BlogaBarbara

Santa Barbara Politics, Media & Culture

Saturday, February 04, 2006

Neighborhood Myth and Noleta

Interesting opinion piece in The Independent this week by Mickey Flacks on neighborhood preservation and she makes a good point that the 2nd District race may be contextualized within the state-mandated affordable housing grab in the Noleta/Goleta Valley.

Her piece is probably best summed up by the following quote:
What is now being debated, however, is not any particular development, but the very concept of putting higher density, low- and moderate-income housing in any Noleta neighborhood. People in a neighborhood should be informed and consulted about changes that might take place in their neighborhood, but those residents owe to the larger Neighborhood an understanding of overall community needs. They should be judging those projected developments not only in terms of their neighborhood, but in recognition of the concerns of the South Coast Neighborhood — and the many other neighborhoods it contains. What is really at stake is not “neighborhood preservation,” but the diversity of the Neighborhood’s population and its quality of life.

Related to this opinion piece is Coalition for Sensible Planning President Gary Earle's quote in the News-Press that he's worried the "Visioning Committee" is working backwards while the committee's chair says that he's only doing his job if everyone's a little uncomfortable and you have the makings of a big fight that isn't getting much attention from Joe Public.

Noleta needs representation now.

20 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

It would be great to be able to move back to SB and not commute. I am quite anxious to get rid of my addiction to oil. D

2/04/2006 8:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think "diversity of the Neighborhood's population" is what is at stake - but what is definitely at stake is the quality of life for all on the South Coast.

The increasing buildup, no matter whether by rich or poor, is ruining it for all. That's the issue, it seems to me, land use, not "diversity." Maybe it is foolish to think there can be ANY agricultural land south/east of Gaviota, but, if so, I remain foolish and hopeful for the once "good land".

Off topic: what happens on the City Council if Das should win the election - do we get to vote or does the Council pick or does the next highest vote getter automatically get chosen? (Wouldn't that be Redd, ("PhD" - as she identified herself in a recent letter to the N-P about the Goleta PO tragedy.) I suppose we'll be seeing many more letters from her in the coming weeks/months.... If that's so, I'll have to hope for that reason alone that Das does not win the election.

2/04/2006 9:36 AM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

Council can choose the council member to replace Williams should he were to be elected. They are under no obligation to choose the next runner up but they did so in Babtunde's case -- that however, was not too many months after the prior election.

2/04/2006 11:10 AM  
Blogger Bill Carson said...

Mickey's facts are wrong. It's 62 acres, not 66. It's a MINIMUM of 20 units/ac, not 16...and with bonus density it's a minimum of 24 units/ac. The endless line of commuter traffic means we have too many jobs, not too few houses. Mickey and her small, misinformed group will try their best to ruin our COMMUNITY in order to chase a misguided dream.

2/04/2006 10:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow - too many jobs????? The County of Santa Barbara seems to be the major employer along with UCSB.

Here's a novel idea - move the county seat to Buellton and watch that commuter line of traffic all but disappear.

2/05/2006 9:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Once the County Split is voted on in June, Mission County can put their County seat in Guadalupe for all I care......

South coast residents---VOTE YES ON THE COUNTY SPLIT if you care at all about your quality of life. Don't buy into the scare tactics of those who would have you believe that without us, the folks up north can't take care of themselves....

2/05/2006 10:08 AM  
Blogger Bill Carson said...

Good start, but we don't need to move the County seat, just relocate some of the job sites. If Ventura and Santa Maria would increase the jobs, then the commuters could stop commuting. The best answer to our dilemma is to focus on the "jobs" part of this, and not the "housing" part of this. It's a win-win. Mickey, are you listening???

2/05/2006 10:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2/05/2006 10:15 AM  
Anonymous Valerio said...

A series on who and how should be appointed to Santa Barbara City Council will become very hot issue if and when Das wins to be come Supervisor, so should be a big, separate entry for Blogabarbara.

After 180 days following a City Council election, the Council has zero obligation to appoint the next-highest vote recipient to fill a vacancy. That policy (actually in city Charter) is wholly appropriate near an election, especially when a new Mayor typically moves up from being a council member, leaving a vacancy for the next-highest candidate in the council election at the time. Babatunde in 2001 is the most recent example.

Loretta Redd also has zero chance of being appointed to fill any vacancy left by Das, but Redd (backed by her pal Travis Factswrong) is getting her missives published in her only venue available, now that she has stopped pouting after losing out during the November 2005 election.

2/06/2006 9:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

__________________________________________________________

Bill Carson said...
Good start, but we don't need to move the County seat, just relocate some of the job sites. If Ventura and Santa Maria would increase the jobs, then the commuters could stop commuting. The best answer to our dilemma is to focus on the "jobs" part of this, and not the "housing" part of this. It's a win-win. Mickey, are you listening???

_______________________________________________________

Okay Bill - I say we start by moving your job first. Interesting that we don't need to move one of the largest employers - the county, an entity that sucks the taxpayers dry but we need to move the businesses that pay those taxes

Then maybe the jobs and businesses that pay for the road outside your home. And then kill the busineses that pay for the fire department in your neighborhood.

How about we move all the teaching jobs to Ventura or Santa Maria?

Any further comment would make Sara delete this post.

2/06/2006 9:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why has Noleta fought being part of the city of Goleta?

Seems to be a perfect match. Out of touch with anything an average family faces, very self important and self focused and last, willing to waste millions of dollars on law suits.

Sort of in a state of shock that I could agree with Mickey Flacks.

2/06/2006 9:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2/06/2006 10:06 PM  
Blogger Bill Carson said...

9:18 post - Get the chip off your shoulder. I was referring to moving county job sites closer to workers' homes...SM, Lompoc, Carp. This would decentralize county govt., increase efficiency (as if you cared), AND reduce commuter traffic...thus minimizing the need to pave another lane. See how logical thinking can solve several problems at once?

To further clarify, our benevolent business community has grown at a greater rate than our housing stock, thus creating the illusion of a housing crisis. Limit the incessant growth of profit making businesses and you reduce the NEED for high-density housing.

FYI...Gas taxes and sales taxes mostly pay for roads. Property taxes assessed by fire districts mostly pay for fire depts. Not businesses, which by the way, should exist to serve the public, NOT the other way around.

2/06/2006 10:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh Bill - we can all tell when we touch your tender nerves.

1. Your first post at 10:15 am says move jobs out the county to Ventura also.

2. Again, I say fine, move the businesses away, but start with those who employ you, your family, and friends.

3. Lets go ahead and get rid of 'incessant growth of profit making businesses' who do pay those incessant paychecks to those of us who must work.

4. Sales taxes are generated and paid by these incessant profit making businesses - I have not seen government pay taxes, nor have I seen businesses in Ventura donate sales tax to Santa Barbara County.

5. Incessant businesses pay property taxes just like homeowners.

Bill, you seem to be a Goleta activist - so without Bacara and the Price Costco Camino Real Center there is no city of Goleta - so the incessant profit making businesses actually are paying for the incessant anti-business and anti-growth city. Double every home tax and you still cannot make up for just two business centers - but who cares - lets just ask Bacara and Camino Real to leave - too many jobs - too much money.

2/06/2006 10:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry forgot to respond to your last statement Bill.

You said:

"Not businesses, which by the way, should exist to serve the public, NOT the other way around."

So by providing jobs, pay checks, huge tax revenue (sales, property, gas, bed along fees) along with the services and products that people need or want.

So I guess local employers only serve the business owner, not those who get the pay check or those who work for local vendors who also employe our neighbors.

I am totally confused by your world view Bill. You do not think business provides any public good because they make a profit? So if business wasted money and lost money it would be better?

I say lets just turn the entire area into a retirement community - ah but we would need a lot more banks.

2/06/2006 10:28 PM  
Blogger Bill Carson said...

O.K. I'll try one more time...
(1) Say, for example, a company of 20 employees opens in SB, but the 20 live in more-affordable Ventura...why not move the company to Ventura to eliminate the commute? And I don't mean teachers, cops, firefighters, etc., rather, jobs that can easily be there instead of here. (This is the part where you open your mind and think.)
(2)Move the businesses away that employ the Ventura-dwelling-commuters...not the ones that are necessary to serve the SB area. Am I typing too fast for you?
(3) Build a company OR a high-density unit and they will come. If businesses grow at 2% per year (the pro-business mantra), and we build all the housing NEEDED for these new employees (Mickey's mantra), you do the math...how many years until we reach Orange County status?
(4)It's all about the money, isn't it? That's what got us into this business, housing, business, housing, business, mess.
(5)We all pay (see #4). I was just pointing out that your roads/fire example was, well, let's just say uninformed.

Now....I know it's hard....but stop and think for a moment before you figure out another way to justify the Orange County-fication of SB.

2/06/2006 10:45 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

Anon -- take it easy. I delete any post that names names.

You are hiding behind a mask while at least Bill has a Blogger ID -- take a deep breath all of you.

2/06/2006 10:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

. . . . again I say fine. Lets start moving businesses away. I vote that Gary Earle's employer and Bill Carson's employer move first.

Also we must close UCSB as it does not pay any taxes and attracts jobs and students who want to stay here.

And let's go to a negative birth rate. We can drive down empty streets (no need for repairs).

I agree, no Orange County. Let be Calusa with 16% unemployment, Perfect - no jobs, no reason to move there - huge deficits, little of no services. Or maybe Imperial County with a higher unemployment rate.

Bill, there is a balance and no one wants Orange County. Yet, there is a realistic approach and promoting local businesses as bad and suggesting they leave when forecast for the our county are very dire in regard to revenues to serve you in your old age.

2/06/2006 11:02 PM  
Blogger Bill Carson said...

Whatever.

Ponder the points, maybe you'll eventually get it.

Oh, by the way, it's Colusa, not Calusa....but I get the feeling that facts don't seem important to you.

2/06/2006 11:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks Bill - spelling when typing fast not my best skill.

I understand your point of view, I just do not agree.

Points of view are not facts - not mine nor yours. If this was an easy thing to solve, every community in the entire state would be perfectly in balance - jobs and housing. S

2/06/2006 11:16 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home