UC Regents Buy Devereux
The 33 acre Devereux Property was acquired today by the UC Regents according to an announcement that was sent out by UCSB Chancellor Henry T. Yang. Two questions -- what about the school? Here's what he had to say:
Next -- what does this mean for development of this coastal property? UCSB continues to expand and now the Devereux Property will be developed without needing to adehere to local planning guidelines as it is now state property. Yang didn't discuss any plans other than have the property produce income so there is no additional financial burdern for UCSB. This will be something to keep a close eye on.
The Devereux School has long been an important part of our community, and will continue to lease back a small portion of the property for the ongoing programs of the school. I have met with the family members and staff of Devereux, and we look forward to continuing our mutually collaborative relationship.
Next -- what does this mean for development of this coastal property? UCSB continues to expand and now the Devereux Property will be developed without needing to adehere to local planning guidelines as it is now state property. Yang didn't discuss any plans other than have the property produce income so there is no additional financial burdern for UCSB. This will be something to keep a close eye on.
posted by Sara De la Guerra | 3/15/2007 05:57:00 PM
Our Community Guidelines ask that you use the Blogger/Open ID login or the
more private Name/URL option when making comments. Comments using "Anonymous" will not be published. For more info, see choosing an identity.
34 Comments:
This quote from Chancellor Yang pretty much says it all: "have the property produce income so there is no additional financial burdern for UCSB."
One has to wonder how many buildings and how tall, or "pave paradise and put up a parking lot".
We're screwed.
The Devereux Property is already developed, BTW... lots of buildings, homes, and apartments are out there.
UCSB expanding? Their enrollment is capped. Their building program has been to allow students not to be forced to rent from the avaricious local landlords... that is why we have Manzanita Village, and will have the San Clemente project when it is done. It's not expansion, it's a kind of homecoming.
Of course the pawns of the local real estate business make all sorts of noise about UCSB's building. One of the noises is falsely characterizing the building program as an expansion, which it looks like Sara, you have been confused by.
In the *future* UCSB does want to expand, at a rate that is actually smaller than the increase of the City of Santa Barbara's or the City of Goleta's population... way below the rate of population growth in the Santa Ynez Valley.
"It's not expansion, it's a kind of homecoming."
"In the *future* UCSB does want to expand..."
Can't you just visualize the smarmy smirk on this guy's face. I know who you are El Rincon, you should have picked another moniker. Doesn't it say enough that the developers of Bishop Ranch went out of their way to influence the election in Goleta and file a lawsuit to have their way?
If they don't get what they want, the developer's ultimate poison the well, nuclear threat is to sell to UCSB.
Even they know what your up to.
You're the epitome of an uncaring untouchable, unaccountable, ugly beuracracy. You don't even pay taxes here.
So spare us the disingenous BS. We've seen how well you've managed IV all these years. If you're so concerned about "avaricious local landlords" why did you sell Francisco Torres?? I used to share my home with students cheap because I felt they shouldn't have to live in garages. From now on, I'll let you take care of them.
So don't cry to me Santa Barbara when you wonder where it all went wrong, why the middle class can't find even the smallest apartment for rent, when you eventually find yourself waiting in line for everything, when you can't even find a place to park.
I finished packing early..."Just when I thought I was out, they draw me back in."
Doesn't it say enough that the developers of Bishop Ranch went out of their way to influence the election in Goleta and file a lawsuit to have their way?
If they don't get what they want, the developer's ultimate poison the well, nuclear threat is to sell to UCSB.
Let's hope they don't get their way... I don't think we need to see UCSB buildings extented throughout Goleta Valley...
sa1 - I'm quaking in my boots. I am sure that Bernice James tears up my property tax checks each year, saying, `That El Rincon, what a good egg, their business deserves a break!'
Can't understand your argument... UCSB drawing students/staff out of the local housing market on to campus housing destroys rental housing for Santa Barbara middle class? Yikes a porcine aviatrix labeled Sa1 just fell on my head.
Nice to know Sara know allows discussions of folk's identities... kind of puts into perspective her purported devotion to anonymity.
UCSB the cause of the housing shortage in Santa Barbara, you gotta be kidding me! 95% of the students live in Isla Vista or on-campus. Rents and living conditions in IV are not the best nor are they any more affordable than other areas in the south county. You'll find far more city college students living in SB than UCSB students.
el rincon -- sa1 may have gone into a little too much detail but I have no idea who you are and I doubt anyone else does. This one slipped by me but I don't see how it directly says who you are...if you want me to delete this, let me know but it isn't clear to me at all.
Sorry el rincon, I can't know exactly who you are (nor do I care). Just my hunch. "You" should be read UCSB
My point was UCSB is not paying taxes here and in their own report they claim incresed tax revenue (sales tax?) from the additional students and faculty. The first plan for N. campus was 269 units, now 171. If not for the Costal Commission you would have got your way. Nice plan when you get cut back 25% on the first cut. You plan to build 3 story condo's not 20 feet from existing home backyards. Nice neighbors. You offer the city a one time mitigation fee that is half of what you spent on a roundabout that was already an existing entrance. You claim you need faculty housing as a recruiting tool so you're offering subsidized condo's at half the market rate. How much does that subsidy cost the tax payers/donors? 100 Million? Money well spent? You want to bring 800 people and their cars into an area with the exits onto small residential streets already packed with overflow from the other high density housing in the immediate neighbhood. This is dangerous for all. Not to mention the potential damage to the surrounding enviroment from the increased foot traffic.
I could go on but I gotta go. People: Read the plan, it's buried on the UCSB web site. You may be amazed..
SDLG, a determined, bored 14 year old with computer access, probably could find out the IP address ANY of us use [Computer security at best can discourage, not prevent that]. I thought sa1 and El rincon were just two sides of the same person from the on-campus computer lab. I thought you did nothing wrong, yet offered a solution anyway. That aside, The issue of land use, ownership, property rights, money, power, and government responsibility, seems to be a balancing act at best. Depending on your spin on events, it's the end of free space, free enterprise, free rent, free lunch, free time or freedom as we know it. Money and Power [or some combination of the two] will always have it's say, because they aren't making any more land, and it is magnified x 100 here. There is no magic solution, that will make everybody happy or unhappy. It's a tightrope,at best. The question we ALL should have is WWTD [what would travis do]? Let's see, there ARE construction UNIONS, Student Unions, employee and faculity Unions and umm TEAMSTERS everywhere. another plot, I knew it
Wow. Just tuned in and the rancor on this thread is bitter and biting. Sara, I have to say that the quavering of your alarmist antennae were disappointing in the original post as well: "...developed without needing to adehere to local planning guidelines..." Do you mean guidelines such as the Goleta General Plan that's about to be flushed down the toilet by the development bloc? The Coastal Commission often seems the harder hoop to jump through anyway!
"...have the property produce income so there is no additional financial burden for UCSB..." Folks, this is basic accounting: the costs of this capital expenditure need to be justified/covered (likely via housing revenues) so that it is not a liability/debt.
Why so much acrimony here? I greatly prefer UCSB's development process over the projects of most private developers. Have you compared to UC Irvine & Davis growth?? Unless you want no development at all, I believe UC's development process is responsible, transparent, and thoroughly reviewed, while, yes, in service to the University mission and interests.
sa1: you seem to have some huge axe to grind with UCSB as the Root of All Evil; curiously wondering about the root of this personal issue, but I guess that's for you to work out (maybe you're a homeowner who will -gasp- have a 3-story condo 20 feet from your backyard). And, my friend, you need to let go of that fixation with the traffic roundabout. Really.
... subsidized condo's at half the market rate. How much does that subsidy cost the tax payers/donors? 100 Million?:
--Patently false red herring and sounds like a tax grudge issue, but you did throw in concern for philanthropic donors.
Money well spent?:
--Does that mean apparently you don't think so? Is that at the root of this? The UC is getting "a tax break" and you don't think it's money well spent? As they say, if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
And by the way, UCSB didn't sell Francisco Torres, it bought it, so I'm still trying to figure out what argument you were trying to make up there.
allegro805 -- my comment has to do with the fact that the UC system does not have to follow Goleta's General Plan or any local jurisdiction's planning guidelines as they are a state agency. They can basically build what they want -- they would be doing us a favor by letting the community have a say in the process. They don't have to.
Sara - were you around for the 1990 LRDP process at UCSB? Goodness, what were there, 150 public meetings? Many, many more than the Goleta General Plan process. UCSB has still not built out to the 1990 LRDP, which remains in effect. Odd that many people, like Sara, ignore the LRDP. Is the ignorance willful?
A fair amount of mitigation money went to the community as well.
I don't remember the City of Goleta once inviting the Isla Vista community or the UCSB community to participate in their General Plan Process.
My conclusion: this planning criticism of UCSB is phony; there is no intention of reciprocity in anything Goleta or Santa Barbara County undertakes with UCSB. They both see UCSB as a big ATM machine.
Good points El R., I didn't agree with the Goleta General Plan Process either and remember LRDP. Still, UCSB has built out quite a bit and is not the same school it was in the 80s. Is it not built out to what was planned intentionally or is it about budget cuts and reliance on alumni fundraising to build projects like Mosher House?
Where I was coming from is that at least with local planning guidelines, we can vote to replace a City Council as was recently done in Goleta. UC Regents? Appointed and political, there is not much of a check and balance in comparison. Regents don't always live where the UCs that have growth plans are located and have a very different set of intentions than a city council or planning commission.
I'll hope for the best with the Devereux Property -- but whatever Goleta did or did not do -- we have little say as to what the Regents decide. UCSB and IV are communties of interest to Goleta -- and someday, they should all be working together more closely.
Well, in all fairness to UCSB, the last line of Chancellor Yang's Letter to the Campus reads "We look forward to talking with you about our next steps, and engaging our entire campus and local community in the planning process for the use of this extraordinary property."
So, in the meantime, we'll have to give him the benefit of the doubt in wanting to work with the local community in the planning process.
Let's hope that they keep true to this, so that all opinions can be heard.
Sara, I think UCSB did not fully build out to the LRDP in part due to budget issues, and in part due to the inevitable delays in getting large projects done. I don't have inside knowledge.
Yes, UCSB is a very different place than in the 1980's. Don't forget that Reagan froze UCSB's capital spending in 1970 or so due to the bank burning, and consequently the originally planned campus was never finished... still it is not up to state standards for instructional and research space.
The main reason UCSB/IV does not have elected government? The officials on LAFCO, all of them locally elected officials from Santa Barbara County, have chosen not to let UCSB/IV incorporate either independently or as part of other cities many, many times. A few times there were public votes, but most times LAFCO voted against including UCSB/IV. A few times UCSB itself actively opposed inclusion too, and influenced LAFCO, but not in the majority of the efforts.
Why does LAFCO endorse the current situation? Partly out of distrust of IV activists and students. Partly because the UCSB ATM machine might dry up, or, more specifically, the UCSB funds would get spent locally in IV and not be spread around the County.
It sure would be nice if everyone could all work together. But don't forget there are a bunch of reasons why the status quo has been stable for 40 or 50 years, and few if any of them are idealistic.
Interesting discussion here about identities and such.
I'm recommending we all get together at a mutually acceptable public park in, say July or August, for the 1st Annual BlogaBarba Hoedown! It can be a potluck.
We can have a table at the entrance with name tags that all say "Anonymous".
I think it would be a blast!
VOR
LOL -- I've been thinking that a "meetup" could be fun but is everyone going to sitting in their cars and seeing who goes in before they commit like some kind of a speed dating event?
Maybe it will have to be a costume party. I'm going as the "Unknown Comic" from The Gong Show.
Allegro & Rincon,
Ok, I know I came across a little harsh on this subject but it is out of a concern to see the right thing happen.
Thanks for correcting about FT, I just heard it wrong. The roundabout is only the first example of what UCSB thinks is important over offering half the amount to mitigate their building plan to the city that has to support it in perpetuity.
Right in the plan they admit that they only surveyed a small amount of UCSB personnel as far as their desire for this housing. What if they build it and nobody comes? The $100 million is not a red herring if you do some loose math as to project cost and ultimate revenue from selling. I'm at least trying to use facts to support an argument and just not saying "trust UCSB, it'll all be good man". See, like Sara, I remember the campus back when and it didn't need all these upgrades to become a world reknown school. It seems a bit much and out of character with this area especially. Davis and Irvine have plenty of room to expand, UCSB does not.
The N. Campus project is close but not in my backyard. I've used that property for close to 20 years as a beautiful getaway to bike and walk to the sunset and generally just commune with nature. It is one of the very few places close to town that one can go and enjoy silence and natural beauty with little intrusion. I know the property is privately owned and zoned for residential. That zoning took into consideration that Phelps road would be widen and put through to Santa Barbara Shores. That won't happen now due to the preserve. I don't think that UCSB cares to take that into consideration and has literally said that the traffic is the neighborhoods problem to deal with.
I question the validity of using a 17 year old LRDP as any basis of community input. Many things about the area has changed since then. One thing that happens as you get older is you see the results of "plans" well after the fact when certain promises are not kept and generally things don't turn out as expected. We're not talking about a business plan sold to investors or some product RD program here. We're talking about a permenent change to a unique piece of land that could have very bad effects and would be irreversable. A large contigent of people came together to buy the land for the reserve and I think that says a lot about what the community thinks is valuable...and massive housing projects ain't it.
We don't have that much space left in this town and it would be better for all if we balance job growth with housing or we run the risk of a meltdown in lifestyle. UCSB can't take over all the existing space because they just don't produce enough jobs or revenue. I'm not trying to dispect education, the campus is in fact something we are proud of here. Just want them to rein it in some and not be so self centered about their goals.
sa1... faculty in UCSB housing pay property taxes, 100%, but receive no local law enforcement services (UC Police police UC housing) nor road upkeep, which constitute the largest fractions of a local budget. All public works expenses, including roads, in faculty housing is paid for out of homeowners' association fees paid for not by UCSB, but by the faculty from their salaries. That situation has been in place for 20 years at the UCSB faculty housing.
UCSB acquired its campus in 1948, before any subdivision in Goleta outside of Old Town and Isla Vista was laid out. Isla Vista was subdivided in 1925/26 and was developed by its 500 or so pre-UCSB property owners in accordance with their desires for rental income. Commitment to property rights is strong around here, and UC refrained from condemning the land in IV and taking it.
It is Goleta that is out of character with UCSB, not the other way around. Without UCSB, the urban limit line would be at the 154, which, come to think of it, would not be half bad. But remember... locals lobbied like crazy to bring UCSB here. The Regents, the State Legislature, and the Governor all stongly opposed the UCSB campus at the beginning. But Storke, Henderson, Chase, and Ward, backed up by unanimous local support brought the campus here; the UCSB campus was not dictated from on high to Santa Barbara. If you've moved here since 1948 and have decided UCSB is out of character was some theoretical idea of how Goleta ought to be, you are flip-flopping.
The UCSB campus was never finished, however, because of the bank burning and related strife between Reagan and UC in the late 1960's. The campus is still not finished, and has severe deficits of instructional and research space, compared to statewide standards. The deficits are not due to growth in students... enrollment is capped.
The vast majority of the North Campus land will be open space. How was doing that self centered on the part of UCSB? How was opposing Clearview self centered on UCSB's part? Lots of oil royalty money would have flowed to UCSB from that project.
UCSB has spun off a lot of companies in this area. Most communities in the state long for a UC campus because of the jobs, arts, culture, and revenue they bring... Modesto is the latest example. It is only in Goleta that locals virulently oppose UC. The cities of San Diego and Davis work rather well with there campuses; Irvine has 1100 units of staff and faculty housing. Riverside loves their Campus. Even Berkeley, SF and LA are more positive than Goleta. Perhaps Santa Cruz is similar to Goleta, but boy, what different politics Santa Cruz has.
Why? I think it is the segregation of the UCSB campus from Goleta. The Goleta Slough (now the Airport) segregates the IV/UCSB community from Goleta, and has caused both sides to dig in and fight, and not understand each other. Oddly enough, when there are cultural events such as lectures and concerts at UCSB, it is folks from the City of Santa Barbara that come. Goletans just cannot cross the Slough.
ER- Thanks for the backround, interesting but ultimately irrelevent. The question is how do we move forward from here. The project paying for it's own internal roads is fine but doesn't address the impact to the surrounding neighborhoods or general safty concerns. The construction equipment alone will cause abnormal wear. The construction and disruption to the neighbors and wildlife will last for 4 years per the plan as presented. I'm sure part of the "virulent" reaction is based on the build out we see south of us in SFV, Simi, Moorpark and the general deterioration of sensible planning in LA. It's why people are so willing to pay up to live in SB. Perhaps in the past 1948 LLRDP they didn't anticipate LA becoming such a crowded cesspool, or Goleta Valley being an enclave of rational planning that is devoid in SoCal today. We're not out of touch, we're setting the pace. You may not have gotten so much flack if you'd approached it differently. Something smaller and lower profile with a better argument for why it's all necessary would have helped your cause. BTW, the allusion that "you" have some rights, have some POV different than Goleta, is exactly the attitude I'm talking about. "You" are "us" UCSB is not a private corporation. "We" are the State. Figuratively, "You" serve at our pleasure. The 10 million you spent for the property is peanuts...How about you just donate the land to the preserve and be done with it.
I don't know about Campus research space et al but didn't seem to stop you from exceling and being on the top lists before. How about this approach, cut back the student population by 20% and you'd have plenty of room. Alternately, build a satellite campus in Ventura or Santa Ynez.
sa1... I'm not UCSB, don't work there, but I am a fan of the place.
The State of California would love it if UCSB would grow to 30,000 students from its current 20,000. The State of California has no love for no-growthers in Santa Barbara County... `you' in Goleta are by no means the State, you are tiny minority... less than 0.1% of the State population. The State sees the UCSB campus as a $2 billion investment that it deserves full continuing benefit from. The State of California never forgets that the Santa Barbara area begged and pleaded for a UC Campus, and could care less what the current generation of Goletans think; they think Goletans are darn lucky to have a UC Campus. Were it not for the pressure back from UCSB administrators and faculty to those with a Statewide perspective, the State of California would have already jammed a whole lot more students into UCSB, at least in the post-Reagan era.
It will always be much cheaper to expand UCSB than to start a satellite campus, particularly when the State looks at all the land UCSB has, and the development potential of Isla Vista. The State of California would call that good use of taxpayers dollars.
Goleta Valley an enclave of rational planning? I differ with that one. Isla Vista's planning was non-existent (it was subdivided before UCSB was moved from the Riviera to its current campus) as was that of Goleta Old Town. The Fairview/Calle Real/101 intersection is not rational at all. And who would have ever put an airport owned by another City in the middle of it.
Well ER, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree. I'm not sure who making less sense here but I do know it's all over but the crying. The housing project was presented to Goleta as fait accompli. I do think you're right about the regents not giving a crap about what Goletans feel about things...'cause after all, we're just a bunch of truck drivin', illeducated, stubborn bumpkins out here.
As a current resident of part of UCSB's housing not intended for undergraduates, and potential future owner of one of UCSB's contentious expansions, I say thank you all for making my family feel welcomed here.
It continually amazes me the disdain that Goletans have for families like ours. Someone at UCSB forgot to let us in on this nice little feature of their community when they courted us and got us to become part of the University.
sa1... you aren't really in to presenting facts and arguments beyond your emotions. BTW, it is not just the Regents, it is the State Legislature, the Governor, and most of the educational bureaucracy in the State.
If anything, the local UCSB folks have taken more hits from above to try to protect the South Coast then they have taken from the locals. Of course the locals mistake the UCSB administrators and faculty for the State folks that want extreme expansion. So the UCSB administrators form a delightful lightening rod for the State folks, who hide in Sacramento.
verdant... lots of people love UCSB, like me. It is just that the blogs and public meetings generally attract gripers. And it's always hard to deal with people who unknowingly have grown rich on UCSB's presence, but then deny UCSB's role and in fact attack UCSB. Well, there are anti-University folks in other communities too, it is just that the fight is so stark here, in my opinion, because of the segregation of UCSB and IV from Goleta.
Verdant, there's no need for you to take it personal. I'm sure you're not trying to say you're snubbed at the grocery story or at the little league game. But outside of your desire for affordable housing, do you think it's appropriate to use that property(I'm sure you've been out there) for a large housing developement? If you lived in the neighborhoods surrounding, would you think it was ok? Do all my arguments sound unjustified? I'm just asking...
ER- You may think that I'm irrationally emotional about the issue but as you've seen on the news for the last four years, people will even go to war over protecting their homes and neighborhoods. This issue, of course, doesn't rise to that level but you get my drift. I really don't have a problem with UCSB rebuilding the campus if that's what they need to do. There's not enough room to house 20000 let alone the 30000 we know may be coming, so where do we draw the line? I doubt you even live here so I'm not even sure what axe you have to grind with me.
You seem to have a lot of archane knowledge of uni politics, where does that come from and can you tell me who actualy sets the 20000 student limit? I've heard it was the appointees of the costal commission?
And one last thing ER and I'm done on this. You apparently think rich is all about money. You're sadly mistaken there. The homeowners here aren't "rich" because of UCSB, They're rich because they've protected this area for decades and now the newcomers with money are willing to buy them out at high prices. The owners aren't rich until they sell and move out.
Sa1 - the 20,000 limit came from the 1990 LRDP, and is a limit based on student full-time-equivalent computed with a certain formula that I've never seen. BTW, Santa Barbara City College has no such limit, and there has been a huge increase in City College students since 1990... City College students have nearly doubled, while UCSB enrollment has only increased by 25%. The out-of-area City College students have flooded Isla Vista. Goletans and slow-growth advocates have totally been asleep at the wheel at monitoring City College growth, and misdirected their anger at UCSB.
I don't judge richness by dollars alone, although as I said, were it not for UCSB the urban limit line would be at the 154 and not at Winchester Canyon, and probably your house would not even exist.
UCSB is an incredible cultural resource, bringing folks from Aldous Huxley (in the 1950's) to Yo-Yo Ma (in the 2000's) to Campus, providings plays and music, an incredible library, sports, and intellect to the Goleta area. Without UCSB, we'd just have a small village of Old Town Goleta, IV would have a bunch of summer-type houses, and otherwise it would look like the Gaviota Coast. Would not be half bad, but the suburban subdivisions of Goleta filled with resentful, angry, anti-UCSB homeowners wouldn't be here.
Too bad the Goleta ranchers of the 1940's did not put all their land into a trust, so Goleta's development could have been totally stopped. The ranchers wanted big bucks from development, and that's probably why you got your wonderful Goleta home. And of course now you can strongly oppose the kind of development that already exists (I think that UCSB project near you has a *lower* density than Cannon Green), and say that Goleta's tract homes are a planning nirvana.
ER- Thanks for the discourse, I've learned some things. It seems to be your argument that UCSB has Manifest Destiny rights to the Goleta Valley. Mine is that the somewhat unique nature of our community demands more respect from those who want to change it.
The urban boundry line is a sophistic point at best. Many other opportunities for rezoning would have come along during the past 50 years to start the development.
I just read the piece in The Independent about the IV master plan dated Mar 15. The comments added struck a cord with me. I feel even more strongly that the real answer and the root of the problem is that UCSB is overpopulated with students. This is the beauracracies fault at all levels. I'm not anti-uni at all by the way. I think the campus is being ill served by "the state" and you cant grow the problem away by building on Devereux or the north campus site. It'll just waste both. 19000 people in IV is the root problem and your right about City College. The CC growth, I'm sure has to do with UCSB advertising CC as a cheaper alternative by their liberal credit transfer policy. They've literally seconded the CC campus in that sense. Just more examples of the student population being a significant problem in the whole area.
Thanks for listening, I feel better getting it off my chest. Party on Garth :-P
sa1 - thanks for the discussion too. No, I don't think UCSB has manifest destiny rights to the Goleta Valley. I just don't agree with the standard Goleta homeowner view that UCSB is a blight and a threat. I also think the whole existence of post-WWII suburban subdivisions in Goleta is due to UCSB.
There is still a lot of Ag near Ventura and Oxnard, and Goleta might well have remained Ag if UCSB (as well as much of the `smokeless' industry that came due to UCSB) had never come.
The comments to the Master Plan in the Independent were remarkably vague. No actual numbers for UCSB's growth were given, just the emotional rant that it is UCSB's growth that fills IV.
CC has filled IV in the past 10 years, not UCSB. Further, IV has 3,000 family residents, whose wage earners for the most part do low-wage service work for Goletans. Why can't Goleta house its own service workers? Why must Goleta' service workers be housed in an already crowded environment in IV? Perhaps Goleta should house its own service workers on its spacious Bishop Ranch, thus alleviating the crowded conditions in IV that disturb Goleta homeowners.
CC is completely autonomous in determining its enrollment levels. UCSB's acceptance of transfers is totally dictated by the State Legislature, not by local UCSB authorities. If you really want to influence the growth of student residents in IV, bug your *elected* Santa Barbara Community College District Board of Trustees (there are seven of them + one student appointed Trustee) to control the amazing growth of SBCC. They are:
Mr. Luis A. Villegas
Ms. Joan M. Livingston
Dr. Kathryn O. Alexander
Dr. Joe W. Dobbs
Mrs. Sally D. Green
Mr. Morris M. Jurkowitz
Dr. Desmond O'Neill
Ms. Jessica Schley (student)
http://www.sbcc.edu/boardoftrustees/index.php?sec=99
Odd how when there are elected officials who are flooding IV with new residents, no angry Goleta homeowners, blog proprietors (including Sara DLG), journalists, or Ex-IV activists even care... they all focus on complaining about their lack of influence with the Regents of UC, not their ability to elect slow-growth Trustees of the SBCCD.
Remember, SBCC enrollment has nearly doubled since 1990, while UCSB's has not grown by 25%.
"Remember, SBCC enrollment has nearly doubled since 1990, while UCSB's has not grown by 25%."
Well, A plague on both their houses.
I'm not sure where in all your discussion you defend the impact to the local neighborhood by the n. campus housing project. The streets there are already overcrowded with parking problems. The project may be lower in density but still additive to an existing problem. There are plenty of students in those Canon Green Condos with multiple cars because they share the units.
I still feel that this area is being forced to "take one for the team" because UC needs more space. I can't understand why they can't offer a cash rental subsidy to the new recruits or simply find recruits with the means to afford rental or purchase their own housing or commute like all others who wish to work here. In the speil we got, they never said anything about means testing for the units. The whole premise behinds this seems ripe for abuse and we'll all suffer for it.
sa1 - well, for SBCC there are locally elected officials who oversaw the steep increase in students... Yet locals never hold them accountable... instead, you rant and rave about alleged lack of control over the Regents.
The increase in UCSB students is similar to the increase in other South Coast population since 1990. Since 1970, UCSB enrollment has increased less than general South Coast population. Seems to me like the Regents listen pretty well to local concerns... the slackers are the SBCCD trustees.
North Campus? I think faculty at UCSB drive a whole lot less than most folks, and that is documented for the existing West Campus housing. The West IV homeowners get along great with the faculty at West Campus. Also documented is that students have never been allowed to reside in the existing West Campus housing.
You can thank your avaricious neighbors who stuff their condos with UCSB students for the almighty dollars. Talk to the condo owners to address the impact of those UCSB students. If all Goletans refused to rent to UCSB students, you'd not have any impact from them. But the force of the dollar is so strong that lots of Goletans sell out. Some even sell their condos straight out to parents of UCSB students.
The delightful free market at work. Why not pursue those who profit (the condo owners) instead of blaming UCSB?
Interesting Blog.
I am sorry I only just saw it now. I own a home in the adjacent community and have been fighting this awful project for several years.
What we object to is UCSB building in a way that no private developer would be allowed to. This project is taller, denser and has less parking than any existing development in this community. Because they are the State, they do not need our permission to build and yes, the residents would pay some property taxes, but that $$ will not come to Goleta. The property taxes they will pay, will be based on the construction costs only and will exclude the value of the land. They will also not be paying federal or state income tax on this subsidy.
I can't speak for my neighbors, but if UCSB was willing to build a smaller number of quality single family residences with adequate parking, make up the tax shortfall to the City of Goleta and provide us with a proper coastal access path, I wouldn't object to the project. The problem is they are hell bent on packing too many units onto this beautiful piece of land. The result is no guaranteed coastal access, three story buildings, not enough parking, and some very pissed off neighbors who feel their private property rights are being trampled. How would you feel if you were told you couldn't build a second story on your home and yet a few blocks away UCSB can build a three story complex that looks like it belongs in LA not SB?
Verdant Sage was offended by the locals reactions. We have something beautiful and special here and we are willing to fight to protect it. It is nothing personal. VS supports this project because he/she hopes to financially gain from it. Unfortunately that gain will be on the backs of the local community.
We are not angry at the faculty, we are angry at an administration that is arrogant. At two separate meetings they told us that having faculty living nearby would improve the quality of our neighborhood. How patronizing, excuse me, but I bought my house at market rates and I didn't need a hand out to do it.
UCSB needs to be a good neighbor, and they don't do that by paving over wetlands and taking away coastal access.
Think of the future. From these days foward life as we no it will be a very delicate balancing act for growth, reason, education, and conservation. Without any one of these our environments and frenzied life styles will only become more so.
Develope...in a well planned reasoned way. THe main issue I have is the landscape, bluffs, ocean and beaches will pay a huge price for the impact of the develpoments at the two "north" propesed campuses and the developement at Devereux. With more young people (read: potential housing or classrooms) at Devereux comes more beach impact, trash, reckless actions triggering more regulations and closures of beaches. Kiss your unregulated devereux beach goodbye, say hello to heavily monitored, trashed, un-dog friendly and over "plovered" protected beach.
Post a Comment
<< Home