BlogaBarbara

Santa Barbara Politics, Media & Culture

Thursday, August 10, 2006

The Guzz Supports Secord

For someone whose campaign theme was no to slow growth-based, I was a little surprised at Joe Guzzardi's endorsement of Dan Secord for Supervisor at a press conference yesterday. Perhaps the biggest surprise was Secord's announcement to the SBNP that he would retain Susan Rose's planning commissioner:
If elected, Dr. Secord said he planned to reappoint Ms. Rose's planning commissioner, Cecilia Brown. He also called for an independent planning commission for the unincorporated Goleta Valley, an area some call "Noleta."
Perhaps it's not so much of a surprise as Secord really has to make a mad dash to the middle if he has any chane of beating Janet Wolf....

54 Comments:

Anonymous Bedfellow stranger said...

This will go down in local-politico-history as one of the goofiest and self-destructive strange bedfellows moves ever......
Guzzardi's statemetn that Secord will best protect open space and ag land is so quickly dispelled with a brief scan of Secord's voting record on the COastal Commission, and his list of endorsers and donors.

Sorry Joe, sour grapes never lose their smell....

8/10/2006 9:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can you believe anything published in the NP?

8/10/2006 9:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Secord does not have to dash to the middle - he has always been there.

Clearly the pro-neighborhood folks get it - Secord is smart about planning and growth issues - Wolf is a Rose clone.

Secord is conservative in one area - taxpayers money - he does not want to continue to waste our money and he wants to ensure we have enough as the demographics change.

Wolf says everything in the budget is okay because it is okay this year. Wolf's view is like saying you have money now with your job so why worry about retirement - dahhhh.

This will shake things up a lot - the Guzz represents the no density in Noleta and the message is now complete - Wolf is Rose and Secord is smart.

8/10/2006 10:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is truly surprising is that Guzzardi believes Developer Dan's promises to protect open space.

Dan consistently voted on the Coastal Commission to pave open space to make way for large scale luxury development.

Dan even led the charge to develop open space that is designated Environmentaly Sensitive Habitat along More Mesa!

The Sierra Club gives his environmental record a paltry 38%, one of the worst records on the commission.

Anyone who believes Dan really wants to keep MTD protected as open space should look at his record.

8/10/2006 10:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The following is an excerpt from the Sierra Club 2005 Coastal Commission Scorecard. They analyze important Coastal Commission votes, assign ratings and provide comments. This excerpt is a comment on a vote by the Commission and Dr. Dan Secord from February 16th, 2005.

"The Commission erred in ignoring the concerns of Santa Barbara Co.,
SB’s Environmental Defense Center and Sierra Club in approving a request by Arco Oil Co. and Halliburton Company to use explosives and blow up an existing offshore oil platform in order to then build and (hopefully) restore an important offshore bird roosting habitat. The project could have easily been accomplished without allowing Halliburton Co. to blow up the California Coast."

Holy Mother of Dick Cheney! Dan Secord voted to bail out an oil company on the cost of removing a dangerous offshore oil platform bu allowing Halliburton to blow it up!

8/10/2006 10:12 AM  
Blogger gaviotacoastwatcher said...

Say it ain't so Joe!

Secord is a disaster waiting to happen. All I heard during the campaign was "anybody but Secord" and they were right.

Funny thing is that while Coastal Commission wrecking ball Secord was out being a politician an important vote on the Gaviota Coast was being heard in LA, just one hour away.

You would think Dan would care enough about protecting the coast to drive an hour to the meeting but I guess he cares more about remaining a career politician!

8/10/2006 10:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:01anon,

Secord is Graffy. Graffy, many of us will recall, was the Supervisor during the mid nineties who approved almost all of the big development that went in to the Goleta Valley.

Secord's record on open space and neighborhoods is scary. The Guzz may have thrown his support to Dan but the neighborhood people who know Dan are supporting Wolf. You can hardly call Jim Kahan, Doreen Farr and Jack Hawxhurst pro development.

Dan is going to grow huge luxury condo developments all over the Goleta Valley if he gets in.

8/10/2006 10:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Too little too late from Developer Dan. Janet Wolf is too strong for you. You have no chance of getting Das' voters and too many of Joe's supporters dislike your arrogance.

Your career of ignoring neighborhoods and supporting the Barry Berkus, Brian Cearnal, Doug Fell, Bill Levy cabal are coming to an end!

8/10/2006 10:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mike Pinto say...

The voices of the people will be heard, regardless of the oppression of Secord.

Only Das could protect us from the pro-development forces that back him.

We are doomed.

8/10/2006 10:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't forget folks, this is about choosing the better of the two people who got through the primary. Dan got through with the republican vote, and Janet bought her way in with establishment endorsements and big money.

Dan's record might not look good. But Janet has no record. So, of course, when you compare the two, Dan has approved more development projects than Janet. That is a weak argument, and I am sick of Janet's camp using grade-school logic to deem her the better candidate.

Examples of JW camp statements:

'Eleven years is more than eight years, therefore I have MORE experience' <-- too ridiculous to even comment on

'I supported recycling, therefore I am an environmentalist' <-- you have a long way to go, baby

'The 2nd district knows where I stand on growth issues' <-- yeah, save MoreMesa and Gaviota by building density EVERYWHERE ELSE! At least that was Susan's bit -- what is Janet's? She never really says. It's easier just to say "everyone knows". Is this what they call "dumb growth"?

8/10/2006 11:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Mike Pinto,

Your boy Das did a great dis-service to the 2nd district when he selfishly ran for office. He showed his true colors.

Das, like many people do, put himself and his career above meetings the needs of the people. A better move would have been to stay on the City Council, as he had sworn to do, and support the people's slow-growth candidate Joe Guzzardi. But Das grabbed for the ring and knocked over Joe Guzzardi in the process. Now he will sit and finish his City Council term (the promise he was willing to break) and hope that his career has not suffered too much to keep going. We'll see. If he continues to play politics in Santa Barbara, hopefully he has gotten a reminder what it means to be of SERVICE TO THE PEOPLE. Does he still have that bumper sticker? The one that says "put the serve back into servitude"? Maybe he should post it on his mirror instead the back of his car.

Meanwhile, we are stuck choosing between a puppet and an en experienced politician with a bad rap.

8/10/2006 11:49 AM  
Blogger 2ndDIstrictWatch said...

Joe must have felt a little uncomfortable yesterday saying Secord would protect open space from high density development. Joe said in effect that he was "taking him at his word"

How about taking him at his record? Dan spent half his "touring with the candidates" forum touring the high density housing projects such as the one Carrillo and Castillo that is VERY high density.

8/10/2006 12:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:33am anon,

11 years is a long career of service. You should be impressed.

Janet protected open space in the Goleta Valley. The District owned open space at Ellwood Mesa, known as Coronado. She voted to sell it to the land trust instead of greed developers like those who support Developer Dan. Instead it is a learning center for kids to learn about the environment and the importance of species and coastal protection.

In contrast Dan votes to develop open space that is environmentaly sensitive. Hell he has even voted to build development on sand dunes! Whether he puts luxury housing or affordable on our open space? Once its gone...its gone!

8/10/2006 12:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Funny, I didn't notice that part of the California Coast is missing.

8/10/2006 1:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wolf supporters can spin until they're blue in the face, but Guzzardi's endorsement speaks for itself: If you want more Rose, vote Wolf. If you want responsible planning, vote Secord.

8/10/2006 2:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lets have a little history lesson, screw the politics.

1. Southern California is a Coastal Desert.
2. Los Angeles was made possible by water from the Owens Valley Project.
3. The Depression Era water projects.
a. Water from Northern California in the 1930’s made possible Los Angeles County and Orange County.
b. Water from the Colorado River 1940 made possible all the rest of the Southern California development.

4. Northern California has grown, they want their water, San Joaquin Valley has grown and they want their water from the North, Colorado River States have grown and they want their water; water that Southern California has taken in the past.
5. Unless you want desalination plants up and down the California Coast, that many Coastal Cities have planned, you have got to stop building.
6. It is not a question of Land; it is a question of Water, plain and simple.
7. Southern California must import or make water to service its population and the importation volumes are dropping as others with water rights demand their quota.
8. An example, it takes the equivalent of 60 inches of rainfall to water all those lawns and golf courses built in Las Vegas or Palm Springs etc.
9. Palm Springs has a million year-old aquifer of the purest water you have ever drunk and the aquifer has been dropping at an alarming rate. Checkout Mono Lake in the Owens Valley.
10. All this building in the lower and now higher Deserts for cheap housing is putting an even greater demand for water.
11. It is the big regional picture of the West and South West.
12. Santa Barbara and for that matter all Southern California Coastal Cities had better match their populations with water supplies that are available on a 100 average and the storage they have available.
13. We have enjoyed a very nice weather pattern in the last 36 years but these patterns do change.

Have to have water – just a thought.

8/10/2006 5:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Seriously Sara, I understand a little bit of the editorialism that goes on here, but Dan Secord can not be described in anyway except as a middle of the roader. We all know he is a very moderate GOPer, so cut the crap about running to the middle, he owns that ground... maybe you meant run to the left...

8/10/2006 5:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lets have a little history lesson, screw the politics.

1. Southern California is a Coastal Desert.
2. Los Angeles was made possible by water from the Owens Valley Project.
3. The Depression Era water projects.
a. Water from Northern California in the 1930’s made possible Los Angeles County and Orange County.
b. Water from the Colorado River 1940 made possible all the rest of the Southern California development.

4. Northern California has grown, they want their water, San Joaquin Valley has grown and they want their water from the North, Colorado River States have grown and they want their water; water that Southern California has taken in the past.
5. Unless you want desalination plants up and down the California Coast, that many Coastal Cities have planned, you have got to stop building.
6. It is not a question of Land; it is a question of Water, plain and simple.
7. Southern California must import or make water to service its population and the importation volumes are dropping as others with water rights demand their quota.
8. An example, it takes the equivalent of 60 inches of rainfall to water all those lawns and golf courses built in Las Vegas or Palm Springs etc.
9. Palm Springs has a million year-old aquifer of the purest water you have ever drunk and the aquifer has been dropping at an alarming rate. Checkout Mono Lake in the Owens Valley.
10. All this building in the lower and now higher Deserts for cheap housing is putting an even greater demand for water.
11. It is the big regional picture of the West and South West.
12. Santa Barbara and for that matter all Southern California Coastal Cities had better match their populations with water supplies that are available on a 100 average and the storage they have available.
13. We have enjoyed a very nice weather pattern in the last 36 years but these patterns do change.

Have to have water – just a thought.

8/10/2006 5:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Janet is not a bright light. Secord does not have chrisma but substance - a solid guy.

Janet wants to build high density on ag land - be clear about that - she is the Rose clone on this issue.

The Guzz gets it big time - he sees Dan Secord as one who gets that high density does not work and is unfit to live in - Rose, Wolf and many enviros want high density - Micky Flacks (a Rose/Wolf supporter) strongly supports Cottage high density housing. Goleta does not want high density, Secord does not want high density - Rose/Wolf wants it.

Who cares that Secord follows land use law and approves projects that have been already approved by local government along with nearly every member of the Coastal Commission - Secord follows the law.

And it was the north county that saved Noleta this time from being zoned high density - not Rose (Wolf).

Reading here it makes me think that Secord is the no growther in Goleta and let it go where locals want it around the state and north county and Rose/Wolf want high density in Goleta - that is your case boys and girls.

8/10/2006 5:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who has taken the developer money?

Look into Salud's money and Lois Capps money and you will see that they scoop up developer money. Now they give that money to Janet Wolf.

She has taken thousands and thousands of dollars from developers filtered through Salud and Lois political accounts.

Why developer money to Janet? She wants high density housing in Goleta - just like 5:48 writes above.

Trust me Jeff Bermant wants Janet Wolf, not Secord. Trust me Towbes wants Wolf, not Secord.

8/10/2006 6:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Given Secord's pro-growth, anti-environment record, one can't help but wonder what he promised Guzzardi in return for Guzzardi's support.

Maybe Guzzardi will read this and respond. Joe, did Secord or any of his emisaries promise you anything like he would make you his assistant or he would support you to succeed him as 2nd Dist. Supervisor, or possibly support you in your next race for Santa Barbara City Council?

Here's a chance for you to respond to such rumors. Thanks.

8/10/2006 6:21 PM  
Anonymous Saul C. Puedes said...

Let's be fair, people: Secord's record should be judged on the legislative decisions he made, not on property he owns or decisions of other jurisdictions he upheld in accordance with law and precedent.

And that record is clear. Secord has never voted for high density on ag land. Rose votes otherwise -- and let's face it -- her decisions are the only measuring stick for Wolf.

So we have Secord's record of fiscal responsibility and smart planning, versus the Rose/Wolf record of converting ag land while trying to hide development contributions from 2nd district voters.

The Guzz made the only logical choice, in my opinion.

8/10/2006 8:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

6:11pm anon,

Secord supports development of open space and votes for it. Takes developer dollars directly.

Yet somehow Carbajal and Capps, who have good enviro credentials, are somehow pro-developer and funnel money to Wolf?

That dof won't hunt. It is Developer Dan who will develop the Goleta Valley with time shares and luxury condos on open space.

8/10/2006 9:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Secord voted for the Cottage Project...saying Wolf is for it when she had no vote is truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Anytime Dan gets the chance he votes to develop open space with LA/Orange County style development. No wonder Arnold appointed him to the CCC!

8/10/2006 9:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Will somebody tell me where Wolf has said we should build high density growth? She is the one who said no to rezones without an updated community plan.

Dan is the one who votes for 60 units per acre densities like the Case de las Fuentes project and Garden Court.

Want that kind of development at San Marcos Growers, Christmas Tree Farm, Tatum and MTD? Vote Secord....

8/10/2006 9:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Boys and Girls are smart enough to reas the paper. During 8 years on the City Council and one year on the Coastal Commission Secord NEVER saw a project he didn't like.

When asked what projects were his dream project he talked about mixed use. So would you like a taco bell with a bunch of housing on the 2nd Floor in your neighborhood? Dan does....

8/10/2006 9:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan Secord owns a 56-unit/acre complex in the 400 block of Ellwood Beach Drive. It's been there since 1969, and guess what? Works fine, is not crime-ridden, and did not lower anybody's property values.

Anyone (including Guzzardi) who thinks that Dan Secord will oppose new high density housing is sadly misinformed.

I like Dan. High density housing is environmentally superior... puts people near their jobs and thus reduces polluting and greenhouse gases from internal combustion... high density uses fewer resource per unit and does not waste lots of fertilizer on manicured open space.. and it works fantastically in the Goleta Valley - Dan's place out on Ellwood Beach Drive, and just to the east, the Cannon Green complex at 10 units/acre (since the 1970's) are terrific.

Thanks for seeing the light Guzz! The NIMBY homeowners could give a green nickel about the environment... all they care about is their property value. If killing every spotted owl, having 100's of platforms in the channel, and melting all the icecaps raised their property values, they'd do them all in a heartbeat.

8/10/2006 9:52 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

Anon 5:05 pm -- it depends on your perspective and where you were before the primary versus after. Read the editorialism as you will...

8/10/2006 10:14 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

Other resources on this story include The Sound and KEYT News (unfortunately for OS X users it's just in WinDoze Media Player which the evil lord at Redmond has refused to update for us in more than a year).

8/10/2006 10:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not really Sara, would you say that Dr. Dan is a conservative? What middle ground does he need to make a "mad dash" to?

I mean, don't you think that the idea that Dr. Dan would reappoint Susan Rose's planning commissioner makes him at the very least a moderate?

8/10/2006 11:37 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

Overall, I wouldn't say that Dr. Dan is a conservative but he certainly has a more conservative record on development than the other candidates he faced in the primary. Coming to the middle ground following the primary was an important strategy when facing one versus three other people to his left in this area...

8/11/2006 5:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

NEWSFLASH:

It was just announced that they have discovered that Santa Barbara is one of the most desirable locations in the US to live. People seem to really like it here. Gee golly, I hope that doesn't make our housing prices rise up to be one of the most expensive markets in the US.

8/11/2006 8:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The more expensive the better. Keeps the trash out!

8/11/2006 9:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mike Pinto says...

If Dr. Dan wins by four votes then Joe's endorsement was the differance.

Das will be back. Without struggle there is no reward. Without toil there is no benefit to the people. Without set-backs there is no knowledge. Das is still on track to be governor. This was a minor set back which will lead to greater knowledge.

8/11/2006 10:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why would Dan Secord support Susan Rose's handpicked planning commissioner?

8/11/2006 2:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I suppose this thread will go dead... but today there was a NP editorial questioning developer contributions to Janet Wolf. Worst case... Wolf got $47249.42 from developers... that's assuming that 100% of Lois's contribution is from developers, which is unlikely.

That is about 3 months of the rents from Dr. Dan's 56 unit/acre development out on Ellwood Beach Drive.

One thing I will place money on... the News-Press will never report that Dr. Dan owns a 56 unit/acre development out in the 400's of Ellwood Beach Drive.

8/11/2006 10:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

2nd district planning commissioner is Cecelia Brown who was very active with Patterson Avenue Neighborhood Association (PANA). Cecelia is defensive of maintaining quality of life in Noleta. But she has also been receptive to Rose and somewhat willing to compromise. This is probably why Rose selected her. She's someone who represents the neighborhoods, but was malleable. In the end, Noleta was kept out of the rezones for the current mandate, so Cecelia did act in favor of the residents. And that's all good. So Dan has probably done his homework and believes it would be best to keep Cecelia.

But why should I explain this? This blog is like cliff notes for Janet.

8/12/2006 12:03 PM  
Anonymous bender said...

Oh my god--- you mean Dan Secord invested in rental property?? Oh NO!!!!!!!!

Who the heck do you all think owns your affordable rentals???? Hello??? Any of you housing radvocates in touch with the real world????????????

8/12/2006 2:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The real question is would Cecilia want to be his planning commissioner....?

8/12/2006 6:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Secord should sell anything that helps people live here - right now.

Travesty. Secord owns property.

Wolf owns nothing?

8/12/2006 9:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And the problem with owning affordable housing is......???? Someone HAS to own it, as it does not exist on air. In order to give those who cannot afford to own a decent and well-maintained place to live, there must be property owners will to pay the freight, and of course, make a profit on their investment - otherwise, why bother? Some people would kick if they were in swimming. Absolutely no logic in whining and complaining. If you want the alternative, socialist style living, or better yet, a kibbutz, don your helmet, as I understand that is what it takes in that part of the world right now.

8/13/2006 4:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We don't want affordable housing, that's still growth. We don't want growth. There's pleanty of low cost housing, just not here.

8/14/2006 5:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yikes! This thread has been co-opted by some strange and extreme perspectives! Everybody seems to be beating a dead horse.

Joe Guzzardi and Das LOST. Arguing about how there was some conspiracy or why they lost is wasting time at this point.

Who cares who they "give" their votes to. Isn't that a bit presumptuous anyhow? If you voted for one of them are you automatically going to vote for the candidate they chose to "give" their support to? If you do than maybe you should reconsider voting this November and in the future.

I think the big point most of the posts above are missing is that the majority of the electorate voted for Dan and Janet hoping they would expedite the process of getting dense workforce housing projects approved ASAP. Let's hope they also re-zone those pathetic infill weed patches currently zoned for unviable agricultural uses.

The community is very clearly behind planning and building dense workforce housing, and we need to push aside the Gary Earle-led NIMBYs and deliver badly needed housing to the community before it continues its slide into a "geriatric ghetto" (to quote Dan Secord). Kudos to Anonymous 9:52 PM above who correctly pointed out that the neighborhood preservationist NIMBYs are NOT ENVIRONMENTALISTS. They are solely focused on their own property values and their unjustified fears that maybe some "rabble" and "low life" nurses, teachers, firefighters and cops might move in five blocks away from them.

If you really think about it, their argument has always been on preserving our pristine "quality of life". Has anyone really driven around Goleta and Noleta lately?

The "quality" of housing stock in that area is horrible. It's a menage of 60s and 70s constructed tract houses, most of which have had very limited renovation or updating. In fact, many of these houses are still painted with the original shades of avocado green and harvest gold that were popular in 1970.

Why are we so concerned about adding some newer housing stock? It will only upgrade the area! We need to stop thinking all developers are the scum of the earth. Not that some aren't, but there are some very quality projects that have been built by local developers like Towbes, Bermant and Martin-Farrell Homes. We should work together to PLAN the future of our community, which to some of your dismay includes planning, design and construction of more dense housing for the vital workforce in our community.

8/15/2006 9:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you saying that DAS is pro-growth? If he is, he has to go.

8/15/2006 10:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Are you saying that DAS is pro-growth?"

Huh? Maybe we need to stop flinging around BS buzz words like anti-growth, no-growth, pro-growth, etc. because these are very subjective terms and mean very different things to different people.

I don't think you can simplify the future vision (or lack thereof) of any community by being labeled as any of those terms. The challenges facing communities are much more complicated than that. Let's start talking about our positions on the issues we're discussing, including how we evolved at them and what our fears are about what would happen if... (fill in the blanks here).

At that point we can start to have positive discussions about how to work together to achieve solutions.

I'll start us off:

One of my fears is that there are a group of people out there who don't want to work together and formulate solutions to issues that are problematic in our community.

Whew! I feel better already!

Now some of you try. :-D

8/16/2006 12:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trying to stop growth isn't a solution? Seems like it is.

8/16/2006 9:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Trying to stop growth" is a solution to what, exactly?

If you haven't noticed, there already are traffic congestion issues everywhere you turn. Why do you think that is?

It's because people are already here and more are coming. That is reality. On average 600,000 to 700,000 people come to California every year.

Do you know that many of our lower income downtown service workers - line cooks, busboys and hotel maids - are "hot bunking", meaning they are so doubled up on shared quarters that they actually alternate who sleeps in the shared bed based on work schedule. Night shift workers sleep in the bed during daytime and day shift workers sleep in the bed at night.

These are unhealthy and unsafe conditions from a perspective of disease, hygiene, fire hazards, etc. They are the result of trying to "stop growth". That ship has sailed and it's not working.

We must accept the reality that people are here and more are coming. The solution is working together to adequately PLAN to accomodate our community's future. That way, issues of health, safety and traffic congestion are minimized when the necessary infrastructure to support our future community is planned, designed and constructed. Planning should not be a tool to add restrictions and shut everything down. That's how communities lose their vitality and culture that make them unique.

This may seem like a radical concept to the hypocritical and negative posters on this site, but living within our means includes doing things like not increasing the population. Not that I'm against kids, but that's the counterpart stupid logic to that used by the NIMBY/BANANA folks when they say things like "bus them in from Ventura" or "we don't want affordable housing". Just as I think people have the right to procreate if they choose to do so, so they also have the right to live wherever they like without fear of prejudice, and with the opportunity of basic things like food, clothing and housing.

None of the advocates for more workforce housing are arguing for any sort of government or taxpayer subsidy. All they're asking is that the necessary planning take place, and that we maximize the use of available land, not waste it by building low density housing.

People are here and more are coming. What we need to do is make smart planning choices and not waste our land on lower density projects. We need to build higher density housing in a clustered way and preserve open space. Doing nothing is no solution at all.

8/20/2006 9:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The "hot bunking" folks are the ones having the kids, the rest of us can't afford to.

Build more? How about procreate less.

8/21/2006 10:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Then remove the height limitation and start building in the only direction we can, UP.

8/21/2006 11:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some of us who have just retired and moved here, like things like they are. We came to get away from what you are proposing. We will do all that we can to keep things as they are. Remember, money can, does and will buy power and influence.

The current City Council are a bunch of useful idiots, in that they care more about Sea Otter, Snow Plover, and trash cans on State Street than anything else.

They have killed several project already, let's hope they keep doing this.

If this changes, we will have to get some officials elected that will listen to us. We don't want growth and all of the problems it causes.

8/21/2006 1:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am new to this blog thing, but a friend told me about this site. All interesting. As a realtor, I feel I have to say something in defense of Santa Barbara home prices. They are good for the community. More $10+ million dollar properties are selling then ever before.

Property taxes on Santa Barbara homes help the homeless and to help pay for the workforce buses to bring the workers here. This is a win-win.

Thank you.

8/21/2006 6:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

advocates for more workforce housing = devlopers

8/22/2006 10:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

8/10/2006 5:19 PM Anon

We had a desal plant and the water it produces. Shut it down to stop growth. Get it?

8/22/2006 1:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have to say the Devilopers can fool us no longer. The have spoiled and plundered enough. This town is a mess.

Time to put an end to this.

8/22/2006 2:01 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home