Page 1 of 1
Posted on May 22 at 5:38 p.m.
Thank you, Barney, for reminding us of the unethical approaches some use to foist their agenda on the people. I agree with the folks who take issue with some of posting in favor of Measure Y.
It seems obvious from the nature of the repetitive talking points that some of these posts may very well be from agents of the Developer. This is further supported by "reason" as I've yet to hear one true reason to support this BRIDGE TO NOWHERE.
I live in the community closest to this proposed bridge, Stonecreek, which is in the County of Santa Barbara. My neighbors and I are unable to vote on this measure, which, if passed, will bring more noise and traffic pollution to an area that needs neither. The development will disrupt natural wildlife areas and destroy green zones that are better left unmolested.
The developer's claim of creek restoration is a joke and the posters who pile on with "look at the creek now" are even more absurd. Of course the creek is a mess, The City has had to wait until the developer's campaign of lies ends before they can move forward with restoration, using funds which have already been allocated for these types of projects.
I especially like it when a poster claims "the development has been approved." Perhaps it has been approved. You betcha.
What hasn't been approved, is the unnecessary transfer of public land to a private developer. And I am certain that the voters of Santa Barbara will SAY NO TO THE BRIDGE TO NOWHERE!
VOTE NO ON Y!
On Our Dueling Mayors
Posted on May 11 at 1:35 p.m.
I am going to vote No on Y because:
The development has already been approved. So no need for yet another Bridge to Nowhere.
Santa Barbara does not need more luxury housing. See any realtor in town to learn about the ample available housing.
The work that will be done to the hillside and creek will cause permanent damage to the ecology and disrupt natural wildlife areas.
I’ve not heard of a plan to guarantee financing of the ongoing maintenance of the bridge, creek, roads or traffic signals.
A traffic signal is not needed in the location of the proposed bridge.
The City surrendering land to a developer should be considered only in exceptional circumstances and should provide greater benefit to more of the People.
The property being offered in exchange for this public land has no use to the People, would be inaccessible to the public, and would only increase the City’s liability. (especially after the lower hillside is devastated by the planned development.)
Mark Lee has dishonestly represented his agenda and the real Issues around Measure Y.
For these and countless other reasons, I encourage you to join me in voting No on Y.
On Y is a Lie, Opponents Say
Posted on April 13 at 12:26 p.m.
VOTE NO ON Y!!!!
Glad to say that I just joined yesterday. When I read the Hill's letter and some of the posts here, I decided I wanted to add my voice. And my name. But please, "go after" me if you want.
Thank you East Beach, for reiterating the questions I asked. I wonder why Mark's defender isn't answering the questions I asked. Let's do this GoGauchos...you show me where the quotes are documented.
VOTE NO ON Y!!!!
And I'll amend my accusation that GoGauchos122 is Mark Lee. I'm guessing it's one of his children or a proxy, who obviously has something to gain if Mark get's his bridge.
On The Abridged Autobiography
Posted on April 12 at 12:44 p.m.
Oh Mark, I mean, oh, GoGauchos122, it's great of you to defend the rights of developers. Mark is soooo lucky to have you in his head...er...corner.
QUESTION: If the development of 20+ luxury homes is already approved (as you say here and in other comments on other websites) then why are you wasting your money on this silly bridge and creek restoration. Maybe there's more to the story...like, that homes have been approved, but you need this bridge to build even more.
How many houses are going to be built? What size houses are going to be built? What will be market-rate for these new houses?
And before you start your "The housing has already been approved" mantra, answer this: When the bridge and creek restoration is rejected by the voters, what will be the answer to the three questions above.
I've lived next-door to this planned development for the last 8 years and I've been good with it. SB needs homes. BUT...
My assent turned to DISGUST when I saw the brochure that Mark sent out. So let me be clear about what I found so disgusting about the way Mark has gone about this:
His faux-altruism: Acting like this creek restoration is his moment of noblesse oblige. "You seriously have a guy who is willing to do all these things, restore the creek, build the bike path, turn his own land into a public park, and all out of his own pocket and you still aren't satisfied. Guess some people will never be happy."
His misrepresentation: See his brochure, with missing details, vague language and some creative editing with quotes from officials. Oh, and a special "awww" for his mentioning his children.
His blogging: Yeah, Mark, you're entitled to your own opinion, but own it. Posting your own anonymous defense of your actions and lies lacks integrity.