Posted on September 21, 2012 | 2:16 pm

Goodland Coalition to Kick Off Yes on G2012 Campaign

Measure is designed to protect Goleta’s remaining major agricultural parcels

Source: Goodland Coalition

Goodland Coalition chairman Bob Wignot announced Friday plans to hold a campaign kickoff for Yes on G2012 to protect Goleta’s few remaining major agricultural parcels.

The kickoff will take place at noon Monday on the public sidewalk north of the Los Carneros Fire Station No. 14, just south of the Covington and Los Carneros intersection.

“We were heartened by the first indication of community support for our initiative, the successful collection of 2,100 signatures to qualify G2012 for the ballot this November,” Wignot said. “We have been further encouraged by the breadth of support we have received to date, including the endorsements by most of Goleta’s elected and appointed officials and many individuals as well as nonpartisan organizations such as the League of Women Voters, The Fund for Santa Barbara and the Center for Urban Agriculture at Fairview Gardens, to name only a few.”

Click here to view the current list of endorsers.

Outlining the campaign plan leading up to the Nov. 6 election, Wignot stressed voter education.

“Clearly, knowledgeable Goleta voters overwhelmingly want to reinforce the protections for agriculture currently in Goleta’s General Plan,” he said. “Our challenge is simply to inform voters that G2012 gives them the final say on rezoning major agricultural parcels.”

Wignot highlighted the Goodland Coalition’s reliance on a grassroots campaign plan.

“We’ll use simple communication vehicles such as yard signs, email, small group coffees, some mailings, our website, Facebook and other media,” he said. “We also hope that media coverage will help inform people about this important issue.

“Our campaign kickoff is more than just speeches, free refreshments and T-shirts. It’s about energizing our supporters for the sprint to mail-in voting that begins in just two weeks, and for Election Day itself, only six weeks away. We are confident that Goleta voters will have the final say at the polls so they can have the final say when it comes to rezoning Goleta’s remaining major agricultural parcels.”

Comments

Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use

» AN50 on 09.21.12 @ 03:06 PM

Ok, so I’ll throw out the first attack add.

You can couch this initiative in all the flowery, puffy, feel good crap you want. But it’s still the same stodgy group of no-nothing-never preservationistas doing an end run around representative government in order to take private land for public use.

That’s right, people we have your number. This law is intended to stop Bishop Ranch from being developed and will confiscate many other inter-urban ag parcels along with it. Mind you I am not opposed to having a community wish to preserve certain properties, just the anti-American way they go about it. If you the “collective” want Bishop or any other property preserved as your personal “commune”, er, I mean “community” farm or “vista” then put a friggen crow bar in your collective wallets and buy the damned thing instead of using government and “popular” lunacy to confiscate it by proxy.

What is particularly galling is how many conservatives I see on the support list, what a bunch of feeble mined sell outs to their own principles. Can’t stand monster government controlling everything unless it’s your neighbor’s right to their own property, huh?

As for the majority of supporters, it’s the same long list of democrat, progressive liberals who are very comfortable allowing mob rule driven by ideology to guide us to ruin.

» RobertRich on 09.23.12 @ 11:32 AM

AN50,

It would be difficult to address your scatter gun arguments, both because they are full of hyperbolic stereotypes and unsubstantiated attacks.

So it should suffice to say that all this initiative does is reenforce what Goleta residents have said time and again in person and more importantly in our General Plan. For the next 20 years we have clustered development along Hollister, and said that for the next 20 years agriculture along Cathedral Oaks should not be rezoned.

And all this initiative does is say for these major parcels zoned for ag under the General Plan, if the City Council votes to rezone them anyway, then they need a majority of Goleta voters to agree. That’s democracy, not liberal, not conservative, just democracy.

I am sure you will find a way to disparage me and my arguments but the truth is the truth. Yes, I know, property owners have rights. But I can’t put in a fast food drive thru in my residential neighborhood without some approval, any more than you can put a nuclear waste plant on your property just because you want to.

And a General Plan should mean something, not just be a paper document that can be over-ridden just because a developer has cultivated a few friends on City Council.

OK, that’s enough. I hope you will have the courtesy to respond with logic, not just empty bombast and character assasination.

» GoletaMan on 09.23.12 @ 07:43 PM

This is neither a conservative nor a liberal interest. This is a local community interest. If some group wants to control the property, they need to purchase it. Nothing is being seized. The properties have historical use as Agriculture. They still have that right. There is no inherent “property” right that overrides the “property” rights of other property owners.

We have a lot of experience, at all levels of government, where the politicians come to believe that they are wiser than the great unwashed that elected them. They proceed to go where their fantasies lead. In years past, County Stupidvisors dumped less desirable projects out here. By incorporating, we have saved ourselves from the County. Now the citizens can take a pre-emptive strike against having large impacts inflicted upon us without our consent. I will sleep better knowing that future City Council meetings cannot suddenly rewrite Goleta’s future. I am reminded of a phrase attributed to Mark Twain: “No man’s life or property is safe when Congress in is session.”

» AN50 on 09.25.12 @ 03:34 PM

Robert, my apologies for the hyperbole. I have dealt with the local no growth movement for quite some time so they tend to aggravate me somewhat with their own brand of hyperbolic fear and loathing of any change whatsoever.

My argument with my neighbors has not been on preserving the quality of our community but on the insistence that it be at others expense. If the Bishop property, for example, is such a valuable commodity for the community as “open space” or “agriculture” then the community should put its money where its mouth is and buy the damned thing, rather than forcing its owner to a less valuable use. It is in an urban area surrounded by developed land.

Using zoning or general plan designations to force the issue may be democracy but it alludes to the down side of this over used term. Democracy has also allowed our esteemed public to raid every local, state and the federal treasury to the tune of some $20 trillion for goodies and entitlements that same population is unwilling to work for. That is why this country was founded on the principle of a republic, so that mob rule, the lowest common denominator and other maladies of a pure democracy would not destroy our society.

This initiative is basically saying “we the people of Goleta want your land for our use and don’t want to compensate you for it.” We have seen the devastating effects of eminent domain used in the past. It created anti freeway revolts in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. Now we have the people using the same basic theory in the form of zoning to take the value of their neighbor’s property. This is why I made it a partisan issue, because I found, much to my surprise, many conservatives supporting this and it goes against their own principles. Walk the talk people.

Of course I also have a very big difference in opinion on how our community should develop; including clustering residential on Hollister among industrial parks, while leaving more desirable residential areas along Cathedral Oaks undeveloped. This philosophy is abhorrent and the antithesis of zoning and general plans. You cluster common uses and if you really want to make a more efficient and cogent community you develop small towns clustered around employment centers. Something we could never do here because of the sins of our fathers. Anyway this represents another view that is seldom heard in this town.

» RobertRich on 09.25.12 @ 06:18 PM

AM50,

Thanks for your rational response to my comment. However, I think we disagree on a few facts and I have a few questions for you.

First, contrary to what you wrote, Bishop Ranch is most assuredly NOT “…an urban area surrounded by developed land.” Facts are that immediately to the East and West of Bishop Ranch are large parcels zoned for agriculture and currently cultivated in citrus and avocados respectively. To the north of Bishop Ranch, just across Cathedral Oaks, is another section of what was formerly part of Bishop Ranch, zoned for agriculture. Just west of Bishop ranch, across Cathedral Oaks is the Glen Annie Golf course, zoned for agriculture but used for recreation under a county memo of understanding. And just west of the golf course is the “Shelby property”, zoned for agriculture. It is no where written that agriculture should not exist within the urban limit line. There is nothing wrong with having a mix.

As for your contention that “… the community should put its money where its mouth is and buy the damned thing, rather than forcing its owner to a less valuable use” how I wish that were true. I live on a parcel zoned for a single family home. I would like to put up a 3 story, 8 unit apartment building, because it would make my land worth several million dollars. But zoning prevents me from maximizing my “investment.” Do you believe I should be able to use my property this way, or maybe turn it into an even more lucrative 24-hour drive through? My point is that zoning exists to balance private property rights with public property rights.

And we DO need public property rights. I’m sure you know that development does NOT pay its own way. Several of the parcels protected by this initiative, if rezoned for residential development, would cause huge economic impacts on the rest of us. Some are so large we would instantly have to fund a new school, a new fire station, several new police officials and road expansion. The developer would get the profits while you and I would be stuck with an ever increasing bill.
We can argue all day about clustering but again, I believe in democracy and the majority has spoken and put in Goleta’s General Plan that we want to plan development along Hollister, not Cathedral Oaks. Reasonable people may differ but that is the will of the majority and calling the majority a “mob” whenever we disagree with them, is not exactly the principle that this country was founded upon.
I hope you will reconsider your opposition and you will consider voting YES on G2012.

» AN50 on 09.26.12 @ 02:20 PM

Robert, please, I can look at a map and I love Google Earth, so I know exactly what I am talking about with regards to the Bishop Ranch property. To say that a sliver of land on either side is undeveloped and thus the ranch is not in an urban area is ridiculous. This is the kind of misinformation that makes my blood boil. The entire Goleta valley from the western edge of the Embarcadero development in the west to the Santa Barbara city limits to the east and from the ocean to the foothills is an urban area. The Bishop ranch is a half square mile chunk below Cathedral Oaks that is undeveloped. It is a beautiful piece of property and if I had the money I would buy it and develop it simply because I don’t believe anyone else would do a better job and I truly believe it should be.

As to your best use argument, I never said that a property owner should be allowed to do whatever they want, but they should be allowed to do what is reasonable. That is why we have zoning, not to deny best use but to ensure it is reasonable. Zoning makes sure that you can’t build your 3 story apartment on your single family lot. But it should not be used as a means of taking value away from an owner simply to enhance my driving pleasure or view from my car window.

As for the costs of development, you obviously have not been to city hall and tried to do it recently. One of the reasons housing costs are so high here is the formidable costs to build in this area due to the enormous number of “mitigating” fees attached to any development at all.

Now as for democracy, this country was founded on the principle of a republic, not a democracy and the biggest reason was that our founding fathers had a grave distrust in the “masses”. Your arguments here are proof that “majority” is largely ignorant when it comes to urban development and geophysical spaces (not to mention finances as I wrote before). I don’t care if the majority in this town wants to shoot it self in the foot and stick its head up its wazu. It doesn’t make it right just because this mob says so.

That is why I will vote no. I have seen much damage done to my city by mob rule, almost as much as done by elites, tyrants, activist groups and corrupt politicians. I don’t believe most of the supporters of this initiative have ever studied urban planning, architecture, transportation engineering or many other fields of study useful in planning how an urban area should develop, but man do these people have some rather grotesque opinions on the subject. It is very frustrating to have my neighbors take such ardent anti social and tyrannical approach to how their town should look with such widespread ignorance. No disrespect intended, but get out some books and maps and really start thinking about what you are doing. But first you guys need to pull your knee out of your forehead.

1. Santa Barbara Police Investigating Downtown Homicide - 06.19.2013 10:42 a.m.
2. Sandpiper Golf Club to Host Goleta Chamber’s After-Hours Mixer - 06.19.2013 10:39 a.m.
3. John Glanville Elected President of Rotary Club of Montecito - 06.19.2013 10:16 a.m.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Your Daily Noozhawk, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Facebook

Twitter

+ View More

Goodland Coalition to Kick Off Yes on G2012 Campaign

Log in

Daily Noozhawk

Facebook

Twitter