BlogaBarbara

Santa Barbara Politics, Media & Culture

Saturday, August 12, 2006

One Sided Story Continues

Her man at De la Guerra, Travis Armstrong, continued to tell only one side of the story in his latest editorial on campaign funds in the second district race for Supervisor. Concentrating solely on finance returns for Capps and Wolf, Armstrong tried to paint Wolf as a developer's candidate. As usual, he accidentally forgot to tell us the ither side of the story. How much developer money did Dan Secord raise and what would it look like side-by-side with Wolf's....I am sure some of you have done this research already, let us know what you find.

More problematic in my mind is this wierd conspiracy theory in the News-Press editorial offices that somehow all of our environmentally friendly no to slow-growth public officials are controlled by developers....it just doesn't make sense. It does make sense, however, when you see who he may think his enemies are....there's no place for this on the editorial pages.

Sure -- write about the facts around campaign contributions. Each campaign will have to live with the facts -- but giving both sides of the story helps your readers feel that you are credible and know what you are talking about. Otherwise, it's just another agenda driven editorial from Travis Armstrong...has he learned nothing from the last few weeks?

52 Comments:

Anonymous second district watch said...

Sara, you and most of your readers probably know all too well that Travis Armstrong is incapable of applying fairness to the "investigations" he undertakes. His superficial, at best, grasp of campaign finance, donor bases, who is and isn't a "developer" just will not permit a more sophisticated and accurate review of the facts.

Not to worry, though......Enough of the rest of us are undertaking that very task. And Secord may think having Travis on his side is a plus.....sadly [for him] he's allowed---encoursaged, perhaps [with trusty Brian Ray at his side]-- the door to be open on many donor characteristics that he may soon regret opening it.....

So, Secord can sit in the ever-shrinking Travis/Wendy/Dr. Laura/Joe Guzzardi "no density" cabal while the rest of the second district just shakes their collective heads with the knowledge of Secord's actual record.

8/12/2006 4:25 PM  
Anonymous Valerio said...

The Sunday editorial tomorrow will be a big analysis of the campaign contributions to Secord, right? Would the News-Press editorials not publish a balanced and equally detailed treatment of both candidates?

Do the prior comments here somehow imply that the editorial writer would not be fair and balanced and give an equally detailed and conclusive treatment of the other candidate?

And what is with that editorial about the donations to Wolf, where several contributions of less than $100 still were in the report? Does that mean that the Wolf camp reported donations of an amount so small they did not have to be reported, but they chose to make that report as a voluntary disclosure anyway?

Did Wolf go above and beyond the disclosure requirement? Seems like Wolf did. Secord would do the same, right?

8/12/2006 5:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder if developers funneled $7000 to Dan through the Board of Realtors PAC. How come Dan won't reveal the true source of those dollars?

Isn't the $2500 he received from John Blakenship a developer contribution? He takes single family homes and turns them into multiple luxury condos that are packed into the lot so tight that poor people are hanging around waiting for diamonds to come popping out!

8/12/2006 5:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is a fun fact: Travis attacks Capps for giving money and being on tv with Wolf, put he actually applauded it when Capps did the same thing last year for one of the City Council candidates.

Only difference is when he approved the candidate was endorsed by the NP, when he disapproves its the opponent of an endorsed NP candidate.

8/12/2006 5:59 PM  
Anonymous dd said...

Was anyone else bothered by the fact Travis reported $99 contributions?

Those amounts are non-reportable on the 460's (unless of course their aggregate amount is over $100). Many people donate $99 to preserve their anonymity and to stay off campaign mailer lists. I wonder how many of the public will refuse to donate now, purely because they don't want to end up on Travis' hit list???

I guess this is the NP way to influence elections even further. JMHO dd

8/12/2006 6:39 PM  
Anonymous Philosophe said...

I believe that we all have to take a step back (up?) and look at a longer and broader view of the polical ideology involved here. As with all things Santa Barbara, the 2nd District election does not fit cleanly into the left/right categorization scheme.

Janet Wolf is clearly allied with Susan Rose, who very clearly holds an ideological belief that we need somehow to provide housing on the South Coast for working class people. While consistent with the social justice aims of the left, this ideological posistion conflicts with the concept of environmental carrying capacity.

Dr. Secord, on the other hand, holds ideological beliefs more aligned with the veneration of private property rights and minimalist government. While he seems to have hitched his wagon to the "neigborhood protection" horse, we can be assured that he would consistently vote for whatever the property owner wants. Which may be more and more densely built housing.

Is it any wonder that developers are funding both of these campaigns? Should we be asking both candidates to enlighten us on their respective views on environmental carrying capacity in both its public health and aesthetic aspects? I would suspect that both would dodge the question.

8/12/2006 7:26 PM  
Blogger john san roque said...

Trying to analyze the News Press editorial stance or the reasoning behind the editorials is an exercise in futility. I have been contributing thoughts about the deficiencies and unfairness of the News Press editorial page to Blogabarbara for well over a year, so I do feel vindicated by recent events. Both editors and reporters have resigned over the same issues that I have criticized many times—issues which supporters of the News Press denied and still deny.

The issues are not related to political party, housing density, campaign funding, or growth. But News Press and Armstrong boosters base their support on these loaded topics. The real issues are simply journalistic integrity and fairness. For the fiftieth time—the News Press has the right to address and endorse any issues it finds important. However, when the presentation of information is so blatantly one-sided and skewed, the paper ceases to be a vehicle for news and information. The paper turns into a predictable and petty mouthpiece for personal vendettas. For many people I know and for me, the News Press lost credibility a long time ago. Its supporters today reject the reasons given by long-term employees for resigning, and they ignore the universal disapproval of News Press policies by national journalists and publishing organizations.

The blog topic today tries to make sense of the contorted logic behind the editorial support or condemnation of various political candidates. There is no logic in the traditional sense, but the News Press stance is really very simple: select the candidates or issues you like and dislike, and then selectively present and withhold information to support or condemn those candidates or issues. When this approach presents practical problems on issues like the one raised today (funding by developers), inconvenient information is not presented. It’s that simple; the good people are the ones the NP likes, the bad people are the ones it doesn’t like. That’s how you get a cabal which includes the LA Times, Channel 17, Lou Cannon, and Barney Brantingham.

8/12/2006 8:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Secord is solid in clean - or goes to jail.

His report has a few bucks of developer money - really small.

Wolfe has a lot and then more from Salud and Lois.

Should be fun to watch. I have tried to get Secord for years - as much as I hate it - he is clean.

8/12/2006 9:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, I would bet the N-P will never report that Dan Secord owns a 56 unit/acre development out on Ellwood Beach Drive.

I certainly don't think it is terrible that Dan does so... after all, he has proven that extremely high densities work great, do not lower property values, do not cause an environmental meltdown, etc.

I sure hope Dan comes clean and tells those in the Noleta area just how great high-density housing is, and how much he loves the money he gets from it. He gets more in 3 months from his rents out on Ellwood Beach than Janet Wolf could have ever gotten from developers, including all Lois Capps' possible contributions.

I think Dan is a terrific supporter of high-density housing, good on him! Wonderful that Guzzardi supports Dan, who makes about $180,000 each year from high density housing too! They've seen the light!

8/12/2006 10:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

After reading through the Sierra Club's Coastal Commission voting scorecard for 2005, which gives Secord a "failing" grade of 38%, it will be fun to compare individual donors or groups to some of those throughout the state associated with development projects he voted to support, against the wishes of local jurisdictions and/or Coastal Commission staff......

8/12/2006 11:34 PM  
Blogger snugspout said...

Philosophe, the sustainable population of the South Coast is about 5,000, using European ag and lifestyle. Chumash had about 15,000, but they were hunter-gatherers, and more efficient with resources than the Franciscans and Presidio officers who followed.

Our current population of 200,000 or so is not sustainable, and far exceeds the South Coast carrying capacity. Cachuma will silt up eventually. Massive imporation of resources of food, fuel, and even labor sustain this place.

My point is that there is no practical difference between 200,000 and 500,000 as far as sustainability is concerned. Both are way, way beyond sustainability. Both are or would be sustained only by implementation of Euro-american engineering and planning. 500,000 would work fine if people utilized mass transit. Sewage and water or mainly a matter of good planning and engineering, as is food and fuel importation.

The level of South Coast population is entirely a political choice; while the population of 1948 or so was willing to invest in projects like Cachuma and expanded sanitation plants to support new residents, today's population is unwilling. The current population is also unwilling to get out of their cars; they view the ability to drive as a property right, which it actually is not.

The building of infrastructure to handle autos is a political choice; should a majority choose to no longer support autos (admittedly an unlikely event) that majority would have every right to implement that choice without concern for perceived property rights of auto supporters. Of course, just about everyone on the South Coast uses their cars like crazy, and ignores the environmental consequences like global warming... while at the same time deploring new traffic as the result of anti-environmentalist forces. Indeed our car-crazy enviros see the traffic situation as part of the `carrying capacity' of natural resources here.

That traffic infrastructure is entirely man-made seems to elude them...

8/13/2006 12:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon 11:34-

you think it will be "fun to compare" ???

Too bad people didn't do their homework earlier and figure out that having Guzzardi in the seat would give a true slow-growther who would ALWAYS vote in favro of qualtiy of life and neighborhood values.

8/13/2006 8:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with dd and find the whole NP “outing” of $99 donors VERY disturbing. People donate for a variety of reasons and wish to remain anonymous for a variety of reasons. The media “outing” of those people as a group I find to be very troubling at best. As a former journalism student I find it very unethical and smacking of a political hit-piece.

In another posting Neville Flynn wrote to defend the NP and its current ownership and staff as paragons of virtue and ethics. From my limited experience in the field I see neither being exhibited from them and this “outing” is a stark example of a not-so hidden agenda.

8/13/2006 10:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah, Anon 11:34, the Sierra Club's Coastal Commission voting scorecard is more about politics than true environmentalism. That’s why most of the group’s founders have disavowed themselves from it, as having lost their true purpose and becoming a shill for special interests. I’m not saying who’s better or not, but be careful in drawing conclusions from a deeply flawed organization.

(I was a member and stanch defender, but have also grown deeply disillusioned by their blatant non-environmental political agenda.)

8/13/2006 10:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

snugspout said:
That traffic infrastructure is entirely man-made seems to elude them...

I say:
You're right. The traffic infrastructure is entirely man-made. But the situation exists just the same. Sustainability is a very general term, and it also has to do with sustaining the environment and character of this region. By character, I'm also referring to the mountain views and trails, access to healthy beaches, areas with wildlife and nature, etc.

The points snugspout makes about it all being a choice also ring true to me. That's why we need responsibile, smart people in office.

8/13/2006 11:26 AM  
Anonymous Philosophe said...

Snugspout, you make good points regarding the true sustainability of the South Coast based on local resources and how we have artifically increased our carrying capacity with engineering. However, your dream of a society here without automobiles, while a pretty dream, is an unrealistic one. At nearly $4/gallon for gasoline, traffic is as congested as ever. If the citizens of our fair community are not even price sensitive to fuel, I would imagine that it will be hard to shame them out of their cars with jeremiads. More cars equals more air pollution.

Also, 500,000 people living between Carpinteria and the Gaviota tunnel, seems a bit crowded. Elbow room is a vague environmental aesthetic, but we can all relate to it. Maybe the maintenance of a certain amount of elbow room is an arbitrary (and selfish) political choice, but it is the character of a democracy that such political choices are on the table. 500,000? Yikes!

8/13/2006 1:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 1034: politics aside, the actual votes speak for themselves----

While acting in his role as Coastal Commissioner, DAN Secord voted AGAINST AB 771 in 2005; AB 771 was a bill that would have required Coastal Commissioners to disclose lobbying contacts and conversations with developers seeking approval of projects to the Coastal Commission. Interestingly enough, the Coastal Commission majority voted in favor of AB 771, the State Legislalture pased AB 771, and Secord's ally, Schwarzennegger, VETOED AB 771. Who's in favor of full disclosure? Not Dan Secord, clearly.

8/13/2006 2:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Holy toledo!

You people are concerned about "outing" a developer who is trying to HIDE his/her donations to a political campaign??? The developer in question has lined up options and deals to develop against the wishes of the people will be supposedly REPRESENTED by the RESPRESENTATIVE that gets voted in, and as we all have seen, money buys elections.

Holy snakes on plane. You SBCANners, please stop rallying everybody up for bogus reasons.

And by the way, to get your facts straight, Travis Armstrong did not "out" anybody. The donations were reported under Janet's contribution list BECAUSE THE FUNDS ALL CAME FROM THE SAME ADDRESS.

Travis, once again, has done a great service in pointing out a detail that some of us may have missed. Obviously, some folks are against that important information being known. Might these be the same phony whistleblowers that are trying to bring the NewsPress down??? Yes.

8/13/2006 3:00 PM  
Anonymous bender said...

What's wrong with the word "picklehead" ?

8/13/2006 3:02 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

Not too much other than the whole post was an atatck on another person and I try to avoid that....generally, I want to see substance with the attack! Seriously now -- the word was used with a one or two-liner attack -- it doesn't add much to this blog to see that happen and is a waste of people's time. If posts are clever and substantive and a bit longer AND use the word "picklehead" -- it might not get cut.

Imagine yourself on the end of 50+ blog comments to moderate every day -- sometimes I choose the wrong button but I do my best....

8/13/2006 3:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who is trying "to bring the NewsPress down"???

The people out there at the rallies and other meetings have been all about "restoring" the News-Press so it regains its integrity and credibility. Everyone in the cabal wants and appreciates the importance of a strong, credible daily newspaper as a foundation of democracy to keep the government honest.

But with the publisher also deciding what is news and about whom, expecially when it concerns the publishers personally and their crimes and legal disputes, then nothing in the newspaper can be trusted. That is not bringing it down, but building it back up to the credibility it had when Jerry Roberts was the editor with real responsibilities as chief editor.

8/13/2006 4:08 PM  
Anonymous dd said...

Dear 3:00 anon:

What I was trying to point out is that the AVERAGE person who contributes under $100 to stay off lists may NOW refuse to donate in fear of being "outed".

As I said in my earlier post, if the amounts aggregated to over $100, then each $99 is required to be reported on 460's.

I'm not worried that the $99 donors were developers, what I was and am worried about is the "selective" publication of names associated with $99 donations - My question is why didn't Travis list all the others???

IMHO, it was a back door manuever to squash future donors/donations to MANY of the candidates purses - sort of like blackmail - if you can't be moderately sure that if all you give is $99, that your name won't be screamed all over the editorial page of the poison pen editor, then you won't donate. dd

8/13/2006 4:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not too much other than the whole post was an atatck on another person and I try to avoid that.

What?! Unless of course, you are falsely accusing someone of sexism. That's allowed.

My Lordy Lord, this entire blog is dedicated to attacking people, with an anonymous cover.

sometimes I choose the wrong button but I do my best....

Your best is anybody else's mediocrity if you are referring to yourself as unbiased.

8/13/2006 6:40 PM  
Blogger snugspout said...

11:26am... high densities of housing can mean that more space can be left open. Actually, our current planning practices favor high-end low density, which eats open space... think Naples, San Marcos Foothills, the development up by Sandpiper involved in the Ellwood Mesa landswap... A nice aspect of high density is the units would be of less interest to out of towners who want acreage, and have hot cash to plunk down. Indeed, an attractive aspect of a well managed affordable housing program (and the County's is *not*) is that the outsiders with hot bucks will be rejected. I believe outsiders paying cash comprise 1/3 of the unregulated real estate market on the South Coast.

Philosophe, I took 500,000 out of a hat... to me it is just as unreasonable as 200,000. The self-contained sustainable population here is only a few thousand.

Personally, I think elbow room is largely a matter of perception... to the extent we can keep and expand our open spaces (I'd love to see hiking trails in the hills north of Goleta, for example) and open up transportation options, I think we can keep a feeling of adequate space while adding some population. High density housing actually helps in every way... chews up less open space, and clusters people so transportation options like carpools and buses work better.

Ocean pollution prevention is largely a matter of good engineering of sanitation facilities and drainage and its cleanup. And of course, getting us to drive less so less rubber and oil drains into the oceans from our streets. I bet we could reduce ocean impacts by a factor of 10 at the current population without seriously impacting anybody's lifestyle.

8/13/2006 6:42 PM  
Anonymous Is there still a there here? said...

Looks like the influx of B-list stars continues; more folks for Wendy to protect: here's this weekend's gossip rag pics of that latest wanna-be Santa Barbaran---
http://www.perezhilton.com/topics/britney_spears/britney_buys_new_sandals_20060813.php#comments

8/13/2006 8:38 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

Anon 6:40 pm -- you'll have to point out where I said I was unbiased. I've never said I was yet people keep on assuming I have or like being biased is a bad thing. I'm not pretending to be doing anything but opinion and a place where people can comment on the news and that opinion.

Building a case and using one line ad hominem attacks are two different things which not everyone understands here -- the truth is I DON'T CARE WHAT YOUR OPINION IS! Go ahead and let it be known but be reasonably nice about it is all that I ask.

8/13/2006 8:52 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

dd -- you are right, Armstrong set a bad precedent and hid behind the cumalative amount -- and that's just plain wrong as it really will make "century club members feel like they have to think twice now. I don't think he should be publishing them at all -- much less be selective about it. The least he could do if he does, however, is publish Secord's as well.

8/13/2006 8:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The least he could do if he does, however, is publish Secord's as well.

Did Secord receive 5 $99 donations from Towbes through the form of his many corporate faces (all at the same P.O. Box) in the effort to remain below the radar?

8/13/2006 10:12 PM  
Blogger snugspout said...

Anybody else notice Melinda Burns' article on pollution in SB County's waterways?

SB County had 653 beach closings in 2005, more than Orange County, which had 631. Orange County has 7.3 times the population and 22 times the population density of Santa Barbara County.

Many people here are fond of saying we don't want to become Orange County... I know what they mean, just having returned from a trip to Disneyland with the kids.

But let's also give some credit where credit is due. Orange County has done a way better job of addressing pollution per person or per population density than we have. If we did as good as Orange County, we'd only have 22 beach closings per year (instead of 653).

Will increased population density in Santa Barbara County cause ocean pollution? Only if we stay in the dark ages with our pollution control here.

Surely Travis and Wendy will keep this information suppressed.

8/13/2006 10:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Building a case and using one line ad hominem attacks are two different things which not everyone understands here

Here, here! I've never so much unsubstantiated talk on the NewsPress. I'm sure you agree Sara that the attacks on Travis have lacked any substance. These one-line attacks and opinion just seem so bitter, as if its a bunch of crybabies who don't know how to form a logical thread. But thank the maker we have you Sara.

8/13/2006 10:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Part of me is ready to move on, but maybe we should have a casual study on whether Sara should have to defend herself, even though she has admitted that she is completely biased.

8/13/2006 10:26 PM  
Anonymous wilkinson said...

I am starting a new blog. It's at http//snorkabarbara.blog All opinions welcome. Praise Allah.

8/13/2006 10:26 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

It's pretty common for donations like these to be mirrored in the other campaign -- I was speaking of any such or at least a reference from Travis that he looked. Something.

Cumalative $99s are different in that they have to be associated with the same address and listed -- still, this point will be lost on most potential donors.

8/14/2006 3:22 AM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

10:26 PM -- No, I shouldn't have to defend myself...I never made myself out to be a journalist and yet some want to place the same standard on BlogaBarbara. This is what's great about the ability to go out and make your own! Say what you want! Moderate how you want!

8/14/2006 3:25 AM  
Anonymous Philosophe said...

Ah Snugspout, density, the Holy Grail of the "Smart Growth" movement. Have you ever been to Manhattan? It is an exciting, culturally vibrant, and happening place, with Central Park for open space. But it is also filthy, crime-ridden, and polluted. Manhattan and San Francisco have some of the best public transit systems going, yet the streets in those places are gridlocked with cars much of the time.

Utopias are fun to imagine, but please show me one before you pass the koolaide. To my knowledge the adoption of pro-density development policies has never resulted in the protection of a significant amount of open space (I not talking about neighborhood parks with kiddy play grounds) or reduced private vehicle use.

It would be a terrible price to pay to experiment with the "Smart Growth" utopia only to end up with the Gaviota Coast and Bishop Ranch built out with condos, gridlock on all our streets, and choking pollution in our air.

8/14/2006 8:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No growth - it has to stop. The restaurant is full and is not taking reservations.

8/14/2006 9:43 AM  
Blogger snugspout said...

Philosphe, the only utopia is in the next life, but I won't sip your koolaide.

Right now we do a far worse job of controlling ocean pollution than either LA County or Orange County. Why is our utopia of low density one that sullies the oceans and beaches?

Our open space is being gobbled up by current policies, to make low-density housing for rich out of town people.

8/14/2006 10:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with you philosophe, we need to STOP growth.

8/14/2006 10:20 AM  
Anonymous dd said...

from the front pages of the LA Times about future development in SB for affordable housing.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-vacant14aug14,1,3113826.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage

dd

8/14/2006 10:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sara,

Have you even looked at Secord's donation records? They are available to anyone who wants to go to see them! Don't say things like it's "common for these things to be mirrored". You have no clue what you're talking about.

You already screwed up when posting about the KEYT giving up to Armstrong how much Capps' spent on the J. Wolfe ads. Why don't you take the time, like Travis Armstrong did, to go down to the COunty Elections office and compare the financial records of both candidates.

I have, and I already knew about the donations that Travis "outted" in the NP. You know why? Because that information is public, Sara, it's public. Nothing he did was inappropriate, and in fact if we didn't know about (because Janet didn't report it and Janet didn't make it public) that would be sad.

Janet did the right thing, she followed the election law. And Travis, in an OPINION column, used facts to support his OPINION of information that was already in the public domain.

Think of it this way, if you support the use of Rob Lowe's address in the NP, then you should support the disclosure of already disclosed donations.

Hmmmm, maybe it's not just Wendy who is elitist?

8/14/2006 11:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One more time, Friend of Secord, donations of less than $100 do not have to be disclosed, unless they are from the same address. The Wolf Camp noticed that and reported those donations, and Travis A. thus found that report and published it.

Conversely, some donors of less than $100 expect not to be reported.

If Secord is so concerned about donations, then he should disclose all of them and send it to the remaining news media and email the reports to saradelaguerra@yahoo.com

8/14/2006 12:29 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

Take it easy! The issue is not that the information is public -- it certainly is. Most $99 contributions are not listed as they are not a cumalative amount as in this case....Armstrong did not make that clear. My point is pretty clear that this could make some $99 donors think twice without knowing that info.

As you have looked at the filing -- are you trying to tell me that Secord didn't have any developer contributions? Are you saying many donors don't give to both sides? -- if you are, who doesn't have the clue? I'd have a hard time believing Secord didn't have sizeable developer donations....that was my point as well, why isn't the other side of the story told. His opinion is one thing and his right -- being fair and telling the whole story is another.

8/14/2006 12:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We've got to stop this Los Portales project! Are they kidding? More housing? NO!

8/14/2006 1:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Holy Toledo,

We are making a mountain out of a mole hill here. Towbes owns some businesses and gave money from each of them to Wolf.

He does this in every election to anyone he thinks might have a snowballs chance of winning.

The difference is Wolf chose to disclose the gifts, rather than hiding behind the under $100 rule.

Someone should ask Dan Secord a simple question. "Have you received contributions from developer interests that are not disclosed on your campaign filing reports."

My guess is Dan has checks from Towbes but is choosing not to report them. If he doesn't he should say so.

8/14/2006 2:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who has taken the least bribes and willing to stop grwoth? That is who we need.

8/14/2006 6:49 PM  
Anonymous holy toledo said...

We are making a mountain out of a mole hill here. Towbes owns some businesses and gave money from each of them to Wolf.

Towbes = land-grubbin' ag-stompin' density-lovin' developer with his sights on MORE of Noleta.

Janet Wolf = wants the job of being the one local representative of Noleta.

Conclusion = It's not just a mountain. It's a brewing volcano with active LANDSLIDES...duck and cover...

(You're right, this is nothing...wait until we invade Iran)

8/14/2006 8:39 PM  
Anonymous In BLack and White said...

from the June 1, 2006 Independent: by Martha Sadler

Dan Secord: Longtime Santa Barbara City Councilmember “Doctor Dan” raised $178,036 by the end of the reporting period with no loans or unpaid bills outstanding. Secord received several generous boosts in ’06, including $7,500 from the California Real Estate PAC and $3,000 from the Republican Lincoln Club of Santa Barbara. Although Secord returned two $1,000 contributions from out-of-town developers, he collected donations from local developers including Michael Towbes, the Blankenships, and Pacific Capital. So far, Secord spent $20,000 on radio ads, more than any other candidate. At the end of the reporting period, Secord had $80,000 left to spend.
----------

Travis, did you review different filings? or are you constitutionally incapable of researching "both sides" of an issue.

8/14/2006 8:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Black and White and all you critics who are whining about "researching Dan's contribtions" -- where the hell were you when the primary was going on?????????

We have two candidates who are taking $$$ from developers. Bye bye.

8/15/2006 12:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Which candidate will use this money to STOP development? That's whatwe need to know.

8/15/2006 7:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Holy Toledo,

If you think a few hundred bucks can buy Janet Wolf's vote than you are sadly mistaken. And Secord took money from Towbes too, as was reported in the Independent on June 1st.

Difference between Secord and Wolf is Wolf has protected open space such as Coronado Preserve. Secord has developed open space at More Mesa and up and down the coast, including urban ag.

Dan is already bought and paid for by Berkus, Towbes, Blakenship et al.

8/15/2006 11:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Which candidate will use this money to STOP development?"

We hope the answer is NEITHER. Those folks were clearly defeated by the majority, even with the Gary Earle-led fear-mongering "neighborhood preservationists" like CSP (Citizens for Selfish Planning), HANA, PANA and CPA.

Let's face facts, it's not just a simple grow/no-grow issue as many of the NIMBYs and BANANAs have made it out to be. The discussion is more about people and their interaction with the built and unbuilt environment. It's not simple, but certainly worthy of reasonable discussion by all of us.

One thing I've noticed is that we tend to lock-in on a position and stop listening to one another.

I happen to fall on the side that thinks we are woefully behind on planning, zoning/re-zoning and building a reasonable amount of housing (not all low density mini-mansions) that will help our workers live here, which will result in better overall community health for the long term.

Evidence of this housing need can be seen in many places, but I wonder how many of the NIMBY side really care about what's best for the environment - and when I say environment I mean on a broader scale than just their fenced-in 1/4 or 1/2-acre lot in Noleta.

Don't you have folks have jobs - at least some of you? Didn't you have them before you retired and joined the ranks of the disgruntled NIMBYs? I mean, if you have any idea about how community health, economics, non-profit volunteerism and similar issues work you would see that healthy communities need a vision, sound planning (and by planning I don't mean PLANNING as a code word to shut down any forward movement of anything) and balance, vitality, etc. I could go on and on...

The silent, disenfranchised majority have had enough of the detriment caused by the vocal minority NIMBYs and BANANAs and have spoken by voting for those open to discussing a vision for our community's future and defeating Joe and Das who were not about engaging in that discussion.

The time for change is now.

P.S. - Definitions of terms used in this post:

NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard
BANANA - Build Anything Near Anything Never Again

8/16/2006 9:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WOW 9:52 AM - let's hope they don't let you off your leash.

8/16/2006 11:14 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home