Taking Full Measure

By CHERI RAE — Sept. 24, 2009

With all the talk about Measure B, voters might assume that the citizens’ height limit initiative is the only ballot measure to consider in the upcoming election.

But lost in the discussion about who loves Santa Barbara the most by the way they stand on B is an alphabet soup of ballot measures, known as C, D, and E, placed there by City Council.

Not that anyone has heard of them. Or that anyone is campaigning for, or against them. Why City Council would put them on the ballot and then not speak out about them makes me wonder why they bothered in the first place.

But since each measure would amend the City Charter, voters ought to have some idea about them, especially since in this city-run election, not a single argument, much less a rebuttal, against any of these measures appears in the voter handbook or on the City’s website.

Measure C: Parks and Recreation Commission

Measure C seeks to create a new seven-member Parks and Recreation Commission by combining the five-member Board of Park Commissioners and the five-member Recreation Commission—who now serve concurrently. It also provides for the appointment of a “youth member of age 16 or older” to the new commission. According to the argument for Measure C, signed by Council Members Das Williams and Roger Horton, the consolidation will “save money and staff time. It will also mean there are seven citizens that can hold city staff accountable for the condition of our parks and the results of our senior and youth recreation programs.”

There is no argument on the ballot opposing the measure. But the question remains: as admirable as the notion is to add a “youth member of age 16 years or older,” how does that square with the membership requirement “members must be qualified electors of the City.” Can someone who is too young to vote actually, legally, serve—and vote? The City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis does not address the question, but does offer, “The manner of appointing the youth member and the term of office for the youth member would be established by an ordinance to be adopted by the City Council.”

Would the terms then depend on the age of the youth at appointment? An 18-year-old, for example, would age out of the youth division pretty quickly. Do we really want to amend our City Charter with an age requirement?

Measure D: Harbor Commission

First proposed back in 1999, Measure D seeks to expand the membership of the Harbor Commission from five members to seven, and allows a non-city resident to serve. The argument signed by Mayor Marty Blum argues that a larger membership will facilitate the work of subcommittees; allow them to more effectively handle increased responsibilities at the waterfront; commissioners could consult with two other members; and, “Since the harbor is the only port in the County, it is reasonable to allow individuals from neighboring communities the right to have a voice in its administration.”

Again, there is no argument on the ballot opposing this measure. But on May 21, in their discussion to advise City Council on their position, the Harbor Commission voted 4-0 “not to approve the Charter Amendment proposal to expand the Board of Harbor Commissioners from five to seven members, but allow for appointment of one member to be a non-city resident.”

Along the lines of “if it’s not broke, why fix it,” harbor commissioners agreed that they already run an efficient operation with five members; “lean and mean; actually quite pleasant,” was one commissioner’s description. It should be noted that longtime proponent of the measure, Commissioner Ken Owen, was absent from that meeting.

But it’s clear that the Harbor Commission advisory vote meant little to City Council. And by the time commissioners learned the ballot measure had been placed, it was too late to write an argument against Measure D.

Measure E: Architectural Board of Review

Measure E seeks to reduce the membership of the ABR from nine members to seven—and allows up to three members to be residents of the county, not just the city. The argument in favor of the measure notes, “These changes will improve the efficiency and cohesiveness of the ABR, and make it easier to recruit talented contributors to one of the city’s most important volunteer boards.” The signatories to the argument in favor of Measure E are Mayor Marty Blum, and two former ABR chairs: William Mahan and Bruce Bartlett. They further argue, “These sensible and prudent changes to the membership requirements of one of our most important volunteer review boards are long overdue.”

There is no argument against Measure E on the ballot; I can’t imagine any good one that could be made—unless by architects seeking to add even more members. As anyone who has followed a project at ABR, nine members can be very unwieldy; absences sometimes create inconsistency in how a project is reviewed, depending on which members are in attendance on a given day; allowing individuals who are not city residents to apply could bring a fresh perspective to the Board.

One of the spoils of victory, sometimes lost on the voting public, is the opportunity for City Council to appoint members of boards and commissions to carry out their common vision. These powerful positions are often a steppingstone to higher office, so voters are wise to pay attention to candidates and their appointments—as well as any and all changes that are made to these advisory bodies.

Changing our city charter, as Measure B opponents keep insisting, is no small move. Yet we voters are to consider three additional changes to it that offer no opportunity to weigh the opposing point of view—when clearly there are arguments to be made. Something just doesn’t measure up.

Comment on this article

Subject:

Body:

Poster:

Enter text seen above:

Bureaucracy increases : 9/24/2009

Charter changes abound. I support Measure B, but these bureaucracy increasing Charter changes, I oppose. At least with "B" there's been an opportunity to have a yes and a no argument in the ballot booklet, I assume --- the other measures, the opposition apparently wasn't even consulted! As for the Parks/Rec, to add a non-voter to make decisions for tax-paying voters is just wrong. Vote NO on C and D. (E would be a slight decrease in bureaucracy.)

santa barbaran

---

Taking Full Measure on measure B : 9/24/2009

Contrary to most peoples understanding of this measure, it will not affect the height limits in the residential neighborhoods at all. Its affect mostly will be in denying Santa Barbara future buildings like the Arlington Theater, the Lobero, Trinity Episcopal Church and, in fact, most of our theaters, churches and most beautiful buildings. It would also hamper the city in negotiating "inclusionary housing and public space" such as workforce housing, art galleries or theaters into future projects. The fact that it would prevent density where people work would increase sprawl across our valley, covering agricultural land and causing more traffic congestion. The primary backer of Measure D is a developer who made his fortune creating sprawl in Texas. Look at the financing of the pro measure campaign and candidates! Follow the money.

Lane Anderson

---

scare tactics : 9/24/2009

Interesting that Anderson says that the Texas developer is funding "D". Another inaccuracy there, Lane? Fwiw: he's not the primary funder of YES on B: check the reports more carefully, please. They are available online and a new one is coming out tomorrow. But you're right that it won't affect the residential neighborhoods: that's just another scare tactic. As for scare tactics, the gang of no's are funding extremely deceptive push-poll advertising out of Miami. You'll be hearing more about this despicable advertising and it will be interesting to see if the funders of it have filed a campaign finance report as required. Indeed, follow the money, see the builders/architects who say no height limits; follow the money, indeed, and let's hope that NOs are obeying the law --- we saying YES on B have filed and will continue to file accurate and complete reports.

SB city voter

---

measure C, D and E : 9/25/2009

I am so happy to have a journalist like Cheri Rae in our community to help the rest of us that just go along and read the signs, read the paper, but obviously i didn't do a thorough job... i had no idea about these other "measures"... once again, without journalists... we would all be in a very dark hole... thank you cheri rae for apprising us, the SOUND readers, of so much that is going on in Santa Barbara. I never miss a Cheri Rae article..... joyce jerge

---

Deja vu? Measure E : 9/28/2009

Measure E seems to be a stealth attempt to once again to put the city's design in the hands of non-city residents. Didn't this get defeated a few years back? The problem with the ABR is that it is essentially a rotating board of the same players. Sometimes they are petitioners, sometimes they are judges. This works to fatten their pockets as it increases the cost of the projects and makes it critical that an owner hire one of the insiders. Sort of like getting an indulgence in the middle age churches. Watching this "good old boy/girl" board meet is embarrassing. A nod and a wink gets things done without any attempt by the petitioner to defend their application. Everybody just goes along and things get delayed and costs go up. Reform is needed but adding more of the same doesn't seem to be a helpful step.

RHS

---