Nine of 10 People Involved in Tea Fire Are From SBCC
The school's announcement ends rampant speculation; officials say they will cooperate during the investigation.
Nine of the 10 young adults involved with the bonfire that authorities say started the Tea Fire were from Santa Barbara City College, school officials said Thursday morning.
The announcement ends the feverish speculation about which school the young people attended, ever since Tuesday, when Sheriff Bill Brown said they were associated with a school but wouldn’t say which one.
In a statement, Andreea Serban, president and superintendent of SBCC, said the school community is deeply saddened by the news.
Serban said college officials will cooperate with local authorities during the investigation.
On Wednesday, officials from Westmont College and UCSB made statements saying they had received word that the students in question did not attend their schools. The Westmont statement came amid speculation among some that the students may have come from that school.
The fire began as a bonfire in the Tea Garden, in an estate just north of the Westmont campus on Wednesday night. The individuals, according to the investigators, left the area early Thursday morning but apparently failed to completely extinguish the fire, which smoldered and reignited Thursday evening. By Tuesday morning, it had burned through nearly 2,000 acres in the fire-prone area and destroyed 210 homes in Santa Barbara and Montecito.
One death is indirectly attributed to the blaze, and there were about a dozen injuries.
School is scheduled to resume at Westmont on Dec. 1.
The city and county of Santa Barbara also have closed several parks and trails in the Tea Fire area until further notice, including Parma Park, Skofield Park, Rattlesnake Canyon Trail and Cold Springs Trail.
» wrote on 11/20/08 @ 07:09 AM
hmm.....what school is left for 18-22 year olds......UCSB says they were cleared; Westmont says THEY were cleared............
» wrote on 11/20/08 @ 07:46 AM
Santa Barbara Beauty College
Antioch University
Santa Barbara City College
Santa Barbara College of Law
Santa Barbara College of Oriental Medicine
The Fielding Institute
Pacifica Graduate Institute
Brooks Institute of Photography
» wrote on 11/20/08 @ 07:52 AM
Brooks.....
» wrote on 11/20/08 @ 08:00 AM
There is a school on Chapala and Micheltorena with students aged 18 to 22 who come here from other countries to learn english.
» wrote on 11/20/08 @ 08:29 AM
Come on lets really put our thinking hats on…
Beauty school...highly doubtful
Antioch...Probably home with their families and studying
College of law...not really the go in the mountains have fire crowd.
Oriental Medicine...doubtful
Fielding...Doubtful
Pacifica...again more grown ups
Brooks...pretty much studying with what they pay in tuition.
Hmmm, what did I miss????? Oh yes, City College. Yes, the wanna be UCSB students who don’t need to spend to much time studying because it is basically just an extension of high school and maybe not to busy studying because the price for school is not extreme. Hmmm, I would say we have a winner here folks!!!!!! City College students makes sense!!!
» wrote on 11/20/08 @ 09:02 AM
Why does our sheriff let school reputations be put in jeopardy? Come on Mr. Brown, we expect more from a new administration.
» wrote on 11/20/08 @ 09:03 AM
no current Westmont students were present nor in anyway involved.. sounds like Clinton to me
» wrote on 11/20/08 @ 09:16 AM
Yes! Yes! That’s the ticket. Definitely the foreign students. They are all no good. If not them then for sure it’s the Brooks students. Those artsy-fartsy types are all full of angst and dark emotions. They must have done it! Don’t trust anyone that wears all black clothing. Then again the City College kids are all a bunch of halfwits that love a good bonfire on the beach. I am sure it was them.
Seriously people! Enough speculation. Let’s wait until we get the final verdict.
» wrote on 11/20/08 @ 09:17 AM
Yes! Yes! That’s the ticket. Definitely the foreign students. They are all no good. If not them then for sure it’s the Brooks students. Those artsy-fartsy types are all full of angst and dark emotions. They must have done it! Don’t trust anyone that wears all black clothing. Then again the City College kids are all a bunch of halfwits that love a good bonfire on the beach. I am sure it was them.
Seriously people! Enough speculation. Let’s wait until we get the final verdict.
» wrote on 11/20/08 @ 09:54 AM
Some people are SO ready to jump to conclusions without all the facts.....
» wrote on 11/20/08 @ 11:14 AM
So does where they went to school really matter? They weren’t on school property or time when this happened, as sad as what happened is. Of course the fact that where they attend school is irrelevant won’t stop some from guilt by association. There are some who still blame all UCSB kids for burning the bank, and that was nearly 40 years ago.
» wrote on 11/20/08 @ 12:30 PM
RKV, you are exactly right. Who cares? Is everyone going to boycott SBCC now? March over and burn down the admin building? Unless this was a school-sponsored event, these adults are solely responsible for their actions, and the fervor to find out where they went to school is rather juvenile.
» wrote on 11/20/08 @ 12:42 PM
I totally agree - why does it matter what school they went to? Can someone explain how what school the students went to sheds any light on anything? From what I have heard, this was a careless and unfortunate ACCIDENT. Are you insinuating that because it was careless it must have been SBCC students? I graduated from UCSB and I can definitely say I’ve seen some ridiculuously careless things happening there.
» wrote on 11/20/08 @ 02:32 PM
why are you all debating which school it was-read the first line ----it says SBCC.
» wrote on 11/20/08 @ 05:56 PM
I think the school in this case has some significance, not so much because it says anything about the school--I know several people who have attended SBCC and all (mostly adults) rave about it, and it’s hardly the school’s fault what it’s students do “on their own time"--but it does give a clue about where the students might be from.
I would guess the proportion of local students is higher at SBCC than at the other colleges, so it becomes more likely that the students and their families may be known in the local community. That raises the spectre of retaliation. Let’s hope that, as horrible as this mess is, it doesn’t get made worse by people out for revenge.
» wrote on 11/20/08 @ 08:02 PM
Not sure why this matters - they’re still dumb as dirt. This is a CRIME and I sincerely hope they are prosecuted. We need a MADD for arsonists. Intentional or not. Because starting a fire in the hills right now is dumb, malicious and deadly. MADD wouldn’t let them off!
» wrote on 11/21/08 @ 12:25 AM
It seems clear that freshman orientation at all area schools and colleges should include, as a requirement, basic local ecology and fire safety (as well as earthquake safety). No one who really knows this area, who had a modicum of sense, would consider lighting a fire outside—especially not in the foothills, especially not during a lengthy drought.
» wrote on 11/21/08 @ 07:09 AM
What we really need is a ban on matches and lighters. Ban their sale in SB County. Make it illegal to have cigarette lighters in your car. If you want to smoke, have fun bending over your gas stove in order to light up. Of course, the Big Combustible lobby won’t allow that to happen.
» wrote on 11/21/08 @ 07:44 AM
Their crimes should be acknowledged and judged in a court of law, according to the laws they broke. This is America. We have a judicial system with jury that will be selected to judge them. If they are adults it does not matter the race,sex,school ect.,what matters is their crimes and how they take accountability for their actions.
We should not be judging them as a society, meaning slandering the name of the school their families ect. We can have opinions, but why “classify” them based on the good name of SBCC that had nothing to do with it.
Shame on everyone that forgets where we are and how our country runs.
» wrote on 11/21/08 @ 09:26 AM
SBCC is legally responsible for the acts of their students. They have a responsibility for the student actions of campus. They should have had a rule forbidding student parties in the national forest lands where they build bonfires.
It’s no different than the law that says parents are responsible for the negligent acts of their children until they are 21.
So those with property damage should sue both the parents and SBCC for millions of dollars in damage. That would teach them a lesson that they have a responsibility to teach these students not to irresponsibly build a bonfire on national forest lands.
Also the names of these students must be released. Let them be shamed for their irresponsible and negligent actions.
» wrote on 11/21/08 @ 10:08 AM
So, why have we not learned the names of these 18 - 22 yr olds? For every other crime, if the alleged offenders are of age, their names are published in local papers Sometimes, if the alleged offender is not of age, but will be charged as adults, we know their names. But not this time.
hmmmmm......
» wrote on 11/21/08 @ 11:02 AM
They are not legally responsible for anything. SBCC is only responsible for acts ON campus not off.
All of you should stop being such stuck up idiots about this situation. It doesn’t matter that the students went to SBCC. The university they go to is not important in this matter. What it important is that people involved learn from their lesson. Them going to SBCC doesn’t make them less intelligent or more incompetent. ff
» wrote on 11/21/08 @ 11:38 AM
In response to Sue, SBCC is not legally responsible for the actions of its students. It’s a school, not a prison. It’s insane to think that a college could control every action of each of its students 24/7. SBCC does have extensive rules of conduct that the students must follow while on campus (http://www.sbcc.edu/collegeprocedures/index.php?sec=901). Heck, they don’t even allow smoking on campus, except in defined areas. Was UCSB held responsible when a student went crazy and ran down multiple people on the streets of IV? No, they weren’t.
Furthermore, parents are only legally responsible for children under 18. Individuals 18 and older are legal adults and as such are responsible for their own actions. I’m sure the adults involved will be held liable for their irresponsible actions, as they should be.
» wrote on 11/21/08 @ 11:41 AM
Sue, You’re not an attorney are you? When you say “SBCC is legally responsible for the acts of their students.” you are factually incorrect. This is just not the case and you are either a) grossly misinformed or b) flat out lying. Bad as the situation is, people like you make it worse.
» wrote on 11/21/08 @ 12:32 PM
Sue’s wrong about SBCC being legally responsible for reckless student behavior. A
community “commuter” college which offers NO dormitories has NO “in loco parentis” responsibilities. The only time when it has “control” over students actions is when they are on SBCC’s campus, or in its classrooms.
That’s way-different from schools like Westmont and UCSB, where large numbers of students live on campus, eat on campus, receive primary medical care on campus,
and the campus thus acts “in place of the parents” for student behavior/treatment
during the school year.
Apart from “under-age drinking,” these kids seem to have committed stupid behavior.
That’s different from breaking laws. Evidently, the escape of the fire was not deliberate nor started to intentionally cause harm, or derive profit. So technically, there is no “arson” here. We’re looking at “reckless behavior which inadvertently causes damage or harm.” That’s from a general “criminal law” perspective.
On the other hand, since many of the kids appear to be UNDER drinking age, and
were apparently violating rules about making, tending, extinguishing fires, and may
have been on, or trespassed across private land, and are UNDER 21, their PARENTS
may be heavily liable for big, big, big CIVIL penalties to the fire’s victims.
With losses so enormous, many of the families of the bonfire kids could end up more totally ruined than the fire victims themselves, since - if breaches of law or “good judgment” occurred - the bonfire kids’ family insurance policies might decline to protect them, while the burn victims’ insurance policies WILL help them rebuild.
» wrote on 11/21/08 @ 02:02 PM
If true it does not sound like intentional criminal conduct, but might be considered negligent criminal conduct which could apply to certain types of crimes.
It is clearly an issue of civil liability but one wonders, given the extent of the two hundred million or so in damages how it could ever be collected from these idividuals even if it were deemed not to be dischargeable in a bankruptcy action, as certain types of civil damage awards are.
If this story is true, then perhaps these individuals should be required to pay the cost of making and publicizing a video and print advertisements extensively aired and published for the next two or three years, particularly during the fire seasons. Thes commercials or public service messages would point out the callous lack of foresight in their conduct and the horrendous result!
» wrote on 11/21/08 @ 02:59 PM
Sue, the school has a responsibility for their students ON campus, but it is ludicrous to believe that they have a responsibility what they do OFF campus. It is time to change this culture of not taking responsibility of one’s own actions. The school has nothing to do with it. If I go out after work and do something stupid or criminal, should my employer be held responsible? This was committed by adults, young adults, but nevertheless adults and they should be held responnsible and nobody else.
» wrote on 11/21/08 @ 07:47 PM
Isn’t it interesting people care what school these kids go. The media is feeding off this need and selling newspapers because of it. Are we going to look into their high, jr. high, and elementary schools next. “Boy, Mrs. X that kindergarten teacher really sucks!”
The story for me is why these hooligans who are supposed to be somewhat educated would let someone, or each other commit this act. Take a good look at this generation...could it be it’s part of their generational culture to pretend like they know it all. What would Obama say about these youths? They probably voted for him and support GOO. Yet they take no responsibility, are enabled by others, and then when they are held responsible, they play the victim.
I know my thinking a stretch, but I am frustrated and disappointed that not one stepped up in that group to think about the consequences and show some gumption. This is a blemish on a whole generation of youths not schools…
» wrote on 11/21/08 @ 07:53 PM
JAX is on to something. Above criminal prosecution, this is a lesson all people should learn from…
» wrote on 11/22/08 @ 11:29 PM
A few years ago acquaintances of mine were “jumped” by a group of SBCC students, it went to trial and their rich parents had to pay quite a sum. It’s terrible that such students give SBCC a bad name, SBCC is a great school, but there are a number of problematic and irresponsible students there, let’s not try to hide that reality.