BlogaBarbara

Santa Barbara Politics, Media & Culture

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Noleta is Happy Where They Are

Thank you for the mostly relevant and civil debate on the living wage -- far from withering, these are issues that should be discussed. I'm not sure anyone here wants Santa Barbara to be so "have and have not" -- it's whether the living wage is the answer.

To the point, today's article on planning was interesting and Planning Commissioner Joe Valenncia from North County says "If Noleta is happy where they are, I'm going to support that". I hope so. Here's a quote from the article:

New projects could bring up to 20 housing units per acre, as officials attempt to satisfy a call by Sacramento for 17,532 new homesites across the county -- including 6,042 in unincorporated areas and 1,235 for families making less than $48,525 per year.

Where is the infrastructure for such a build out -- especially water? Ever been on Hollister towards Upper State during rush hour? Noleta should not be used in this way for lack of city representation -- whether it be Goleta or Santa Barbara. We also clearly need more affordable housing -- but density has it's price.

23 Comments:

Anonymous Gary said...

In this area, the cities of Goleta, Santa Barbara, Carpinteria and the county areas of Hope Ranch, Montecito and Summerland all protect themselves.

The last major desirable area (read: has substantial infrastructure) is Noleta and it cannot protect itself.

The county board of supervisors regularly double-deal away Noleta’s quality of life.
Noleta is doomed.
Period.

11/29/2005 9:18 AM  
Blogger David Pritchett said...

Parker Montgomery, appointed by Firestone, made the quote, NOT Valencia from Santa Maria. Here is the closing to the Newspress article:

"Overall, Mr. Montgomery said he is open to communities deciding for themselves how much new housing to absorb. "If Noleta is happy where they are, I'm going to support that."

Quite deep thinking, head-in-sand policy here by the Firestone-appointed Planning Commissiner, simply to pretend an issue does not exist. What "community" ever would want more density and new housing? But plenty of Noleta parents bemoan the fact that their children cannot afford to reside in Noleta or the whole County.

11/29/2005 9:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is another way to think about the question of where to put all the new housing required by the State.

Maybe Goleta and Santa Barbara, as separate cities, already have zoned themselves to meet the requirement? And maybe Santa Maria and northern County areas like urban sprawl and have plenty of housing there to meet the requirements? Maybe time simply has caught up with the Good People of Noleta? Their turn is now up to accept more housing units, because their bubble has been swelling and is now ready to burst?

Of course, re-zoning Hope Ranch to 5 units per acre would be a nice gesture to spread around the pain.

11/29/2005 9:45 AM  
Anonymous Gary said...

Bemoan, yes, and that's fine.
But we have to get away from the idea that anyone has the "right" to live here, including the children of current residents.

Growing 3% a year only delays the problem.
Locally, a steady-state economy, stasis, is the only answer.

11/29/2005 9:49 AM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

Thanks Valerio for the correction -- hadn't had my second cup of coffee this morning...and I was probably worrying about whether my kids can afford to live here...I hardly can!

Yes Anon -- let's rezone Hope Ranch to to spread the pain...I have a feeling that won't fly...equitable though it may be.

11/29/2005 12:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wait I don't get it.....does this mean that the new "low and very low income" housing will be a way for the sons and daughters of longtime 2nd District residents to remain?

11/30/2005 9:48 AM  
Blogger David Pritchett said...

Yes, if those sons and daughters are "low and very low income".

I am detecting some prejudice about household income and how worthy one would be as a neighbor.

11/30/2005 11:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Val: you must detect because that is the lens YOU look through.
From this lens--density in ANY and ALL income forms (high end condos,megamansions, timeshares, subsidized, etc) brings the same infrastructure and quality of life challenges. and when it is federally subsidized--the applicants and recipients are not the 'sons and daughters' of locals---they are most often on a list from another area outside of the County.

11/30/2005 12:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What we need is not low and very low income housing. We need bridge housing that is at 150% or 200% of the medium income requirement and also affordable by design (small lots, small square footage) market rate homes. When social engineering enters development and housing we fail. Those who cannot by a traditional home and are not qualified for a affordable low income deal lose. And low income triples the NIMBYs and fails.

11/30/2005 1:14 PM  
Blogger David Pritchett said...

Who is talking or writing about Federally subsidized housing for recipients from outside the County?

Try again.

11/30/2005 1:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.countyofsb.org/housing/docs.asp

11/30/2005 2:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The link above is to the County housing program overall. The rules are quite clear that applicants to benefit from the housing programs run by the county MUST either reside or work in the County at the time of applying and during the tenure in the housing. And they also must be legal residents, or even citizens, of USA.

Having Noleta sullied by foreigners from outside Santa Barbara County is yet another weak argument to preserve the obsolete ranchette lifestyle the Noletans fear will end their isolation.

Next.

11/30/2005 3:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah!! We need Bridge Housing targeted to household incomes that can afford the price of local housing, so none of that riffraff moves in, as obviously would happen with the "low" income housing.

How ironic that the Nimby activists in the obsolete Noleta neighborhoods cannot tolerate new residents with the same income as they have.

This blog series needs to get back on point with how the County planning process will deal with this all, instead of fearmongering.

11/30/2005 4:35 PM  
Anonymous Gary said...

On Point:
First we send the planners home.

Second we elect leaders to the Board of Supervisors who will speak consistently and not try to placate the three or four different interest groups.

Third, bring the planners back and make it clear they follow the direction of the elected leaders. STAFF IS NOT IN CONTROL.

Last, get this, we do not have to follow the direction of Sacramento. No! We tell them to shove their housing demands, then we have our local leaders make the decisions and hold the Board of Supers directly responsible.

What a concept, huh?

11/30/2005 5:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gary, then what happens when the State puts the squeeze on the county to enact the zoning, and even cuts off funds for other stuff vital to the whole county, or even prevails in a lawsuit with real fines involved.

Quite a concept, indeed.

You folks at CSP need to think a few steps ahead. Go ahead, Gary, announce your own candidacy for Supervisor and run on a platform of leaving the county open to such legal liability!

Your balls were big in Playgirl, but how big are they now?!?!

11/30/2005 5:46 PM  
Anonymous Gary said...

First of all,I have no affiliation with CSP. CSP and I have our differences.

Now, the state would simply withhold funds for state-mandated projects in the area. Other places have rejected the housing mandate, no lawsuits, no fines. We just go our own way. But it seems you have already drunk the Kool-Aid. You are afraid of Big Brother.

Oh my gosh! So local politicos would then be responsible for potholes?

And balls? Someone has to stand up while you lambs graze peacefully.

11/30/2005 6:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I say not only close the door and tell Sac where to stay, lets start getting rid of some of the people here already. Slow growth and no-growth are not enough. I say lets go to De-growth. Every year we allow no one new to arrive and we ask 200 people to leave, starting with the most recent. And if you want to have kids you go to buy the rights from people at the front of the list or from families after long term residents die. This way no traffic, no new people, no crowded schools - in fact at some point schools will become very small and we can use the money for senior care.

11/30/2005 6:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That, Ladies and Gentlemen, is what is known as a conversation killer.

The room falls quiet.
Everyone gives everyone else that embarrassed look.
Quiet goodbyes are said, most leave.

The offender sits, alone, in the dark.

11/30/2005 7:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, what was that about McGuinnes beating up on Travis Armstrong, demanding that the paper be more like the Santa Maria Times?

Here's one of two letters to the NewsPress today:
Public officials and public responsibility

After watching Wednesday's session of the Planning Commission and the rebroadcast, I strongly feel that Supervisor Susan Rose and her appointee, Planning Commissioner Marc McGinnes, owe an apology to the community and to the News-Press for the three separate venomous and deliberate attacks made by Mr. McGinnes.

Not only did he attack freedom of the press, which Commissioner Michael Cooney then felt called upon to defend, but he flagrantly used the meeting and his position as an appointed public official as a bully pulpit to extol his virtues while engaging in character assassination of Editorial Page Editor Travis Armstrong.

This is a new low and a travesty of public trust.

I sincerely hope Ms. Rose does a lot better with her next appointee to this position.

Mary Whalen, Santa Barbara

12/02/2005 7:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mary - You are correct a new low and a travesty of public trust. What worries me now is Susan Rose has hand picked her successor - Janet Wolfe.

12/04/2005 8:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your are right. A two-term Supervisor who choses not to seek re-election certainly should not have an opinion on a successor.

What a crazy thought, because it never happens, especially when Schwartz retired and Carbajal became the candidate.

12/04/2005 1:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hmmm.....explain to me how a veteran office holder, leaving office, "should not have an opinion" about future candidates. that may be the most ludicrous statement yet to be made on blogabarbara.

12/04/2005 3:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

look it up: SARCASM

12/12/2005 6:25 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home