Building Height Citizens Initiative All Alone on Ballot

» Silly Arrogance on 03.25.09 @ 05:57 AM

Wow “Citizens Initiative alone on ballot”. Isn’t that the way it’s supposed to be? Did we elect the Silly Council to compete against the will of the citizens? Get rid of these clowns! (except the only one with commons sense and fiscal responsibility and a priority on public safety - Dale Francisco)

» AN50 on 03.25.09 @ 06:37 AM

Nice picture, do the signers of the initiative realize this facade fits within their 40 foot limit? The limit will only creat more of this not less. You’ve been duped!

The problem is we are talking apples and oranges. The height of a building has little to do with growth and vice versa. The prevailing rhetoric is that somehow if taller buildings are allowed it means more growth. That is utter nonsense and the people who signed the building height initiative believing it will curtail growth are going to be in for a rude awakening. You will see more growth as a result and it will forever change the character of the town. Bill Mahan has created a movement based on the lie that squashing the city’s skyline will preserve the “character of the town and slow growth”. First, the character of the town is taller buildings and has been since the 1920’s. Bill knows this and knows that when the “small town charm” argument is challenged it will fail (what difference does it make if all the buildings are 3 stories instead of 4 when you have gang bangers running around stabbing and shooting people!) So he has linked the biggest hot button issue in the city, growth, to building heights as a way to deflect the argument away from “character” which he will lose. What residence of this city do not realize is the growth will still happen, just 15 or 20 feet shorter and covering far more land area. You don’t have to be a bleeping genius to figure that one out folks. You will end up with sprawling block long 3 story buildings creating a gulag effect everywhere (think Cottage Hospital, what a freaking disaster!) The character of the town has always been a dense downtown core composed of multi story buildings. That will be destroyed in favor of a sea of same height monolithic architecture buildings with a few century old buildings poking though what was once a down town. If you really care one wit about this town you had better open your eyes to the unintended consequences of blanket ordinances that do nothing but create massive institutionalized mediocrity. And for God’s sake wake up people and realize you cannot make small town charm with a building; it’s the people, stupid.

» SB Res on 03.25.09 @ 07:53 AM

Vote no! It is already hard enough to build anything in this town. And people wonder why the cost of living is so high. The costs of putting up a bilding in this city just gets passed down to the citizen.

» good riddance to the distraction on 03.25.09 @ 08:25 AM

Absolutely let’s get back to the important issues facing the city—- and that’s one of the really good things about the City Council majority vote yesterday: instead of city staff wasting time (and therefore $) on an environmental review of a competing council-sponsored initiative, they can go back to other city planning issues, notably the General Plan Update that has taken so long.

Hurrah for Helene Schneider’s vote along with those of Iya Falcone, Dale Francisco and Marty Blum’s.

» The League on 03.25.09 @ 08:33 AM

We Love Helene

» CPA on 03.25.09 @ 08:41 AM

We Love Helene!

» reply to AN50 on 03.25.09 @ 09:50 AM

AN50 you just don’t get it.

Cities all across California, such as Santa Monica,  have been totally transformed from what used to be a nice, livable, city with small town character and a high quality of life one big monster building at a time until today they are no longer nice and no longer have a small town character and no longer have a high quality of life. 
Thats why people from cities to the south drive here for the weekend to get away from what their own city has transformed into and to enjoy the charming small town character and quality of life we still have.

Now ask yourself just how is it that Santa Barbara somehow managed to stay so darn nice, livable, and desirable, while most all other cities in California were transformed.

The answer is that this didn’t happen by accident but happened only because some residents, he very same kind of people who are behind the SEPV initiative, put growth controls into our cit charter, our general plan and our zoning ordinances.

If the likes of those who oppose the citizens height initiative ( made up of developers, architects, planners who all profit by a lot of development and population growth) had their way, Santa Barbara would have been raped, plundered and transformed years ago, and wold not have the quality of life it has today.

It is change that is inevitable.  a library can have 10,000 books and change a few every year, while the total remains the same.
The same is true for a city.  A city does not have to grow in population in order to be vital and have a health economy.  Santa Barbara proves this, as the population was 90,000 in the year 2000 and is still the same 90,000 in 2009, and our city is still vibrant and health, and we have a wonderful quality of life.

Just because we have a low 45 feet height limit does not mean every building will be the same height.  Proof of this is outer state street, where we have had a 45 feet height limit for the last 30 years.    Just how many buildings have been built to that maximum 45 feet height limit when the could have been?  The answer is almost none of them are 45 feet.  Most are 1 story, a few are 2 story and very very few, maybe 5% , are 3 story.  There still is quite a variation in height even the all had the same uniform 45 feet limit for the lat 30 years. 

The reality is that, downtown,we will always have some 1 story buildings, some 2 story buildings and some 3 story buildings for quite a variation.  But what is important is that we will preserve our small town character and quality of life and new buildings will continue to be compatible with the neighborhood and have a human scale and preserve mountain views and preserve sunlight shining into our plazas and paseos.

Vote yes next November on the citizens height ballot measure, and help preserve Santa Barbara as the very special place that it is, for future generations to enjoy. 

Less is More

» Long-time local on 03.25.09 @ 12:22 PM

Santa Barbara is already over-built. At least this initiative creates some “damage-control.”

What we really need is a no-growth policy for real protection.

» Save EL Pueblo Viejo on 03.25.09 @ 01:09 PM

SANTA BARBARA’S “BATTLING HEIGHT MEASURES”

Q’s & A’s

aesthetics v. ethics | affordable housing | boring skyline? | built out | construction costs | “draconian” | etymology | four floors? | “growing up” | “homogenized city” | Pearl Chase design | PlanSB | rebuilding tall buildings? | sprawl | sustainability | tall is great? | “uniform and boxy” | Bill Watkins and the UCSB Economic Forecast Project

Here’s the short scoop on the building heights limit issues:

The citizens’ initiative was qualified for the November 2009 ballot after the SEPV group gathered valid signatures of 18% of the city’s registered voters.

The City Council, some of whom saw the ballot certified Initiative as too simplistic, proposed a draft of a competing charter amendment. The proposal would have allowed building heights to exceed 45’ to accommodate “community priorities,” the most prominent being affordable uses, including rental housing. The majority of the Council decided on March 24 to not place a separate measure on the November ballot.

Following are responses by the SEPV committee to “problems” cited by critics of the ballot initiative:

ANSWERS TO THE “PROBLEMS” CITED BY CRITICS OF THE CITIZEN’S BUILDING HEIGHTS INITIATIVE
“PROBLEM” Architects say we can’t fit four floors of attractive housing within buildings limited to 40 or 45 feet, because between-floor mechanical needs (ducting, utilities, etc.) will eat up too much space; are they right?

Short Answer: There are architects, and there are architects.

Long Answer: The architects making the above claim support it with drawings and illustrations. But other architects claim otherwise, also providing drawings and illustrations that show that four floors of housing can indeed be nicely accommodated.

The answer seems simple enough: When the shorter buildings are built, employ the architects who can accomplish the between-floor space savings and successfully execute the projects!

“PROBLEM”: If we are forced to contain all our city’s future building needs into shorter (40 & 45’) buildings, won’t those buildings tend to be uniform, boxy, bulky and unattractive, and lack set-backs and other important amenities?

Short Answer: Who’s gonna approve short ugly buildings?

Long Answer: Are we to believe that our review bodies and exceptional architects, who for generations have been devoted to assuring beautiful and appropriate building design, are simply going to roll over and abdicate this responsibility when it comes to shorter buildings?

And if we can’t trust our review bodies to insist upon appropriate amenities, we can require them to - by way of ordinance. And if we do so by ordinance (rather than Charter amendment) we can change things as community values and tastes change. (For example, most of the new bigger downtown buildings may be “mixed-use”, and good urban design might not call for setbacks for first floor commercial uses. Such determinations are appropriate ordinance subject matter.)

“PROBLEM”: If we are going to have to contain our future building needs within shorter buildings, won’t the resultant city skyline be a boring, uniform 45’, as development pushes up to that maximum limit, precluding an interesting variety of building heights?
Short Answer: This isn’t a legitimate issue, since we aren’t going to build enough new big buildings to even approach such a possibility.

Long Answer: As the recent Plan Santa Barbara process has impressed upon us, this city is substantially “built out”, and what additional building we undertake (especially for housing, which any taller buildings most probably will be for) will be very limited, due to the constraints of our limited resources. Therefore the prospect of constructing enough new buildings to threaten a congested and uniform skyline is a practical impossibility.

And if it weren’t - if substantial amounts of housing development were possible - then (if we continue to allow the possibility of 60’ buildings) a boringly uniform skyscape of 60’ rooflines would be just as plausible a threat!

return to top

“PROBLEM”: If we are to provide for our future housing needs, for our workforce, for our kids — since we can no longer “grow out” — can’t we only provide for these needs by “growing up”?
Short Answer: If we consider our realistic “givens”, the height differential (between the Citizens’ Initiative and the City’s amendment) won’t make any real difference.

Long Answer: Do a little, simple rough arithmetic. Given #1: Because of the limitations of our resources (and long-held attitudes about growth), even without any new height limits we certainly are not going to build more than a handful of 60’ buildings, under any conceivable scenario. Given #2: The height differential between 60’ buildings and 40’/45’ buildings is a mere 15/20 feet. Now multiply the space represented by that differential (as it converts into potential housing space within a building of a maximum of 4 stories) by the limited number of new 60’ buildings we might anticipate, and ask yourself: Can this difference possibly ever account for a meaningful, or even perceptible, impact upon Santa Barbara’s housing situation? (Keep also in mind: the number of housing units in the 60’ buildings that qualify as “affordable” will be very limited.)

“PROBLEM”: Can’t 60’ buildings be constructed much more economically than 40’/45’ buildings, thus facilitating affordable housing possibilities?

Short Answer: Even if true (which it probably isn’t) the difference is insubstantial.

Long Answer: This is a very questionable notion, upon which local architects disagree. In any case, given our limitation of 4 stories (which nobody is suggesting we revise), the possibilities of cost advantages - even if they did exist - accruing to per-unit costs in buildings a mere 15’/20’ higher is insubstantial.

“PROBLEM”: By concentrating so on height limits, aren’t you ignoring, even opposing the need for affordable housing in Santa Barbara; and what’s the source for how even affordable units change the jobs/housing imbalance by creating the need for new jobs?

Short Answer: No. We all support affordable housing. The ballot initiative is limited to building heights and that’s why we keep the discussion to that.

Long Answer: Everyone agrees that there should be affordable housing in Santa Barbara. The difficult questions revolve around how to achieve that goal and yet keep Santa Barbara an attractive place to live (the small town character often mentioned) and a destination for visitors that is different from other Southern California cities.

As for new housing units creating need for new jobs, this is what Bill Watkins, Ph.D., the Executive Director of the Economic Forecast Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara, wrote former mayor Sheila Lodge in August, 2008:

“The following are rough. No one has calculated exactly what you asked about. What I have are measures of the impact of a new family’s income with the stated annual incomes:

Income                         Multiplier

$80,000 -124,999                 1.13

$124,000 -174,999               1.48

$175,000 -249,999               2.05

$250,000 and up                 3.28

Please remember that these are exceedingly rough.  Any real analysis would need much more. I would use these with extreme caution.” (The quote is used with his permission, 3/09, noting “the multipliers will change slowly over time.”)

We understand that the City is in the process of studying the question in the Economic Study as part of the Plan SB update process. We look forward to the results.

“PROBLEM”: If the citizens’ initiative passes, we won’t be able to reconstruct any of our great old taller buildings if they were destroyed - nor will we be able to construct any great new ones like them; how do you answer this argument?

Short Answer: Reality exposes this argument as simply a red herring.

Long Answer: Let’s look at our taller old buildings: The Courthouse and County Administration Buildings are County owned, outside the jurisdiction of our Initiative. The Arlington’s taller features could be replaced, as our Initiative will not affect towers and other decorative features. As for most of the other tall buildings, take a look around downtown and judge for yourself: what if their replacements were limited to accord with the preponderant theme of our low-profile skyline? Were they really positive additions in the first place? How come we so easily assume new taller buildings will be great ones? Recent history certainly doesn’t bear this out.

PROBLEM: To be a great city, don’t we need to be a city of tall buildings?

Short Answer: Why can’t we be one of the many great low-skyline cities?

Long Answer: There are, it is true, many beautiful cities of tall building (lest we forget, also many ugly ones). But there are also many beautiful low profile cities! Why can’t we continue our tradition as one of the world’s great little low skyline cities?

return to top

PROBLEM: Doesn’t the initiative proposed by SEPV “oppose sustainability”.

Short Answer: What is “sustainable” about simply making this city bigger?

Long Answer: Building more housing downtown - in 60’ buildings - is as likely to simply bring more new residents here from other places as it is to prevent sprawl, improve jobs/housing balance, reduce commuter traffic, or bring about any of the other things “sustainability” theorizers dream about.

PROBLEM: Won’t the SEPV initiative encourage sprawl.

Short Answer: In such a desirable place as Santa Barbara, building downtown will not abate “sprawl” pressures.

Long Answer: Building more housing in the downtown will only relieve development pressure on the outlying areas in communities where development pressure is limited by the local economy, but not in highly desirable locales like the South Coast. On the South Coast the appetite for development of our open spaces is driven by a worldwide market and is, therefore, virtually infinite. Besides which, County planning and development permits are completely separate from those of the city. The only way we can prevent sprawl in this area is by good planning and the exercise of political will. The SEPV Initiative will not change that.

PROBLEM: Won’t having a maximum height limit lead to a more “homogenized city”?

Short Answer: Implausible. As a practical matter, impossible.

Long Answer: As noted above, Santa Barbara’s future building potential is very limited, assuring we will never build enough new buildings to create a uniform, homogenized cityscape.

Besides, the 40’/45’ height limit will protect the existing older downtown buildings (and their varied rooflines) by eliminating the 60’ development potential that breeds financial incentive for their demolition and replacement with (potentially uniform) taller ones.

return to top

“PROBLEM”: Isn’t the SEPV Initiative just “too draconian”

Short Answer: So-called “Draconian” measures have served us well.

Long Answer: The greatness of this little city can be credited in large measure to “draconian” measures: the “Pearl Chase design fiat”, the growth management measures, including Measure E and “Living Within Our Resources.”

On the other hand, numerous more complex (“nuanced”) measures miss their mark as a result of being subject to ambiguous interpretation, and by being easily manipulated.

Btw, what’s the etymology of the word “draconian,” the word used by some of the vocal architects and developers to describe the People’s Initiative? Glad you asked! Here’s the definition from Wikionary: From the Athenian lawmaker Draco, known for making harsh laws.
Adjective: draconian Definition: Very severe, oppressive or strict.
eg. The despot chose a draconian punishment.
eg. The Nazi regime was draconian.
eg. The mayor announced draconian budget cuts today.

And as for Draco’s laws, “The laws, however, were particularly harsh. For example, any debtor whose status was lower than that of his creditor was forced into slavery. The punishment was more lenient for those owing debt to a member of a lower class. The death penalty was the punishment for even minor offenses. Concerning the liberal use of the death penalty in the Draconic code,
In Stewart and Long’s translation, It is said that Drakon himself, when asked why he had fixed the punishment of death for most offences, answered that he considered these lesser crimes to deserve it, and he had no greater punishment for more important ones.” (Wikipedia)

“Draconian” — a laughable description of the People’s Initiative to lower city building heights from 60’ to 40/45 feet! But, seriously, words do have consequences….

PROBLEM: How do you respond to the slur said to be coming from other communities: “In Santa Barbara you allow aesthetics to trump ethical considerations.”?

Short Answer: The difference between a 60’ limit and a 40’/45’ limit produces insufficient “ethical payout” to justify major aesthetic compromises.

Long Answer: The primary reason for the great demand to live here stems from our traditional concern for aesthetics. Should this be tempered by ethical considerations? Certainly. But the trade-offs must pass rational muster. The amount of affordable housing that retention of a 60’ building limit will yield will be barely perceptible, certainly not enough to trump the aesthetics of our skyline.

Our forebears decided that aesthetics were to be a major determinant of this city’s development, rather than attempting to create a city that tries to be all things to all people. A wise decision, since the latter can be a futile and self-destructive pursuit, while the former produced a city that, in spite of some (probably inevitable) shortcomings, is an incomparable, wonderful place.

Save El Pueblo Viejo Initiative Committee, Spring 2009

» Karen Lovelace on 03.25.09 @ 01:57 PM

AN50 - Why not explain that building height limits won’t reduce DENSITY and that the only tool in the bag to accomplish that goal is the FAR.

» ETTAG on 03.25.09 @ 03:02 PM

Dear ‘reply to AN50’

When you say ‘In fact Santa Barbara is the most beautiful city in the world and is the most desirable city in the world.’ you are kidding, right? Have you ever been anywhere else? If not, please do travel, enjoy!

Sure, Santa Barbara is beautiful (mostly because it is a beautiful natural location, and smart city government made bold urban decisions a long time ago - clearly you cannot attribute much of Santa Barbara’s beauty to what happened recently - as in the last 30 years, can you?), and we love to live here, but…. you were kidding, right?

BTW - what ‘high density cities’ in California are you referring to? You do know that congestion and low development densities go hand in hand, don’t you?

But I understand - you don’t seem to get out much. Never confuse somebody with facts when they have already made up their minds. Let’s hope the voters will be better informed. Oy-veh!

» The Truth on 03.25.09 @ 11:51 PM

There will never be “slow growth” until we have the courage to help enforce immigration laws. Maybe less building and housing space, but not growth. Unless you don’t consider increased population density to be growth. And with increased population density, and slow economic growth, increased crime and poverty is right at it’s heals.

» AN50 on 03.26.09 @ 07:14 AM

Lester the Skyline Molester,
You said it all; beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I don’t find preservation as practiced by the likes of you fascists to be beautiful at all. Your rambling diatribes come down to this; you want to live in a small country village of Spanish Mediterranean/California Rancho low sprawling architecture where nothing ever changes. So you and Bill and the rest of the 11,000 signers of the human achievement LIMITS go! Go find your little charming village. Please stop trying to make Santa Barbara something it is not and has not been for a very long time. Of course you realize that 11,000 of you are 5 times larger than the village you’re looking for, so you really need to find 5 villages in order to have that small town charm. Good luck!

Now then as far as the SEPV “answer” to their critics, the whole long boring rambling diatribe boils down to this: we want shorter buildings so it doesn’t matter what anyone else says. Their logic is utterly embarrassing in some of their answers so it really shows a lack of intellectual follow through on the part of their editors. Interestingly enough none of my salient points were answered (I know, I know they did talk about the monolith skyline argument I made but their answer was so stupid I had to ignore it, for those of you who didn’t follow, trust me). My biggest argument against height limits was the historical precedent for taller, not shorter buildings in Santa Barbara. Height limits forced Fess Parker to build his hotel on east beach at a sprawling, land gobbling, 3 stories when the Potter hotel built in 1905 with a city population under 20,000 on West Beach was 7 stories. If that hotel hadn’t burned down then what would be the precedent? The Granada, Balboa, 820 State, Lyon, original Carrillo Hotel, are all over 4 stories and 60 feet and don’t seem to harm the skyline at all. If SEPV’s idiotic notion that we are “built out” and not many more buildings will be built (which begs the question, then why all the hulabaloo?) what is the harm if a couple or three or four more taller buildings are built? Why such an outcry? What real harm would come from a few more taller buildings? Of course if SEPV was just using the “build out” argument to assuage fears of a low rise monolith skyline and they really do fear massive numbers of buildings then they are liars to boot or just incompetent, whatever. But the real critical question they did not answer, that has Lester the Skyline Molester so tied in knots, is this; the downtown core of Santa Barbara is unique in two regards, its architecturally cohesive Spanish design and its dense conglomerate of multi story buildings, so why is a taller building not appropriate in this setting? The density of the core is what makes SB set apart from the low rise two dimensional catastrophe that is southern California. The multi story buildings of downtown, most built before 1930, give the core a unique urban feel that you don’t get in most California medium sized cites, most of whom do not have an identifiable core. Why does Less, Bill and the members of SEPV want to ruin that feel and make the core indiscernible from a shopping mall? What is it that is so attractive about a suburban strip mall that these people want our city to resemble it? Answer those questions please. And don’t come back with this idiotic crap about turning SB into Manhattan or Miami. Don’t tell me that you only want to keep SB from changing because it’s so perfect right now or that if it does change you want it to become Molester’s little sprawling Rancho.

Santa Barbara is a city, a unique city with taller buildings in its downtown core. A beautiful city with cohesive Spanish architecture that is just as comfortable at 8 stores as it is at 2. It is a city that its founders and early visionaries saw as the place to be on the central coast and saw it as the commercial, cultural, financial and governmental hub of the tri counties. It was at one time a robust city that developed a much bigger attitude (and buildings) than its small population warranted. The grand scale of its earlier buildings reflected that “we are in charge” attitude. Somehow we let all that go to be replaced with this insufferable small minded, self loathing, achievement hating attitude that is embodied in the limits being imposed on buildings here. The irrational fear of over development is without precedent anywhere but here. Having witnessed the ravages of mindless development elsewhere I understand the fear Less and SEPV have but their methods of dealing with it are worse, like trying to weed your garden with a bulldozer.

Take a deep breath folks and answer the questions I posed here. The little small town fantasy you have was lost a long time ago and with every gang stabbing becomes ever more irrational. There is a much better way to deal with urban development than just saying no to everything all the time or imposing irrational limits. Until you pull your head out of the sand the limits you impose on buildings will only further your delusion.

» ETTAG on 03.26.09 @ 09:25 AM

Oy vey – such emotions. What are you people so scared of?
Of course, the challenge to name more beautiful cities than Santa Barbara is idiotic. Where should one begin? But it is also irrelevant, because we all live and (some of us even work) here – it’s not like we can choose to suddenly move to Shangi-La, if that was our fancy. 
The real question is whether our city makes the most out of the unique environment we have been given. And the answer would be, at least in the last 30 years, a resounding and unfortunate “no”. We have perhaps the greatest beach in southern California, and next to it we forced Fess Parker to build a sprawling monstrosity that would be much better situated in Palm Desert, because it completely turns its back on the beach; and we have an elevated freeway cutting off most of the town from the beach; oh, and let’s not forget the asphalt plant and the shabby light industry that are close to the beach! That surely isn’t the best possible use of - let me repeat it again – of one of the best beaches in southern California.
AN50 is so right. Santa Barbara is great because it once aspired to be a great small town, a robust city that developed a much bigger attitude (and buildings) than its small population warranted. Take a deep breath, people, and ask yourself if you could have created, or would have allowed, all that makes Santa Barbara still great. It’s my guess that you could not wrap your small minds around it. Instead, I think your attitudes would create a Thousand Oaks on the beach.
And that is what the height ordinance will help achieve, at last.

» Just Say No to Smart Growth on 03.26.09 @ 11:06 AM

Hey ETTAG:

Much better Thousand oaks at the beach than New York City at the beach, which is what Santa Barbara would become if we allowed you smart growth advocates to have your way and allow hundreds more tall monster buildings, like those on Chapala that we all hate so much.

Oh I forgot….....  smart growth advocates like you love them and want many many more just like them.

» AN50 on 03.26.09 @ 02:16 PM

Dear Editor,

You may censor me, I’m ok with that. But I call a chicken a chicken, a rat a rat, an intellectual narcissist a, well an intellectual narcissist! If that offends the sensibilities of my opponents so be it. As one who has endured the vile venom from the anti everything crowd in this town for nearly 40 years it’s nice to give some back. It is also worthy to note they don’t take it as well as they give it and have no sense of humor to boot! So cheers and have fun moderating what is undoubtedly going to be a bloody freaking battle as the champions of American exceptionalism battle with the shlepping toadies of mediocrity.

Now then, on to the fight! Hang in there ETTAG this is going to get rough and fun altogether as we take the ever escalating angry emotional nit wits on the ride of their life!

Ok, Reply and JSNTSG, who I believe to be none other than Lester the Skyline Molester (and my apologies Less if I’m wrong!), we already shot down yer frippen frappen smart growth baloney. No where have I ever advocated smart growth and you know all too well from the last tongue lashing I gave you Less that I believe smart growth is bad. You would know, if you would take yer meds and actually read what I wrote, that my argument is about the height of buildings and that I don’t give a rat’s arse about growth, housing problems, or any of the other 101 deflecting arguments you give to back up your initiative. Unlike you, I have no associations with realtors, architects, developers, builders, government, housing advocates or anyone else who might want to influence this debate for monetary gain. My interest is purely aesthetic, I don’t care if all they build is one building every freaking decade as long as it is a masterpiece and on par with what is our historical precedent, which my friend is taller, not shorter! I don’t give a rat’s arse what happened to yer home town of the People’s Republic of Santa Monica. To have the unmitigated stupidity of comparing a city that is nothing more than an extension of the worst land development calamity on planet earth, LA, (well after Mexico City maybe, ok Tokyo too, oh wait a minute, throw New Deli in there as well, oh crap maybe there are a few more, like a dozen cities in China, well you get the point) is over the top and shows that you have no real argument from aesthetics and it’s all about fear of growth. How many times do you have to be beat over the head with the same information until it sinks in? Lowering building heights will NOT STOP GROWTH, smart growth, any growth and using growth as an argument against taller buildings is at best stupid and at worse a big fat lie and you know it buster!!!

You cannot argue about small town charm because it does not exist. You cannot argue about growth because height only affects maximum density over all, not growth in general. You cannot argue history because history is looking down on what you want to do. You cannot argue architectural significance because there are far too many examples around the world of much taller structures in our architectural genre. You cannot argue traffic or other density related issues because your idiotic city government is making things worse whether there is growth or higher density anyway and it is a fact that more compact cities manage traffic through mass transit better than your suburban vision. So what in the world do you have left? I keep saying these things over and over building my case ever better and more completely while you keep screaming “you don’t get it!”Buddy I get it better than you and your 11,000 signers combined!!! And so does ETTAG and everyone else I talk to. Your movement is on real shaky ground. You can only use the “evil Orange County developer” ruse for so long before people start wondering why, like ETTAG alluded to, our city is rotting from the inside out and everything that is built is mediocre and lacking in anything resembling greatness. Get a freaking clue!! You want to save the city from destruction, man o man I will help you all the way!! Do you get that!!! I want the same thing you do, a beautiful place to live that is livable. I just don’t want it to look like a frippen frappen suburban, stick and stucco, freaking Disneyland tourist trap, ok? Do you understand? The enemy is not growth, its growth of your limits induced mediocrity!

[Editor’s note: I’m not censoring you. I’m asking you guys to self-censor the names and insults.]

» AN50 is ETTAG on 03.26.09 @ 04:33 PM

WAY too close to be a coincidence!

AN50 posted his diatribe at 5:16 p.m. and ETTAG posted his diatribe at 5:18 p.m.

This was just enough time for AN50 to have copied and pasted a second post under the name ETTAG.

Also note how both are very long ( the trademark of AN50) I’ve had to endure so much of his raving crap both here and all the other blogs in town I know his writing style by now)  and both with no paragraphs.

But these latest rambling comments by what appears to be a loony, don’t deserve the dignity of a response, as they (AN50) just don’t get it and will never get it. 
It’s time for all of us to “dismiss them”.

Oy-vey

» WTF? on 03.26.09 @ 09:25 PM

Well Dog my Cat,
Our suspicions are confirmed folks.
AN50 ( also sometimes thinks he’s ETTAG) is suffering from multiple personalities, and is a Raving Lunatic.

» sbnative on 03.27.09 @ 11:16 AM

Whoa down - Dumb down - and Keep down those buildings (and facts!) Agree with AN50 & ETTAG - if the No-Growthers masquerading as SEPV supporters would just be HONEST about their agenda, we’d respect them more. Make no mistake: this is just a WATER MORATORIUM in another glass. I.e., we got ours and absolutely no one else can.

Iya Falcone rightly pointed out that “height” isn’t what created the Q-E-2 (aka Chapala One) but the massing of parcels, as well as faulty ordinances (parking requirements, inclusionary-housing) which have had “unintended consequences.”

Mr. Mahan, SEPV’s lead spear-chucker, was apparently involved in APPROVING Chapala One!!! But don’t let the FACTS get in the way of SEPV’s effective fear-mongering campaign. Yikes… I mean FIVE whole four-story buildings have been approved in the city core in the last EIGHTEEN years! HOLD THE FORT! We’re going to the dogs! I think not. Although I rather like Big Dogs. \

How about some of you SEPV folks fight facts with facts? Not fear…

» AN50 on 03.27.09 @ 07:34 PM

Ok Less, you’ve embarrassed your self enough now. Why don’t the rest of you SEPV people help this person out?!! Less-is-More has been the only one of you cowards to speak out. Sorry Less, but when you’re the only one out there speaking your mind you’re gonna get hit pretty hard. I really wish the losers in your SEPV organization would come out from under their desk and give you a hand.

To sbnative, I am really glad you brought up Falcone’s statement. I’m not really a fan of hers but she nailed that square on. We will see a lot more of that with more height limits, particularly with property values plummeting. The buying up and massing of properties to build ever more sprawling structures is ripe in this economic climate. Just another unintended consequence of the limits.

» ETTAG on 03.28.09 @ 12:57 PM

The SEPV is more preoccupied with destroying the credibility of whoever holds an opposing opinion than intelligently replying. Who cares if an argument is made by one or by three people – as long as it makes sense?
But perhaps this silliness can serve a purpose. Maybe NOOZHAWK can arrange a forum where people intelligently and factually, but anonymously, discuss the future of our city. People do not speak their minds here when they can be identified. The cost can be too high and the consequences too severe. The SEPV people sit on lots of boards and commissions, and they hold grudges! Even if one is not involved at all in development, who wants to risk that next time you want to redo your own garage etc.,  some review board or commission is holding you up forever, or costs you a ton of money just because you publicly doubted their idiotic agenda for your own hometown?

SB has been taken over by cranky old people who have theirs and who don’t want to share, nor do they want anything to change around them. They have their incomes secured and plenty of time at hand which they spend on boards and commissions dictating their mummified mediocrity to the rest of us.

An honest discussion – respectful but otherwise no holds barred, would be great – city officials might be amazed what they would hear if it was anonymous. This great city is slowly dying. It might make a pretty corpse, but even the best embalmed body will sooner or later rot.

So, NOOZHAWK, how about that?

[Editor’s note: That’s a great idea! I seem to recall two anonymous commenters were having just such a respectful conversation about this very topic last week on Noozhawk. Can you tell me what happened?]

» AN50 on 03.28.09 @ 03:47 PM

I really can’t tell you how happy I am, knowing there are others out there that see these limits as I do. The odd thing is I’ve met other fans of urban greatness in person and their politics, age and interest are all over the map. I’ve really never seen an issue split a community the way this one has. I think we are on to something here, though, until I started looking at the local blogs I could have sworn I was the only one who felt this way about limits here. Since posting a fairly consistent number of flamer responses I began to realize that there are a lot of people who believe the same thing but were afraid of two things, the backlash sbnative talks about and a genuine fear of development. The first fear is reinforced by the mob mentality at many community meetings and public hearings. I know I’ve been a victim many times. The second fear is more insidious. It comes from two generations of demonizing an entire industry. It does not help one bit that there is room for such demonizing because of the actions of a few developers.  So it would be great to get together and I believe ETTAG is on to something with the online forum for these kinds of issues. My concern is that when you cut all the baloney out of the opposition’s arguments they usually don’t want to play anymore or melt down. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve begged the opposition and their leaders to respond to legitimate questions, SEPV’s half hearted attempt on this thread not withstanding, and I get nothing. The thread usually dies right there. So it would be interesting if you could get people to respond intelligently with out first having to use shock therapy to get these folks out of their coma.
BTW – editor I don’t recall the respectful discussion you mention, do you remember what thread that was on?

» You want Facts on 03.29.09 @ 08:26 AM

FACT:  AN50 , ETTAG and SBNATIVE are one in the same person ( who suffers from multiple personality disorder and needs to get professional help for his delusions of grandeur.

FACT:  Great little towns are transformed into ugly cities one building at a time.

FACT:  The vast majority of the voters love our city just the way it is and don’t want a lot of high density smart growth with it’s monster tall buildings.  After all smart growth is just another word for growth -but a lot o it!

FACT:  Even though AN50 says he knows more about what’s good for us than the 11,500 voters who signed the height initiative he only has one vote and come November the voters have the opportunity to take control of the future of our city away from the city council!
POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

FACT: Yes, this is about aesthetics and the vast majority of the voters here prefer the aesthetics of a small town character with it’s charm and human scale, and low density, than big monster tall buildings.  40 feet was chosen as it’s the perfect height to be compatible with the historic buildings in EL Pueblo Viejo.

FACT; It’s a fact that high density, and the tall buildings that go along with high density, cause gridlock traffic congestion in the neighborhood with the growth in population and high density and big tall buildings.  After all Santa Barbara will never have alight rail system here, and nationwide only 2% of workers ride a bile to work.
And remember, its a FACT that only 20% of the workers who live downtown work downtown.  The rest work elsewhere and drive to work.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

» John Locke on 03.29.09 @ 10:21 AM

TO: “You want Facts”

You claim as facts that “AN50 , ETTAG and SBNATIVE are one in the same person ( who suffers from multiple personality disorder and needs to get professional help for his delusions of grandeur.”  WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR FACTS?  AND ARE YOU A MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL?  OR JUST ANOTHER SLIMER?

You claim that: “Great little towns are transformed into ugly cities one building at a time.” INTERESTING OPINION, BUT DEBATABLE.

You claim that “The vast majority of the voters love our city just the way it is and don’t want a lot of high density smart growth with it’s monster tall buildings.” HOW THE HECK WOULD YOU KNOW WHAT THE MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS WANT?  THAT’S WHY WE HAVE ELECTIONS. 

“POWER TO THE PEOPLE” WAS A CATCHPHRASE FROM A DIRTY HARRY MOVIE. THOSE WHO SAID IT REALLY MEANT “power to me”.

AND 11,500 PEOPLE IS NOWHERE NEAR A MAJORITY OF VOTERS.

» 11,500 signatures on 03.29.09 @ 02:26 PM

I guess it’s time for me to finally jump in this discussion.

I just couldn’t let the comment made by john Locke go.

I was one of the several who got signatures on the petition.

During the 6 month signature drive I spoke to somewhere around 4000 residents.
I’ll admit not all 4000 were registered to vote.

But here is the point:
Signatures were extremely easy to get!  (Boy, thats an understatement) The voters were eager to grab the clipboard out of my hand and sign it.  Everybody had seen and hated those behemoth buildings on Chapala.  The word had gotten around town as to what was going on with the new trend of big buildings and with this petition drive to stop them.

I didn’t keep exact track, but there were around 10 voters who signed the petition and made a statement something to the effect that they don’t want any more tall buildings here FOR EVRY ONE who made a statement something to the effect that they have no problem with tall buildings.

I wish I had a dollar for every person who mentioned something to the effect that they had moved here from a the city that had been nice and had a small town character 30 years ago but has been ruined by over-development.  I heard similar words so much that I can share with you that it is a very common emotion with the voters—-that they like a small town character and they sure don’t like a lot of development and big buildings.  Most voters equate big buildings with growth.

Another thing I can share with you is the fact that the older the voters are the higher majority was in favor of preservation and no growth and to lower the height limit.
It went something like this as to age:
20’s 50% in favor
30’s 60 % in favor
40’s 70% in favor
50’s   80% in favor
60’s   90% in favor
age 70"s or older—almost 100% in favor of lowering building heights.

Also, for some reason I can’t explain, women of all ages were more eager to lower building heights than men of the same age.  I even had wives of contractors, developers and architects sign, it then with a chuckle mentioned something to the effect that their husbands would kill them if they knew they had signed it.

The only way I can explain this is that with age comes a wisdom to appreciate what we have and a desire to protect and preserve it?

Based on my 4000 conversations, at various times and locations, as a truly random sampling of the voters, I can quite easily predict that this ballot measure will quite easily pass and with a ratio of something like 70% YES to 30% No.

I hope this insight developed in the real world by talking with real voters helps.

» sbnative on 03.29.09 @ 05:56 PM

Ahem to “You Want Facts” - your facts are… WHERE? All I hear is the same old fictitious talking points: what you “think” - yadayadayada…

I take your point about “spearchucker” - though I was referring to Mahan’s ability to throw barbs…ala “Spearchucker” Jones - a character in M*A*S*H. Spearchucker, a stand-out collegiate athlete, was also a surgeon. (Wikipedia notes: “Spearchucker,” ordinarily a racial slur, ironically referred in this case to Jones’ javelin-throwing prowess.) 

But you see, I’m not racist, nor am I suffering from multiple personalities (perhaps you should ask AN50 and ETTAG and me to cocktails. Better be ready to pay for all three of us!) Alas, I’m also no Charles Dickens, who artfully referred to a fat boy as “a rather swollen boy.” I’ll try to do better in the future.

Here are some FACTS:

Y’all want a water moratorium but damn, it just rained.

Y’all want absolutely no-growth (BANANA) but you know it’s not PC to SAY it. Better to hide behind “tall” buildings.

Y’all created hysterical fear with your inaccurate drawings and “pipeline;” now you don’t want your “supporters” to know the truth.

ONE BUILDING A YEAR. And OOOPS - Mahan helped approve Chapala One.

Talk about hypocrisy… and agenda-driven hype. 

Those are FACTS.

BTW Locke is right. The issues facing this city are IMMENSE - way bigger than ONE building a year. We’d be wise to think of that.

» yak yak on 03.30.09 @ 11:45 AM

No Spin Zone - you can’t even spell LIAR right.

Those of us who disagree with categorically lowering building heights, who see it as STUPIDLY NARROW-MINDED, are not “liers,” pro-growthers, greedy architects or developers, etc. We are citizens who want to live in a vibrant town, not a mausoleum.

Your ALLEGED “facts” are being exposed as empty rhetoric. Your latest iteration, clearly a reprint of another reprint from earlier in the comments, is merely a long-winded bloated diatribe.

Who’s gonna read all that!? NEVER MIND BELIEVE IT…

Power to the people indeed. We’ll be here when you are long gone. WE have a stake in the future, just like you.
In fact we have more. Yes, some of us may be younger than you. All the more reason to speak out against rigid, small-minded madness.

» AN50 on 03.30.09 @ 12:51 PM

Ok Less is More, lets beat you up one more time.
Fact 1 - There is no small town character here. There was back in 1847 but by the turn of the century SB was an international venue. Sure the town went into a coma after WWII and when a pair of high rises threatened the coma in 1968 the 60 foot limit was imposed to ensure the patient will not wake up. But a coma is not the same as “small town”. Get a clue Lester.
Fact 2 – It is an indefensible lie that limits will stop any growth at all. You and your lying organization should be investigated for voter fraud on this one, and perhaps you will. You can repeat a lie as much as you want but it only becomes truth to the feeble minded, to the rest of you caveat emptor.
Fact 3 – Your inability to articulate an argument usually results in repetition.
Fact 4 – I thought the argument was about building heights, but you keep making it about growth. Why can’t we stop growth AND have taller buildings? Got a problem with that Skyline Molester?
Fact 5 – So are you telling us that in addition to squashing the skyline flat you are also going to demand even greater setbacks? Excuse me but why can’t we have a city that looks like a city and not an industrial park? Less, Santa Barbara is a city, not a suburb. In a city building rise up from the side walk to roof top or parapet, why is that so hard for you to understand? Why do you want so much to destroy the urban character of our city? Was it your bad experience in Santa Monica? Give us a clue we can help you with this.
Fact 6 – You sorta got this one right. The smart growth advocates are in direct conflict with the city’s traffic managers. The traffic guys are all about idealism, you know, hope people take a bus if we really F up traffic flow for cars, not provide enough parking etc… You did call it though, most people whether in one of your one block square 3 story low rise (but with setbacks of course) massive buildings or in a 4 story Chapala One style or a smaller leaner 6 story building are going to drive cars. And the more people you put down town the more cars there will be. Yes Lester, there will be fewer if we spread out more. However what the smart growth people have failed at miserably is articulating what real smart growth is about and instead just accepts any high density growth as “smart”. They are wrong, you mad e a good call there and I agree with you on that. Where we part is when you go off the rails and want to stop everything that isn’t suburban in nature. I won’t support smart growth until a) they practice what smart growth is, and b) they start calling out bad examples of so called “smart growth” (like the Citrus Village in Goleta).
Fact 7 - The vast majority of opponents to your limits are people like me who see them as stupid, overly restrictive, destroyers of our city’s historical character, uninspiring and killers of greatness, oh and did I mention they are stupid (as in overly simplistic and applied to everything everywhere, crap my damned dog could come up with a better idea than a blanket height ordinance)?
Fact 8 – You need to go over to the East side some time pal or better yet go visit some of the lowest density highest crime rates in the country right down in the smoggy low density most crime ridden city in the U.S.,  Los Angeles. Do you actually believe the BS you write, or you just that freaking deluded?
Fact 9 - Your inability to articulate an argument usually results in repetition (hey wait a minute!)
By November your lie will be exposed. You will be fleshed out into public to defend your using height as a growth management tool instead of zoning. Your perpetuation of the urban “small town” myth will be exposed by default as gang murders continue, traffic chokes on “bulb outs”, pan handlers increase and the rotting stench of urban decay promulgated by the fairytale people like you live in bubbles through the cheap shabby stucco skin of your taxidermied little delusion. You keep screaming louder and louder the same idiotic BS Less, but all you do is further expose the weakness of your arguments. Meanwhile we are mounting a counter movement to wake up the darling little old folks in this town you and Bill have lied to. We are not going to delude them into the phony belief that a new more restrictive height limit will somehow restore this town to greatness or return their youth or whatever other ungodly crap you told these people. You are right about one thing Less, people are smarter than given credit for and when they hear the real story behind your organization and what your initiative really means, I have faith they will make the more intelligent choice.

» John Locke on 03.30.09 @ 02:01 PM

Just for the record, I’m one of the 11,500 who signed the petition some months ago, and, having learned more about the issues, seen the quality of arguments (NOT) and tendency to mudslinging and namecalling from its supporters, am officially rectifying my horrible mistake and withdrawing my name. So the count is 11,499, not 11,500.  And, to ‘11,500 signatures’, your story is interesting but missing a crucial piece of data.  If you are the individual who talked to me, you presented a rather horrifying picture of a New York skyline in Santa Barbara.  That’s just not gonna happen, at 60 feet or 40 feet.

» Less is More on 03.30.09 @ 02:24 PM

AN50 9, (and ETTAG and sbnative—the other names that you go by)

I respect your right to your opinion. (however faulty your reasoning)

What you don’t grasp is that your personal preference for tall buildings or my personal preference for short buildings is just that :  a subjective personal preference

There is no factual right or wrong here.  (You state your personal preference as if it was somehow factually correct for all of us.)  How arrogant can one get?  Come down off your high horse!

What you just can’t accept is that the voters are not going to vote your way or my way come November but THEIR WAY and according to their personal preference.

Now there is but one fact that matters here, and that is the fact that a vast majority of the voters have a personal preference for slow growth and for preserving what we call our small town character.  It does not matter one iota whether you, personally, think Santa Barbara does not have small town character rather all that matters is that the vast majority of voters do think that Santa Barbara has a small town character and high quality of life and and want to preserve it.  And all that matters is that the vast majority favors slow growth and does not want a lot of high density vertical smart growth here and will eagerly vote against it.  and all that matters is that the vast majority of the voters absolutely despise those monstrosities on Chapala and will eagerly vote YES on the building height ballot measure to lower building heights.

I cannot get the voters to vote my way, just as you cannot, even with all your ranting and raving,  get the voters to vote your way.  It is a fact that the voters are going to vote THEIR way and that will be that a vast majority will vote YES to lower building heights.  And there is nothing you or I can do to change this!

You like to call a spade a spade:
A greedy pig developer is a greedy pig developer, and a ugly tall monster building is a ugly tall monster building and high density smart growth is just another word for growth and a lot of it!

So put that in your pipe and smoke it!~

Less is More!

» Two can play that game on 03.30.09 @ 03:02 PM

reply to AN50 ( otherwise known as ETTAG and sbnative)

You just gave yourself away when you said in your last post ( quote) ; ” Meanwhile we are mounting a counter movement to wake up the darling little old folks in this town”

Now we all know for sure that you are an integral part of the greedy pro growth development industry.  Would you like me to inform you just what the vast majority of the voters in Santa Barbara think of your greedy development industry?  I thought not!  Go crawl back in your hole you greedy snake.

Two can play that game buckwheat:
While you are trying to sell your rediculous lies to the voters all we have to do to get their vote is to present two factual things:

1. Show then a picture of the monstrosities on Chapala and infom them how voting yes will stop any more of them.

2. Make it crystal clear that the opponents to the citizens grass roots ballot height intitiative is primarily made up of you greedy devil developers, and you greedy lying architects, and you nasty pro high density smart growth planners, all of whom would make a whole lot of money by transforming ( and ruining) our cherished small town character by building hundreds of monster and bulky buildings one building at a time.

» Less is More on 03.30.09 @ 05:38 PM

reply to “density may be more sustainable”
Nice to hear a more reasonable tone of voice in someone from the opposing side.

I agree with you that density might be more sustainable for a small town if there is no population growth!  And if there was no growth, and we retained a small town character,  I could even live with some few tall buildings here and there. ( GASP!)

But lets face reality—-density and tall buildings WILL result in population growth.
A whole lot of it.

It is a fact that the only way for us to control growth is to put in place what are called “growth control” in our general plan and zoning ordinance!  Growth won’t be prevented on its own, or by you and I just wishing it was so.  Thats for sure.

There are really very very few effective growth controls in our general plan and zoning ordinance!    Think about it for a minute!  the only effective growth controls are the density and the height limit.  If we had a maximum FAR ( of say 1.0) for R-3 and commercial mixed use zones we wouldn’t need a height limit or density control.  But we don’t.  And the smart growth advocates ( which are pushing HARD for increasing the density, including city planning staff, the PC and the City Council, and so this leaves height limits as the only effective way for us to control growth .

Now since the powers that be are all in favor of high density smart growth, this means that it is up the voters to take matter into their own hands and vote in this height initiative.

Now as to developers:  Of course not all developers are greedy pigs.
I said that because AN50 bring out the worst in me.  You however, I can have a civil and friendly conversation with.
Whenever I read one of the nasty and insulting posts from AN50 my blood boils and I can’t see straight.  So I can’t help but stoop down to his low level and fire something nasty right back.

I really wish this lunatic AN50 would go away, as he preaches from his high horse and the inflammatory words that come out of this guys mouth do absolutely nothing toward getting the two opposing sides together in some sort of balance or compromise.  All he does is make me want to dig my heels in and fight him.    And fight him hard to the end I will.  He is doing his side MUCH more harm than good with his holier than thou ranting and raving like a maniac, thats for darn sure.

» AN50 on 03.31.09 @ 11:51 AM

Less you really have flipped yer noodle.
Now quit whining will ya. Fer God’s sake this is the internet, if you want a civil conversation then let’s hook up and go out for a beer or something. I usually don’t insult people as much in person, unless of course they need it. Like I told you a million times before we want two different versions of the save Santa Barbara scenario. I don’t like yours. I’m not sorry that pisses you off, that’s your problem not mine or the internet community’s. I’ve tried to be diplomatic, consolable, reasonable and amenable to your desires, but I don’t like them so yes I can’t help but want to smack you around, ok? It does not help that the version of save Santa Barbara I have espoused is met by a barrage of idiotic SEPV talking points. Dammit, if you are going to reject everything I say, do it with your own voice and not some slicked up politically driven crap some lawyer put together. You have, over the thousands of words we have exchanged, managed to convince me that you have a narrow one track mind when it comes to urban development, build it like a suburb and Less is happy. If it looks anything city like Less throws a fit. Less, neither one of us wants this place to look anything like any city in LA, Ventura, Orange or San Diego Counties. How many times do I have to repeat that before it sinks into your brain? Fighting growth with building height limits is stupid, Less, and the sooner you guys realize that the sooner those of us fighting you can join you.  None of us wants to transform SB into an urban nightmare, we just want flexibility in design and that means NO HEIGHT LIMITS. You want to curb growth do it through zoning. You want to prevent some glass and steel high rise from going up, do it through the ABR. You want to keep the skyline from becoming over crowded with taller buildings then have FAR’s and air space requirements. These methods prevent wholesale destructive development of the core and lower density neighborhoods while giving the design community the flexibility to design great works of architecture. We can’t even get to what solutions are out there because you and the SEPV people automatically reject anything outside of some mind numbingly stupid, overly simplistic limit. I don’t care if that makes yer friggin blood boil. Like I told the editor, I call it the way I see it. You and your SEPV people need to stop taking the rage we feel against your limits personally. Get that, Less, it’s not personal, I don’t dislike you just your view of what urban beauty is and how to achieve it. Now go take a damn pill or something and stop embarrassing yer self will ya.

» Less Is More on 03.31.09 @ 03:46 PM

AN50
Let me tell you what I don’t like about you:
I have no problem with us having two different versions for the future of Santa Barbara.  I have no problem with your not liking my version.  Hell, I don’t like your version!  So it’ not your version that I don’t like.  Its your acidic personality!

But why can’t you just present your version and let us all know the merits of your version, and allow me to let you all know the merits of mine.

What I can’t stand is how you say that every single thing I ever say is factually wrong, and a lie, and stupid,  and how you say everything you say is factually right, and that you know what is best for all of us more than all 11,000 voters combined.

My friend, you, not me, are the one who has the rigid unbending position, and you, not me, are the condescending know it all who is up on a high horse and calls anything your opponents say is stupid and wrong.    You are the one who can’t respect another having a different opinion than yours,  and you are the one who makes personal insults to your opponents and calls their position factually incorrect and stupid. 
The question now becomes just what is it in your know it all and conceited personality that you can’t allow someone to have an opposing opinion or to make a statement without calling it stupid and factually wrong.

Can’t you see that this is a subjective aesthetic issue where there is no right or wrong and it is but a matter of opinion.

You are so in love with tall buildings that you just can’t accept the reality that the vast majority of the voters in Santa Barbara just don’t like tall buildings, love Santa Barbara, and are quite happy with our city stay pretty much the way it is.  Of course we recognize that there is going to be some small growth and some change. 

Our goal is to protect and preserve what we perceive as the small town character( whatever words you want to use to describe it) and quality of life in Santa Barbara, so that it will grow as little as possible and so that as it grows and changes that the result will stay close to the existing character and quality of life. 
In other words we don’t want it ruined.
Now what started all this is the very real trend the last 2 years of massive tall, buildings being built in the downtown area.

We noticed that instead of one big building per year being built, as we had over the last 30 years, that there were something like 20 tall projects at various stages in the pipeline or approved and not built, or under construction.  A very real and significant new trend.  Santa Barbara is a historic city and is full of charming one and two story historic buildings of human scale.  the majority of us feel that the new massive projects, like those monstrosities on Chapala,  are simply not compatible with the existing character of our beloved town.

Now ask yourself what is our motivation for putting the height initiative on the ballot.,  it sure is not financial as it is for the developers and architects and planners, but it is nothing more than trying to stop the transformation of Santa Barbara into a high density big city with lots of population growth and lot of massive tall buildings and the traffic congestion that such transformation would bring. 

So, its both about aesthetic preference for a one and two story small town low density character ( not the character of a suburban strip mall but the character of our existing downtown State Street, which full of charming and attractive buildings, and is anything but the character of a suburban strip mall ),  So yea it is about the height of buildings.

And second, it is also about keeping the slow rate of growth that we have enjoyed the last 30 years and which we consider is the very reason why Santa Barbara is so very special today.

Yes we do have a few tall buildings and yes they do add a flavor to the town.  But the whole point is they are attractive only because there are only a few of them and the aesthetic character would be completely different if we had another 100 tall monster 60 feet 4 story projects downtown.  You may think it wold be an improvement but the vast majority of the voters do not think it would be an aesthetic improvement but would transform pour town , one building at a time, into something not near as charming and with not near the human scale that we now enjoy.  Big buildings block the view of the mountains and block the sunlight to our plazas and paseos and yes the do create what the majority of us consider to be a canyon effect.

Yes, you can argue that our words are wrong and that it takes a 8 story building to create a canyon effect, but you can’t change the attitudes and values of the voters with your semantics and your insults.

I can hardly wait until November because I have developed a knowledge about the current attitudes and preference of the voters on this subject, and I would bet my right arm that this height initiative is going to easily pass. 

The voters grabbed the petitions and couldn’t sign it fast enough.  It was truly amazing to witness.  I never would have believed it if I hadn’t seen it with my own eyes.  Unless you can miraculously somehow change the deeply embedded love for Santa Barbara the way it is, and the slow-growth basic preference of the vast vast ( 80% ) majority of the voters over the next 6 months.

» AN50 on 03.31.09 @ 08:11 PM

Less, it’s been a hellava lotta fun poking at you. You rile up pretty easily and get pretty dang agitated, which other than for my own amusement is really boring the socks off everyone else. I already know what you like Less you explained it very well on the Debbie Brasket post. And no I don’t like it and know its wrong, and yes it is arrogant of me to put it that way. Just don’t take it so personal, ok. I don’t mean you any ill will and I certainly don’t mean SEPV any either (take the pokes and punches as a form of acidic humor and laugh it off).
I have exhausted my position very well over the last year. But my position comes as yours does from decades of experience. What kind of person would I be if I did not defend that position against all adversaries? What you see as an acidic personality is just my conviction (ok, so I do tend to go over board, but your so fun to do it to, my apologies). Now I don’t know what you mean by calling everything you say as factually wrong, I haven’t. I have called in to question the claim that height limits will stop or slow growth. Less, you know as well as I do that is just not true. I don’t bring this up to piss you off or to disparage SEPV, even if it sounds as though I am, I bring it up because when the dust settles on this issue and if the measure passes you and all who are banking on it to do so will be in for a hell of a shock when 100’s of Chapala Ones get into the pipe line (albeit 15 feet shorter). For God’s sake if you guys are banking the whole store on height limits you are in trouble. In one of your responses to me long ago you mentioned something very telling about your particular passion in this game. You said that there was no way for the citizens to control growth and that the height limit was your only hope. So I understand your anger at someone telling you your only hope will fail with such arrogant certainty. It just happens to be true and if you guys put your heads together you will see that. Consider what I have told you not an insult, a put down or a disparaging remark, but instead as a word of advice. The challenge ahead is not how to stop growth but how to stop bad growth. Less a city is a living creature and shackling it with life killing restrictions is no way to live. To that good day my friend, and some time when we can get past our passion for our causes we can sit down and have that beer together.

» ETTAG on 04.01.09 @ 01:38 PM

OK guys, now that you have made up and are singing kum-ba-ja…… everything is OK then? Santa Barbara is not getting better, the only thing SEPV will accomplish is that SB will still be getting worse but MORE SLOWLY!!!

The issue, to me, is not that buildings are too high, but that buildings are mediocre. That includes most recent Chapala structures, and whatever will be built under the new height restriction.

If this is good enough for us, then I suggest a couple of additional measures:

Everybody in Santa Barbara say the following affirmation every morning : ”Santa Barbara is the most beautiful and desirable place to live on earth; we are so lucky to be able to be here – oodly-do oodly-do”. Failing to do so will get you kicked out.

If you cannot afford to live here, you also cannot work here – you are in the way on the already crowded streets and freeways. We need our room to move.

If your kids start making waves about wanting to live here and also want a decent job, tell them to do what many of us are doing – borrow against your old man’s / lady’s house, and go surfing. If that is not good enough for them, they must leave.

Every new building in town is automatically ‘historic’ and therefore beautiful. If you question that, you need to recite more affirmations; if that does not help, you need to leave.

Let’s also build a wall around our town, and have check points on the freeway exits. Anybody coming from LA, or anybody doubting the beauty of Santa Barbara, or any person who does not have enough money in the bank will just be turned away.

After all, we are built out and finished here – and ever so beautiful and perfect!  Nothing can change! And while we will be happy keeping the rest of the world out, they will increasingly feel blessed to see us locked up also :)

» Less Is More on 04.01.09 @ 05:43 PM

ETTAG
You are a wild dreamer, and not even close to accepting the real world reality)

There are three MAJOR flaws in you reasoning:

1. You are not happy with the current quality of design and label it as mediocre.
But what you fail to realize is that the design is only as good as the design ability of the architects.  And in the reality of the real world you cannot improve the design ability of the architects ability—it is as good as it gets.  It cannot miraculously get an better just because you want it to be better.  ( if only it could be so)

2. Our height initiative has nothing to do with design ability o the architects who will continue to live here.  Note that the quality of design is exactly the same on new 60 feet recent new buildings as it is for 40 feet recent new buildings.  So whether the height initiative passes or not the design quality is going to remain the exact same as it is now.  Now what will change is the mass, height, bulk and scale.  If the height remains at 60 feet the future buildings ( by the same architects) will have the same mass bulk and scale as they do now and the vast majority of the residents (voters)  simply hate the mass, bulk, height , and scale of these monstrosities.  You wishing they were better design quality will not make it so and the real world factual reality is that they will continue to be he same quality design as they are now.  DESPISED BY THE VOTERS.  The whole point of this height initiative is to prevent any more of these monstrosities from ever being built.  And the real world fact is that under a 60 feet height limit many more of these monstrosities will be built.  It simply cannot be other wise!  Accept the reality that your wish for better design is not a solution because it is impossible to snap your fingers and improve the design ability of the architects who work here.  Which incidentally are the best in the country.  In other words its a goof as it’s going to get.  Excessive and incompatible Mass, bulk, height and scale are going to remain excessive and incompatible mass, bulk, height and scale.

3.  You fail to accept the reality that the vast majority of the residents ( voters) consider Santa Barbara to be a very special and beautiful place, and one of the most desirable places to live in the country.  Just because you don’t feel this same way does not change the reality of how the vast majority feel. 
Yes we have problems and yes we should work to solve those problems and maybe it could even be better.

But you ignore the fact that Santa Barbara could be much worse.
Now those cities not nearly as nice as us have a lot of big and tall buildings.  These big and tall building did not make then nicer than Santa Barbara, but if we add a lot of big and tall buildings and transform our city to be like them them we become them and remember “them” is not as nice as we are so us becoming like ““them’ is a step in the wrong direction.

MY pappy always told me:  ” Son, always remember the most important rule in life, If it ain’t broke don’t fix it”.

To the vast majority of Santa Barbaran’s Santa Barbara ain’t broke.  So please lets not “fix it”, by transforming it one big building at a time with 100’s of big, bulky, and tall monster buildings.
Remember all the other cities in California ,that were once nice, were transformed just one big building at a time.

Why can’t your see this reality?  As its the real world factual cold hard reality, not your fantasy “dreamworld” that occurs only in your unrealistic head.  I wish we had the power to make your dream happen but unfortunately we don’t.

IF IT AIN’T BROKE DON’T FIX IT!

.

» Less Is More on 04.02.09 @ 06:00 PM

ETTAG
I never should never have said Santa Barbara is the most beautiful place on earth, as you will never let me hear the end of it.
My point, and what I should have said, is that the vast majority of our residents believe that Santa Barbara is ONE OF the most beautiful and desirable cities to live in the country.

You made a few good points,
but,

In my opinion Santa Barbara has some of the best architects in the country.

You never heard me complain about them or their design ability.

Regarding their buildings, I didn’t make it clear that it is not the details, or style, of the design that I object to but rather the size, mass, bulk, height and human scale, compatibility, as well as the lack of setback.

If one took either of those monstrosities on Chapala and cut it in 4 quarters vertically I could live with a building of the same design detail and style made up of just 1/4 the mass and bulk, IF IT HAD A 5 FEET LANDSCAPED SETBACK.

So its not at all about our architects ability, but rather it’s simply that the building are too darn big, bulky, massive and tall, and don’t have adequate setbacks.  The Arlington theater and the courthouse have significant setbacks.  The courthouse with a zero setback instead of its 50 feet setback just wouldn’t look nearly as as good.

So lowering the building height will make them less massive and less bulky but we still need to work on the setbacks as well as somehow limiting the size of the footprint by not allowing several lots to be combined in one massive project, like was done on Chapala One. 

I disagree with you about our design boards.  I like spanish style architecture as the theme here mainly because it makes a new building look old.  I hate modern architecture.  I think our design boards are too easy, and you think they are too hard.  As an architect here for 30 years have received approval here of well over 200 buildings and only had a design turned down once.  It has been my observation that every project is made better by our boards and commissions.

I think we may have agreed before that beauty is in the eye of the beholder so it makes sense that those who love Santa Barbara the way it is should move here and live here and those who don’t like the way it is and want a bunch of new tall modern architecture should move away to a town that has them.  it makes no sense to transform pour town just to suit your aesthetic taste.

I have just discovered what your problem is, and, forgive me for saying this, but, it is that you are just not a good match for Santa Barbara.  And that is why you are so eager to change it. 

What you don’t seem to get is that the vast majority of our residents don’t agree with your viewpoint and there will always be a significant ‘force’ of concerned and caring citizens that will not allow you, or the smart growth advocates, to transform our beloved city, unless it’s over their “dead body”.

Regarding Pearl Chase, and the others you refer to at the time of the 1925 earthquake, I totally disagree with you in that they would be unhappy, rather I think they would join SEPV in its efforts to protect and preserve our city and lower building heights.  By the way, for your information, people who knew her say Pearl Chase didn’t like tall buildings.

With all due respect, regarding architecture, you might be happier if you moved.  As it’s most unlikely that you, and the smart vertical growth advocates will ever get your way here.  At least not in the next 20 years while all of us are still alive!

» Less Is More on 04.03.09 @ 07:05 PM

ETTAG

I agree with some of what you said.  We are getting closer in thinking, now that the insults have stopped.

We differ slightly on what makes Santa Barbara a great little coastal city just the way it is, or how it got that way.
But lets all agree that nobody can agree on a definition of just what makes it great that it is great.

Both of us seem to agree that we want it to grow in a way that keeps it just as great ( or even better) as it is now and lets both agree that we don’t want to see it ruined or get worse.

My thinking is that if all the future building are pretty much clones of what is here now and is we grow as slow as possible that we will remain a nice place. 

One problem you are not considering is that you and I don;‘t have control over what new buildings will be like.  Under the 60 feet height ordinances more monstrosities just like Chapala will be done by architects like Piekert.  ( no offense intended to Pielert—just making a point that it will be business as usual unless you guys self police Pielert) 

I fully agree with you that we need to make all the changes in our ordinances that you suggest.  If they had occurred we may nave not needed the height initiative,  But they didn’t occur and they might never occur so we need the height initiative.  At least in the meantime until you help us make these changes. 

If we make these changes maybe the height initiative can and will be revisited in a few years.  We’ll see how he architects work within the 40 ft limit and if the prove the building look great we can increase he limit.  In other words if Piekert would quit bulking out each of his big projects to the max. then we could start trusting the architects again.  In other words you can all thank Piekert for this height ordinance.

You have me all wrong in what I like.  I don’t like outer state street and suburban strip malls.  What I love is downtown state street, and El Paseo with it charming and quaint 2 story buildings.  The key thing is the wide sidewalks with lots of trees.  A far cry from Chapala with 6 feet sidewalk and no planting.  Chapala One might look great if it had a 5 feet boulevard with trees and a 12 feet brick sidewalk and then its walls right on the property line with no setback. But the sidewalk on Chapala is narrow and extends right to the curb then there needs to be a 5 feet setback with trees to soften the building.

Lastly you are wrong about those drawings in the Gebhart room.  These were not done by George Washington Smith and had nothing to do with pearl Chase.  These were drawn by a couple architects in the LA chapter of the AIA, just as a suggestion of what might occur, and never had a community consensus that this is even what was desired by the community. they mean absolutely nothing except are a pretty picture on a wall drawn by a couple of LA architects. 
Personally I love them, but there is no reason they couldn’t be redrawn with a 40 feet building height plus the towers which are of course exempt.  Next time you go look at them notice that the vast majority of he buildings shown are only 3 stories tall.  Not 4.  The very same character can still be accomplished.

» less Is More on 04.04.09 @ 10:51 AM

AN50

It is you who still doesn’t get it.

let me try one more time in a few words:
read my lips:

Our side loves Santa Barbara just the way it is.  We are fighting you to to protect and preserve it,
Your side, in effect,  wants to change it into Wilshire Boulevard!  Even if you, personally,  don’t want to change it into Wilshire Boulevard the grim reality is if we leave the 60 feet height limit that is exactly what is going to happen here. 

Since we kept our city low density for 50 years now our city is ‘ripe for the plucking’ and if we implemented high density smart growth it would open development in our city “wide open” for the first time in 50 years then greedy developers would come here from all over California, like a gold rush, and transom (rape) our beloved city, one monster 60 feet building at a time, into Wilshire Boulevard.

Now do you get it?

» reply to ETTAG on 04.06.09 @ 02:32 PM

ETTAG
I never said Piekert was not a very decent, well intentioned, thoughtful, honest and principled man.  I’m sure he is all of those things.

What some of us are talking about is his constantly trying to pack in as much bulk and mass as he can fit on each site.    And as high as he can get away with.  And thats appears to be just plain greedy and pushy.  He knows full well the vast majority of our community hate his monstrosities. 

We should all start calling him ” Mr. Bulk”, or “Mr. ruin our city”