Santa Barbara Politics, Media & Culture

Monday, August 13, 2007

POLITICAL PLAY of the WEEK: Helene Schneider Calls their Blue Line Bluff

Now that Silly Season is upon us with the deadline last Friday for the 11 Santa Barbara City Council candidates who filed their papers, this Citizen Stringer will strive each week (posted sometime Friday through Sunday) to declare a Political Play of the Week up through the upcoming local election in November. A Political Play of the Week was a regular feature by CNN up through a couple of years ago, so Blogabarbara now can feel free to emulate that catchy title.

Like the CNN tradition, and the Time magazine Person of the Year, the Political Play of the Week can be a brilliant move to score points, or it can be a fumble, by either heroes or villains. The Play also can be a cultural or social outcome for Santa Barbara, and not purely political.

This first Political Play of the Week was a move that surprised the chorus of whiners --believed to be Travis Armstrong and his three friends-- who throughout most of July and early August had been just soooo concerned about the $12,000 budgetary item for City of Santa Barbara to support the blogubiquitous Light Blue Line project. The City pisses away money barely tracked to the nearest $120,000 to know what good was gained by the spending, so all that righteous indignation about the mere 12 Grand was becoming a curious hyperventilation that unfortunately was not also reducing the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Schneider’s Play of the Week simply was to get the $12,000 of original City funds replaced by private donor(s) giving directly to the Blue Line project as a nonprofit organization. It was a simple, elegant, stealthy move that broke as news as the top banner headline in the Tuesday issue of Santa Barbara Daily Sound, and then was news chased by KEYT. News released on Tuesday also fits perfectly with the weekly news cycle for the Independent, and the Angry Poodle ran with it, Big Time, highlighting the hypocrisy of this fabricated controversy.

In her original statement published at Edhat news, Helene concluded: “the debate about the lightblueline project should be about climate change, not whether City funds are being used. So now that topic is off the table.

And that actually has fell off the table since Schneider’s announcement last Tuesday. Only a small fraction of the choruses of Anonymity still have jabbed as late as Saturday that the city should have other spending priorities even though that spending no longer is necessary. However, the Cheneyesque naysayers --such as Dale Francisco, who just filed his candidacy and who wants Schneiders office-- now have been exposed and are resorting to a basic denial that global warming is the modern reality, all in their quest to keep arguing against whatever the City Council is doing that week or month.

Francisco had an exceedingly long opinion piece about all that published, of course, in the News-Press the prior Sunday, August 8. He wrote mis- or dis-information about the scientific estimates for the rate of the Greenland ice melt and its effect, coincidently the same week that Newsweek (no liberal rag) made its cover article an analysis of the well-funded Denial Machine that has been operating for many years about global warming.

This may be Silly Season, and a lot more of the frothy schtick of climate denial undoubtedly still will be spewed about the Light Blue Line project during the next few weeks. For all this silliness, though, it all seems like Helene Schneider will be getting the last laugh as she cruises --with admittedly a few days of choppy seas-- to reelection for a second term on City Council, and with the highest number of votes as well.

And that’s the Political Play of the Week.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sara--- why these long, obscure posts from someone named citizen stringer? I'm finding myself less interested in visiting blogabarbara.

I mean, this post is nothing more than a blatant, free campaign ad. I like Helene as much as the next person but sheesh, isn't this a bit over the top?

8/13/2007 7:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Schneider et al miss the point entirely. It was far more than the money; it was the incredible stupidity of the project in the first place that has triggered civic wrath.

No, Schneider is not off the hook just by getting private funding. She still has a light blue noose around her electoral neck and it will be an easy sell to the voters this year to paint all incumbents with similar light blue lines, against the backdrop of gang slayings and tall buildings.

You have a triad of very serious conservative and competent opposition in the upcoming city council races .... that did not come out of the woodwork. You all just failed to sniff which ways the winds have been blowing in this city for a while now.

Wasn't that long ago someone pooh-poohed even the suggestion there was a new constituency ready to act, and now you have it. Take it seriously this time.

And incumbents, prove to us you care about private property rights of those who live here more than you care about slackers and commuters. Starting now .... and counting. Remember what the new slate did to Goleta when voters finally got fed up.

The Blue Line (which again you dismiss as a real political blunder) is just the straw that broke the camel's back. Please review the lessons from that story if you want to invest in your own political survival.

D*mn, we are mad you sold us all down the river for the past several years.

So if you are smart you will stop scolding us about not liking the stupid BlueLine and listen to the deep frustration behind it.

We know candidates Hotchkiss and Cooper will listen. Thank goodness and they will probably join us down at the Blue Line with cement colored paint buckets bringing an end to this sorry and misguided project

8/13/2007 2:56 PM  
Anonymous Taxpayers Association said...

Sara, we have a different take on this than many of those who have spoken out against it.

As you know, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires public agencies to take responsibility for protecting the environment. And as you also know, the purpose for an environmental review is to identify significant impacts to the environment from a project, identify alternatives to the project and indicate the manner in which the significant impacts can be mitigated or avoided altogether.

Santa Barbara City Councilman, Grant House, called the light blue line a "provocation for discussion" and therefore is the right thing to do. Fair enough, but has it not occurred to him, or anyone else on the City Council, including your "political power player of the week", that the "light blue line" could also serve to push future development out of the area of the city, south of the blue line, and into areas of the city north of the blue line? What are the potentially negative environmental impacts, for those areas of the city north of the blue line, as a result of this well intended exercise in provocative conversation?

That is what is at issue here and why, if the Council doesn't reverse their decision until they have completed a full environmental review, there needs to be a legal challenge to this discretionary decision on environmental grounds.

This issue isn't about global warming or the implications of global warming. And with all due respect to Helene, who I happen to like very much, this isn't even about the misuse of taxpayer money, even though this would have been a clear misuse of taxpayer money.

Indeed, because of the amount of time some members of the council and city staff have already spent studying this issue, it already amounts to a misuse of taxpayer resources, regardless of how much private dollars Helene raises to pay for the paint, brushes, etc., from this point forward.

This issue is about the Santa Barbara City Council complying with CEQA, and the accountability and transparency that local citizens enjoy when government plays by the same rules they impose on everyone else.

Joe Armendariz
Executive Director
SB County Taxpayers Association

8/13/2007 4:28 PM  
Blogger johnsanroque said...

Sometimes I like Blogabarbara because its contributors provide information that I can’t get elsewhere. I’m hoping someone can provide information from the perspective of those who seem to believe global warming is not serious. I’m guessing that it’s those people who are the ones complaining loudly about the Blue Line project.

I understand why conservatives would be against the concept of global warming. Generally, they’re Republicans who steadfastly support big business, and that includes, of course, fossil fuel industries like oil companies. Conservatives have said that global warming is a plot by liberals, but I don’t understand exactly what the plot is.

When I see many, many scientists (including Nobel Laureates), environmentalists, and politicians from all countries agreeing that global warming is real and it is caused in large part by conditions that have been created by humans, I believe it. What would be the reason those people have to create a concern if they did not believe it? Is this another cabal by educated people from all over the world who are either just wrong or are against big oil? That makes no sense to me. Especially when the people speaking loudly against the concept of global warming are (in my opinion) truly ignorant ideologues like Limbaugh and others like him who have predictable knee-jerk reactions that always follow conservative, Republican models. I think even some oil companies and large industries have now said that action needs to be taken against global warming. I believe even Bush, who discusses science only when it supports his politics or religion, has admitted that global warming is a human-based problem.

So—my question. Why are some people so opposed to the concept of global warming? And for what reason do you think it is something being pushed by liberals?

8/13/2007 5:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Newsweek ISN'T a liberal rag? News to me.

8/13/2007 6:07 PM  
Anonymous not falling for the spinner said...

The false and specious assertion that anyone who expresses opposition (or bemusement) at the ridiculousness of the "blueline project" doubts the existence of global warming is ridiculous. Poor logic. Not true. It's sort of tantamount to saying that anyone who opposes the Iraq war, or questions the tactics of the military is somehow unpatriotic or "supporting the terrorists" ; same, tired logic.

And I venture to say that those posting the "flat earth [or no global warming] theories" are the blueline supporters posing in a poorly veiled attempt to discredit the blueline critics.

keep tryin', citizen spinner, uh I mean citizen stringer, keep tryin'....

8/13/2007 6:42 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

racjax -- I can't have comments thatr mention who you think I am whether you are right or wrong. Sorry about that.

7:21 Anon -- I will let CS answer that...but generally CS's posts have been shorter in the past and I am sure your feedback is welcome.

8/13/2007 6:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It would be a huge mistake to claim all those opposed to the Blue Line are anti-global warming. Just the opposite in fact.

We are outraged the city council trivialized this issue, gave no leadership, put in false evidence and gave no guidance.

The city council is not getting off just painting a stupid blue line and call it their best efforts for global warming education.

If they are serious about global warming and the blue line, someone else already told them what to do -- build a gal-darn sea wall if they want us to take them seriously.

And since they are not planning a bond issue to build that sea wall, NO ONE is taking them or their silly blue tine seriously. Putting a band-aid on it at the last minute and calling it "art" is an insult.

If anyone on the council still thinks this issue stimulated "provocative conversation" they had better worry about their own seats because the only conversation I have heard stimulated by this farce is throw the incumbents out.

For the record, I walk to most places,I reid my bike, I vote regularly and for candidates who put their environmental words into action, I recycle everything, years ago I got the best gas mileage, lowest pollution car out there before the hybrids, I conserve water, recycle waste water, I compost, shop locally, I use low energy light bulbs, don't run the water when I brush my teeth or shave. I live with solar water heating and photo-voltaic electricty production.


Please can the remaining old school lefties in this town get their collective heads out of the sand and stop treating anyone's opinion they don't like as if it came from a mutant cartoon character?

8/13/2007 7:11 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

Campaign comments are so transparent! But, as Helene is mentioned and she is up for re-election this will I saw a sign on a telephone poll on Garden saying I needed to check Google Video out for the truth on global warming, why the emphasis on a small percentage of "scientists"....they may have some points but why risk it?

8/13/2007 7:16 PM  
Blogger Citizen Stringer said...

Some of these comments are not getting the main point. Silly Season has now begun and my Political Play of the Week is a new feature I hope to maintain. So if somehow Blogabarbara comments have a word and column length limit, including space taken up by pictures, this first edition of Play of the Week may seem long because the concept had to be introduced with a few more paragraphs.

This is political analysis and commentary. If someone does not like that, they can watch Fox News instead or read the News-Press. If Schneider shaved her head and danced naked on the dais, and it had some big political effect, that too would likely qualify for the Political Play of the Week, but as a fumble, not points scored.

By in my analysis of myriad blog comments and newspaper letters since last Tuesday, I have concluded that the whining about the City spending $12,000 on The Line has morphed mainly into classic denial of global warming and the scientific models, because the financial angle just evaporated.

The Political Play of the Week will cover any issue, candidate, mover, shaker, hero, or villain who deserves it based on political effect. Just because Helene Schneider earned that distinction this week hardly makes this a spin machine. Iya Falcone could be next for Play of the Week, but I am sure we all hope not simply because she shaves off her new hairdo and dances naked, on the dais at least.

We have a lot of weeks until the November election. Pace yourselves, people.

As for the comment by Taxpayer Joe, my thanks to him as well for introducing that, uh, most unique perspective on the severe policy and legal implications of the Blue Line. As far as I can tell, his point there had not been published anywhere else. Blogabarbara got first dibs.

8/13/2007 8:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I repeat: opposing the Blue Line is not a denial of global warming.

It is just opposing the city council taking this course of action on this particular project. Period. It does no good leaping to conclusions about other motivations.

Just like leaping to the conclusions that opposition to the "affordable housing" land grab comes only from Anglo elitists.

Assuming *anything* about another poster other than their words on the page is folly.

I hope we see less and less and less of this on this forum which can serve as a very valuable forum for the exchange of ideas ....where we all learn from other people's reasoned perspectives.

8/13/2007 8:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Citizen Stringers offensive comments concerning another councilwoman really do take this blog to a new low, Sara......

8/13/2007 9:15 PM  
Blogger Bill Carson said...

I don't care if it's tax money or funding from public contributions, waste is waste.

As an honest taxpayer, I'd prefer to see every pothole filled, every sidewalk repaired, and every sewer line made leak-free before my tax dollar is spent on one more pet Council project. Did Helene ever think to ask if the Police Department needed more funding? Or is a blue line more important than public safety? Did she check to see if the Fire Department needed an emergency operations center? Or are they still going to 'make do' without the tools they need to protect us?

As for the public contribution switch-er-oo, maybe that limited supply of money could be better spent on food and shelter for the homeless. Or after-school programs for our at-risk youth and wanna-be gangsters.

Come on Helene! You and your six compadres need to get your priorities straight! Money, be it tax money or donated dollars, is a limited resource. Until you can say that every citizen in this city is safe, and healthy, and warm at night....then how in the world can you justify spending a penny for some stupid blue paint?!

8/13/2007 9:27 PM  
Anonymous drink your own whiskey! said...

So then as I understand the Taxpayers Association's position, they are saying this environmental initiative should have an environmental review before implementation. So what is wrong with that?

8/13/2007 9:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Joey the anti-tax man

you could do a lot for the global warming cause simply by not driving your suv up dead end roads at 10:30pm to blow off steam

oh and could you ask your friend travis to do the same on santa barbara st.?

me and my bike coalition friends get a little scared when drunks take turns going so fast they flip their cars. Oh and where were you going???

8/13/2007 10:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:54pm - said - "I repeat: opposing the Blue Line is not a denial of global warming."

right then choose a better spokesman than travis and the newspress who a week before admonished the city for banning bottled water. now that's an environmentally friendly position to take.

8/13/2007 10:10 PM  
Anonymous First District Streetfighter said...

How would an environmental review under CEQA work for a temporary public art project? Has a temporary art project ever, anywhere, affected property values?

If people do not like public art because it makes them think too hard, then just admit that and move on. Do we have to dumb down Santa Barbara culture that much?

What frightens me is all the imagery of those city council members dancing naked with their hair shaved off. BTW, the only one who writes "councilwoman" is Travisty Factswrong himself.

Does this now mean that Armendariz will not get his creative CEQA theories printed in the News-Less?

8/13/2007 10:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with 9:15. But this blog has a long history( Leaky Foulcone) of slamming anyone who isn't the "Progressive" darling of the moment. It didn't work before and it won't work now. But it doesn't make it any less shameful. And by the way, I like Helene Schneider. Just lose the progressive faux Karl Rove's, they don't work here Helene.

8/13/2007 10:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As we are posting on this blog a 100,000 acre fire is threatening our community and at least a dozen firefighters have been injured trying to keep us safe.

Perhaps Helene Schneider would have made a better political "play" if she had chosen to raise money for the injured firefighter's medical bills?

In recent years, but particularly in the last few months there has been deadly gang violence taking place in Santa Barbara.

Why couldn't Helene raise money on behalf of programs that will help kids stay away from gangs?

It seems strange that this behavior would warrant a "play of the week?"

People want their leaders to demonstrate maturity and common sense. How can anyone say painting a light blue line should take precedence over keeping our children and our community safe?

8/14/2007 12:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Global Warming is not as simple as one would like to believe. As it is at least two issues - is the earth going to get warmer? And what is the cause?

If we cannot tell what the weather is this weekend - how can the so called experts be so positive what the weather will be in 5, 10, 20 years? And who is to say the weather today or 30 years ago was perfect?

And what is the cause? One would start by looking at the source of heat to earth - the sun and the increase in sun spots over the past decade.

I find it interesting that progressives have two approaches to Global Warming: 1. It's fact. 2. If you do not agree with them then you are nuts.

Very progressive.

Last, it is also very progressive on this blog how some progressives treat others. As I read this I love that instead of responding with facts or opinion - their are too many here who just attack the source and the person -.

8/14/2007 6:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is a compromise.

1. Paint the blue line only on State Street and forget about polluting the rest of the city because they are not high traffic areas for all our tourists from Outer Slobovia who (gasp) may not yet have heard about global warming.

2. Post a picture of our smiling city council (minus Roger Horton, but with Helene front and center) who voted for the blue line letting people who walk by it know the following:

a)this is an inaccurate representation of a potential water line if Greenland melts

b)presented by someone with admitted no scienctific background to make this determination, let alone its timing

c) foisted on the city by an unaccountable non-profit group interested in free fundraising advertising on city streets at our expense

d) this is brought to you in the interest of "art" and not science

e) and a list of actions the city is taking to change their impact on the environment, with a personal pledge by each city council member of what they will for the next 2 years do every single day in their own lives with means of verificiation that the blue line exists to halt global warming that we all have to look at.

I could live with that.

8/14/2007 8:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Helene Schneider is going to use the private funding of the blue line as a campaign issue in the futile attempt to look like a leader. But her four years of ignoring the regular folks in favor of one wonky project after another to somehow benefit the downtrodden at the expense of the rest of us is not a great track record on which to run. Four, er, five more years of this? no way.

8/14/2007 9:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

* Maybe a reconsideration by the Landmarks Committee - this blue line is historic as it should have been painted in the 1920's.

Before Gore

D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."

The 1922 article, obtained by Inside the Beltway, goes on to mention "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."

"This was one of several such articles I have found at the Library of Congress for the 1920s and 1930s," says Mr. Lockwood. "I had read of the just-released NASA estimates, that four of the 10 hottest years in the U.S. were actually in the 1930s, with 1934 the hottest of all."

8/14/2007 9:55 AM  
Blogger jqb said...

"If we cannot tell what the weather is this weekend - how can the so called experts be so positive what the weather will be in 5, 10, 20 years? And who is to say the weather today or 30 years ago was perfect?

And what is the cause? One would start by looking at the source of heat to earth - the sun and the increase in sun spots over the past decade.

These questions have been answered by hundreds of scientists in thousands of peer reviewed articles in scientific journals. The ignorance of some anonymous poster on a blog doesn't change the fact that anthrogenic climate change, above and beyond anything caused by sunspots, is a well demonstrated fact.

8/14/2007 10:01 AM  
Blogger jqb said...

A good guideline is to be for anything Joe Armendariz or Andy Caldwell are against and against anything they are for -- you're really not likely to go wrong with that approach.

8/14/2007 10:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We can't afford to tolerate you climate criminals committing terracide much longer! Crimes against the earth are very serious and should be pursued that way. This may be the only way we can stop Global Warming!!!

The blue line will make you aware, but if you continue to deny Global Warming you will have to face serious consequences for the good of community earth.

8/14/2007 10:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you want to get people up in arms, declare that the value of their homes is lower than what the market will currently pay. Me thinks that this is what this whole thing is really about. Pointing out that somebody's home will be underwater in a few years, fact or fiction, is a surefire way to draw ire. Especially in a town where our entire GDP is land based. Everybody that has been able to stay in this town is either a developer, real estate agent or mortgage broker.

Think of the fun that's going to happen when the sea levels really start to noticeably rise. Imagine the junk that's going to go down in Florida, where the whole state is pretty much at sea level.

If I were you, I would go get a good view from the mountains, but not too high. You might be on the wrong side of the fire line.

8/14/2007 11:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look at the pretty blue line everyone, and ignore every other threat to this city and its inhabitants.

8/14/2007 12:38 PM  
Anonymous instigator said...

These drive by liberal cowards who attack Joe and Andy anonymously are obviously afraid to debate them publicly. I understand; it's a fate worse than death.

8/14/2007 7:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Intersting to see the post above you that proves years in the '30s were hottest on record.

And I love it that every scientist who questions the source of any global warming in the '30s or today must be wrong or biased, yet those who at the same time dismiss and ignore the only source of heat for the earth and proof that sun spots in the '30s and in recent times have impacted the earth temp are always right and not biased.

It is such a ego center thought that man can solve global warming caused by the sun yet those who claim it have the largest carbon footprint.

8/14/2007 8:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The mayor and city council flying to all those out of town conferences creates the biggest carbon footprint in the entire city.

8/15/2007 12:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The biggest threat to Santa Barbara are conservatives!

They don't care about anything and turn their backs on the Global Warming Crisis.

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

The biggest threat to Santa Barbara are pseudo-science feel-good Lefties. Your era is over. Time to bring back common sense and this will be a strong theme of the upcoming election. And that is a platform NO sitting incumbent will be able to defend.

8/15/2007 8:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Conservatives care about conserving.

Conserving tax dollars for their most effective and equitable use, not wasting tax dollars on special interest groups and public employee union demands.

Conserving the quality of life for the residents of Santa Barbara, not concocting housing schemes for those who do not live here.

Conserving the environment by living responsibly within our limits and not promising all things to all people.

Conservatives care about what is happening now to those living and voting right now first and foremost, and then also for the lives of those who come after.

Conservatives expect their elected officials to honor the issues they supported when they campaigned to get those conservative votes.

Conservatives honor private property rights and free markets which always must be kept in mind when exercising municipal power that regulates for the common good.

Conservatives understand this is a zero sum game and they are part of the whole. It bad government badly affects conservatives, it affects us all because we are all part of the whole. This is something the current council has not understood.

I was a liberal who got mugged. I am now a conservative. And conserving Santa Barbara is now my highest priority.

8/15/2007 10:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Try moving to Bakersfield. I heard they like conservatives. Why live in Santa Barbara where conservatives are not wanted or welcome?

8/16/2007 5:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I wish I had said it so well.

I too was a liberal.

8/16/2007 11:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:01 I was surprised when I stuck my own finger up to the prevailing winds to find so many other former liberals who also now consider themselves far more conservative and protectionist of what we have and have no interest in giving it all away to special interest groups who make the most noise before the city council.

I wonder why those sitting on the council now did not sense this seismic shift that has been going on under their noses. Perhaps that is why - they were looking down their noses at us even when they saw us.

With as many city council candidates running in a 3 spot race and not just fringe nut case candidates this time, but very credible alternative choices, at least one incumbent will lose, maybe more.

I think Das is going to take the fall, which would be a shame in the long run because he has the most growth potential and could serve well in Sacramento. Barnwell can sound better than he has, when he needs to. Big choice - which one has ruffled the most feathers.

Das bailing out on his first term to run for County Sup always bodes badly in the next re-election attempt - too much of a voter betrayal. He has the most distance to cover in getting re-elected.

Helene is a neutral woman which will help deflect the very specific criticism she has earned.

She can at least take the passionate high-road and as a woman, can get away with it better than the guys. This is expected of women, earned or not. But the others are too tainted in the public record.

The only unknown factor at this time is whether the conservatives will run as a slate, or at least as a team.

The only way to really make an immediate difference is to get at least all three spots in new hands and hope Horton becomes the common sense swing vote. This needs to be really sold to all the voters who sincerely want change now and do not want to wait.

I hope the first thing the new council does is toss out that total insane land grab that just got unanimous approval last Tuesday - all duplexes and over now must include one affordable unit or else the developer has to pay the city $300K plus.

Please tell me how this will lead to affordable housing when the developer has to shell out $300K right off the top?

8/16/2007 8:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

5:57AM: Conservatives don't have to move to Bakersfield. We can afford to live here and don't need city handouts.

To us, all houses in Santa Barbara have been affordable. We are here. We are invested in our million dollar plus homes.

And we vote. Early and often.

8/16/2007 8:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Helene might be laughing now, bet she won't be in mid-November. Her vision for Santa Barbara, from inviting hordes of homeless people to get comfortable here to scrawling lines throughout the town just doesn't fit here. She had her chance and failed; time to make way for someone else. Not conservative, not liberal, just want to save my city.

8/16/2007 10:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Conservative exploit people. Why do you think we have so many homeless?

8/17/2007 8:22 AM  
Blogger Citizen Stringer said...

To sum up these few days of observations after my initial post five days ago on the Political Play of the Week, Helene Schneider indeed successfully completed a long pass and score points 10 days ago when she secured a private donation to replace the initial city payment of $12,000 for the Light Blue Line art project.

Since then, the money question has disappeard in the letters in local newspapers (both the credible and incredible ones) and the comments and subjects posted at several different blogs, just like Schneider predicted in her initial statement.

The public debate indeed has changed to topics of more substance, although some still are quite far-fetched, although amusing.

The discourse now is about:
1. Global warming itself like a faith;
2. Sea level elevation models, Surveying techniques and LIDAR;
3. Real estate price speculation if a hazard is marked literally on the ground;
4. Comparative land prices above versus below the Blue Line;
5.Environmental review analysis needed or not under CEQA;
6. Public policy about how local government should or should not be involved in temporary public art displays;
7. Bronze medallions or steel medallions;
8. Paper that uses more water and can damage old-growth forests, or plastic that uses more oil and consumes energy producing greenhouse gasses; and
9. City Council candidates and their records as incumbents or candidates and their promises as challengers.

Now if only this discourse and the blog comments throughout Blogabarbara and the Independent and elsewhere actually included some actual Council candidates with some gonads to comment honestly under their own name. Some of them or their clones obviously have been commenting here.

Look for the second Political Play of the Week to be posted during the next couple of days. As I have written before, the Play can score points or be a fumble, and can be designated for a hero or a villian, based on political effect, not popularism.

8/17/2007 10:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

citizen stringer -

the debate has been about one thing - who are those nutballs in city hall making stupid decisions while there are so many issues to face.

8/17/2007 2:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

its not hardly fair to ask a politician to post under their real name and subject them self to the venom that so often spews on this blog.

8/17/2007 3:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

People continue to talk around town about the city council and its misplaced priorities.

8/18/2007 8:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Homeless people exploit tax-paying conservatives. Over $30 million dollars a year in public services are provided for the homeless and it has done nothing but increase the problem.

It is time for the voluntary homeless (the voluntary mobile homeless, not the truly disabled homeless who need and already get society's generous safety net) to get a very different message from the powers that be in Santa Barbara - the door is closed, the no vacancy sign is lit, move on. Go be homeless by choice someplace else.

Even Helene admits her 10 year plan to "end homelessness" will affect 10-20% of the truly disabled, frail homeless to whom society does have a civic duty to provide for.

What irritates the heck out of people here are the hordes of voluntary homeless that exploit this town and yell wounded everytime well-meaning people strike out against them. They are the true exploiters of the system, and not the other way around.

Anyone running on the platform we have a duty to provide for the voluntary homeless who come for Santa Barbara handouts is going down to a swift and certain defeat. And it is time those candidates made it very clear which group it is helping and protecting and sending a very clear message to those voluntary homeless exploiters who it is not.

And don't even go close to that claim -"we are all one paycheck from being homeless" because the vast majority of those who vote here are not and do not ever expect to live so irresponsibly.

If you are only one paycheck from being homeless, you are chosing to live in the wrong town.

8/18/2007 2:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think you have that backwards, conservatives cause homelessness. We didn't have these problems when Clinton was President. NO! Now we have Global Warming, high house prices, and homelessness. Figure it out!

8/18/2007 6:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The new majority in this town which you just called "rich idiots" were closed out of the old NewsPress which had an ultraliberal bias always shoved in our faces even in allegedly fact based news reporting, let alone feature articles.

It is a breath of fresh air to finally get to read the other side of the story. And if you haven't noticed, Daily Sound presents a clearly more conservative slant as well. They knew these were the growing local demographics that had been getting sand-bagged by the old NewsPress.

8/18/2007 7:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wishful thinking maketh not a conservative town


8/19/2007 1:17 PM  
Anonymous blogiphorniacation said...

yep, the bushies are to blame for global warming, homelessness, housing inflation, west nile virus, the flu, traffic, the internet being down, nothing to watch on tv, lack of a led zep reunion, reality tv, disrespectful kids, house flies and bad breath.

8/19/2007 8:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

blogiphorniacation said...

yep, the bushies are to blame for global warming, homelessness, housing inflation, west nile virus, the flu, traffic, the internet being down, nothing to watch on tv, lack of a led zep reunion, reality tv, disrespectful kids, house flies and bad breath.

thats pretty Libs are pretty funny sometimes.

8/20/2007 7:54 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home