BlogaBarbara

Santa Barbara Politics, Media & Culture

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

The Next SB Council Race

Its seems really early to be talking about this when I have only just about recovered from the lashing I took in moderating you folks around the 2nd District Supervisor race....still, at least one person has been consistently pushing a 'next council race' context (or is that agenda?). With a Mayor's seat soon to be open and three council seats -- this will be a big race. Nominations from the floor anyone?

Labels: ,

115 Comments:

Anonymous David Pritchett said...

Helene Schneider announced in a mailing to supporters late in January, as I reported at EDHAT
http://www.edhat.com/site/print.cfm?id=1400&nid=2180

Brian Barnwell announced, almost as a casual aside remark, during the City Council Ordinance Committee meeting last Tuesday (yesterday), when he was inquiring if the proposed City ordinance about election finance reporting would be enacted in time to apply this year to the election in November. If Barnwell announced some other way, I was not aware of that.

Das Williams so far has not announced, although he has been asked.

Terry Tyler has been conspicuously appearing more in public lately, giving interviews to Paul Berenson and Ernie Salomon, and telling all about his retirement from his accounting job and pitching the need for emergency preparadness, an issue about as controversial as the joy of apple pie and warm tortillas.

3/07/2007 6:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's time for Barnwell, Schneider and Williams to look voters in the eye and make the case for why they deserve 4 more years. Her Honor the Mayor was just re-elected, so we have several more years of her "leadership." The old Ronald Reagan question surely applies: Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Is our City? I say no way. At least "Thinker" Bill claims to think.

3/07/2007 6:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"With a Mayor's seat and three council seats -- "

Marty will sure be surprised, or is this some kind of purposeful commentary?

3/07/2007 7:53 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

Not at all! I could have chosen better wording though to be more clear. Term limits mean that interest in the next election for an open Mayor's seat could affect the coming council race, no?

3/07/2007 8:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wouldn't support any incumbent.

Terry Tyler looks awfully good to take at least one slot.

Loretta Redd almost won last time and I think many regret she did not.

Ernie Solomon could be our resident adult on council, which would be very welcomed.

Those are my 3 picks.

3/07/2007 9:23 PM  
Anonymous Time for some new names said...

Schneider, Williams and Barnwell should be ready to face some tough questions about how quality of life in the city has deteriorated under their watch--traffic, overbuilding, stupid planning decisions reaffirmed----can't wait to hear how they justify their lack of leadership. Being a predictable 'no vote' should be no cover for Mr. W. Leadership takes more than "just saying no".....

3/07/2007 9:26 PM  
Anonymous jqb said...

The old Ronald Reagan question surely applies: Are you better off now than you were four years ago?

Yeah, three cheers for Iran-Contra, massive deficits, the religious right, the invasion of Grenada, and the Bush dynasty.

Personally, I think Helene, Das, and Brian have done well.

3/07/2007 9:55 PM  
Anonymous harping said...

Sara, you wrote: "With a Mayor's seat soon to be open..." What year will that be--2009? That's not what I'd call soon--nor soon enough. ;-)

3/07/2007 10:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Will words counter what people see?

3/07/2007 10:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

JQB---so ok, compared to Iran-contra and the invasion of Grenada, the incumbents have done an acceptable job. hmmm.

3/07/2007 10:16 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

harping -- you are showing your colors :)

Point is just that whoever is on council will have a decided advantage and there could easily be at least two council members running against each other...

3/07/2007 10:20 PM  
Anonymous harping said...

IMHO, the best that can be said about our current mayor & city council is that they're not corrupt. (If you look at what's happened in San Diego & other cities you'll admit that's a plus.) I think they're a well-meaning but inept lot with no far-sighted leader nor great brain among them.

3/07/2007 10:40 PM  
Anonymous yes, it is an actual cost SAVINGS said...

After this year (2007), the next Council election will be in 2010.

You read it here first.

3/07/2007 10:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hopefully the business community will step up early and find some more pro-business candidates like we have in Goleta that will start to address the real needs of the community such as lack of workforce housing, instead of catering to SEIU and the other labor unions!

3/07/2007 10:49 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

Don't worry 10:49 we'll have all the high density housing candidates money can buy, soon enough.

3/08/2007 12:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Goleta was smart. The three ran as a team - people knew what they were getting with their one choice for the whole team. That would work in Santa Barbara. The three incumbents stand as one against three who want things different.

3/08/2007 6:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who needs a city council:

1. Planning department is run by the developers
2. City administration is run by the public employee unions
3. Parks department is run by the environmental wacko I Love Weeds committee
4. Police department is run by the homeless and potheads
5. Public works is run by out of town tourists and commuters

The council is out of town attending conferences telling everyone how great they are. Who needs them.

3/08/2007 7:06 AM  
Anonymous Trader said...

Pro-Business? No..we have too many
"business" peeps in SB already. All we need is a few grocery stores, an auto dealership, a 7-11, and Borders.. Everything else i can get online..all the other stores in SB are full of junk that no one needs..pack 'em up and move 'em out!

3/08/2007 7:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon 1049--you must be kidding....I can't IMAGINE [much to my dismay at times] a more HOUSING FRIENDLY council.....this is NOT goleta....if anything many people hope a more slow-growth candidate will emerge who is at least willing to say 'no' to the market-rate developements and condo converstions waiting in the wings

3/08/2007 7:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I, too, support the three on the Council. Barnwell, in particular, shows tremendous growth from his planning comm. background, recognizing, as Das has said, that the soul of the city is what's at risk with all these high rises. If you like what's going up on lower Chapala, the 500-600 blocks, vote in candidates such as recommended by 10:49 as in Goleta.

As there, I am afraid, it's all going to come down to money: get enough, especially in the critical last weeks before the election, before the absentee ballots are mailed, and you can buy the election as Bennett, Onnan and coattails Aceves did.

I think Schneider is a shoo-in, Das will have a fight but will win, and Brian? How he does will depend in good part on $ and also on how much people believe the News-Press drumbeats of terror.

3/08/2007 8:15 AM  
Anonymous allegro805 said...

quality of life in the city has deteriorated under their watch...

Oh, woe! It has deteriorated so!

Give me a break!

3/08/2007 8:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Horton for Mayor!

3/08/2007 9:33 AM  
Anonymous Polly SIgh said...

Depends how you define corrupt. I'd say the inability to apply critical thinking, ignoring outrageous "mistakes" on the part of the city staff--that funny enough always go the developers' way--and alllowing a handful of influential, wealthy people to co-opt them into turning this place into condo-ville without blinking, while requiring regular citizens to jump through outrageous hoops, not corrupt, but certainly isn't exactly the ethical behavior I want to see on that dais.

3/08/2007 9:53 AM  
Anonymous harping said...

Wish I could disagree with Polly Sigh but those are some good points.

3/08/2007 10:20 AM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

I've put a lot of time in recently on this blog in hopes that someone who counts (with influence) may actually be reading here. I was sparked to comment by actually watching the SB and Goleta council meetings on the local channels. I encourage you all to do so and you can see the real deal in action. Unfortunately and understandably, one can get only a short amount of time at the mike to speak directly to your reps. But you can watch and email your comments directly to them and have your voice heard in detail. It's a beautiful thing.

And Kudos to Sara for spending her time to give us all a voice to discuss this issues amongst our selves.

3/08/2007 11:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 6:56 pm

Don't be fooled by Bill Hackett's first name.

The name "Thinker" can only be a horrible and deceptive joke when applied to him.

3/08/2007 12:41 PM  
Anonymous harping said...

Sa1, your time & comments are much appreciated. I, too, hope "someone who counts (with influence) may actually be reading here." And if so, let's also hope he or she will learn something &, more important, do something positive.

Re: "And Kudos to Sara for spending her time to give us all a voice to discuss this issues amongst our selves." I second the motion!

3/08/2007 1:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course it is just the NewsPress with its axe to grind, but in the past few weeks, including today were letters to the editors decrying the mess downtown and how it is scaring visitors away who no longer find Santa Barbara a desirable tourist destination.

Both writers visit here frequently and both were alarmed how much change they noticed and how unpleasant it had become. They are taking their tourist dollar elsewhere.

And raise a good point -this sort of pan-handling, assault by vagrants does not go on in other seaside cities. Just Santa Barbara.

3/08/2007 2:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lanny Ebenstein said turn all the motels into affordable housing units in his last election.

Is he finally ready for prime time this next time around? Is he the Al Gore of Santa Barbara who saw the canary die in the mineshaft long before anyone else?

3/08/2007 2:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why do we see only white people serving on city committees and sitting in power making decisions in this city when we 34% are hispanic?

Where are the Hispanic leaders who are willing to run for office and win?

Time to honor our real Old Spanish Days heritage, not just make a passing joke about it. They built the land and we later haven't done such a good job with it. Time to reach deeper into our community for political talent.

3/08/2007 2:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

2:44: " Anonymous said...

Why do we see only white people serving on city committees and sitting in power making decisions in this city when we 34% are hispanic? ... They built the land...."

Last time I looked (this afternoon!) around here on the lower east side where I live all the people I saw were white - and some, by language, were apparently of Hispanic origin, including probably Central, Southern America and Spain and Portugal. My ear for Spanish accents is not that good.

I thought the Chumash and cousins "built the land" until the Hispanics and other Euro-origined whites came in....

3/08/2007 5:18 PM  
Anonymous Who made you? said...

....and all this time I thought GOD or some other deity "built the land"......people---Mexican, Spanish, European, indigenous----built on top of it....

3/08/2007 5:31 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

2:44- With a nod to your well meaning comment, I hope our candidates strive to equally represent the ideals and goals of the entire community and the voters chose in that spirit. This idea that a candidate of any race gets support and "represents" from his/her racial "base" should not be a factor. Idealistic, I know, but a concept we all need to work towards on a daily basis.

3/08/2007 5:41 PM  
Anonymous allegro805 said...

And raise a good point -this sort of pan-handling, assault by vagrants does not go on in other seaside cities. Just Santa Barbara.

You apparently have neither visited nor read about Santa Cruz or Santa Monica in the past few decades. Then again, I suspect you haven't really left your house in Sycamore Canyon in the last several years either.

I suppose this "deterioration" will all be borne out by reports of the hotel vacancy rate being 50% and up from now on, eh?

3/08/2007 5:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, that explains why someone calls the city council the Santa Monica Seven.

3/08/2007 6:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To refresh people's memories, Gil Garcia served on the City Council for years and did and outstanding job. We also had Babatunde Folayemi who served. I didn't think we should place the race card, but rather focus on the issues facing the community.

The current Council and Mayor are doing all they can to make the City Sustainable and fight global warming. Density is the only way to do it!

3/08/2007 8:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Das won't win. It anyone but Das out here in VoterLand.

He flip-flopped too much during the Second District race - left everyone with a bad taste. Don't see how he can bail himself out anymore. Or, re-invent himself.

No one knows who he really is or what he will be in any given situation anymore. He no longer gets to run as a fresh face. He got stale during that race.

Too bad, he had good early qualities, but tried to reach too high to make nice to Riviera conservatives at the same time he was trading being a progressive liveral person of color -whatever that is. Never knew what he stood for in the final analysis and this showed in the final vote.

Nope, I wouldn't put any money on him. It will be anybody except Das -- except for Thinker Bill. Only if the rest of the crowd is weak and flaky but he doesn't stand a chance against Terry Tyler. Das is the weakest link of the three.

3/08/2007 9:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, you mean to say as long as motel rooms are full we have to put up with the marauding State Street vagrants. That is some city policy. Sure anyone wants to run on that doozie?

3/08/2007 9:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This issue is 34% of our city feel disenfranchized. That is a very large issue. And it is painfully ripping into the heart of this city.

3/08/2007 9:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How is the city fighting global warming letting thousands of vagrants set fires in the hills and creek bottoms and RV dwellers run their generators on the streets all night long? Answer that one.

The Poodle was right - the city council spends too much time patting themselves on their own back.

People on the street are seeing a lot more daily urban pollution in this town than any claim you can make they are preventing global warming.

You people need to get out more and see what is happening well beyond chambers of city hall.

3/08/2007 9:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who would want the job. It is a city where the people are selfish, self-centered and totally out of touch with the real world. Nothing matters except my little back or front yard. People are all for helping homeless and poor but not nurses - or not really homeless - just use them for arguments.

We have become a very sick selfish community that it is all about us and we fear change of any type - just like we fear age - it is a fact of life - we will age or die and Santa Barbara will continue to change - sometimes good, sometimes bad, or die.

I say lets start asking people to leave town as we have too many.

3/08/2007 10:39 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

9:08-Anon
Wow, you sure have a large circle of friends. Do they know you're speaking for all of them? What do you think is the source of their disenfranchisement? What agenda do you think your Hispanic candidate shound represent?

3/08/2007 11:39 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

So what are some realistic ideas for old "levy town" now that they're back to square one? This might be a plank for one of the council types.

I know, I know, we should make it a free housing complex for 4000 made from recycled cardboard, with organic gardens, solar power and daycare...but what would be our second choice?

3/08/2007 11:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Levytown is private property, the city council, other than ensuring zoning ordinances are enforced and not overturned by staff, has nothing to say about what happens there.

Unless the good voters of Santa Barbara want to buy the property for themselves, it remains the stewardship of the private property owners.

What a novel concept.

3/09/2007 6:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A homeless center would be nice or something like that.

3/09/2007 7:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Horton for Mayor? Please. Roger and his "whim of iron" have lost their appeal.

3/09/2007 7:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This town is getting invaded by the LA Pod People - those affluent elderly men and women face-lifted and botox-frozen beyond all human recognition.

Just saw a few more who could barely open their mouths to put food into it at a downtown restaurant.

Their mouths were too far stretched back to be useful anymore. But they posed wonderfully -- for Pod People.

3/09/2007 7:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A new city council dream team would:

1. Ban vagrants and panhandlers from all city commercial districts.

2. Enforce RV parking ban on all city streets 24/7.

3. Set policy and direct staff to carry it out; rather than the other way around.

4. Demand accountability council policy is actually carried out.

5. Ban all out of city conference attendance, until one can be proud of ALL city neighborhoods, not just the most high profile.

6. Prohibit voting on public employee union contracts, if anyone recieved union campaign donations.

7. Earn their full time salaries putting in a full time day, learning what is actually going on under their watch. Ceremonial or political event attendance does not count.

8. Stop undermining what the police are hired to do: ENFORCE THE LAWS.

9. Budget for more litter, blight and graffiti patrols.

10. Ditch mandatory inclusionary housing requirements, and "affordable" housing schemes funded with city money.

Get our city back before it is too late.

3/09/2007 7:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sa1 asks - what plank might a Hispanic candidate support? Take a look at the LULAC website and you will find the same things everyone supports. http://www.lulac.org/

That being said, it is time we have a city council that looks like the city, and city boards and commissions that look like the city.

That is a start.

3/09/2007 8:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

SA1 for Mayor!!!!

3/09/2007 9:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dapper Das needs to season himself with far more sobering real life business and financial experience.

He will do fine as a politician after age 50, because he has the gut of a street fighter.

But right now he comes across as an overly eager career politician wanting only to feed off the public trough.

We can't afford his brand of ungrounded idealism. He is not inspiring. He is scary.

3/09/2007 9:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That being said, it is time we have a city council that looks like the city, and city boards and commissions that look like the city.

Guess that would be gang bangers, drug users, and homeless.

3/09/2007 9:27 AM  
Anonymous dreamer said...

"it is time we have a city council that looks like the city, and city boards and commissions that look like the city."

Where's Bob Hansen?

3/09/2007 9:43 AM  
Anonymous allegro805 said...

anonymous 7:54: Why don't YOU just run for city council already, on your Chicken Little Platform, and we'll see how far you get.

My guess: Not very.

3/09/2007 10:04 AM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

Let's chill out a bit! No need to throw invective people!

3/09/2007 10:07 AM  
Anonymous allegro805 said...

I have to admit, I think I may need to steer clear of this site. I understand what you are saying, Sara, about reducing the invective and sniping, but comments like the following make it increasingly difficult to have anything even remotely resembling reasoned "discussion."

Guess that would be gang bangers, drug users, and homeless.

I'm finding that my visceral reaction to these statements (the same old nasty, racist, classist tripe over and over) is hard to quash, and any resultant attempt to engage with the writer brings out the absolute worst in me. Given that these baiting trolls are probably not going away, and are most certainly thriving on the emotion they stir up, I feel like it may just be best to cede this forum to them. Any semblance of reasonable discourse has totally degenerated here. This is what the trolls want, and sadly, they've got it. This has gone way beyond the idiocy of Nelville Flynn.

3/09/2007 10:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is what I don't understand. Every election we get candidates walking around proving they support the neighborhoods.

Then they get elected and act like they were given a mandate to stuff more housing into those very neighborhoods, bow down to developers every whim, let RVs drivers (but no one else) park where ever they want, give even more hand out to the armies of vagrants who now want to call Santa Barbara home, hand over the city to the commuters who never even voted for them, and then look surprised when people who live here cry help.

I don't get it. I can't think of a single neighborhood who voted for more and denser housing, yet the city keeps congratulating themselves when they build more and more of it. Asd if the voters gave them that mandate. They did not.

Who are they pandering too once they get elected, when they went hat in hand begging for our neighborhood votes *before* the election?

It sure wasn't the voters who put them into that office. So what happens once they get elected. Please, someone explain this too me. I see it but I don't understand.

Do special interest dollars really buy that much in a local election that once elected they feel safe to turn their backs on the very platforms that got them elected?

And if that is the case, then shame on the voters who retain incumbents who betrayed their initial platforms, over and over again.

Then the city does deserve what they get. Start turning those scoundrels out. Don't give them another chance to dig the hole even deeper.

Don't let all those slick special interest funded brochures mailed to you influence your vote next time - you are buying a city council person beholden to special interests if this is how you make your choices to vote.

Dig into your own pockets and counter the special interest campaign money, if you want your town back. A few dollars from many voters is all it takes to dump the special interest thousands, which do corrupt city government decisions.

Vox P.

3/09/2007 11:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There needs to be a fundamental shift in voter attitudes, if we are going to rescue democracy and our city.

Instead of sitting there waiting for candidates to come to you and spend special interest campaign dollars to get your interest through slick sound bites and media nonsense distilled down to a 3rd grade level, you need to go to them. You need to because it is that important.

Voters need to go to candidates with questions, demands and expectations of accountabilty. It is your city you are entrusting to them and let them know that. It is not theirs to hand back to you damaged and irreparable.

This is a lot easier today because of free internet access to campaign material and multiple public forums.

Let the candidates know what your agenda is and how you expect it to be carried out.

Don't just sit there waiting to be entertained by them, and then hold them in contempt when they don't deliver.

Your very city is at stake. Invest your time, effort, money and influence to get what is best not only for you, but for the entire city you want to live in.

Elected officials will never feel fully accountable if voters don't demand it.

Giving a pass to an incumbent or voting a party line is inexcusable when those very politicians pass laws that affect you and this city for a long, long time.

You are handing them a lethal weapon in their ability to enact legislation. Handle this charge with care.

This is not just a gong show here, folks. This is serious business when it takes future councils to undo the mistakes of present ones.

Vox P.

3/09/2007 2:56 PM  
Anonymous Itchy Pants Syndrome-watch said...

Why would anyone believe that Das would stick around for a 4-year term; Nick Welsh described it best as "itchy pants syndrome"--- our City needs some continuity and maturity of leadership---there has to be SOMEONE around here who can provide that.......

3/09/2007 5:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We need Das. He has a great vision for the community. You just need to get used to the new progressive council.

3/09/2007 7:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sadly, VISION does not equal LEADERSHIP, ACTION or PROGRESS.

It is laughable to call the current Council "progressive"........where is the progress???

3/09/2007 7:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The council is trying to save the earth and stem off global warming. I think that makes them progressive. That is why they need our support and why we should elect them and more like them before it is too late.

3/10/2007 8:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They say what they have to say so voters elect them, but the voters don't really know what is good for them. That is why they change doing the best for the voters and the city and the future.

3/10/2007 9:06 AM  
Blogger Voice of Rezon(e) said...

Hang in there, allegro805!

I truly understand how you feel, and have campaigned in the past for no more anonymous commenting but to no real avail. I think many of the "anon" comments are being made by the same few who don't really want a meaningful discourse about our community. They just want to stop and protest everything.

I may not always agree with allegro805, donaldo, mike pinto, first district streetfighter, sa1, harping or the other frequent bloggers on this site, but at least we start to understand their perspectives.

3/10/2007 9:58 AM  
Anonymous SA1 said...

"SA1 for Mayor!!!! "

Please leave unmarked $10s and $20s
under the coffee can by the fig tree. Appears I'll need at least $250K to win. Special Intrests and PACS, I'll get back to you with my offshore account number.

3/10/2007 2:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh you pseudonymous personas are SO elevated in your communication skills........some of us "anons" have so much to learn......of course, it is all too possible....probable, really, that "nom de plumes" can be duplicated---that one persona can have more than one, or more than one person can use the same one..........or........well...........I think the point is that blogging is anonymous, whether or not using some clever "nom" or just the more honest "anonymous"........

3/10/2007 3:42 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

6:49am said,
"Unless the good voters of Santa Barbara want to buy the property (Levy Town) for themselves, it remains the stewardship of the private property owners."

True, but most developement decisions are based on cost, approved zoning and the belief that the product created has a market. Not sure why Mr. Levy was unable to move forward with the condo time-share developement. Might it be that he couldn't, in fact, sell them at a profit? This has happened in Miami and Vegas and helps move property price downward till a market developes. You can see this process at work through out yesterdays hot markets in this country and certainly in SB. Just ask the realtors.

I'd like to see an entertainment venue like the Ventura Theater or the Chumash Casino Theater. Nice places but requiring too much time and fuel to get there (global warming and all that). Plus that pesky traffic problem. Being near the waterfront, it might be a big draw if sized right.

3/10/2007 6:12 PM  
Anonymous harping said...

Hey Anon. 3/10/2007 3:42 PM: You're not only off-topic (obviously you meant to post your comment on a newer thread), but you're off-base. Using the word "anonymous" isn't any more honest than using a pseudonym--it's simply more boring & also IMHO somewhat inconsiderate since it forces those who wish to comment on anonymice posts to comb through dozens of "anonymous" & then include the date & time of the post in order to identify it. At least you could number yourselves "Anon. 1," etc., to make life easier for us blogsters. And re: "probable, really, that "nom de plumes" can be duplicated---that one persona can have more than one, or more than one person can use the same one"--Yes, but I think that's beside the point. Bottom line: "Anonymous" is synonymous with "unoriginal pseudonym." (Sara, sorry for feeding the off-topic Anon but I couldn't let that comment go unchallenged.) Now back to the Council Race topic...

3/10/2007 10:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The new "progressive" city council will have to get used to picking up their unemployment checks. They will be history in a few months.

It is not progressive to turn your backs on your voters. It is regressive and give democracy a bad name.

3/11/2007 10:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The could have done a better job at voter re-education, sure. The voters wanted progressive and need to be reminded of that.

3/12/2007 5:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd vote for some neolibs. I think our current council is a bit too conservative.

3/12/2007 6:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TO: Anon 6:28

what "neo-lib" polices would you like a new council to enact? Please give us a preview of your ideal city. Thanks.

3/12/2007 7:19 PM  
Blogger Voice of Rezon(e) said...

You anons are funny. One wants more "progressive", says the current council is too "conservative". Another wants to vote for "neo-libs".

Very cute. I'd like a non-fat soy progressive neo-lib council with extra global peace and hold the mayo (and the conservatism).

Please do us all a favor and explain, in detail, your positions and rationale, and stop throwing the council into poorly labeled buckets. How you apply those terms to a small city council is beyond me.

3/12/2007 11:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Series of letters to the editor in the NP these past few weeks regarding armies of homeless panhandlers on State Street and the impact it is having on the downtown economy - a major source of city revenue. Several note this issue is getting worse and plan on taking their tourism dollars elsewhere.

Today one is in general defense of perpetuating homelessness and scolding residents for not opening their spare bedrooms to take them all in.

The writer also rails against our failed education, health and employment opportunities which have also failed these people as well so it is societies burden to embrace them into our daily lives and anything less is callousness.

Let's back up a bit before we all roll over and continue to ignore the problem one more time and/or offer feckless and costly solutions that no only do not work but only increase the problem.

Over $20 -30 million dollars annually is already spent in this town for the "homeless" including a huge number of subsidized housing units.

How do we know this allegedly sympathetic and scolding letter writer is not one of those who has a vested interest in his or her share of that $20 million dollars for their job providing this huge array of social services already for the alleged homeless.

Number two - why should we feel guilty about the job market when millions of immigrants come to this country illegally simply because there are plentiful jobs just waiting to be taken. That is a non-starter for an argument.

Free education leading to job skills is already available in California for anyone who takes the time and initiative to reach for it.

And Cottage turns away no one for emergency health services. County and neighborhood health care systems take care of the rest. In fact there are several county paid nurses whose only job is to go around providing health care for the homeless.

So city council candidates, are you just going to roll over again anytime anyone scolds you about not doing enough for the alleged homeless. Or are you finally going to stand up and recognize how little you are doing for the real voters and residents of this town, recognize how important tourism dollars are to your own salaries and the city you pretend to manage?

Stop pandering to this homeless nonsense. You are pandering only to those who have a major interest in gaming the system. And it is time you learned to know the difference.

3/13/2007 8:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the council is actually pandering to those ultra-liberal campaign donors who pretend to advocate for the homeless (while they live above and beyond the real problem); not the homeless themselves.

If they wanted to really do something for the homeless, they would do less because what they are doing now is just not working.

And the first thing they could do is tell the homeless the door to Santa Barbara is no longer open. And make this message stick. Once and for all.

And then tell the Upper East and Riviera Limosine Liberals to assauge their guilt somewhere else besides dangling campaign dollars only to those who pretend to relieve them of their own misguided social-enabling co-dependency problems.

3/13/2007 10:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If we were doing enough for the homeless there wouldn't be so many.

Join the neolibs

3/13/2007 10:32 AM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

I was given to look up the demographics for SB recently and was a little surprised at the reality. SB, Goleta, Carp and surrounding is about 200K people. A smaller community by most standards. It would be interesting to compare to other communities of this size to see how they handle the problem. Don't know about the 20-30 mill $ number. Is that city or county?

There's a Mexican guy named Slim who's worth about $49 billion and has recently been quoted about charity. He poked fun at Gates and Buffety for hand outs. He has more of the "teach a man to fish..." idea. Seeing as Gates, Buffet, Jolie, Winfrey and others like to send charity overseas (nothing wrong with that), perhaps someone with contacts could call Slim and ask him to set up something here.

3/13/2007 10:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Letters to the editor in the NP? Plants that's all. FAKES! An excuse not to do more and help the homeless.

3/13/2007 11:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

NeoLib mistated the issue saying we are not doing enough for the homeless.

Nope, we are doing too much and that is why there are so many of them.

Even the romanticized "hobos" at the former Child's Estate were working adult men.

1. There is the working poor.
2. There are the marginalized and developmentally disabled.
3. There are the intentional slackers.

Don't lump them all together as the "homeless".

Society already takes care of Groups 1 and 2.

The anger is rightfully directed at Group 3. And that is the group which is growing and demanding more and more exceptions to the rules while offering nothing in return. Except more demands.

Don't feel guilty about Group 3. And this is the group that is taking over Santa Barbara.

3/13/2007 11:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Half the town is one paycheck from being homeless... and the reason we need to do more!

3/13/2007 11:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This over-used claim - "half the town is one paycheck" from being homeless is one more reason those who put themselve into this situation trying to live in an expensive town on marginal employment skills need to wake up and make better life choices.

And demanding a public handout is not one of them. Public handouts are free education and free public services. Enough already. Take advantage of what society is already handing you.

3/13/2007 12:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Typical SB NIMBY intolerance. Those days are over.

3/13/2007 1:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is about time we have a council that is helping the homeless. Right on!

3/13/2007 2:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Blame the homeless on the NIMBY:

The Department Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the federal agency in charge of housing issues, released the most complete report on homelessness in the U.S. The report, "The Forgotten Americans - Homelessness: Programs and the People They Serve," revealed that some 11 million Americans have "worst case" housing needs, putting them at a high risk of homelessness. Many are either spending over half of their paycheck on housing -- often doubled up with others in overcrowded conditions -- or live in houses that are falling apart.

More density and affordable housing should help solve this crisis!

3/13/2007 3:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nope, it is not NIMBY and we have a city that hugely helps the homeless already. The new city plan is "living within our resources". That translates as the boat is now full and we have to live with it.

Thank you for pointing out how thin your pro-homeless rebuttal argument is.

All you do is call names and propose nothing but uninformed rejoiner. I regret such paucity of argument has held sway with this council for too long.

One: enough has been done for the homeless.
Two: time to take care of those who live, work, vote and pay taxes here.

They are now the New Disinfranchised. And they don't like it one bit. Do you hear this?

3/13/2007 4:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Get over yourself. Like the saying goes "what would Jesus do"?

Surely not ask the homeless to leave.

3/13/2007 4:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let me amend my prior comment:

It is now time to pay more attention to those who live, work, vote, pay taxes and own property here.

The needs of the non-working, non voting, non-taxapying, non property owning homeless in this town have already been well-addressed.

We now do need to live within our resources. We have done our share. Stop asking Santa Barbara to save the world; and destroy herself in the process.

That is no plan. Why do you want more homeless to come here? What is the pay off for you?

My payoff is I protect my own investment here which I made with the sweat and sacrifice of my own work and life style choices.

What is your pay-off besides wanting to stick it to me?

3/13/2007 4:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not everyone is selfish and do try to help and hope we are able to do more.

Julie

3/13/2007 6:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why is asking SB to live within its limits being "selfish".

Name calling is not a plan. Exactly what are you going to do besides making a plea to "do more". What exactly is more. Please be specific.

You think we are being selfish - yet there are limits to what anyone can do. Why are you not comfortable with saying enough is enough?

I am sorry you feel your plan is to just call people selfish. Please tell us more. What will YOU do. Are you opening your home to take in a homeless person? Why not? Does that make you selfish if you do not.

That is a plan someone put out here today. You are the one who is selfish not taking in a homeless person tonight.It is not too late. get off the computer and go down and take one in. And then get back to us about how well your plan worked.

3/13/2007 7:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, the plan is not to ask the homeless to leave.

The plan is to tell the homeless to leave.

They are breaking the law and either the city council enforces the law or they stand up and change the law and open the doors wide and go on record as being the city council that destroyed Santa Barbara and abandoned it to the homeless.

But all this mincing around doing and saying opposite things has to stop. And this is not criminalizing the poor. It is asking for a well-ordered and regulated society.

The door is not open to any more homeless to come to Santa Barbara. That is not a selfish message. It is a sane message. It is an environmentally sound message.

And it is the message voters have gotten and will send loud and clear this coming election.

You want Wendy to "Obey the Law". I want the city to enforce the laws -and it is against the law to live on the streets of Santa Barbara.

And that remains the law until this City Council rezones the streets for residential use. And sign their names to that zoning ordinance amendment for all to see and hold them accountable for.

3/13/2007 7:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why does it make sense to run every home owner throug the meat grinder over the color of window trim on a house remodel, and then at the same time let some RV driver live on the sidewalk next to that same house?

I say stop criminalizing window trim paint colors!!!!!!!

3/13/2007 8:24 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

Hey anon...quit talking to anon like that. Anon was just trying to reiterate what anon was saying to anon and anon last week. If anon, anon, anon and anon can agree to disagree, then I think anon is in the right by saying anon is wrong about what anon said.

3/13/2007 11:26 PM  
Anonymous Friend of Anon said...

Or we could just continue on at the anonomous anoumous meeting under the fig tree Friday night

3/13/2007 11:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If that is what it takes, then we should ask to rezone the streets. Make it legal to be homeless.

3/14/2007 12:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is legal to be homeless. It is not now legal to live on the streets of Santa Barbara.

Please ask your city council to make it legal to live on the streets of Santa Barbara.

Tent-camping on the streets, parks, beach and sidewalks should be okay too.

3/14/2007 1:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Isn't living on the streets and homeless the same thing?

3/14/2007 3:12 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

"Tent-camping on the streets, parks, beach and sidewalks should be okay too. "

Tent camping in Paris is legal and supported. So was Grafitti for awhile. The Mayor thought it was artistic expression...talk about post modern. So let's be like France! (we'll all have to start dressing better though) Ooh La La I can taste those pastries already... 2 Crepes with chocolate syrup s'il vous plait...

3/14/2007 3:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good news! We're not all heartless!

Santa Barbara County says it may spend a million dollars in the upcoming budget to provide health care for children who are living in poverty.


The county ranks second to the bottom in California for the highest number of uninsured children.

3/14/2007 3:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Living in an RV is not homeless.

Living on the streets of Santa Barbara in your RV is illegal. Until the City Council votes to make it legal. Which it has not. Get your city council to make it legal. Open up the entire city for RV camping. It is only fair.

3/14/2007 4:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's clarify your tent camping in Paris comment, sa1.

Are speaking of the official tent camping allowed in the Bois de B. only, or are you claiming you can pitch a tent anywhere in the entire city?

Which Santa Barbara city park do you want to make available for tent-camping, or are you advocating tent camping anywhere in the city on the streets, sidewalks, parks, beaches and front lawns?

I suggest the tent-campers and RV dwellers take over the unused St Francis parking garages until the neighbors finally settle that mess. No sense letting a fine opportunity go to waste.

3/14/2007 5:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A murder on State Street today. Still think we are doing enough for the needy?

3/14/2007 6:28 PM  
Anonymous Essay le Pew said...

Anon - I was commenting about the tents generally in the lower concreted banks of the Seine, Canal St Martin, under bridges and around apartment buildings. There are a couple of groups that even supply tents. I was also observing that if we allowed that, we could be parisian like? I guess my satire was a wee bit too subtle. Anon, Anon and Anon probably got it though from our discussions last week on this now way off topic thread.

I don't advocate allocating any space for them. The RVs should find a campground and pay for their spot like everyone else. The truely unfortunate should find a shelter and state/county help. A lot of so-called homeless are like that by choice or lack of will. Some are probably on the run from the law like that guy who mugged the 101 year old lady in NY. Those who are just here to see what they can get away with should find a job or leave. Simple as that. If you feed a stray cat you own it. I don't think the city should be in the business of adopting stray cats.

On the other hand, perhaps the city could offer low cost loans for water chestnut and Crepe carts, maybe put some homeless to work! Darn, now I'm jonesin' for a Croque Monseur. Viva la France

3/14/2007 11:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who said the murderer was "needy"? My guess he is part of the great subsidized underclass this city has created and isolated.

Do you think you can buy off gang violence by subsidizing racial ghettos? Maybe it is class envt seeing all the Anglo panhandlers on State Street getting all the sympathy.

Maybe all the pseudo-wealthy in this town turning a blind eye to the under cover service industry they demand need to take a look at the down stream problems this self-imposed ignorance can create?

It has nothing to do with being "needy". It has everything to do with exclusion. And listening to Anglo whiners give no answers or even good questions.

No, you can not buy your way out of this. And think long and hard about the racist implications of your expectation that we can.

3/15/2007 8:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We aren't doing enough to support the police, that is what we are doing wrong.

This sort of gang violence has been happening in the Eastside and Westside for a long time. It was only unique yesterday because it happened right under your smug nose today.

This town has long floated on a large hidden underclass that supports Santa Barbara's "luxury image and it is those that benefit from that luxury image who need to clean up the problems they have created.

And that means the idle shoppers at Saks where this happened right under their upturned noses.

But others have had to live with this sort of sidewalk threats for a long time and have seen millions go into city "projects" that have not done a darn thing to stop this. It is the police who are needy in this town.

It just came out of the shadows yesterday. It did not just start. It shows the failure of all the wasted city dollars on social problems, which only buried them but did nothing to stop them.

3/15/2007 8:19 AM  
Anonymous Polly Sigh said...

Does anyone remember what happened to the once-vibrant shopping area of Westwood in LA? After a particular gang killing of a non-gang member, the place dried up, virtually overnight, as a desirable destination attracting carefree shoppers, diners and strollers. For a community that banks on tourism to such an extreme as SB does, our mayor and council members ought to spend a lot more time on protecting those of us who are already here, instead of bending over backwards to attract more, whether tourists or residents. Just where is the leadership denouncing the horrific events of yesterday, and offering solutions? Don't tell me the soon to open teen center is going to solve gang problems. I would never let my teen go near the place for safety reasons.

3/15/2007 5:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe our politicos haven't figured out how to spin this or who to blame it on.

3/15/2007 7:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I nominate Cam Sanchez. He's the only one I've seen with the guts to admit we have a gang problem and need to do something about it, together as a community.

3/17/2007 3:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The rest of the Council and especially the three up for reelection this year---Williams, Schneider and Barnwell---have been eerily silent in the past few days....House makes an inane statement in yesterday's paper.....he feels "happy"...and sad about the murder............what the HELL is going on.....please, someone, anyone, put your hat in the ring............

3/17/2007 9:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To make it work to get a change on this city council, THREE people need to put their collective hats in the ring -- just like it worked in Goleta.

Got any names? I can't think of anyone who needs the grief. And that is the problem. Competent people don't take loser jobs.

A single alternative, responsible candidate would merely be a waste of time against this well-proven council majority. Voters did put them in place. No one can escape the mandate they got to hold their current jobs.

So you have to have THREE sound alternatives, or nothing at all.

And that has to be THREE bullet proof candidates because the NewsPress will make mince-meat of anyone who dares to try to do any thing in this town.

I think we will yet again continue to slumber into incompetent incumbancy. And the voters again will get what they deserve. And this is too bad.

But politics is a dirty and odd game. My hats off to those who actually try to survive this thankless position.

The only viable option to talk sense into those who are already on the job.

They need to stop wavering with every fanciful, trendy social do-good wind that blows their way and develop a list of solid city priorities they can actually accomplish rather than loosey-goosey social engineering that can do nothing but irritate the hell out of everyone, including those they intended to help because it is never enough.

3/18/2007 10:21 PM  
Anonymous Anon 9:40 said...

You are right. We need someone who will not keep knee-capping Chief Sanchez and clean up this place.

And get rid of all the cushy duplicate "fun" police jobs that take at least a week a month to "train" for (like bomb squad, and strike force) that really need to be consoldiated with the county sherrif's office for a few times they are actually needed here in town.

Why did we only see old white cops pinning down the squat brown kids?

How riddled is the SB police force with employment racism regardless of a chief who has been reduced by internal politics to a window-dressing position in the first place.

How much power behind the throne is in fact exercised by YABBADABBA, instead of Chief Sanchez.

City Council, what the heck are you going to do about this dysfunctional situation? Do you even know or understand what is going on in this city right under your own noses?

Time to start observing the day to day operations of all the city departments. Or get a city admin officer who asks for program accountability and reports candidly and directly to you with consequences.

Stop thinking all you got was a ribbon cutting badge when you got elected. You got elected to run this city and it is a multi-million dollar activity.

It is not a ceremonial position to take it or leave it .Start acting like you know how to run this multi-million dollar corporation and not let the staff drag you around by your noses.

Use your noses to start sniffing things out and do something about them. And stop thinking the extent of your job description it to keep employee union campaign dollars flowing in.

3/18/2007 10:51 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

9:40 -- had to YABBADABBA as that part of your comments didn't feel right. Usually I delete based on that but I could tell you worked hard on this comment :)

3/18/2007 10:53 PM  
Anonymous Goleta Plan Updater said...

10:21 PM -- not sure it is that simple. Slates are a mixed bag and you should remember that Aceves was not at all part of the offical Chamber slate in Goleta and has proved that already on council -- although he benefited at the end because they knew they needed three to make a difference,

3/18/2007 10:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Craig Smith - Terry Tyler - Loretta Redd

The Dream Team for the next city council.

3/20/2007 2:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Word on the street is that one of our own - Voice of Rezon(e) - is possibly going to run.

3/22/2007 8:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

they’ll all win…unless someone runs against them. why do we have all these uncontested elections? any thoughts. personally I think it’s the $$$.

7/30/2007 12:07 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home