BlogaBarbara

Santa Barbara Politics, Media & Culture

Monday, March 27, 2006

State Housing Mandate Done Deal

Is it a good strategy for The Guzz to sound off so forcefully on the state housing mandate? It certainly seperates him from the other candidates but also occurs to me like his stance fails to respect the fact that this is a done deal. Losing $2 million in state grant monies is not a good option. Perhaps this doesn't matter within the context of the election. Let us know what you think...

The article this morning in the News-Press also quotes Supervisor Firestone as being concerned about lawsuits from housing advocates. Why isn't he concerned about lawsuits from neighborhood and open space conservation groups?

13 Comments:

Anonymous First District Streetfighter said...

Firestone is not concerned about lawsuits from the "neighborhood groups" because those lawsuits would lose... DUH!!!!

The County will finish its planning process that it has completed several times already, and this will be over, notwithstanding sabre rattling by the NIMBY groups.

The opinion essay attributed to Firestone makes clear that this is going to happen and how he will vote when the time comes, regardless of what Rose does or how Rose votes as Supervisor.

3/27/2006 8:34 AM  
Anonymous Valerio said...

This indeed seems like clear signal that the three "North County" Supervisors will support the State law that indicates the County or unincorporated Second District must absorb some of the housing units. Firestone and Rose seemed to have reached an understanding that Brooks can be out front on leading the County policy not to pick a losing fight with the State.

With Firestone fairly clear, (perhaps the clearest he ever has been), and Gray and Centeno also joining in (considering their districts have absorbed plenty of housing already with more sqeezed continuously), what Rose wants to do is becoming a moot point, regardless of how convinced or not by the conspicuous naysayers.

This is quite a poltical play by the Rose Camp to get Firestone to take the heat and lead the policy direction of not fighting the State and losing millions of dollars for the County, just so those neighbor naysayers can enjoy what the rest of the suburban County no longer can avoid.

3/27/2006 11:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The housing mandate hasn't anything to do with Rose any longer. The swing vote has spoken. She's out of power and nearly out of office. Irrelevant.

3/27/2006 12:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

At the CSP forum in Goleta the Guzz made it clear that he was not supportive of the County using grant funds at all for any programs. We should be asking Guzz how he will make sure the County still provides services if we do not seek/use grant money during a time when the State is taking County money to balance their budget. A candidate for Supervisor should be able to outline their fiscal plan.

3/27/2006 12:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Only Das will put the collective good of the people before politics.

3/27/2006 2:14 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

I'm beginning to have a tendency to want to reject comments like those immediately above no matter who the candidate -- please add something to the conversation!

3/27/2006 2:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So what Valerio is saying is that Rose and Firestone can work together....wonder if Das can say that?

3/27/2006 3:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No candidate is putting the overall good of the people before politics, so let's get real here. I, for one, could do without the zero-information candidate commercials. Maybe Sara could make "Good of the People vs. Politics" as a topic and then we could embellish on candidate's pros and cons there.

As for the Housing Element, people should remember that the state mandate does not require unincorporated Second District to upzone. That choice is ultimately up to the Board of Supervisors. It's still possible to approve the Housing Element, and give unincorporated Goleta Valley the planning it needs. Let's hope for that.

........

I have a request for anyone who is using the term NIMBY, to identify themselves as an IMBY and tell us the block you live on, and which high-density rezones you are supporting in your immediate neighborhood. Otherwise, please don't call anyone else a NIMBY. Thanks!

3/27/2006 6:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The real question is can anyone be unselfish? No.

We all want others to ride the bus.

We all want others to ride a bike.

We all want to take care of others but not around us - some where else.

What happened to us that sitting at a stop sign for 30 seconds more a peak hour is reason to deny others a home and force them to leave?

What happened to our spoiled hearts that we are here and the h*#@ with our children and grandchildren and even double the h*#@ for the teachers of our children and the nurses, police and fire fighters who watch over us?

When did it become that we are so important that allowing others to have a home like we have became worse than any sin?

We need to protect the quality of life - but we really need to plan and those opposed to housing are those who will not allow real planning as that would lessen the frustrations of traffic and maybe we all would not hate the thought of our children living in the same town with us.

Have we become so important and so busy that no one else matters?

3/27/2006 11:48 PM  
Anonymous Anon 6:05pm said...

Anon 11:48pm makes points that I agree with.

What I have seen in some other entries are negative criticisms of those that are asking for good planning.

A few extra seconds at a traffic light is nothing. But the impacts of dense development are much more than that. I chose to live in Goleta Valley for many reasons. Many areas of Los Angeles were an option for my family, but I did not care for the densities, the strip malls, the black dust in the air. (don't laugh -- if have ever lived there, you know what I am talking about -- the rest of you, please listen and learn).

I'm all for a good plan, and the recognition that resources are limited if we want to maintain the quality of life here. Everyone deserves a comfortable place to call home, of course. But we will ruin this place if we don't recognize the realities behind the land use decisions we make.

3/28/2006 9:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look at the communities that have allowed and even encouraged growth. Sacramento, Fresno, Phoenix.

Fresno - median home price 500,000 and for anyone who doesn't know Fresno is no Santa Barbara

Phoenix - all the growth you want, subsequently also for 2005 also has the greatest percentage increase in median home price in the nation.

look folks even if we allow every development proposal out there to go through the median home price will still rise.

Stop getting stuck in some ass backwards Milton Friedman school of economic thought that only benefits developers out to enrich themselves at your community’s expense. You resign yourself to sounding like a parrot in a cage repeating supply/demand over and over when I’m sorry that model for housing makes no sense. Every community that has allowed unobstructed growth has only seen drastic increases in housing values often exceeding those of Santa Barbara while harming the quality of life for those community’s residents.

For a community closer to home just look at Buelton you can build pretty much anything and their housing is just as unaffordable as Santa Barbara’s and continues to increase in value just as does Santa Barbara’s.

Anyone truly interested in affordable housing needs to be a champion for the City’s Housing Authority – 100% affordable rentals. All other partial affordable inclusionary programs are just tools for developers to get their projects through the city and county.

3/28/2006 2:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

2:29 is correct - city of sb housing authority is a model.

we can do better with workforce housing and not mcmansions except some larger market rate will pay for others -

3/28/2006 10:22 PM  
Anonymous SIckened by density in the First District said...

City of SB is quickly and somewhat quietly becoming a "model" of how developers can insidiously ingratiate themselves to Planning staff and Commissioners and then within a relatively brief period of time start building 60+units on a site that for years has been a Carrows and donut shop. Soon people will start asking "wait a minute how did this happen" and it will be too late.

How did Grant House, who never saw a project he didn't like, suddenly become a friend of "progressives"----thanks a lot, Das. Those of you in the second district who want to see what Das can REALLY do for your communities, look no further than the projects Grant House is supporting. Das was Grant's biggest champion, and vice versa.

3/29/2006 10:35 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home