Santa Barbara Council Denies Appeal to Coast Village Development

» John Locke on 06.03.09 @ 07:10 AM

Score one for private property rights.  The PR campaign by the NIMBYs used a photo taken from such a low angle as to make the project appear much larger than it really is.  Most of the objections were from Montecito, which is not part of Santa Barbara city and therefore not part of the decision.  Had Montecito paid to put sewers on CVR years ago, they could have kept CVR and kept control over the building on it.  Actions have consequences;  failure to act is in itself action.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Larry Crandell on 06.03.09 @ 08:41 AM

Excellent coverage of the City Council denial of an appeal concerning the Union 76 site
Interesting enough, I could find no mention of the decision in the News-Press this morning.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» City person on 06.03.09 @ 10:28 AM

It is in Montecito and we city people and Town Hall don’t care

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» John Locke on 06.03.09 @ 12:39 PM

It’s not in Montecito, City Person - look at a map.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Julie Simpson on 06.03.09 @ 01:12 PM

I don’t get it. Once a view is blocked, you can’t see it any more. Once a 3-story building is approved, it’s a precedent for more to be approved. One tall building at a time, the mountains will slowly disappear and there will be little sunlight left on Coast Village Road.

It’s already bad enough in downtown Santa Barbara. Does the City Council WANT to put Montecito on the slippery slope that will eventually block all the views that are a big part of why people enjoy visiting and being here? And if so, why? Views are disappearing everywhere. Makes me sad to see. I mean, to not see.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Maria Quintana on 06.03.09 @ 01:42 PM

Yes, we definitely need to preserve guest views from the Montecito Inn. We don’t want them looking out over a freeway, do we?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» City person on 06.03.09 @ 02:02 PM

The project doesn’t affect anyone in the city, only the country people in Montecito who were dumb enough to give away their rights.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» MONTECITO RESIDENT on 06.03.09 @ 04:06 PM

Why don’t we all email/call the developer and his architect and ask him why the large picture of his project on the front page of the Montecito Journal today has a white 3rd story with blue windows.  Are they trying to fool us and make us think this project is not 3 stories?  Sure looks like.  That picture came from the architect.  Why don’t we ask the architect what he means when he says the building is two story’s all around in todays Noozhawk story?  Would this be called some kind of deception?  Sure looks like it.  I think everyone should call them and ask them what exactly is going on here.  Check out the cover of the Montecito Journal.  Quite interesting.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 06.04.09 @ 05:39 AM

Ha, that’s a real laugh Don. What group of individuals has been the most virulent in the name calling business in this town the last 40 years, huh? My God man you guys are getting a taste of your own medicine and what you don’t like it? Can’t tell you how many times your side has demonized and spewed hatred and venom towards your own neighbors and business because you don’t like anything to change. Well buster the other side is fighting back and with a 40 year pent up vengeance.
As for your call for reasoned discussions, couldn’t agree more, same with your pointing out who has the most concern. The problem we have in this town, that you seem rightly concerned about, is the polarization that takes place on every single thing that is proposed or done. But Don, that has always started with those opposed to everything. How in the world are we ever going to do anything when people in this area scream bloody murder even when Joe Blow wants to build a new fence in his own yard? I have tried both tactics, vitriol and reason, to no avail. When the building height issue comes up, no amount of reasoned, logical or even pleasant discussion stops the mind blowing irrational responses.
So Don I’m up for suggestions. What do you suggest the few reasonable people in this town to do when surrounded by the mass hysteria? I for one would love to stand shoulder to shoulder with the neighbors and help them with the developer find a middle ground. But the first thing out of their mouth is NO, NO, NO! Can’t reason with that. I find it equally hard when I go against a bad development and people start throwing the turncoat/hypocrite crap at you. It just breeds more polarization.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» 4th generation SBer on 06.04.09 @ 06:22 AM

How many folks in Montecito or other wise have even ever looked at that view? Which by the way is now a charcoal view. Probebly not till now, change is going to continue get over it….......My answer to you all if it so upsets you all buy the project and keep and operate the gas station. Then go accross the street pay for a room and look at your view, for many of you it may be a first…..

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Don McDermott on 06.05.09 @ 03:54 AM

AN50: I never called for reasoned discussion and am not expecting it really. I did call for the name-calling to stop.  I would rather people discuss each other’s comments and thoughts. For instance I find it interesting that residents that reside in exclusivity (which is o.k.) but want to control developement all over the planet, based on their own needs and regardless of other considerations. Similarly the CPA wants to control development based upon their view from a windshield. BTW what is “the other side?”

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» John Locke on 06.05.09 @ 03:24 PM

I see NIMBY and BANANA as descriptive terms, like Republican, Democrat, Nurse, Librarian, Developer, Environmentalist, etc. They are acronyms for a well-defined set of beliefs exhibited by some people.  Name-calling includes such endearments as bum, idiot, moron, insensitive fool, brain dead chowderhead, wackadoo, etc. (all of which I have seen in local blogs, sometimes aimed at AN50, sometimes at me, sometimes at Binky)

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Nancy H on 06.06.09 @ 05:43 AM

Yes, please stop the name calling.  This should not have become an issue about NIMBY’s, BANANA’s or any other acronym that you want to throw out there.  It really is not about never building anything.  What we should be considering is building with the utmost respect of the land, its surroundings and us, its temporary inhabitants.  Our decisions today will affect future generations.  There is a much bigger picture that is being forgotten.  As Americans we have won a great opportunity to show the world that the United States really works.  As a young country, we have collectively destroyed the world’s faith in us and democracy.  The term “Ugly American” was coined for a reason.  We have become a nation of rich, spoiled brats.  Nothing is done with respect anymore.  We overpopulate, overuse, overbuild and are just outright selfish!  There are those that drive huge vehicles that we should NEVER have been allowed to buy.  Huge houses are built that cannot be afforded, or if they can be afforded, why so big?  Is it really necessary to have a house that is 3000 – 15000 square feet?  Stop showing off and start being responsible!  Respect for the land has been lost because the almighty dollar has won our hearts.  We care more about being and looking rich than doing the right thing. 

Forget terms like “canyonization”.  “Big” and “tall” are a matter of perspective.  Yes, there are “bigger” and “taller” buildings in many areas of our country but, we don’t live in those areas do we?  We have chosen to live in Santa Barbara for a reason.  For me, the reason was the natural beauty of the area and, I thought, the friendliness of its residents.  I assumed that most people live here for similar reasons yet, there are those who just want to keep building it up because they have visions of dollar signs by capitalizing on rich neighbors and tourists.  Shame on you!  Don’t ruin another beautiful place in our country for the sake of making a profit.  Another coined term is “smart growth”.  We should concentrate on this one.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Don McDermott on 06.06.09 @ 11:09 AM

For this record the entry posted 06.06.09 @ 08:46 AM is not from this Don McDermott.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» John Locke on 06.07.09 @ 02:17 PM

Nancy, I’m sympathetic with much of what you say.  Be aware, however, that many of the “big houses” were commissioned by owners for themselve, not built with profit in mind.  And the problem with your statement that “There are those that drive huge vehicles that we should NEVER have been allowed to buy” is just who is going to decide what is allowed and what is not allowed?  You?  Me? Don McDermott?  AN50?  Someone who has lived year for 50 years and never been anywhere else?  And what of private property rights (what’s left of them)?  Do you believe you should be able to enjoy the fruits of your labor as you see fit? (within reasonable limits, of course).

You miss the point about NIMBYs and BANANAs.  There are, in fact, people here who want NOTHING ELSE BUILT NOWHERE NOHOW and if you disagree with them, THEY get insufferable nasty and suggest you get out of town (what happened to the free country, free speech thing?).  Six people in Montecito worked very hard for years to prevent Westmont College, a community jewel if ever there was one, from expanding simply because they did not want to put up with the construction.  Similar story for the Music Academy of the West, but that finally came down to only one neighbor.  In another case a group object to the beautiful crosswalk and beach stairway that the Biltmore proposed to build (something the County should have done years ago) because it “looked to much like private beach access (even though it had TWO large public access signs on the entry to the steps).  In all three cases, sanity prevailed, but only after the College, the Academy, and the Biltmore spent much time and many millions defending their property rights against a badly broken land use planning system highjacked by a few outspoken people.  All these projects were in Montecito - there is a rather long list of projects that the Montecito Association has found objectionable over the years.  Since the College and the Academy both are non-profit institutions, please allow me to suggest that those millions could have been better spent on students instead of the local cottage industry that surrounds land use (attorneys, architects, various bureaucrats and experts, etc.)

People accuse me of wanting totally unzoned freedom to develop whatever and wherever they want.  NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.  I want an objectively defined land use system with consistenly applied rules that cannot be subverted by a few well-connected people or perverted by people who think that all property is public property.  I want regulatory bodies that act under the bright light of publicity at all times, not just supporters of the local politician reaping political favors or people whose claim to regulatory ability is that they have lived here a long time (e.g. Montecito Planning Commission).  I want to see a land use system that recognizes and works to preserve the beauty we have while recognizing that someone will always object to every project and not allowing ridiculous complaints to derail projects.  A major problem in California is that a single individual, for the nominal cost of filing a complaint, can throw ANY land use project into a long, sometimes decades long, process of replan, resubmit, spend millions, refile plans, get another complaint….....

So I use the terms NIMBY and BANANA very advisedly and with plenty of supporting history.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Don McDermott on 06.09.09 @ 03:33 AM

Nancy H. makes many good points I agree with.  I don’t think however that we can stop growth/development.  The question then is how do we develop.  Here in the U.S. and the world we have a pro-growth economic model, whether Democratic or Republican administrations.  I don’t see that changing anytime soon (even though I would welcome it.) Locally, here in the city of Santa Barbara, there has been an effort to adopt responsible development urban development and transportation policies.  But there is a lag-time and much of the public is still stuck in the lesser “unsustainable” suburban and SUV mode.

John Locke: I think you’re stretching it a bit to justify the name calling. You can be called a Democrat or Republican because there are associations with a political party.  When you use names like NIMBYs and BANANAS you are trying to marginalize a group of people who may actually have an impact by change to their environment or neighborhood. We’re all protective of our neighborhoods and perhaps that makes us a bit edgy. If you want to give an example of skewed perspective you should recall a particular Montecito resident who seems to be at many hearings promoting every project except for the one across the street from Val Verde.

AN50: “who started it” This is a pre-adolescent response.  Not to offend any well adjusted ten year old who might be reading this.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» John Locke on 06.09.09 @ 09:51 AM

Don McDermott:  I understand your point, but disagree.  I see NIMBYs and BANANAs as sharing a belief system in a way very similar to how political party members share a belief system.  And if someone is dedicating their life to preventing any development (the defining characteristic of a BANANA), then I see nothing wrong with “marginalizing” them.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» John Locke on 06.09.09 @ 03:26 PM

Nancy H, I appreciate your thoughtful posts and actually agree with much of what you say.  But I continually get hung up on the “being allowed” thing.  Who gets to decide what is allowed?  Those with tons of money and no respect for what you (or whoever) believe to be “the right thing to do”?  Those with no money and no ambition for it who believe that all property is basically public property?  What of free choice?  I understand you’re offended by Hummers and I do think they’re kinda ridiculous, but as a percentage of all vehicles on the road, the percentage of Hummers is tiny.  Do you really want to regulate freedom so much?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Nancy H on 06.11.09 @ 09:48 AM

This is why our country is in so much trouble.  People would rather throw barbs at each other rather than have a mutually respectful conversation.  Everyone wants things their way and our middle ground is disappearing.  Very few take responsibility for the choices that the make these days.  They think that they’re entitled to whatever they please.  Until we start working together on what really works for everyone and everything involved, we continue down this slippery slope.  I have no desire to live in a teepee, but my ancestors did and some still find it more desirable than having to deal with day-to-day bureaucracy.  I do, however, try to respect other people and their opinions.  I also like to enjoy what this beautiful area has to offer and I stand behind my beliefs; build respectfully and stop the waste.  Our wild lands and wildlife we’re here long before people decided that they were entitled to everything.  They deserve consideration and respect too.  Peace out!  (Go crazy AN50!)

You don't have permission to flag this entry.