Santa Barbara Council OKs Improvements for Figueroa-De la Vina Intersection

The project will be funded in large part by a grant through the federal Highway Safety Improvement Program

A project to improve safety at the intersection of Figueroa-De la Vina streets was approved Tuesday by the Santa Barbara City Council. (Giana Magnoli / Noozhawk photo)

By Giana Magnoli, Noozhawk Staff Writer | @magnoli | Published on 03.05.2013 8:51 p.m.

(37)

The Santa Barbara City Council on Tuesday narrowly approved intersection improvements for Figueroa and De la Vina streets that will be funded largely by a federal Highway Safety Improvement Program grant.

The council voted 4-3 to accept the grant and award a $271,443 contract to Lash Construction, which was the lowest bidder

Scroll to the bottom to see the intersection plan.

The company currently is working on the Carrillo and Anacapa streets intersection.

Councilmen Dale Francisco, Frank Hotchkiss and Randy Rowse voted against the project, saying it could inhibit traffic on one of the city’s main thoroughfares.

Pedestrians can walk one block in either direction to cross at an intersection with a traffic signal, Rowse said.

Traffic engineer Derek Bailey said that De la Vina Street is a major artery into the downtown area, and staff planned these improvements to make it safer for pedestrians but not impede traffic.

Construction crews will start installing curb extensions and safety lighting poles in April, and will keep at least one lane open at all times on De la Vina.

The total cost will be $398,161, with the federal grant covering $326,300 of construction costs.

The intersection’s crash history has made city leaders and staff examine some changes to the intersection. However, Bailey said, “the crashes that led us to this point won’t be prevented by the curb extensions.”

Two-thirds of the pedestrian-vehicle crashes are on the “downstream” southbound side of the street.

Since De la Vina is a one-way street, drivers on Figueroa Street often only look “upstream” when crossing and then hit pedestrians, Bailey said.

The other third are caused by drivers hitting pedestrians directly in front of them, who they don’t’ see because they’re only looking toward oncoming traffic.

The crosswalks will not be marked at the intersection even after the improvements are installed so pedestrians aren’t given a false sense of security, Bailey said. The goal of the extensions is to make pedestrians more visible and give them better views as they prepare to cross the busy downtown streets.

The council also approved the purchase of two electric Trikkes for police patrol officers and beat coordinators, using $8,000 in donations from the Santa Barbara Police Foundation, and a police canine using $24,700 from the Police K-9 Unit Trust Fund.

The money to Mission Canines — which the city has used in the past — will also pay for related equipment and training, according to the city staff report.

Rowse did ask police to find a better name than Trikkes for their newest patrol vehicle.

“It doesn’t sound very intimidating,” he said.

— Noozhawk staff writer Giana Magnoli can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). Follow Noozhawk on Twitter: @noozhawk, @NoozhawkNews and @NoozhawkBiz. Connect with Noozhawk on Facebook.

Figueroa and De la Vina streets intersection improvement plan by

Comments

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

» Overtaxed Taxpayer on 03.06.13 @ 07:45 AM

The federal government is bankrupt and printing money destroying our currency.

Obama Pelosi Boxer Fiestein have failed the country. Obama promised to cut the deficit in half in 2008 to 4 trillion? Liar..

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Really? on 03.06.13 @ 08:21 AM

BULBOUT HELL is BACK!!!

Consider the following quote: “Traffic engineer Derek Bailey said that De la Vina Street is a major artery into the downtown area, and staff planned these improvements to make it safer for pedestrians but not impede traffic.”

Consider the General Plan approved by the City Council currently in power (2011): It states primary major arteries within the City of SB are not to be constricted.

Consider the accident rate at this corner since MTD re-routed its buses from this intersection to Anapamu. It has dropped and almost disappeared.

Consider the accident rate at this corner prior to MTD routing buses on Figueroa and De la Vina was almost none existent….as it is now!

The City will be spending approximately $40,000 per corner to constrict with Blubouts a corner that does not have a significant accident rate. A city that does not have the money to spend more than 30% of needed annual street maintenance is squandering your tax dollars.

The excuse? Accidents that were a direct result of bad planning by MTD. Corrected after intense pressure. Poor excuses supported by 4 council members who refuse to recognize the reality of the accident numbers confirmed by both Browning Allen and Derek Bailey the top two in transportation planning.

Does anyone else see the oxymoron here?

What is the long term underlying issue here?

Simple, this is a plan, rejected by the majority of voters when educated, to choke off downtown because of the long term plan to destroy downtown with high density infill (called high rise buildings). The follow-up to this that will be before Council this year? Removing up to 50% of street capacity on Chapala from Carrillo to Anapamu.

It is all on record. Nothing stated here is incorrect. Yet the public continues to vote for politicians who do not care what the majority wants and panders to anti car groups that have money to throw at elections.

Good Luck Santa Barbara

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» John_Adams on 03.06.13 @ 08:29 AM

Full-time saloonkeeper and quarter-time (but fully paid) city council member Randy Rowse needs to get out more from behind his bar if he thinks people ill walk up or down a block to cross the street when pedestrians already have the legal right of way to cross at a corner.

Perhaps the pedestrian killed by a vehicle at that corner and the many near hits would be reason enough for Rowse to act in favor of his supposed constituents?

Randy Rowse is the new Michael Self, vacuous ideologue.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Art on 03.06.13 @ 09:09 AM

While I don’t blame the City from taking advantage of these “highway” programs, we should be asking ourselves why tax payers from all around the country should be paying for a street improvement in SB through a “grant?”

We have taxes taken from us and then doled out piecemeal in “grants” after the bureaucracy has taken their share to fund themselves.

We are deluding our selves that this is a fair or logical way of funding ourselves on a national scale.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» 12345 on 03.06.13 @ 10:24 AM

The fatal accident that occured at that intersection was caused by a MTD bus driver who did not see a pedestrian crossing the street because of a blind spot created by the buses sideview mirror and roof pillar. The design of the intersection and lack of a traffic light were not factors. MTD had known about the blind spot in their buses for years. Three years before the fatal accident MTD ran over a woman crossing the street near the courthouse. She suffered near fatal head injuries. In both cases the buses were making left hand turns and the drivers failed to see the pedestrians because of the blind spots. The fatal accident at De La Vina and Figueroa would have been prevented if MTD had fixed the blind spots in their buses. To this day MTD has not addressed the problem. This is an example of how a real problem is ignored and a useless “solution” is substituted in its place.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» haskelslocal on 03.06.13 @ 10:28 AM

Where is the study that demonstrates if putting people closer to traffic via a bulbout actually reduces pedestrian exposure to traffic?

Why wouuld you purposefully bottleneck traffic? Making automobiles and trucks more subjectable to driving OVER the top of these curbs?

Want examples?

Bath and Pueblo Streets in front of Cottage Hospital.

Modoc and Portosuello Streets next to La Cumbre Jr. High.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 03.06.13 @ 10:32 AM

Can anyone tell me how eliminating right turn pockets, is not impeding traffic? This is more of the same moronic social engineering coercion the traffic department is foisting on the public. I cannot believe how stupid the public is in allowing this crap to continue.

Really, what is more amazing is why our town with the highest per capita lawyer population hasn’t seen one of these legal beagles suing the snot out of the city for gross coercion, on behalf of the people. Oh, right, the public asked for it. My apologies to the legal industry.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Art on 03.06.13 @ 11:02 AM

12345 said “This is an example of how a real problem is ignored and a useless “solution” is substituted in its place.”

You are absolutely correct.

But it gives those that think they must always “do something,” even if that something is not well-thought out, a “feel-good” moment that they have taken care of the problem.

More of our nanny state thinking.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» jayarr on 03.06.13 @ 11:14 AM

What is the higher priority: pedestrian friendliness/safety, or ability to drive through town swiftly and without inhibition? Apparently three on the Council favor the latter.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Art on 03.06.13 @ 11:36 AM

If these bulb-outs actually enhanced pedestrian safety then there would be no question that they should be used vs making it easier to drive across town faster.

But as has been pointed out above, there has been nothing done to determine if they actually do enhance safety or are just a feel-good idea by those controlling us.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» John Locke on 03.06.13 @ 11:38 AM

Is there actually any credible data, from a credible engineering source, from a credibly disinterested objective party, that indicates whether or not bulbouts are a net benefit overall? And I see that the traffic nonengineers have dropped the term ‘bulbout’ in favor of ‘curb extension’ - do they really think we are that dumb?

I continue to believe that our traffic nonengineering department is ripe for a 50% budget cut, back to the levels of 10 years ago, when the city was the same size as today but the budget was half.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» 12345 on 03.06.13 @ 11:39 AM

read the article carefully. City traffic engineer Bailey is quoted “The crashes that led us to this point won’t be prevented by the curb extensions”. The city’s own traffic engineer admits curb extensions won’t improve pedestrian safety.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» haskelslocal on 03.06.13 @ 12:25 PM

Seriously Mr. Loche. The perpetual “purpose creation” has gone too far. I’d back and give hours to any movement dedicated at being a beacon to the country at what it takes to do more with less. It’s as if they’ve created their own fantasyland that approves of each other to perpetuate the existance of each group! Enough.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 03.06.13 @ 01:30 PM

Again people, the city is using any excuse it can to justify these asinine traffic obstructions, not because they are better for anyone, but because they are trying to make driving painful which is coercion, that is the legal term, which means to make somebody do something against his or her will by using force or threats, in this case force, by creating a blockage to traffic making a right turn. It also forces bicycles into a through traffic lane creating a hazardous condition for them as well and creates a worse turning radius for city transportation busses, those 40’ long 15 ton behemoths the city loves to tear pavement up with.

The city believes with all its heart mind and soul, like jayarr, that simply screwing traffic circulation will make the city a better place. This is the kind of imbecilic, naïve, idealistic crap that does the exact opposite of making things better. People you have elected no growth city councils because you believed growth would have the very effect that your government is now creating artificially, bad traffic.

Let this sink in folks. You have endured horrific rents, middleclass destroying property values, an anemic economy totally dependant on the spare change the wealthy have in their pocket and that only the wealthy can survive in, all the result of slowing and stopping population and commercial growth, all so you would not have to deal with the traffic growth induces, and your city council and its idiot social engineers masquerading as traffic engineers are doing everything possible to make your drive in this city PAINFUL.

Where oh where is a good lawyer when you need one? People of SB you have actually asked your government to hurt you, cause you pain, put you in danger and make living here a hellish nightmare so some ideological quacks can say they did good. For God’s sake wake up and realize what these people, the ones you voted for are doing to you.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» jayarr on 03.06.13 @ 02:11 PM

To take a view contrary to AN50’s brilliance is idiodic and moronic. Why does the fact that there are always enough morons and idiots to outvote him give me so much comfort?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 03.06.13 @ 05:35 PM

If you have an intelligent argument to the contrary jayarr, lets here it.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Really? on 03.06.13 @ 06:12 PM

The City of Santa Barbara has creditable information the primary aspects of BULBOUT HELL do not work.

1) Traffic has been asked and refused to make public any information they have that Bulbouts increase pedestrian use.

2) Traffic has been asked and refused to produce any information that there is scientific information that Bulbouts make pedestrians safer. Director of Public Works stated definitively there are NO SUCH studies in publication anywhere.

3) Traffic has been asked if the Bulbouts create hazardous conditions for driving and making turns. Their answer was yes. It makes wide turns that interfere with oncoming traffic on 2 lane streets, and congest traffic on 4 lane streets. MTD has stated their large Villager type buses cannot negotiate safely narrowed intersections. It was this testimony that helped kill the Anacapa/Carillo intersection Bulbouts.

4) Traffic has much casual information that vehicles are cheating into the Bulbout area cancelling the supposed benefits to pedestrians.

5) Traffic has information of damage to both private and city owned vehicles making right turns at intersections with Bulbouts.

How is it White, House, and Mruillo led by Schneider IGNORE the General Plan Rules they voted to accept after years of negotiation? Inquiring voters would like to know how they break legal precedent.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» citizenSB on 03.06.13 @ 06:32 PM

I would imagine this is all about lining the pockets of the city, nothing about safety.

Take $326K from the feds, pay $271K to a contractor to do the work and the rest goes to the city for for ‘overhead’ and charging out the city planners and engineers at $150-200/hour.
This is NOT about safety it is about funding our local government!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» lou segal on 03.07.13 @ 06:22 AM

You knew when Murillo beat out Michael Self in the last City Council election, there would be consequences.

We have passed the tipping point for having a sufficient number of brain-dead, low-information voters, who reflexively vote for one Party. For example, our youth, who are unemployed at rates far higher than other demographic groups and have fared terribly in the last four years, vote in large percentages for the Party that has continually screwed them.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Joan Livingston on 03.07.13 @ 10:45 AM

I know this intersection well. The only thing that was needed was a pedestrian sidewalk barrier on the south, down traffic crosswalk to prevent its use and a zebra-striped up traffic crosswalk on the north. Rowse, Francisco and Hotchkiss were correct voting no.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 03.08.13 @ 09:50 AM

The city means to get you out of your car, period. They do not care if that is practical, desired or anything else. They are using pain to do it. Pain caused when traffic can no longer move efficiently and travel times are extended. Lying subterfuge obfuscation and purposeful mismanagement have been used.

Look it up people, the legal definition is COERCION and coercion is an illegal activity for a government. All it would take is for a group of people and a really good lawyer to file charges and all this might stop. Or it might force the government to put these asinine devices up for vote.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Joan Livingston on 03.08.13 @ 11:04 AM

The “city” is us. Remember this when you cast your vote in the next city council election. The “city” does not do things to us; we do things to the city. Any sense of powerlessness today needs to be reversed.

Voters need to court and support the candidates that best express their own wishes for the direction of this city needs to take; instead of the other way around.

We often ask the candidates to win us over, when we should be doing an independent investigation on our to ensure we get the governance that works best for us and for the city or the nation.

The internet has taken radically changed the role money plays in political campaigns. Outside donations from special interest groups are no longer needed for a candidate to gain access to the voters via expensive mailers and media ads. This eliminates one of the biggest conflicts of interest elected officials have to face once they take office.

Voters can now go to websites as simple as the free League of Women Voters “Smart Voter” website and get far more information from the candidate than ever covered in TV sound bites and glossy photo folders that clog up our mail boxes.

Candidates can schedule town-hall gathering on these free websites for those wanting more face to face interaction before they cast their votes. Next election use the free League of Women Voters “Smart Voter” website and start a new direction in today’s politics -taking conflict of interest money out of the electoral process.

If you like a candidate, get others to join you on election day through your own electronic connections. Grass-roots in elections now includes “glass roots”. (aka silicon communications). Special interest may have big money, but they don’t have any more votes than you have on election day. It is all down to the power of one vote, by one vote by one vote.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 03.08.13 @ 05:45 PM

Joanie dear, we don’t have a disengaged voter population here. If anything people in this town are far too meddlesome, constantly stirring up trouble over things they know little about. I’ll bet you if they ever put these idiotic goofy traffic destroying social engineering coercion devices up to a vote ¾ quarters of this town would approve of them and ask for more.

The problem isn’t voter involvement, it stupid voter involvement. Idiots who have no clue what’s going on vote to raid the treasury, vote to shoot themselves in the foot and vote to enslave themselves with a giant nanny state. Locally they vote for the dumbest things on the planet. We have what was voted for and man oh man is lame.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Overtaxed Taxpayer on 03.08.13 @ 06:01 PM

The losers on welfare food stamps section 8 99ers & student non working vote is alarming, more takers than makers.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Joan Livingston on 03.08.13 @ 06:29 PM

ANSO, I worry more about those who refrain from voting thinking they can’t make a difference. They can and should vote, if what they are getting is not what they want.

And yes, I want voters to know there are free campaign websites so no vote need be cast based solely upon special interest funded media saturation.

Next election: Go to the free League of Women Voters “Smart Voter” website for your candidate information, as well as having it sent to you via special interest funded TV, radio or glossy mailers.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 03.08.13 @ 11:10 PM

Good grief, really? Not getting what you want, from what, government? Geeze-a-lou woman, they can’t make a difference if they don’t know anything Joan. We need informed and intelligent voters who actually give a crap about more than what makes them feel good right now or what big fat nanny can steal from someone else and give them. It’s appalling to me that you would suggest that people use government as a tool for getting what you want. Swallowed the dopy leftist propaganda pretty good, huh? No, wait, you are a lawyer, that would explain it.

The LWV is a front organization for the DNC. Not exactly information central unless you want your daily dose of leftist propaganda. The fact that you don’t mention it is suspect. You are either a full fledged dupe or masquerading as a sincere person to lure in the unsuspecting gullible and naïve. Please tell me I’m wrong.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» lou segal on 03.09.13 @ 03:12 AM

AN50, all I think Joan is suggesting is that voters could become better informed, and there is a way of doing it without the filter of the political parties and special interest propaganda. Although I agree with you that the League of Woman Voters is a very liberal group (they endorsed every tax initiative on the ballot), the Smart Voter website is a useful tool for the voters if they would take advantage of it.

Running for public office is any eye-opening experience. Sadly, too many people vote because of name recognition due to campaign signs or Party/special interest endorsements. It is true that not many people are aware of the issues or can give you a cogent reason for their vote. In Santa Barbara, your chances for being elected to any office increase greatly if you are endorsed by the Democratic Party, public employee unions and a long list of people who hardly know you.

I thought it was interesting that the education reporter for the Independent was writing articles about the school board candidates and the parcel taxes, even though his wife was a teacher and a union member at Santa Barbara Jr. High School. This information was never disclosed. If you read his stuff during the election campaign, you would be hard put to say he was objective.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Art on 03.09.13 @ 08:41 AM

Lou, I don’t think that anyone has ever accused the Independent of being “objective.”

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Joan Livingston on 03.09.13 @ 09:27 AM

ANSO, you present a germane challenge regarding the issue voter education. May we continue. I am sorry you are so frustrated with the political process that you recommend dropping out of it entirely.

People can vote for less government as much as for more government. If voters don’t want “more government”, they need to seek out candidates who present this platform and then hold them accountable for its execution

My plea is for voters to start seeking out and committing to work on behalf of the candidates that best reflect their own wishes; rather than expecting candidates court them first - often requiring a dazzling arrays of expensively produced media pieces simply to gain “name recognition”.

Ergo, the continued need for large amounts of influence money in political campaigns unless the candidate has sufficient personal resources to do this on their own.

My additional plea if for voters now in our internet age to seek out cost-free ways to do their own voter education, eliminating much of the expense of being a candidate which has relied in the past on the use mass mailings and mass conventional media (radio, TV, billboards etc worthy of no more than minimal sound bites and photo imagery at best.

Lou Segal is correct - the free League of Women Voters Smart Voter website is exactly the type of candidate-generated information link that works to take a great deal of the “money” out of political campaigning. There is no bias or outside influence other than what the candidates themselves put into this no-cost election information platform.

Lou, thank you again for stepping into the political process in the last school board election. There is no better way to gain insights into how the business of democracy is conducted than directly participating in this process ourselves.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 03.09.13 @ 10:30 AM

Joan I am not recommending dropping out. I am recommending limiting voting to those who have the smarts to do it smartly. A site dedicated to smart voting cannot achieve this. Sadly, because our education system has been co-opted by indoctrinators and propaganda ministers we are delivering a population more attuned to doing what they are told rather than thinking for themselves. That is what frustrates me.

Our founding fathers had a solution for low information voters, limit voting to a class of people who demonstrate the skills and education necessary to be an informed voter. In their time that was the white wealthy land owner. That class is happily much broader now. Unfortunately we broaden voting rights beyond those demonstrating the skill necessary to vote smartly to everyone. This is the classic and fundamental flaw in democracy, allow everyone a vote and then, as you keep repeating, encourage that vote to satisfy your selfish personal desires. You then will destroy the republic which you vote in.

Joan, as a lawyer and well educated person, you know this. My question is what is your goal? Certainly you know having idiots vote for self gratification, being led by the nose ring by elites, will in the end destroy the individual in favor of the state, the elite. Why is this so important to those on the left? What is it about the leftist, particularly those in law, that we have a society that favors low information, class separation and elitism?

Ok that’s a lot to chew on, I get it. But the root of my frustration is that we now have a population that is choosing slavery, security, comfort, convenience over freedom. And this choice is being coached by white wealthy liberal elites. Tell me why that is so desirable?

This is the root of our city’s, state’s and country’s problems Joan, like it or not it is also what we have chosen.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Joan Livingston on 03.09.13 @ 11:51 AM

ANSO: Our Founding Fathers also prevented women from voting. I will let it rest at that.

Elections can still be won or lost by only a few hundred votes. Only 125 votes in 2010 made a difference changing the board majority at SBCC. Each vote can and does count, in far smaller numbers than you suggest.

I am glad you are not dropping out because all you might need to do is get 126 of your friends to also show up and vote for what you want to accomplish. Or create your own GOTV movement at UCSB.

Study the voting patterns, target the swing precincts. Others are doing the same thing to get what they want. The ground work for political change might be less daunting than you think.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 03.09.13 @ 12:59 PM

Joan, I expected much better from you. You seem to be missing my salient point, which is smarter voters, not smart voting.

Why this obsession with getting what you want? That is the other point you missed. Government is not about fulfilling your personal desires. Its about getting things done we cannot do on our own or are poorly done through markets. Common defense, protection of individual rights, common infrastructure, these are the things government do best. You seem to paint government as some idiotic social gum ball machine, drop in your vote and get your wish fulfilled.

What in the world is that all about? Do you actually believe that is what government is for? That is what we have this idiotic bass ackwards lunatic asylum for a city. Dopy building height limits, bulb outs, bag bans, good grief any idiotic fad that comes along and our active idiot population has it voted into existence. We have the worst traffic circulation for a city this size in the state. The very thing our no growth fanatics were stopping growth to prevent. That is her locally and a result of people with no clue about urban development having the power to vote urban development.

At the state level we are bankrupt and killing our industrial, commercial and agricultural economy, the very segments that provide an income for our voracious appetite for services. This the result of stupid voters voting for themselves rather than for the state welfare. Nationally we have half the population voting to raid our treasury now $16 trillion in debt. This is a result of having an ignorant population voting for self-gratification.

You seem to be fixated on increasing participation while I hammer on you that we already have enough participation and what we need is better participation. Honestly, I can’t believe you don’t get that so what is your real intent here?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Joan Livingston on 03.09.13 @ 02:58 PM

ANSO: I agree with some of your concerns and most definitely not with others. Does this make me a stupid or smart voter? Should I be allowed to vote or not?

Lou Segal is on the right track getting involved in public education to ensure this important public institution honors one of its important functions in any democracy - educating intelligent voters.

The degree that partisan politics has now crept into public education should be alarming. This is a neutral concern that should concern us all; this is not a partisan concern.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» jayarr on 03.09.13 @ 03:29 PM

Only educated, informed and/or intelligent people should be allowed to vote? What about an chap who is undereducated, minimally informed, and sorta stupid, but who possesses a skill-set popularly known as great intuitive sense - and that sense guides him in making better assessments of people and candidates than most of us wonks? Should he be disinfranchised, just because those skills can’t be tested for?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Joan Livingston on 03.09.13 @ 04:29 PM

Universal suffrage means universal suffrage. We work from there. I have no interest whatsoever creating artificial barriers to voting. I am interested in voters voluntarily taking much of the money out of campaigns today by using free electronic media instead, and cease thinking excessive partisan media exposure is a substitute for “voter education”.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» lou segal on 03.09.13 @ 04:53 PM

“Lou, I don’t think that anyone has ever accused the Independent of being “objective.”

Art, this reporter assured me that the news and editorial divisions were totally independent of each other, and the Independent faithfully reports the news without any bias. After closely following their coverage of this past election, I will have to respectfully disagree with him. When I discovered that his objectivity might be compromised by his wife’s association with the schools, I wrote him and suggested he should disclose it to his readers. He assured me he would, although he didn’t feel it affected his reporting. Of course, he never disclosed it, even after assuring me he would.

The issues raised by Joan and AN50 are very important. Having a well-informed and educated electorate is critical to the continued proper functioning of a democracy. Although I sympathize with AN50’s arguments, I don’t think there are any viable ways of prohibiting people from voting. Having said that, I think it was a mistake to allow people under 21 years of age to vote. I know the argument in favor of this constitutional amendment was that if you are older enough to go to war, you’re old enough to vote. Well, after serious contemplation of the issue, I respectfully disagree. Eighteen year old kids do not have sufficient lifetime experience to make good voting choices. In this last election, the Democratic Party actually paid college kids (cash prizes) or would ply them with free beer to register and vote. It is particularly galling that many students who are here for no more than the 4 years are voting on local tax initiatives and other important local issues affecting homeowners and other long-time residents of the community.

The Supreme Court has agreed to take an important case regarding the Voting Rights Act. It is no secret the Democratic Party is cynically using this law to make it as easy as possible for their constituents (people who are more likely to be dependent on govt services) to vote. In this last election in Ca., registering to vote using the internet was a very important factor in the outcome of the election. Many states are allowing people to vote without identification, and are allowing voting at numerous locations for weeks prior to the election. The likelihood for voter fraud does not seem to concern the advocates of liberally interpreting the voting laws.

I read the other day that 81% of immigrant Latinos prefer a bigger govt. to one with fewer services. That support fell to 72% among second-generation Latinos and 58% in the third generation. I find the survey results encouraging for all us who are advocates of smaller and more efficient govt. Although only tangentially related, I wish the Constitution didn’t allow illegal immigrants automatic citizenship to their American-born children.

Joan is absolutely right: the most important public policy issue confronting us are the very poor outcomes we are getting from our public schools. Public education badly needs to rethink its mission and how to achieve it. It is actually not that hard to do, since there are many examples of public schools (mostly charter schools) in lower income urban areas that are successfully educating their students. Unfortunately, as Joan reiterated, partisan politics and special interest objectives disconnected from children are preventing us from instituting logical and obvious reforms with which most educational experts are in agreement.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» lou segal on 03.09.13 @ 05:18 PM

Regarding the issue of partisan politics affecting public education, I learned from this last election the extent of the problem. A school board member told me that it was practically impossible to get elected to the school board without the endorsement of the Democratic Party. I was told about a previous election where there were three openings but only two candidates endorsed by the Democratic Party. Interestingly, there were thousands of ballots where voters only selected the two candidates endorsed by the Party, even though there were candidates with far better qualifications and experience.

Essentially, our SB school board members are appointed by Daraka Larimore-Hall and his small Isla Vista cabal. If this doesn’t astonish you, nothing will.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

1. Vandenberg AFB to Test Launch Unarmed Minuteman III Missile - 05.20.2013 10:46 p.m.
2. Santa Barbara Police, Fire Proposed Budgets Mostly Status Quo for Next Fiscal… - 05.20.2013 8:43 p.m.
3. Local Law Enforcement Officials Weigh In on Lowering DUI Threshold - 05.20.2013 7:24 p.m.

Daily Noozhawk

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

Facebook

Twitter

+ View More

Santa Barbara Council OKs Improvements for Figueroa-De la Vina Intersection

Log in

Daily Noozhawk

Facebook

Twitter