Anderson Moves to the Right
Sheriff Anderson shimmied to the right of his challengers at a recent forum by bringing up the sceptre of terrorism and immigration -- brave move that may or may not pay off. Why would anyone, however, who has questionable immigration status want to report a crime? Even former-Sheriff Thomas understands that....
posted by Sara De la Guerra | 4/29/2006 07:04:00 AM
Our Community Guidelines ask that you use the Blogger/Open ID login or the
more private Name/URL option when making comments. Comments using "Anonymous" will not be published. For more info, see choosing an identity.
34 Comments:
Mike Pinto says...
Das has a better plan to protect Santa Barbara County than any of the candidates for sheriff. Das has a four point plan to fight crime.
1. Hire more and pay our DS a competitive wage.
2. Budget more for diversion.
3. Create a task force to create alternatives to jail.
4. Increase regional cooporation in fighting crime.
The other candidates have nothing to say on the issue!
Dear Mike,
I feel safer already. I suppose this four point plan is the reason that all of our local public safety unions support one of his opponents....
So is Betsy Cramer still out there? Some candidates for 2nd District are seriously abusing lawn sign laws! (By some I of course mean Joe Guzzardi)
Now there's an idea---how about "Das for Sheriff"---I'm sure somewhere in his vast potpourri of experience he can find something that qualifies him.......
"budget more for diversion"???
a line like that only draws attention to the vast lack of knowledge and experience by the candidate whose volunteers echo them.
There is and always has been a huge 'diversion' effort County and statewide---its governed by State law---and administered by the D.A. and Probation Departments----it's an insult to the hundreds of men and women involved for years in seeking and administering and giving their heart and soul to prevention efforts. If Das had any idea how deeply his arrogance insults the people doing the work he pretends to "have a plan" for---well, on second thought, I have a feeling that wouldn't matter.
if one didn't know better, one might think we're watching an episode of Saturday night live satiring running for public office.
That is really not a "plan" by Das Williams, but just nice talking points about spending more money and playing nice with others.
Still, how to improve the recruitment and retention of the Sheriff Department is a good campaign issue and the candidates should be talking about it.
And do not forget that Das invented adverbs, too.
As for the sitting Sheriff moving to the right, hard to tell what is "right" or "left" on immigration problems and policies. Is going soft on crime a "left" or "liberal" or "Liberal" issue?
The challenge is that law enforcement SHOULD be able to, you know, enforce laws, including immigration laws when that mechanism is a way to get a bad person off the street, just like a traffic infraction is often a way to stop and pick up a criminal. This is a subtle difference most people cannot understand.
The law enforcement system needs to be run so victims or complainants should not fear that their immigration status matters so as to become a disincentive to reach out to police or sheriff. But enforcing immigration laws also should be another tool in the toolbox to help keep EVERYONE, both citizen and resident, safe and secure with less crime.
Ignoring the outcomes of illegal immigration and continuing to keep the government head in the sand is why the problem is a big as it is and only getting worse.
Uh anon 1119am---there is a reason that professionals in the field of public safety are endorsing Janet---- we know that "four point plans" are not going to solve problems---remember, Bush had one just last week.
We have had and are already part of long-existing "task forces", have long cooperated regionally to "fight crime" and are involved in a multitude of actions. So please don't insult us with the naive posturing....
We want someone with long-term experience working on and finding solutions to problems---not working on his own image.
So that's why we're supporting Janet Wolf
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
F. D. S., appreciate your insightful thoughts on local law enforcement and ability to apply the laws when necessary to fight crime.
As a spouse and parent of law enforcement personnel, I am truly aware of the price our society has had to pay for illegal immi grants who flout laws brazenly because there is very little consequences for their actions. It's money out of our pockets with no end in sight - incarceration, public defenders, welfare for their families, etc, all paid for by the taxpayers - You & Me!!
Das is not a trained peace officer - he knows not what he speaks of when he talks about diversion, innovations and retention as it applies to policing. One needs to walk in a deputy's/police officer shoes in a ghetto beat on a busy weekend night for at least a year before they open their mouths and talk about reform.
JMHO - dd
P.S. Just remember the New Orleans policing issue after Katrina. Our Santa Barbara County deputies/ SB police officers won't cut and run because they are true professionals, no matter who is at the helm of the department.
ahh 824pm---another positive missive from the "clean campaign" crew---namecalling and sexist imagery----I hope the Das endorsers are paying attention---Helene? Marty?
and Sara, why allow the mocking name for a candidate? don't tell me you have a bias?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ds feels reporting a crime to should be color blind. immigration status should not matter. Let him move to the right. With Das as a county supervisor the sheriffs power will become limited. he will have real accountablity
8:24pm says: Das's "only special interest is the voters."
No, I think Das's special interest is himself. Before deciding to run, he told the voters that he would would run only if "there was a need" for him to run. Clearly, there is not a need. Three other candidates have stepped up to the plate, including major-grassroots Guzzardi.
So, what does Das bring to the table other than the watering down of the votes, and the possibility of an abandoned seat on the city council? What would that abandoned seat cost the city if Das were to get his way?
Fulfilling his duty on the City Council would show a commitment to serve the interest of the voters.
Abandoning his first-elected position for a Supervisor seat shows extreme self-interest.
Sara----
Now you have accepted a derrogatory name for Janet twice by 1120 and 824 anonymous. even Travis wouldn't allow that....are you helping to spin things?
Is 'DS' sort of like the G-D thing? not writing out the fullname of a higher being or something like that?
10:38 -- You are right. I'm reviewing them too fast BUT did put a warning in earlier today on another post. I'll delete them -- folks, let's do substance without the name calling.
hey sara, thanks for cleaning that up---so quickly
Okay, but what about when Bill Carson accuses Das of smoking out during the debate. Some made a play off of Janet's name but only carson has accused people of illegal activity.
Bill pushes the envelope with every chance he gets -- and I posted a warning on another post about the issue. I agree with you that that's not necessary either -- I won't allow that from now on.
Das's public safety plan is a good one. Where is Joe's and Janet's? I mean Janet even stole Secords campaign slogan. How can she even come up with a plan to make our county a safer place to live and play.
So just so I'm clear, 739---Das is now running for Sheriff?
Putting "public safety" on a yard sign in a public right of way in Goleta does nothing to make us safe. It certainly isn't much of a plan. Das' campaign is only serving to help Secord. Das should get out now while there is still hope for Democrats
Dear Sara:
Below are your words from last December, the morning after Travis acknowledged Guzzardi's entry in the Supes race.
"It was tough this morning not to overlook Mr. Armstrong's article in favor of a day of peace -- Joe Guzzardi is the one to watch? He's gaining momentum? I wish I had some of the egg nog he had last night!"
Others have frequently attacked all of the candidates (and each other) with downright mean, slanderous and biting personal comments.
For you to take exception to the "smoke" joke is disingenuous at best.
If you're going to change the ground rules and insist on a new level of civility to this blog, please don't single out Bill Carson for doing what most posters have been doing for months. Thank you.
Bill,
Got your point and it didn't come across as a joke to me -- you might have missed a comment we got too about another candidate's name being made fun of -- I actually deleted the posts in question but not yours.
Many of your posts have been in the gray area as far as I am concerned as you tend to want to make comments like that but at the same time deliver a substantive argument (whether I agree or not). You have a lot to offer here and I'd just rather have it be more civil...
I'll do my best to apply our guidelines judiciously.
Sara, you owe Bill Carson a retraction here.
I just went back and looked through several recent blog posts looking for these gray areas that you say he has been in. The smoke joke was clearly a joke. Too harsh? Maybe, if we are to avoid satiring the candidates to a pulp.
Other than that, Bill's writings are very benign. Furthermore, he uses his own name and takes a lot of potshots from others on this blog.
So, think about it, Sara. You call Travis a name on a regular basis, and yet that is not allowed in other cases. Maybe you should post your policy, so that everyone can follow the same standard.
speaking of public safety, endorsements, 2nd District, etc....
Those who claim that their primary interest is in "beating Secord" should be clamoring to back the current 2nd district candidate who already has the solid endorsements of County and City public safety and the County and Congressional elected officials....what a powerful force that would be in the Fall....
So, let's rally around Janet Wolf, NOW!
otherwise, the true motives of other candidates and their supporters begin to reveal themselves--self interest, self interest, oh--and, self interest at the expense of everything else
I am a supporter of Joe Guzzardi. In response to 10:45am, I am happy to reveal my true motive:
To help elect someone who will serve as a representative of the people who live in the second district. There are many issues and the most urgent is current pressure to densify upper State and Noleta. People who live in those neighborhods DO NOT WANT ANY MORE DENSITY. Joe not only supports that, but he understands the issue in far greater depth than the other candidates.
Second district needs representation. We have asked for a building moratorium and two of the North County supervisors have indicated support for that. BUT our own "representative" has not committed to kicking in with the third vote. That's ludicrous!
To me, the other candidates are leaning too much toward giving in to the developers, the density advocates(which are supported by the developers). If you listened to (dare, I say!) AM 1290 this morning, you would have learned that the State does NOT require new building to meet its affordable housing quotas.
Where's our representation?
Joe has been consistent in his message from before Day 1 -- and his message matches the concerns of the residents.
anon 335-- good points; the question remaining though is do you really believe that NOLETA should be the only issue in this race? I am a longtime 2nd District resident and believe strongly that there are many other issues and people in this District and COunty that deserve attention. And I've lost and am losing more friends daily who can't afford to live in the south coast any more. I MISS THEM! so as comforting as nostalgia can be the idea that we can "freeze" any geographic section of this county is naive at best, dangerous at worst.
No, Noleta shouldn't be the only issue in the race. But currently, land use and development decisions are the active issues with the most far-reaching and irreversible effects on the South Coast. Noleta is a target now, simply because it is the one large region with the least protection from density. We have one person who can and should represent us in land use decisions. That person is the 2nd District Supervisor. If Susan Rose had been standing up for the residents, no one would have been shocked. We expected her to defend the South Coast. But she has neglected her constituency, and she knows enough NOT to run for re-election. If she had been representing us properly, then maybe there would be more focus on the other issues. The best analogy that I can think of is worrying about a bad cold when you've just been told you might have cancer. Which is the bigger thing on your mind?
You said "...as comforting as nostalgia can be the idea that we can "freeze" any geographic section of this county is naive at best, dangerous at worst."
I say look again! The geography is most certainly "frozen"!! What would be dangerous is to continue to disregard the idea of establishing a buildout number for the South Coast. Health, safety and quality of life are all affected by the number of people living and working on the South Coast. The land is NOT GROWING.
Affordability is a big problem, as it is all over the country. The problem looks bigger here because we are in an area that is very desirable and traditionally more expensive than most other parts of the US. The US economy, the growing population, and the desire for more tax revenue all feed into this problem. But, we cannot solve it by densifying. That is perfectly clear. ( If you don't believe me, check out the new condos by the RR tracks that have been placed on the market for $1.6 million.)
Guzzardi seems to be the candidate who understands this best. His positions and answers to questions consistently reflect this reality. In addition, the other candidates are not consistent in their messages at all -- which reminds me too much of what we've been put through by Ms. Rose.
"freeze" any geographic section of this county is naive at best, dangerous at worst.
You just killed your own argument. The geography IS frozen, unless of course you mean that it is ok to grow at a geological pace. If plate techtonics gives us another acre in 1000 years, let's put some housing on that new acre.
If you miss your friends, go visit them. No one is stopping you, just like no one stopped them from moving. It was a choice.
The only path that is proven to be dangerous is unmitigated, unplanned growth.
anon 632--- who mentioned "unmitigated, unplanned growth"????
and you reveal your selfish, elitist core--- a "choice"? yea, a choice made unavoidable by the lack of affordable housing----even reasonably priced rental housing..... so if you say growth that's planned is ok, then what's the beef?
The problem is that none of the growth in Santa Barbara is planned properly, because "buildout" or "when do we stop before we compromise why everyone likes this place" is never really used in the equation. There is too much traffic on the roads already, is there any logical scenario where creating more housing will alleviate traffic. And I mean realistic. The truth is that we hit the ideal buildout scenario years ago, but none of the developers want you to know that.
Call me selfish and elitist all you want but I can guarantee you that the sacrifices that I am making right now to live in Santa Barbara are much greater than yours. Last time I checked, elitism does not stem from sacrifice. But that is a choice that I have made. I can call you selfish, if you want, for coming up with ways to spin the concept that every one of your friends is entitled to affordable perpetual housing in one of the nicest places to live one the earth.
So anon above, I'm curious then who among the Candidates for 2nd District best protects and represents the choice you have made to sacrifice and keep your quality of life?
also, I'm curious, when was the housing that you are currently living in built? was it built on land that was once acgricultural? what used to be grown on your land?
These comments, while a good discussion, have nothing to do with the post! Please be conscious of that...
anon 10:33am -- when was the housing that you are currently living in built?
My neighboorhood was built, I believe, in the late 50's early 60's. The land, in some way, must have been agricultural. That's just a guess however. Could have been a Chumash burial ground for all I know. Was a debate raging back then about whether my neighborhood should be built for the sake of losing ag-land? It's possible.
As far as candidates, no one exactly suits what I truly want, which is usually the case with any election. It's always hard to tell who makes the best worker from an interview.
Post a Comment
<< Home