BlogaBarbara

Santa Barbara Politics, Media & Culture

Monday, May 05, 2008

Community Post: Is the Goleta City Council Majority the Best an LA County Developer Can Buy?

I've been meaning to do a post on Goleta City Council and the majority's kissing up to the proposed Bishop Ranch development for some time -- that would be Onnen, Bennett and Blois teaming up for a tour de development force. Luckily an avid reader beat me to it -- which I appreciate as I've been pretty busy lately...thanks for the help!

Sara

=============Community Post====================

Is the Goleta City Council Majority the best an LA County Developer can buy?

Or, how will 1000 new market-rate housing units, with no water, help Goleta "meet its housing needs?"

The would-be developer of Bishop Ranch has filed an application with City of Goleta to build 1195 residential units on this 240 acres. The LA County Developer seeks a General Plan amendment to change the property’s land-use designation from agriculture to a Specific Plan “Mixed-Use: Bishop Ranch.”

The proposal, received by the City April 16, mainly argues that the property’s agricultural zoning is incorrect and inappropriate, and, instead, that building this project would help the city meet its housing needs.

Among the proposals for the property for this phased, 10-year project are:

  • “approximately 1,195 residential units” consisting of high-density rentals, multi-family townhomes and condos, detached single-family homes, and “age-restricted” units for seniors; and
  • "up to" 240 units of "affordable" housing.

The developer team and their relatives contributed substantially to new Goleta Council Members Bennett and Onnen during the weeks prior to the November 2006 election, but, as quoted in Goleta Valley Voice, "both have said the money would not influence their decision-making."

Read all about it in Goleta Valley Voice, an opinion essay in The Santa Barbara Independent, and another look from the Indie.

Labels: ,

46 Comments:

Anonymous AN50 said...

We threw the No-Nothing-Never bums who used to run Goleta out by an overwhelming majority. What does that tell you? We are sick and tired that the only solution to problems on the south coast is doing nothing. Meanwhile UCSB grows unabated sucking up road capacity, water and housing along with our tax dollars and tax revenue generating industry packs up and leaves. Unbelievable lunacy!
So Bishop Ranch gets developed. Good God if you want to preserve it then buy it or move out. I’m sick and tired of hearing the selfish, self-centered, self absorbed “I got mine now close the gates” crowd belly aching about urban development inside the urban limits. You’re the same people who don’t want the Gaviota coast developed or anything else, for that matter. But if it weren’t for development you wouldn’t be living here now! What a hypocritical double standard. Until the human population stops growing then growth will occur and it should, for the environment’s sake, be in already developed areas. No not to the N3’s. We don’t grow! Let it happen to somebody else’s town! Screw you! I’ve heard that vile infantile rhetoric spewed here for forty years. Enough already! We are not Orange, LA or Ventura County and never will be, period. So stop with the fear mongering lie that any development here leads to those places. It isn’t true, never has been and never will be no matter what development we allow, because we are in control of our own destiny and we are stronger than you N3’s and any developer.

5/05/2008 9:15 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

Let's watch the "bums" comment -- they just have a different vision than you!

5/06/2008 6:10 AM  
Anonymous infomaniac said...

Um, despite the comments of current council supporters, the facts are these:

The current majority ran on a platform of slow growth. They said that Goleta's General Plan was good and needed only some minor "tweaking."

Since coming into office the current majority has been gutting the current plan and approving not only massive projects but also rezoning agricultural tracts to residential.

These residential projects will produce largely million dollar homes unaffordable to current Goletans. We'll get the impacts but none of the benefits.

Basically, the current majority betrayed its promises. Non-Goletans should care because we all share 101, the roads, the water , basically, all the impacts.

Let's see what happens when 2 seats are up this November.

5/06/2008 9:07 AM  
Blogger Bill Carson said...

Funny thing about human beings. We'll jam more people, more cars, more buildings, more pavement into our little community until we become just like all the other places that we don't like. We, as a collective group, can't help ourselves. It's almost like we're addicted. I want, I want, I want. Gimme, gimme, gimme.

The environmentalists, preservationists and conservationists in this town are just a bunch of blow-hards. If you all really cared about protecting our community, you would rise up against the greed and corruption and put a stop to the madness.

Look around you people. The developers are having a field day!

5/06/2008 9:09 AM  
Anonymous Don Jose de la Guerra y Noriega said...

Greeting AN50

You seem all riled up there! Think about it...the planning process is all about thinking it all through and that means looking at details, you don't just invite in the bulldozers!

Now, taking back Bishop Ranch to a the way it was in 1840 might just suit me but I am willing to listen to the proposals...

5/06/2008 9:40 AM  
Blogger Voice of Rezon(e) said...

an50...

It's just more of the NIMBY BS again. They're a vocal minority who refuse to acknowledge that people might have differing viewpoints, and they always think if you do have a differing opinion that you must be somehow connected to a developer, which they consider some sort of evil (do they think their houses/neighborhoods were built by elves?).

Now that they lost the Council votes, after negotiating the worst revenue-neutrality agreement in California history, they're trying to get a foothold on the Goleta Water District board. Let's not let that happen!

Sara - you're showing your true colors on this one...

5/06/2008 9:56 AM  
Anonymous Goletaman said...

My bet is that there will be a fake denial of the Bishop Ranch. After all, Jean Blois has to run for reelection this November. Can she vote for it and expect to get reelected? What better time to say no, then wait till after election and let it pass then. Of course that depends on Jean getting reelected...

5/06/2008 2:43 PM  
Blogger johnsanroque said...

Bill Carson,

Here’s where we agree:

The developers are having a field day

We’re losing our unique quality by jamming more people and homes into the county


Here’s where we disagree:

The “environmentalists, preservationists, and conservationists” are not responsible for the greed and overdevelopment. They’re actually the good guys who unfortunately don’t always succeed in their efforts. Is it merely because they are politically liberal that you trash them even though you and they have the same goals for slow growth? Do you really hate liberals that much?

5/06/2008 6:32 PM  
Anonymous Joe Goleta said...

>>We are not Orange, LA or Ventura County and never will be, period. So stop with the fear mongering lie that any development here leads to those places.<<

This statement makes me wonder if an50 has left Goleta in the past 40 years. Look around, dude; it's happened all over Southern California and it sure as heck can happen here.

Just ask the folks in Ventura. They thought they had a nice seaside town, too, immune from the metastatic growth approaching from the south. Now take a drive up Victoria from the 101 and see if it looks different that any other LA/OC retail corridor. Drive east on the 126 and see sprawl consuming ag land like locusts.

Nobody with any sense is arguing that we can't grow in Goleta. It's inevitable. To say those who cast a wary eye on the current council are nimbys and worse isn't being honest.

I really don't mind Bishop Ranch being developed. In some ways it's the perfect site for new homes and a little commercial. But to dump 1200 units on it is ridiculous. It'll likely be just another zero lot line monstrosity jammed together for maximum profit, not liveability. It could be done with intelligence, but I'm not holding my breath.

As for the idea of Jean Blois voting 'no' on the project, that's crazy. Bishop Ranch is a done deal; the only thing folks can do is pressure the chamber-bought council to make sure it's not a nightmare. And good luck with that. After the whole general plan fiasco -- and the council's plain refusal to listen to its constituents -- we've seen the future, and it's not pretty.

5/06/2008 6:36 PM  
Anonymous augusto den said...

Now that Bishop Ranch was mine, after all, but that Bishop guy got it away from me.

I'd be happy to see all of you Protestant Yankees take a hike. You are truly a pestulance.

But the most hilarious is when you argue for the good old days. The good old days were when the Den Adobe and Chumash roundhouses were all you saw on the landscape, and millions of birds in the Goleta Slough.

Its spoiled now, so spoiled that 1,200 new units out on that creepy lawyer Bishop's land won't make a lick of difference.

5/06/2008 8:47 PM  
Anonymous infomaniac said...

To Voice of Rezone and others who resort to namecalling and invective in order to camouflage their lack of rational thinking and persuasion:

You ducked my earlier point. The current majority promised one thing in their campaign - slaw growth and modest changes to the general plan. If they had taken your tone and policies, they probably would not have been elected.

Instead they lied about their intentions and plans. Issues aside, it's hard to rationalize such dishonesty, though somehow, I suspect you will find a way...sigh.

5/06/2008 8:49 PM  
Blogger Bill Carson said...

Johnsanroque,

I don't hate the liberals. I hate that they foolishly empower politicians like Marty, Das, Grant and all the others. And then they wonder why the city is getting covered like a blanket with all sorts of high density development. I hate that they let the Independent tell them who to vote for. I hate that they think we can build our way out of the affordability problem, and that so-called smart growth is the answer.

Ugggh! We are our own worst enemy. Someone needs to stop all the growth and start talking about how to become a zero-sum, sustainable community. Less development equates to an improved quality of life. More development is the opposite.

Figure it out!

5/06/2008 11:08 PM  
Blogger GoletaGlenn said...

It is a known fact that Goleta must build housing. The state has dictated that Goleta must build 1,641 homes by 2014!

The old City Council planned for dense apartments on industrial sites at 20 units an acre, which is quite massive for Goleta.

Bishop Ranch would be more like the neighborhoods we live in today. If we left this land remain vacant and stick to the old Council’s plan, we will be sending all of our traffic to the city’s south side of the freeway like we do now creating even more headaches.

Without moving some of the housing to Bishop Ranch, we will have clogged city streets and an over populated area around Hollister. Is this the Goleta we want?

Let’s at least take the time to study the plan and consider it without jumping to conclusions.

5/06/2008 11:41 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

So what's your motivation AN? You seem to constantly deride anyone who wants to protect their lifestyle and investment. What's missing in SB/Goleta that you think high rises and 1200 new homes will bring to the cities? Are you just salivating at the idea you might get to put in for the lottery (along with 20,000 others) for the few susidized houses there? Let's not forget the additional 7000+ folks UCSB wants to (and will) jam in next to the most densely populated square mile in the US? You really think that a couple ex city workers who never worked in the real world (profit making)and somebody's grandma and a couple of young kids are really qualified to make weighty decisions for one of the most desirable pieces of California? Is it any surprise at all that they've been manipulated by experts at subterfuge?

And you have the nerve to rail at property owners that have just as much right to a say (if not more) than some friggin' lawyer for an out of town Snidely Whiplash? Being a NIMBY is being an active participant in democracy...something to be proud of in the era of obese couch potatoes.

BTW KRUZ has been rockin TOKYO for awhile now through my laptop...they love it!

5/07/2008 5:42 AM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

Sorry Glen,

It is not a known fact.

The known fact is that our rep in Sack'O Tomatoes has been totally MIA on this subject or maybe he's just hiding because he's the instigator/enabler of this manufactured housing crisis. Just covering for his homeboys I suspect. Where's the new 2000 employee buisness in town that is going to suck up all these new residents? Where the vaunted Chamber of Commerce on this issue? Or are we just making it easier for the two F brothers to fill their fields and hotels? Any chance Bishop Ranch will turn into Goleta's LeviTown? Ten years to build? Why so long? What if they build an no one comes? What makes the commuters think they'll ever be able to afford whatever is built there if they can't afford it now? Do they really think they'll be able to afford "affordable" housing by saving from their measly paychecks? You don't buy a house in SB/Goleta now if you don't have some other source of capitaL. If you don't have it now, you never will...go south youngsters and come back when you've made your fortune or don't if you don't. There is no free lunch...

5/07/2008 5:58 AM  
Blogger Kinnoley said...

For almost 60 years, no farming has occurred at Bishop Ranch. At a time where our city is facing a budget deficit, we don’t have enough park space for our kids, and we have a lack of affordable housing, should we at least consider some type of development here?



We all want smart growth, right? To me, having a mixed use project near a major highway, that preserves 80 acres for open space is pretty smart to me. It is certainly better than having people driving from Lompoc or Ventura because they can’t afford to live here.



Like many people, I too am growing tired and frustrated with the no growth mentality. We set urban limit lines for growth and this property is within that limit. Why set a line in the first place if we are going to say no to everything?



We all know something has to eventually go on the property. Personally, I’m happy with this proposal. If you are against the plan, just imagine towers being built there for UCSB students and faculty. In that case, we have no say since it would be UC related.



So let’s consider the three options: low income housing on Hollister, student housing at Bishop Ranch, or a mixed use community at Bishop Ranch. I will take the last choice any day of the week.

5/07/2008 9:42 AM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

Breaking news from Veijo...

The city faces a $16 million deficit in the 2008-2009 budget starting July 1 and unsuccessfully negotiated with its police, firefighter and electrical workers unions for contract concessions through 2012. Public safety salaries comprise 74 percent of the city's general fund budget.

Councilwoman Stephanie Gomes, an ardent supporter of the city's filing for bankruptcy, said, "I want to make sure the City Council is in charge of this city and not those who comprise 80 percent of our general fund."

Are we really sure we want cops and dog food flinging fireboys running our city?

5/07/2008 3:15 PM  
Anonymous EAT THE RICH said...

Let's not forget the additional 7000+ folks UCSB wants to (and will) jam in next to the most densely populated square mile in the US?

That's right folks - Isla Vista is more densely populated than San Franciso, New York, Boston and Chicago. Even scarier - people not only believe this utter nonsense, but get other people to believe it as well.

Anyone who continues to spread this absolutely false statistic - or variations there of - clearly has NO IDEA what they are talking about.

Being a NIMBY is being an active participant in democracy...something to be proud of in the era of obese couch potatoes.

Funny, coming from someone who hasn't done the most basic of basic research, but instead regurgitates the same false rumors that have swirled around town for the last 20+ years.

5/07/2008 3:53 PM  
Anonymous AN50 said...

Sat1, my motivation is simple: expose the awful hypocrisy of “no growth”. I grew up in Ventura County and became a maverick environmentalist at the very naïve age of eleven. I saw first hand, not only the horror of mindless two dimensional suburban sprawl, the horror of spec development, but also the evil of collusion between out of county developers and county government. My father called it “progress”. I called it destruction. When I moved here, my father and his family’s ancestral home, I turned a hatred for development into a zeal for doing it right. Unfortunately, no one here wants to do anything but complain. As I said before, there is something that grates on one’s sole when people who moved here from somewhere else cry “close the gates! No more! Enough already!”
Augusto den, sees it. If you take no growth far enough even his ancestors would have to go. So you see Joe Goleta, I have a very good perspective on So Cal development. I just don’t fear it because unlike you and all the other complainers I studied it, thoroughly and not just here but all over. I dealt with the enemy by understanding it, how it works. Funny thing though, I discovered that development and developers for that matter, were not the enemy. It was government run by spineless panderers, elected by self centered, shallow, narrow minded ignoramuses, always meddling in things they know nothing about.
All the traffic, noise, water shortage, housing shortage, crumbling and lack of infrastructure and exorbitant prices we experience here on the south coast have been manufactured by government policy at the behest of the popular no growth movement. I have never seen a community so thoroughly infatuated with shooting its feet off. And so passionate about it that they’re willing to go the extra mile and accomplish the feat with a sawed off 12 gauge shot gun. If and when, we can get past the last 40 years of ignorant, self serving screaming by those who brought us high density residential development in industrial parks, 35 foot building height limits, socialist engineering of traffic planning and allowing a major institution like UCSB to grow unabated just because its “government and that doesn’t count”, then maybe we might be able to allow safe, sane growth and development here, done right.

5/07/2008 9:48 PM  
Anonymous Goleta Joe said...

That's brilliant, an50. The way to save Goleta from "traffic, noise, water shortage, housing shortage, crumbling and lack of infrastructure and exorbitant prices" is by allowing rampant development.

I lived in Ventura County, too, and that's why I know what's happened there. It's become an extension of LA -- and it's not because of "socialism" or slow-growth fervor.

Look, growth is inevitable. We can't wall ourselves in. Take a look at my original post. I actually don't mind Bishop Ranch being developed. Let's just do it right.

My old man worked in construction here for 40 years, so I understand the builder's end of things. I even understand you, to a point. What I don't understand is the logic of blaming all the problems of growth on the desire to keep growth manageable. That's just nuts.

5/08/2008 9:17 AM  
Anonymous News-Less days late again said...

Their news coverage, such as it is, is scooped routinely, so why not their editorials as well?
Notice today (Thursday) article on the Santa Barbara police bust of the gang murders that was reported a day or two ago already.

Now, even the Editorial is chasing a Blogabarbara post from days ago. Apparently the new builder-bought Goleta Council members are not kissing his ring enough to immunize themselves.

An excerpt from that editorial today:

Our Opinion: 1,195 homes on Bishop Ranch?

May 8, 2008

But what a San Fernando Valley-based developer is proposing for agriculturally zoned land off Highway 101, between Los Carneros and Glen Annie roads, may take the growth wars to a level not seen before.

The News-Press is concerned that members of the Goleta City Council -- contrary to assurances given in the last election -- may be pursuing a big development agenda that lacks community support.

This surely will produce a backlash at the ballot box, just as when Goletans in 2006 tossed out the old council majority because of its failure to listen.

We question whether any council members who took large campaign donations from individuals connected to the Larwin Co. should even participate in votes on the developer's plans for the area known as Bishop Ranch.

The proposal includes building 1,195 homes and apartments, along with 90,000 square feet of commercial space.
The impact of all this would be enormous. Also disturbing is that Larwin officials in the past have refused to be entirely open to discussing their plan with the community.

There needs to be a full debate about why this land can't remain zoned for agriculture.

Yet, people do farm nearby parcels and have expressed interest in similar operations on Bishop Ranch.

Also, the water resources available must be sorted out and clear in the public's mind, particularly because the developer says water exists for residential development but not for ag use.

5/08/2008 1:22 PM  
Anonymous AN50 said...

Ya, look Joe, I never said solving traffic, water, infrastructure or housing should done by “rampant development” and instead, like you, called for intelligent solutions, rather than just saying no all the time. Got that?
The truth is that traffic is bad for two reasons, growth of UCSB without mitigation to the community and a community that has done everything possible to encourage that lack of mitigation out of fear it would lead to more growth. I actually listened to a former County Supervisor tell a concerned local mom at public hearing many years ago, that “we (the no-growth board majority at the time) would see to it that no more street widening would happen in Goleta ever again” and that “they were selling off key rights of way to ensure it would be too expensive in the future” to improve road carrying capacity, as a means of controlling growth. That, Joe is only one example of no-growth philosophy gone mad. To think that purposely making your infrastructure lousy to prevent growth, because growth makes your infrastructure lousy, is what has been going on here for the last 40 years. Go ahead; ask some one in this town if they think widening Cathedral Oaks Road is a good idea. If they don’t lynch you before you finish the question you’d better run! People actually still believe we can solve traffic problems by hiring consultants to tell us not to use roads.
The housing problem here was manufactured by the no growth movement. Nobody told these fools that if UCSB is still growing and no new housing is being built either by UCSB or privately, that prices would sky rocket. Nope, no one told the “average Joe” that and prices did sky rocket and it made a lot of people very rich while their offspring fled. Now these retired folks want the rest of us stubborn working class stiffs to get out so they can have their wealthy little retirement community. Problem is UCSB ain’t goin anywhere and neither are the few companies that employ us working class stiffs. So we better grow some housing and do it right.
Water is another local infrastructure that was held hostage by the no growth crowd. It took a prolonged drought to wake people up to that mess. Nothing like watching your nice green community dry up and blow away to realize that the No-Nothing-Never crowd should not be controlling a resource as important as water. And yet there they are at it again.
So ya, I’d say those socialist, no-growthers are pretty damned responsible! Imagine, creating the very havoc growth is supposed to have on a community as a method for stopping growth. Wow, I hardly think the evil “Orange County Developers” could have done worse.
I’m not against “managed growth” Joe, just the No-Nothing-Never philosophy that has really done damage here.

5/08/2008 10:25 PM  
Anonymous Sara De said...

the No-Nothing-Never philosophy has really done damage here.

Wrong.

It's the only thing that is preserving this area.

I would like to see how an50 would manage the development on an island. He would have some really good reason why he has to cut down the last tree.

5/09/2008 10:13 AM  
Anonymous Ilovegoleta said...

Why does everyone assume that the City Council has already made up its mind and voted in favor when the developer just submitted their application for development? If I was a betting person, and I am, I bet the Council votes 5-0 against the Bishop Ranch proposal and keeps it agriculture. Any takers? Come on put your money where you mouth is...

5/09/2008 2:57 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

AN?

How can I help if I think you're funny when you're mad
Tryin' hard not to smile though I feel bad
I'm the kind of guy who laughs at a funeral
Can't understand what I mean? Well, you soon will
I have the tendancy to wear my mind on my sleeve
I have a history of taking off my shirt

Chickity China the Chinese chicken
Have a drumstick and your brain stops tickin'
Watchin X-Files with no lights on
We're dans la maison
I hope the Smoking Man's in this one

Like Harrison Ford I'm gettin frantic
Like Sting, I'm tantric
Like Snickers, guaranteed to satisfy
Like Kurosawa, I make mad films
Okay I dont make films,
But if I did, they'd have a Samurai

Like most idealogues, you fail to employ any risk analysis at all. In a perfect world your ideas have merit and I actually agree with some of your thoughts.

Unfortunately, our real world is filled with liars, cheats and corrupters.

I trust no one who says "I'm from the government, I'm here to help..."

The loudmouth Goleta Chamber of Commerce said nothing when the COG killed a large industrial zoned area into a jam pack housing developement right next to the freeway and railroad track.

Has any of the amatures on the Council done any research at all into whether Larwin has the financial wherewithall to actually build what they propose?

Why phase in over 10 years? So they can pyramid sales incrementally to finance the next phase? What if they get half done and collapse? What if they find that they're actually losing money on the deal and just mail in the keys and walk away? Does COG have the money to bail it out? Or could it become a smoking hole in the ground like Levy Town?

Was I the only one that noticed that Mike Towbes forced the COG into kicking in $5 million to help build the Sumida property because if wouldn't be feasible to build without the subsidy...Then he turns around and finds $5 million to donate to the grossly over budget Granada Theater? Nice tax write off too, I'm sure. What a lyin' esshole he is.

But the Three Stooges and their dog Kristen bought it hook, line, and sinker.


Pull your head out, I can't hear you when you mumble.

5/10/2008 5:35 AM  
Anonymous Eat... Me! said...

"Funny, coming from someone who hasn't done the most basic of basic research, but instead regurgitates the same false rumors that have swirled around town for the last 20+ years."

Funny you're so sure of yourself yet offered no factual refutation cuz probably your to ignant to find out the facts and post em.



Given that IV is 2.2 sq. miles and the most recent guestaments put the pop north of 20K, that would put IV close to the top ten on this list of major urban areas in the US. 'scuse me, I should have said "one" of the most...but my point wasn't about IV specifically.

But wait...where will they be on the list when UCSB shoehorns in 7K more bodies...Hmmm?

http://www.demographia.com/db-us90city100kdens.htm

5/10/2008 5:58 AM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

Oh...one last thing

The reason we have a so called "housing crisis" is because there are too many people who want to live here because there is not too many people living here because the NIMBY's have fought tooth and nail for 40 years to keep too many people from living here...Got it? or should I speak slower and plainer for you?

5/10/2008 6:04 AM  
Anonymous Goleta Joe said...

That's a sucker bet, IloveGoleta. You haven't been paying attention, it seems.

Did you not see Onnen and Bennett totally blow off the public during the general plan hearings?

Did you not see those two blow off city planning staff and vote to rezone the Shelby property from ag to residential so the owners could build 75 units on 14 acres?

Have you not noticed those guys are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Kristen's development-crazed chamber?

I'll take that bet in a heartbeat.

5/10/2008 9:58 AM  
Anonymous Eat The Rich said...

Funny you're so sure of yourself yet offered no factual refutation cuz probably your to ignant to find out the facts and post em.

I'm so sure of myself because I am correct. You on the other hand.... not so much.

Given that IV is 2.2 sq. miles and the most recent guestaments put the pop north of 20K, that would put IV close to the top ten on this list of major urban areas in the US. 'scuse me, I should have said "one" of the most...but my point wasn't about IV specifically.

Basic mathematics is your friend. Learn to divide.

Based on the 2000 census, the population density of Isla Vista is 8,338.2/sq mi. It took me all 30 seconds to look up that information.

Even if we go by the link you posted - which I doubt is accurate - it doesn't break the top 20 of most densely populated cities.

And even if IV approaches 10k/mile in population density - it barely breaks the top 15. So now we've gone from most populated city in America to barely breaking the top 15. This also assumes other cities on the list haven't seen an increase in density as well - which is extremely unlikely.

And I wouldn't eat you... you probably taste like pointless rhetoric.

5/10/2008 11:56 AM  
Anonymous AN50 said...

Whoa there Sat1, The whole point I have been making is the no growth movement did not stop growth, only the infrastructure to support it. They are responsible for turning a thriving industrial base into temporary student housing; that the no growth philosophy is based on the most egregious hypocrisy and self centeredness. OK? Never once advocated rampant development, crappy development, paving over paradise, government collusion or cozy relations with developers. That is the assumption the N3 crowd makes when ever you disagree with them. “What! You’re not saying no, nothing, never! Arrrggg, you must be an evil developer! Off with your head, infidel!” If you’re not vehemently opposed to anything that involves adding to the community, you are automatically labeled a friend of developers, a growth monger, a capitalist, an eco-destroyer and other such rhetorical rubbish that negates intelligent argument. Well labels work both ways N3, wear yours with the proud distinction it deserves.

5/10/2008 6:43 PM  
Anonymous Goleta Joe said...

Saying that the no- and slow-growthers are responsible for the decline, departure or death of companies like Applied Magnetics, Delco, Raytheon and the rest is a deeply flawed and dishonest reading of history and economics, an50.

They -- and their good jobs -- disappeared for all the reasons most other industries have fled the US. Perhaps you've noticed the demise of the "thriving industrial base" in this country. Think it's because the US is running over with no-growthers?

You seem to be a reasonably smart guy, an50. You don't need to resort to absurdities.

5/11/2008 4:53 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

ANFity,

N3 is not really what's happening. Pop growth on the South Coast has indeed been growing all along. Something like 1-2% a year if I remember.

Sumida, industrial park expansion at Hollister and Los Can, big housing developement at Los Can and railroad track, Camino Real Market Place, the ex farm that now gets 75 houses, 400 condos for UCSB off Storke Rd. (and more proposed!) all of El Colegio now built with housing, the box abortions on Chapala, ex-St Francis property, Fecked Parker's new hotel, Miramar, Chumash Casino and it's expansion, Bacara and it's expansion and arm twisting of the COG... And that's just what's been approved!

Now add 1200 homes at Bishop Ranch, Naples and that doesn't even include all the individual houses and McMansion expansions...

And you think the N3s and NIMBYs are winning?

Now you want infrastructure to support that? The only way the county will support it is if we vote in a big tax increase for basic maintenance otherwise we have to do with what we got. Two lane roads.

But surprisingly Sacto don't mind cutting school budgets that educate our children and keep them out of jail. We don't get any kind of economic developement incentives to bring jobs into the area for the young non college bound local workforce...No, we get $56 million for a bigger jail that will be over filled as soon as it's built.

If you go back and look at the stats from the DOJ, you see that violent crime arrests, et all are decreasing dramtically while the drug arrest have been skyrocketing. Correlation? I don't know but I find it hard to believe that all the violent crimes were due to stoners jonesing for a joint. Maybe it's just easier to lock up drug users than go after the organised gangs of hardened gun running hispanic mafia that have infested So Cal...

sa1,over and out (proudly wearing the NIMBY Union Label.)

5/11/2008 6:06 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

ETR,

Obviously you've missed the point.

The census folks readily admit they under count due to lack of response and the fact that those "just looking for a better life (and food stamps and free emergency-maternity room care)" tend to scatter when the gov't comes calling. You think we got any of those types in IV?

You don't think making the top 15 is notable in an area that is prized for it's now prostitued low density enviro?

I'm not interested in counting the number of angels on the head of a pin. If I were figuring orbital flight paths and distances based on red shift (more interesting then Soduku), I might be a little more precise.

Try a big dollop of Wasabe and eat me raw...you deserve the gastronomic punishment...

5/11/2008 6:23 PM  
Anonymous Augusto Den said...

Oh dear, lots of comments about the density of population on my old ranch.

Guys, IV proper is only about 0.6 square miles... that is in `the box' between El Colegio, UCSB, and the Channel. About 14,000 folks in there (after all, even counting all the illegal units is hard).

About 23,000 folks per square mile, which puts it right up with NYC from that web page at...

http://www.demographia.com/db-us90city100kdens.htm

But, look at the areas of those cities... NYC is 309 square miles! IV is only 0.6 square miles.

There are lots and lots of neighborhoods in NYC that are bigger than IV and have densities like 10 times as high as IV's. In SF, Chinatown is like that.

The thing about IV is that it abuts the whole Coal Oil Point and Ellwood preserves. Open space? Lots and lots, but never included in the density calculation.

Hilarious how BS persists in this Yankee echo chamber. Frankly, if you'd all just go back to the other side of the Rockies, I'd be happy.

Since you won't, Bishop Ranch will hardly cause a blip on my Yankee-meter.

5/11/2008 8:00 PM  
Anonymous Ilovegoleta said...

Goleta Joe, the bet is taken. If it is not a 5-0 vote against the Bishop Ranch, I lose. Stakes?

5/12/2008 8:02 AM  
Anonymous Eat The Rich said...

SA1,

I really despise that you drive me to this.

You don't think making the top 15 is notable in an area that is prized for it's now prostitued low density enviro?

No, I don't. I think it's irrelevant. It is a red herring used to detract from the REAL issues and REAL solutions that would help Isla Vista be more livable.

Comparing Isla Vista with other municipalities is comparing apples and oranges - again, used for the sole purpose of distracting from the more important issues. Funny thing - when people compare Isla Vista to other places in order to figure out how to make IV more livable, Isla Vista becomes "unique" and "those solutions won't work here".

I'm not interested in counting the number of angels on the head of a pin. If I were figuring orbital flight paths and distances based on red shift (more interesting then Soduku), I might be a little more precise.

Oh, so NOW you're not interested the data - when it's revealed you don't know what you are talking about.

You are not precise because it doesn't serve your purpose. That's really the issue I have with the NIMBYs - you are more interested in rhetoric and hyperbole than facts. If you people were just relegated to the realms of Blogabarbara, then that would be one thing. But when your misleading crap gets spread throughout the county - which, then, prevents REAL solutions from being implemented - that's something else entirely.

5/12/2008 10:32 AM  
Anonymous Goleta Joe said...

I'm partial to beer, ILG. I propose a $20 tab at the venue of our choice (Mercury, Hollister, Bak Dor, etc.). As Goleta guys it won't be hard to arrange it, with decent anonymity if we want, with the various proprietors in town.

Of course, if you're not a drinking man we could figure out something else.

5/12/2008 9:27 PM  
Anonymous AN50 said...

Joe, companies come and go with out a doubt. AMC gone due to market pressures, Delco and the big aero space companies because of buy outs and consolidations. Many more due to the dot com/telecomm bust. What I refer to is the many start-ups that left because they could not grow here and many more established companies for the same reason. There are many more with the same problem. The supposedly “pro-growth” city council is telling companies here you can stay but if you want to grow don’t do it here. I guaranty you they won’t stay and many more will lose there jobs and the city the tax base the companies provide. Ironically, the job market here is strong but for lower paying service jobs. As UCSB takes up the housing slack left by vacating industry workers, retail and service jobs grow to serve the growing faculty, staff and student population. The demographics speak for themselves, high paying tax revenue generating jobs leave, replaced by low paying service jobs, students and government workers at a net loss in tax base. Do the same math that has most in government wincing yet unable to say anything because of their culpability. UCSB, though a great university and a wonderful asset to the community in its ability to educate and inspire new forms of commerce is and always will be a net tax drain. Its very survival here as well as our community relies on a thriving tax plus industrial base. You want to stop growth you must stop UCSB, period. You want a growing and thriving Campus you need a growing and thriving private sector economy to fund it and that means population growth as well. It doesn’t mean rampant out of control growth. It can be very slow but the balance between UCSB and the private sector must be maintained or things go out of control in a hurry and you either have a bankrupt community or unrepentant growth. It takes strong visionary leaders in our community to understand the dynamics involved in balancing many competing interest and to convey what must be done in order to advance that vision. Unfortunately we most often elect spineless panderers who just tell us what we want to here. For that last 40 years that has been “no, nothing, never” and the result is a delusional population on a train racing for a bridge that is out. And woe unto you retired upper middle class of the Jack Hawkhurst genre, you believe you can survive here but you won’t because that spineless pandering government you wish for will tax you right out of your homes.

5/12/2008 9:53 PM  
Anonymous Ilovegoleta said...

$20 dollars credit at the Hollister Brewing Company it is. I can almost taste it now. If you want another $20 bet, I would bet you that you just made a bad bet. Cheers!

5/13/2008 11:16 AM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

par·a·graph

–noun 1. a distinct portion of written or printed matter dealing with a particular idea, usually beginning with an indentation on a new line.

AN, don't make me work so hard. Good thoughts and I think your spot on with this latest.

ETR,

Not sure why you seem to be in denial. Is IV not dense enough for you?

My original point was that each developement proposal seems to ignore that fact there are other housing proposals (already approved and pending). The net result is that the pop increase is nearing 50% with no additional infrastructure improvements and we're all supposed to be thankful?

I came here 25 years ago "just looking for a better life". Why should I sit by and let them take it away?

5/13/2008 10:56 PM  
Anonymous Eckermann said...

I'll try this again. Apparently, I messed up on the identity choosing protocol. In my view most of the citizen's of Goleta would rather leave Bishop Ranch as open as possible in order to retain what little is left of the bucolic ambience of Goleta. These very same people however do not want any restrictions on how much and in what manner they are allowed to remodel their own homes. In my view, that was what the last election was all about. This bit of cognitive disonance (i.e., restrict the growth of new homes but let me add on to mine without restriction) is common among the new kind of NIMBY. This attitude is not without its problematic aspects, including over-sized structures, degraded creek habitat, and on-street parking issues, but, on the other hand, it is not a mandate for growth. I think the current City Council knows this.

5/14/2008 8:07 AM  
Anonymous Augusto Den said...

an50... uhh... how exactly does UCSB deplete the tax base? Are UCSB folks exempt from Measure D (or the new Measure A)? Are UCSB folks exempt from paying property taxes on their homes?

Just about every community in the US fights to get a state U next to it. Santa Barbara did so in 1940, and brought the entire California State Senate down for Fiesta. The reason is that it is great economic sense, an50. Merced is the latest.

Sa1, I've been here 125 years, and guys like you really took away my better live. Man, the duck hunting was great on the old Devereux Slough before it got filled and all those Ellwood area subdivisions got built.

5/14/2008 12:42 PM  
Anonymous sa1 said...

Poor Agusto,
Unlike your family, I overpaid market price for my home and land and saw it immediately start a six year price decline spurred on by the flight of good paying upper middle class jobs along the Hollister corridor(from which we've never recovered).

Which part do you miss the most?

Hanging out on the Haciendo while the peon's took care of the ranch?The lack of fresh water? The Catholic Church's Chumash slaves? The free land that was given to your family by the Conquistidor Gov't of Ca. after they stole it from the Chumies? Disease and high infant mortality rate (hence large families when ya got lucky)?

I bet you and DJDLGYN have a great time reminiscing over cool sangrias and mariachi seranades...Viva La Fiesta!

BTW... Take the lead buckshot out of the ducks before you eat them. It'll keep you from going crazy and having your land taken away to become the first subdivision in the "Good Land". It's all your fault we are here in this place.

5/15/2008 5:19 PM  
Anonymous AN50 said...

August baby, I don’t want to go into a long winded dissertation on regional economic macros. Sufficed to say, UCSB, its faculty, staff and student body as a unit have a higher rate of tax payer benefits paid out, a lower wage ratio with which they are taxed and as a demographic demand more tax consuming services than their counter parts in the private sector (the student body, of course, skews this demographic pretty hard to the neg). Don’t get me wrong, as a father of two college students and an admirer of our local campus, I see UCSB as an asset, however a negative economic one. Where the campus has done a terrific job is in the area of engineering, where they have actually stimulated an entrepreneurial high tech business community. Problem is these new industries incubate, hatch and just when they get to the point of generating a net tax revenue gain, the no growth attitude here forces them to fly away to make money and generate high tax revenues elsewhere. We have to ask ourselves if cutting off our nose to spite our face is really wise. Yes, yes I know growing business means growth. Unfortunately we have spent the last forty years seeing any growth as bad, using no-growth policies to make what little growth we have experienced far worse than many communities suffer with really large growth and convincing ourselves we’ve done well. We need a new paradigm and it ain’t coming from the N3’s. We tried their way and are left with a mess. Time for change.
Sorry, Sat1, yet another rambling bloviation. My orator isn’t much better.

5/15/2008 8:55 PM  
Anonymous augusto den said...

Well, sa1, we all were the poor side of the family, and we ran the ranch ourselves, sir. The Chumash and us got along just find, and you know, they just didn't have a concept of land ownership at all.

We let 'em come back after secularization and hunt all they wanted. Amazing stuff they knew about fishing and mussel collecting.

Now those Franciscans, you have a point. Loved those Chumash to death, quite literally.

Sorry you've lost money on your spread. We lost our spreads entirely to the Yankees bro.

Now an50, how can it be so bad to have 20,000 students whose parents send them $13,000 a year to live here each... a nice $260,000,000 bump in the county GDP sent in from other counties. Well, some get it in loans from the big U.

And guess what... the tax payout at UCSB *are taxes paid in other parts of the state*, an50. We import tax dollars here from everywhere in California so that UCSB staff can pay local property taxes and sales taxes. Every darned locality in the world wants a state supported U for that reason.

And then there is VEECO or CITRIX etc who actually do stay in town. The ones that pulled out were Delcos etc who are multinational concerns who can do bidness cheaper elswhere.

I'm sorry, UCSB is a huge, massive plus for the local economy, in every way. It is just taken for granted.

5/15/2008 10:14 PM  
Blogger joe stevens said...

Did anyone see this today? It just came out.

Bishop Ranch Withdraws City of Goleta General Plan Amendment Initiation Application

Cites Negative Staff Report and
Lack of Support for General Plan Amendment


An application to initiate the study of options for the future of Bishop Ranch scheduled to be heard by the Goleta City Council next Tuesday, July 15, 2008, has been withdrawn by the applicant following the release of a staff report recommending denial of the requested initiation. The project hearing will not take place.

Not wanting to waste valuable City of Goleta time or resources, the applicant stated there is no reason to move forward. “It is very clear that while there is substantial support in the community to fully study and review the future of Bishop Ranch that same support does not exist at the City, neither with the staff nor with the council,” stated Michael Keston, the applicant.

The subject Bishop Ranch property, first zoned for housing in 1951, is a 240-acre site along the 101 Freeway and neighbored on two sides by homes. According to public records it has not been farmed since the 1940s. The application was the result of model community collaboration, a four-month Community Working Group process undertaken from late 2007 through January 2008 involving hundreds of local residents.

“In withdrawing this plan, it is important that I publicly thank the hundreds of Goleta residents who worked with us for long hours to fully understand the challenges the City faces to fulfill State housing demands without having to build high density multi-family housing,” added Keston.

“A diversity of Goleta residents came forward and worked hard to create a consensus plan, I appreciate the effort and I regret this vision will not go forward.”

Without the plan there will be no project hearing on Tuesday. Keston requested all those who have indicated that they will attend the Goleta City Council meeting stay home and enjoy time with their families.

7/11/2008 5:03 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home