Comments by switzerneighbor

Page 1 of 1

Posted on July 28 at 8:17 a.m.

Level IV fire restrictions announced less than a week ago yet County Fire and SB Planning & Development allow high risk fire behavior in our back country. The county won't enforce zoning rules putting neighbors and firefighters at risk for the sake of one individuals continued quest for profit. Figueroa Mountain Farmhouse hosting weddings, dodging enforcement with loopholes- a disaster waiting to happen. See photo's of yesterday's wedding related fire and our tax $$ at work. Why are we risking another Zaca or Tea fire?

On Fire Restrictions Increased

Posted on May 11 at 8:33 a.m.

Michael Dyer and SB County Fire ignore blatant high fire risk activity. Apparently public safety and protection from massive wildfire potential takes a backseat to the interests of wedding, events and pro-tourism supporters.

On County Fire Chief: 'We Could Be in for a Rough Summer'

Posted on April 4 at 7:56 a.m.

Good and accurate summary of the issue. Too bad Sup. Carbajal decided those out of his district suffering from the greed of these "party house" operators don't deserve the protection afforded by our zoning. Take a look at Switzers operation and imagine living next to it-

On ‘Party Houses’ Still Irking Neighbors

Posted on September 6 at 8:54 p.m.

No, nice try..... your smokescreen miss-states the issue.

1)The rules are already on the books and the majority of property owners agree that they are reasonable and should be enforceable.
2)SB Realtor has bypassed the rules using an unintended loophole. Others will follow.
3)County proposes a minor change that will fix the loophole and only affect 'disingenuous' party palace owners.
4)There will be no change in tourism, private rentals or employment, in fact, strict zoning rules and enforcement will protect property values and maintain the attractiveness of SB.

On Don't Kill a Flourishing Industry

Posted on August 19 at 7:03 a.m.

SezMe, Wake up and smell the coffee.

On Permits for Parties?

Posted on August 18 at 6:28 a.m.

Thanks, Ethan for getting the story straight. That's right, the county is proposing nothing new, the requirement for a CUP has existed all along for the COMMERCIAL use for weddings and parties on residential and ag property.

If you live next to, or near, one of these party palaces, you want it shut down and expect the county to enforce its rules. The present case is the result of weekly weddings (cars, trucks, buses, bands, lights, trash) held on an ag parcel that has destroyed the neighbors peace, quiet and safety.

The owner (a SB realtor) battled the county saying it's his right to do so and continues to hold the weddings to the dismay of all his neighbors. After zoning & building violations, the stripping of his Williamson Act subsidy by the board of Sups, and regular sheriff involvement, he soldiers on protected by a legal loophole that prevents the county from enforcing its rule.

The mis-informed hospitality folks came out in force to support him based on his cries that enforcement of the rules will destroy SB tourism. The truth is, as Ethan explained, the law has been on the books, but rarely enforced because the vast majority of private rentals for parties are done so with integrity and consideration of neighbors. The present firestorm, created by one egregious violator, puts the whole issue under a microscope. The hospitality folks are slowly coming to realize that they came out to support the one 'bad apple' that is giving them all a black eye.

Hopefully, the planning commission will step up to its responsibility and shut this guy down. Nobody wants this in their neighborhood.

On Permits for Parties?

Page 1 of 1

event calendar sponsored by: