Goleta Council Slate or No?
Does the Goleta Council incumbent's joint press conference at Stow Grove Park not constitute a slate? They even served soda and pizza...I've never seen three seperate announcements made at the same time and not have some central theme. To me, it passes the smell test.
posted by Sara De la Guerra | 7/13/2006 10:33:00 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 Comments using "Anonymous" will not be published.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.
18 Comments:
Sara, with all due respect, I can't understand what point you are trying to make here. Please clarify.
Thanks for asking...The article this morning which discussed the press conference made a point of discussing whether or not the council incumbents were running as a slate or not -- they denied it yet held a joint press conference and rally or sorts to announce their intentions to run. It just sounds like a slate to me!
What is wrong with three candidates running for re-election saying they are supporting each other, but have seperate campaigns.
There is a difference between what they are doing and what the Goleta Chamber is doing, namely forming a PAC to funnel contributions to their handpicked council hopefuls!
It's not that it is wrong -- but let's call it what it is. They want you to support their fellow colleagues but it isn't a slate? Slates are not exclusively run together as one -- but to hitch their campaigns together in announcing is a strong statement.
I agree with you about the Chamber PAC -- it is a little different.
It's a campaign kick-off party - they invite all their friends and donors - who are probably on all 3 candidates lists anyway. It's a lot easier on the 3 campaign budgets to share the pizza party expenses.
It's also a pretty solid statement about their political beliefs and where they stand on issues. I don't have a problem with what they did and their message - to vote for "us" is to vote for the continued Goleta plan that we all 3 embrace. dd
Usually a slate means that everyone on it has identical views on all key issues. Brock, Hawxhurst and Connell do not have identical views.
I think it's a strength that they have common values, but some disagreement on how to achieve their common goals.
I think it's a strenght that they want to support each other not in spite of their disagreements but because they realize their is strength and power in a diversity of views.
Expect ongoing attacks by nasty, negative naysayers who say they are for Goleta, but see everything in terms of bigger is better and growth is king.
The Chamber doesn't represent local businesses. It supported not only Costco but also a new Walgreens when there are 2 established drugstores within 3 blocks in Goleta.
The Chamber represents big business and big developers. This is not a slur, just simple fact.
It should be a hot campaign this fall.
Jack, Cynthia, and Margaret often disagree and hardly could be a "slate"
But the adage that The Enemy of My Enemy is my Friend may make them appear like a slate when they are bracing for impact from the Chamber of Concrete PAC!
This will be a referendum on status quo and severely limited growth, versus an obvious pro-growth agenda. The incumbents will prevail by a 10% margin.
It's a common practice in Goleta to smear those who disagree with you with the worst you can think of... for example saying the Chamber supports big business and developers. The truth is, sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't.
Brock, Hawxhurst and Connell have supported some big developers... the example is the zoning for the area south of Hollister in Old Town in the General Plan. That is environmental extremely sensitive habitat... part of the original Goleta Slough. But it's all been zoned for industrial and commercial, and all plans made for it (in the Old Town RDA Plan) involved huge parking lots... imagine, paving the original Goleta Slough... imagine the flooding due to channeling the water off the asphault... and you want to talk about traffic! 1000's of cars per hour at peak is what would come from the current plans for this area. The traffic just dwarfs that from any residential development considered in the Goleta Valley. And no-one even mentions all these concerns; instead the focus is on paltry residential developments.
In addition, the last true urban farm is on the plot just north of the News Press production facility on South Kellogg... and guess what... the Goleta Council unanimously supports building a hotel on that site, to get the tax increment for RDA. The developers there are good friends of Jonny Wallis...
Go ahead and cite 3 examples when Chamber of Traffic did NOT support more urban building.
The real story here is that Hawxhurst benefits the most from the support of his peers....he vulnerable and they all know it.
Hawxhurst = Guzzardi. Tell it like it is Jack!
What an AWESOME slate:
-No general plan after 4 years -- but it takes a long time to craft one virtually guaranteed to kill the economy...
-State rejecting affordable housing policy -- but only a REALLY greedy developer couldn't make 50% affordable pencil...
-More than $50 million in taxpayer funds in jeopardy due to lawsuits -- but that takes real courage...
-ZERO job-creating projects approved in Goleta since incorporation -- but who needs a job anyway?
-6:22: You're right- the run-down industrial area South of Hollister that has boldly been designated by the pro-business City Coucil for industrial is a travesty. Indeed, "That is environmental extremely sensitive habitat." What will become of the extremely sensitive rats that inhabit that area today? Where's Wendy when we need her?
But the Goleta City Council has proven they are "environmental extremely sensitive" -- so you won't be disappointed if you give the GP a closer read and see what can really happen there: NOTHING.
Thank God for the dream slate...
streetfighter...
(1)UCSB Manzanita Village
(2)IV Community Center
(3)UCSB San Clemente
one other thing... traffic is a phony issue. If even 20% of Goletans would ride their bike, take the bus, and carpool, then traffic congestion would be vastly relieved. Of course, the Chamber of Commerce is just as benighted on this issue as all the Potemkin-environmentalists who really just want to increase the market value of their homes.
Try again "Anonymous" at 12:29 AM
Those three examples are NOT IN GOLETA.
Sorry, first district streetfighter, Walter Tompkins `Goleta the Good Land' disagrees with you; UCSB high-ups are members and officers of the Goleta Chamber; many members of the IV business community are members of the Chamber; Friendship Manor on El Colegio always gives their address as Goleta. Just because the City of Goleta got ruthlessly gerrymandered by Tim Campbell and Bob Braitman does not change the fact that UCSB, IV, Devereux are part of the Goleta Valley.
One more time:
UCSB and Isla Vista are NOT IN GOLETA.
The Chamber of Concrete will take membership money from anyone.
And, "Goleta Valley" is not a valley.
The Goleta Valley is a valley, it consists of the depression that consisted once of the Goleta Slough, most of which was filled by consequences of European agricultural practices. If you want to experience the valley, look around the next time you get or off a plane at the Santa Barbara Airport. The depression starts at the intersection of Hollister and Modoc, and continuing west along Hollister then continues until Hollister goes by the Sandpiper Golf Course. The Goleta area consists of the hills that surround the valley formed by the Goleta Slough, and most definitely includes UCSB and IV, at least according to Walter Tompkins, author of `Goleta the Good Land'. For many years the current campus of UCSB was referred to as the `Goleta Campus' to distinguish it from the Mesa Campus and the Riviera Campus. The 1954 La Cumbre (yearbook of UCSB), the last at the Riviera campus, ended with the phrase `off to Goleta'. The 1969 Goleta Citizens of the Year award went to the UCSB Community affairs board.
The *CITY OF GOLETA* was intentionally gerrymandered to only include a portion of the precincts where cityhood would pass. The IV precincts where Cityhood also was supported were omitted during a very acrimonious process... but the City of Goleta has no historical lock on the definition of `Goleta'.
Post a Comment
<< Home