of this letter I am glad to see it spark a community dialogue. Let’s hope it remains an informed one. The crux of the matter is that the campaign and record of any individual running for public office should exemplify “truth in advertising”.
For the record, I am not running for office. Nor am I so masochistic as to seek any additional official planning responsibility for our community. A total of ten years on the Planning Commission and the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) is enough for me.
Despite POLO's representations to the contrary, I am far more interested in preserving land than developing it. I am sure Pappas and Herthel recall how I met with them soon after POLO formed to share my experience as a founder of the Sedgwick Preservation Committee and suggest how they might go about preserving the Montanaro parcel.
It did not occur to me that they would use scare tactics and distortion to pull down the entire community's planning process because they could not differentiate between draft proposals outlined by staff and final decisions made by the GPAC, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
Page 1 of 1
Previous Month
Posted on June 7 at 12:05 p.m.
The discussion of anonymous postings is interesting. I am happy to say that overall I find myself more in agreement with those who choose to use their own names.
I find it ironic that jmoors tries to support Pappas and undercut my clearly attributed writings with the following assertion:
"At least political ads tell you who they are being paid for by."
In reality they don't tell you who is supplying the funds and they don't always disclose the campaign that is generating them.
Take the hit piece entirely dedicated to discrediting David Smyser mailed out on the eve of the election providing no time for rebuttal. It shows newspaper clippings surrounded by a background of red, white, and blue flag imagery. Not every clipping shows a source. Only the stories from the Santa Ynez Valley Journal show clear identification of the publication.
Nor is the source of the mailer entirely obvious. It shows an address of Citizens for Fair Government in Goleta but no other attribution. Looking online there is no record of such a group in Goleta, nor is it listed with the state.
The mailer was distributed following the release of polling results by the Pappas campaign that showed Pappas barely trailing Smyser. Pappas only needed a higher proportion of the undecided voters in order to overtake Smyser and make the November runoff.
Pappas's name is notably absent from the mailer. Most of the other candidates are mentioned at least tangentially. Pappas writes for the Valley Journal. Certainly Pappas had the most to gain from the last-minute poison pen mailing.
Pappas has denied knowledge of this mailing. Travis Armstrong of the Santa Barbara News-Press has been investigating a possible connection. Now that Pappas is in the November runoff perhaps there will be more scrutiny of the claims he makes.
If Pappas is connected to this mailer it certainly is at odds with the "squeaky clean" image his public relations campaign projects.
On Pappas Ads Bunk