• Printer friendly
• E-mail to a friend
• 11 comment(s)
• Recommend

  ( 1 )

• 

Subject:

Body:

Poster:

Enter text seen above:

Measure B whack! : 10/29/2009

Still having a hard time finding a real story? I don't know what to say. Except I wish I had the ten minutes back it took to read this drivel.

Boycott Boy

Dr. David Gebhard : 10/29/2009

Thank you, Ms Rae, for reminding the citizens of Dr. Gebhard's comments on the importance of Santa Barbara's small scale which is essential to its charm and livability. For those voters who have not yet voted remember that those nine-story condos stated for the site of the Alice Keck Park Memorial Garden were approved by the ABR and the Planning Commission. It took a law suit to prevent them. If the city charter allows 60 feet the developers will build to 60 feet. Members of the ARB, the HLC and the Planning Commission almost always approve (with some design changes) the plans that are in front of them. Yes on Measure B.

Kellam de Forest

a continuing struggle : 10/30/2009

Thank you for this. The real story is indeed the continuing struggle to save why most of us live here - and why people visit and why so many of the newcomers in actuality came here: the character of downtown Santa Barbara. It surely isn't the suburban-like lower east side, where I live and which one of the mayoral candidates called a "slum"; it may be the waterfront, kept low rise by citizen effort over the years; and it surely is the people-scaled downtown that Measure B would prevent from going high-rise in new buildings. We're really at a tipping point, being loved almost to death by those wanting to build, build, build, and, yes, there is a clear choice. Thanks for the reminder about Dr. Gebhard and the clear description of the choice we have.

brc

A Slightly Different Viewpoint : 11/1/2009

I don't disagree with Ms. Rae's comments, but I have a more pragmatic view on B. First, if you happen to be fortunate enough to own your residence in Santa Barbara, you definitely want to vote for B. Why? Because less new housing increases the value of your investment by creating scarcity of housing. Plus, do you really want more idiots in cars clogging the already maxed-out streets, etc? It's not even a half-brainer. On the other hand, it would be far more interesting if Measure B opponents weren't the same ol' dunderhead developers who are simply out to create new wealth for themselves (which the City supports because it's new tax revenue for the City), but an enlightened group of sophisticated permaculturalists. Toppling Measure B could actually represent a whole new vision for a climatically retrofitted SB. Now, this is where you must swear before reading further not to share any of these ideas with satanic PR whores of developers who might co-opt them. Okay? Okay. What I'm thinking is that with climate change bringing sea level rise, temperature increases, volatile weather, drought, more intense rain storms, wind, etc. it would make a whole lot of sense to re-do parts of SB as car-free souks a la Morocco or Barri Gotic in Barcelona. You build up but leave cars out of it and create narrow winding alleys with public squares. This creates buffers against all kinds of inclement weather/economy - the way ancient cities in the desert did it, which is what SB is gonna be! Plus it allows for public space, mixed-use, and extends SB charm in ways that even David Gebhard would probably have approved. Ok, fantasy over. I was just kidding. Just vote for Measure B. Forget about climate change. It's sunny and 80 degrees outside - so what if it's November and this weather is truly disturbing if you think about it? Don't think about it. Just vote for Measure B. Your kids or grandkids or their grandkids can solve the urban planning problems to come. You're just here to enjoy all of the rich resources the southcoast has to offer. So enjoy. And don't forget to take your meds.

Why not?

Psychic? : 11/1/2009

Why do you and your Measure B friends refer to dead people to make your point. First Pearl Chase now David Gephard? Do you have some psychic connection that others don't that allows you to speak for them. Or maybe your desperate to find support for your I'll conceived measure. Measure B has been wrong all along. Don't believe the hype. Our skyline is safe without Measure B. Vote No on B.

Young at heart

Response to: Psychic? : 11/1/2009

Those who reference David Gebhard or Pearl Chase are likely trying to remind folks that there was once a vision for building out Santa Barbara. Included in that vision was an absolute population cap - anyone remember? Is it 85K? not that it matters much anymore - that represented a carrying capacity and certain quality of life that people agreed a long time ago was worth adhering to. Times have changed, SB needs tax revenue and isn't afraid to "zone for dollars." Enter new developers who are champing at the bit to make money off SB's "brand." The point of my earlier post is that SB's golden goose (it's "perfect" weather) may not continue to cooperate much longer. Water supply is the elephant in the room that no one in Southern California can begin to fathom - nope, state water isn't going to save us folks - so forget about having a reasonable discussion where water is a factor. Measure B is simply about limiting growth. Every other part of southern California is pretty gross because there are too many people. Why would SB be any different? Oh, yeah, because the new people would have to be so rich to buy here that they wouldn't really live here. And they'd be rich. There's something about that unspoken truth that's really disingenuous but I can't quite figure out what it is right now. It has something to do with creating dead space for ghost residents. I guess that's your psychic connection to the dead. There are the real dead who once had real ideas and made real change occur and shaped this place where we live, then there are the living dead, who are like ghosts because they're disconnected from where they live and the effects their actions have on other people. I once attended a community gathering over a development issue. In walked Michael Towbes who sat down next to me. He had a pained look on his face as he surveyed the fired up crowd. I said to him, isn't this great, none of these people would be here if it weren't for you? He gave me a look of total contempt, like this was all just another obstacle to his next project. He didn't get that his business was in creating homes for PEOPLE - not merely creating spreadsheets that show how much money he'll make. That moment gave away the whole game.

Why not?

Measure B: RIght Idea, Wrong Implementation : 11/2/2009

Sadly the folks pushing Measure B just didn't get their ducks in a row. A height limit alone is not a solution, it's a band-aid. What we need is legislation that will *mandate* a significantly higher percentage of affordable housing for new development, especially if it's going to be in anything as large as a Paseo Chapala type of development. We need to provide *local* housing for the tens of thousands of people who work in Santa Barbara but cannot afford to live here. Population growth is real whether we like it or not, and sticking our heads in the sand is not a solution. While the vision of Santa Barbara discussed in Cheri's article was a sound one for the latter half of the 20th century, it's time for Santa Barbara to become a model of a new vision, one in which city residents do not have to rely on automobiles for every transportation purpose, whether they can live in ecologically-responsible housing within walking or biking distance of their jobs. We can do this, but an arbitrary height limit *alone* is not helpful. We need something more expansive... we need a vision not a measure.

surfimp

Measure B : 11/2/2009

Retaining a height limit of 60' does not mean that the community has to approve every 60' project that gets proposed. But a 40' limit guarantees that NO 60' projects will get proposed. Santa Barbara has quite a few buildings 60' or higher; why forbid another for all time? I object to Measure B because it will encourage 45' condos in the R3 zone, rather than 45' to 60' mixed use projects downtown. I favor limited growth, and the place to put it is downtown.

Steve J

Measure B and Council race : 11/2/2009

Amazingly funny in an ironic way. The city of SB has more subsidized housing then mandated, by the State. The city owns over 20% of all the housing in SB. The opponents of Measure B talk about more such taxpayer paid for and supported housing, and how wonderful winding narrow streets are chocking off commerce and emergency response. It was the very "variances" approved by under political pressure causing the reaction to the cultural and physical destruction of lower Chapala St. (the poster child for the pro B supporters). Then there is the "need"(?) for more Hispanic high density (look at Barcelona) buildings .... not really. The original intent of the Hispanic "look" was intended for downtown, and there was supposed to be a different look reflecting the different heritage of outer State and other locations. Now it is cookie cutter "need" for high density and look. This is what the current political power has brought you for 30 years. You may not like her article but it points the glaring fact that politics of Big Brother Sacramento - high density infill - need to take their collective noses some where else. If you moved here and don't like it move. If you want to change the city you "love" to preserve it, move. It is a simple choice, but don't sacrifice the messenger.

Native

Honor our heritage and our forebearers- Vote Yes on B! : 11/2/2009

Planning Commissions don't often follow the rules. The City and County pass exemptions, exceptions and extensions. The stricter the rules and the more people show up at the meetings the better chance we will have to save our skyline and our beautiful mountain and ocean views. In the 70s when Montecito Shores was being planned, my parents tried to influence the developer to instead create Bonnymede East and West, but sadly, the architects never even came to see the site, 3 stories seemed huge then, but at least it was set-back from the ocean. Now we are faced with builders who wish for every square inch to be built upon, claiming that is the most efficient use of the land. I think our land has more value when it can absorb runoff and feed its inhabitants. More parks, landscaping, painted crosswalks and community gardens will do a better job bringing walkers in to town than big buildings will!

DorothyD

Hilarious : 11/4/2009

that the author continues to rail against development when she herself tried to over-develop her own downtown lot. Much to her chagrin it was shot down by the same people she believes are in the over-building game.Mud slinging is bad unless you're doing it, right Cheri? You sad hypocrite.

MCC