- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Business
- Politics
- School Zone
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Architect Loses Legal Challenge to Measure B Ballot Language
Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Thomas Anderle on Tuesday denied architect Brian Hofer’s petition to remove the term “high rise” from ballot language for Measure B, Santa Barbara’s height-limits initiative.
Hofer’s lawyer, Jonathan Miller, asked the judge to reconsider, saying the use of “high rise” — which proponents of Measure B used four times in their “Argument in Favor of Measure B” for November’s voter registration guide — is “misleading, it is false, it is verifiably untrue.”
Hofer filed a petition for a writ of mandate, claiming that in the California Building Code, a high rise is defined at 75 feet or higher — therefore, technically, high rises have been illegal to build in Santa Barbara since 1972, when voters amended the City Charter to lower building-height limits to 60 feet.
Proponents of Measure B argued that voters would refer to the common definition of high rise instead of the technical definition. The dictionary definition differs slightly from source to source, but generally is considered a multistory building with the use of elevators.
Proponents also argued that changing the language would interfere with the printing schedule of voter materials, scheduled for Friday. Their motion to quash the petition was denied.
In his tentative ruling that was upheld Tuesday, Anderle wrote that the issue of being misleading was based on one question: “Is the term ‘high rise’ to be construed for ballot argument purposes in light of its common meaning or in light of the meaning ascribed to it in the California Building Code?”
It’s not usually architects or lawyers who make laws regarding building restrictions, and since legislators don’t always have prior technical knowledge of the issues, common terms are often used, Anderle wrote. “For good or ill, the debate in the formation of laws necessarily forces common usage terms,” he said in his ruling.
Anderle also decided that Hofer didn’t provide convincing proof that a Sept. 1 writ wouldn’t interfere with the scheduled printing of election materials.
“I disagree with his ruling, but it’s one judge’s opinion,” Hofer said afterward. He was visibly disappointed, but he said it’s “doubtful” that he’ll continue his fight.
“This was his last chance,” said Miller, his attorney. With the issue going to print on Friday, there’s no time to petition changing the language again.
“I hope people will look at (the initiative) with enhanced scrutiny,” Hofer said.
Proponents of Measure B, including members of Save El Pueblo Viejo, said Tuesday that they were pleased with the ruling and plan to continue to carry out their campaign full throttle.
They believe that the term high rise is appropriate, and City Council candidate David Pritchett said the use of persuasion or rhetoric is perfectly acceptable in ballot arguments.
“I’m pleased with the decision, because a ballot argument needs wide latitude to argue,” he said.
Sheila Lodge, a former Santa Barbara mayor, said the definition of a high rise is relative.
“It doesn’t take much to feel like a high rise here,” she said. “It’s unique — if you take away the unique qualities, you harm the environment and the economy.”
Some developers want to “smother Santa Barbara with large buildings” and multimillion-dollar condominiums, said Bill Mahan, among those listed in Hofer’s lawsuit.
The No on B campaign, which launched its campaign Aug. 18, has argued that lowering building heights would increase sprawl and decrease the opportunities for affordable housing, as a limit of 40 feet could make the difference between a three- or four-story building.
Despite the huge demand to live in the area, growth is slow, Measure B supporter Gil Barry said. “No matter what we do in downtown Santa Barbara, it won’t change demand in (the rest of the county). We have no control over development in the rest of the country.”
Representatives on both sides of the issue will participate in a debate at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History on Sept. 9.
— Noozhawk staff writer Giana Magnoli can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
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.
» on 09.01.09 @ 09:55 PM
I think Bill Mahan has gone loony on this issue with his insistence on using blatantly misleading language on the ballot. He really does seem to have a cross to carry about this one. Is he seeking redemption for the “high-rise” buildings he himself approved? I don’t get it… Can someone explain? Is our town to be run by lunatics and liars?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.01.09 @ 10:29 PM
As long as the charter limits buildings to 60 ft. (as it now does) “high-rise” buildings could never be built in Santa Barbara. We would hope the voters understand this. Unfortunately, many voters do not have the time to fully understand the issue in its entirety and may be unfairly misled by this language.
Furthermore, by attempting to make this a debate about “high-rises,” Save El Pueblo Viejo continues to perpetrate the myth that all future buildings will destroy our community and that Measure B will create some sort of divine intervention to solve all our community’s ills. This could not be farther from the truth.
By choosing to simplify this issue and insisting that general dictionary definitions are adequate, SEPV highlights the real problem here. The issues raised by Measure B are complex and precise definitions matter when discussing legislation of this magnitude.
Changing the building height limits in the downtown will be far worse for our environment, increase our carbon footprint and encourage dense residential development in our neighborhoods. These are the issues we should be talking about.
Trying to solve our problems with Measure B is no solution at all
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.01.09 @ 10:36 PM
If Hofer wanted to appeal he could. The No on B Side just realized what a bad idea attacking the signatories was in the first place.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.01.09 @ 10:38 PM
The Official No on Measure B Coalition Statement is that voters aren’t that smart?
Personally, “I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.”—William F. Buckley, Jr.
But I’m sure Micky Flacks doesn’t think that’s such a good idea.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 12:22 AM
The big buildings on Chapala are over the top, no pun intended. Are Bill Mahan and Bendy White guilty over allowing those monoliths? I’m tired of psycho-analyzing the people in this election! We’ll never know if Iya Falcone subconsciously missed the mark on the signatures, or if Olivia Uribe acted like a grown-up out of immaturity. What is John Thyne’s problem? Egomaniac with an inferiority complex. The irony is I will vote yes on Measure B. No more giant buildings, the developers cannot help themselves. They will never take an inch if they can take a foot.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 06:59 AM
It is true that even if Measure B were to be defeated, there still will be a 60’ limit in the city.
And it may be arguable whether 60’ constitutes a “high rise”.
But that isn’t the point.
What the opponents of Measure B are envisioning WILL require real High-Rises, and even that 60’ limit may quite likely soon come under attack.
JoeR
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 07:36 AM
This measure is not about building heights per se, but instead is a statement about growth and change. Are the voters smart enough to know that? Probably not. To assume that any one in their normal course of life is going to devote the time and energy to understand the complexity of urban development and its design is ludicrous. There are those that do, they are architects and urban design professionals who are not only well schooled but have a passion for the study, hard for the rest of us to compete against that. But that is exactly what measure B does. It gives a voting public, unschooled in architecture and urban design the power to make decisions about how our urban landscape looks and functions. This is an unmitigated tragedy. The fact that Bill Mahan, an architect, would prostitute his profession by presenting such a measure is truly astounding. But worse is the fact that SEPV preys on elderly voters, spreading fear and loathing, by way of lies and distortions. Much of what SEPV has done has been exposed right here on the Noozhawk by passionate commenters. Local architects have begun to fight back the siege against their profession. But in the end it will be up to we weary voters to once again battle irrational fear and brute force politics and bring some reason back to governance. Will we succeed or will lies, fear and irrational politics rule the day?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 07:41 AM
“... if you take away the unique qualities, you harm the environment and the economy.”
And if you build a shorter building, you do the same. It’s frustrating to constantly see the same arguments applied to both sides of issues for convenience.
It’s also disappointing to see David Pritchett in this picture. I have no doubt that Bill, Sheila, et al are caring, intelligent people, but so much of this issue seems to revolve around old vs. young, scared vs. hopeful, leave it alone til I pass on vs. change it for my future. This is a wide-ranging and challenging set of issues that does not seem suited to the singular, static resolution of an initiative. I would have hoped to include David my view of the “young, hopeful, and my future” descriptions.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 08:03 AM
The real movement behind Measure B is a clear statement—We can not trust our elected officials to represent us, so we need to tighten up their decision making capabilities.
Very sad but very true with the current council.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 09:40 AM
The terms commonly used in travel and Architectural history books are:
Low rise: 1 to 4 stories
Mid rise: 5 to 9 stories
High rise: 10 or more stories
Santa Barbara is a city of low-rise buildings. This is no techno-speak: it is common language.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 09:41 AM
Yes, “...Wait” voters ARE stupid. Most people cast their votes without more than a cursory glance at the small blurb describing each measure on the ballot. The very fact that George W. Bush was elected and reelected in this country should be proof enough that William F. Buckley would be a fool to trust the common man over a Harvard professor. To make a generalization, the average American voter is neither very thoughtful or particularly intelligent, and they are vulnerable to exactly this kind of verbal manipulation.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 09:58 AM
AN50, as usual, is all wet. He has no respect for either the intelligence of the people, or the will of the people.
This city belongs to the people who live here, not the architects, not the developers, and not the city council. We own it. It is our city to preserve and protect if we so desire. And so desire we do. Thats why measure B is going to easily pass.
The whole point is that the developers, architects and city council is trying to transform Santa Barbara by implementing high density vertical smart growth——And a whole lot of it. they want to increase the density from 20 units per acre to 60 units per acre. With a 60 feet height limit this will encourage, and allow, our population to increase over the next 100 years from our current 100,000 population to around 300,000.
This will encourage an average of five new 4 story 60 feet tall monster high rise buildings to be built here each year, which is 100 monstrosities like those on Chapala over the next 20 years, and 500 new 60 feet monstrosities over the next 100 years. This is what they secretly want, and this is what will happen if measure B does not pass. Of course they will not admit it, but will claim that no more such monster 60 feet buildings will be built if we leave our 60 feet height limit in place. They, in effect, ask us: “What do we believe, what they say, or our lying eyes?” I was born at night, but not last night!
Such high density vertical smart growth will totally transform and ruin our city as well as causing total gridlock traffic congestion and totally ruining our quality of life. Such high density population growth is not sustainable and does not live within our limited resources. Such high density development will. increase our carbon footprint because it is a fact, well document in all the studies of smart growth, that taller buildings have a larger carbon footprint, and use more energy per capita for construction, heating, cooling and lighting, than low density living.
One does not have to be an architect to know that the vast majority of the voters absolutely despise those new 60 feet high rise monstrosities on Chapala and don’t want hundreds more just like them and the gridlock traffic congestion that they will cause.
Measure B is the opportunity for the voters to take back our town, that we own, from the control of the developers m architects and city council. Most of us live here in paradise because of the very special small town character and our wonderful high quality of life, and were smart enough to see that Yes vote on measure B is the only way to preserve and protect it and that a no vote on B would result in Santa Barbara being destroyed one big high rise monstrosity, like those on Chapala, at a time.
Power to the people. Say no to overdevelopment, high density vertical population growth, and high rise development. Reaffirm our desire for slow population growth and small town character in Santa Barbara.
Please join your 11,500 friends and neighbors who signed the petition, to put measure B on the ballot to protect and preserve your city, and VOTE YES ON MEASURE B.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 10:30 AM
“High rise” = Political spin and fear mongering. If proponents can’t present a law to me honestly then I am inclined to vote no regardless of what the law is for.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 10:33 AM
Limiting building height city-wide may or may not be a good idea.
But it is a clear, simple idea, which any reasonable voter would understand, no matter
how they choose to vote.
That’s probably why the judge dismissed Mr. Hofer’s Hail Mary lawsuit pass.
Good. We have too much frivolous litigation as it is. I’m sure Hofer and the developers
will be back in court to challenge it (again) if it should happen to pass
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 10:39 AM
The developers wanted to maximize their profits and built those huge buildings on Chapala. The planning commission and city council couldn’t stop it because the law allows it. The PEOPLE of Santa Barbara are now RESPONDING, okay?
I didn’t know until this article that David Pritchett was for this initiative. As I respect his views, his youth, and his activism, I am more convinced to vote for Measure B. Think about it, why do we choose to live in this beautiful but crushingly expensive town? It’s the small town character.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 11:51 AM
City Council candidate David Pritchett instead should have picked the losing side of this ballot measure. After all, it is backed by the land developers and monied interests that stand to make more money by attaining their goal of as few restrictions as possible on big development.
If Pritchett were smart, he would back the desperate greenwashing land developers instead.
Would Pritchett have more integrity by being a weenie and refusing to take a position on this ballot question that everyone is asking?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 12:11 PM
As a card carrying conservative, one who believes in traditional values (that our country used to represent) and limited government, I find the very nature of Measure B offensive. It is the antithesis of what we were once about. This issue is not about “preservation” or “growth control” or even reigning in a rouge local government as some commenters and SEPV have alluded to. It is about control and who has it. For some to suggest that the small minded few who want things their own way has precedent over my property is wrong. It is wrong especially when much of what you do with your property is already under community control through land use and zoning laws.
Yes, Less, your little band of fear mongers will most likely win, not on the merits of your weak and irrational arguments but rather on the campaign of fear, outright lies and hostility your group has waged.
For those who still don’t get it, Measure B will NOT stop growth. It will NOT guaranty beautiful architecture. It will NOT change how the city council does its business. It will NOT reduce traffic, cure aids, return SB to a small hamlet of 5000 people, provide healthcare for all, get rid of gangs or stop the hobo from peeing on your building. All it will do is make newer buildings lower and much much larger (go look at what the current limit turned Cottage Hospital into, a massive 2 block long structure less than 60 feet high). For those of you who were sucked into the hyperbole over Chapala One, turn your arse around and look at the damned building across the street. Paseo Nuevo is the largest structure down town and covers 2 city blocks all under the existing height limit (most of the suburban type mall would fit under the new limit). So the whole driver behind this movement is a mere shadow of the massive types of ground gobbling sprawling structures you will see built. That is not a threat or fear mongering, just plain logic. Further, knocking off the top 15 to 20 feet will usher in a new generation of 4 story flat topped buildings, since no height will be left for such architectural amenities like gabled roofs or mansards.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 12:22 PM
“Please join your 11,500 friends and neighbors who signed the petition, to put measure B on the ballot to protect and preserve your city, and VOTE YES ON MEASURE B.”....speaking of misleading statements that right there is one, Yes on B’s own website says that number is not correct but they keep saying that, of course they also like to bandy about the term “high rise”.
When you cant defend your position honestly go for cheap slogans and say your opposition is a tool of developers.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 12:50 PM
Measure B will do six things, and do them well:
1. It will stop any more huge and looming 60 feet behemoths like those new 60 feet high rise behemoths on Chapala.
2. It will allow slow controlled growth, but It will stop excessive growth.
3. It will prevent high density development from causing total gridlock traffic congestion downtown
4. It will protect our small town feel.
5. It will preserve our quality of life.
6. It will assure that we live within our resources and are sustainable.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 01:04 PM
You know, this whole debate is amazing….a few buildings get built on Chapala that are (granted) a bit oversized….fine, let’s tinker with the rules….But instead of tinkering with abstract planning rules to scale down a bit, Mahan, Lodge, Bendy White etc are all hot to AMEND the city charter! This is a big, big deal. It’s like amending the US Constitution and should not be taken lightly. Vote NO on this sillyness and let’s gat this issue back where it belongs - within our good city process. This city is nice because we HAVE tinkered with the rules in the past, but this is out of control.
And, for what it’s worth, I’m 43 and plan to live here another 40 years hopefully. So many of the supporters of B are well over 65…what gives? Pass the torch people.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 01:11 PM
Is that the outside of the court house, or a retirement home? Seriously, the proponents of Measure B (a bunch of cranky old folks and their whipping boy Pritchett) should be enough to let everyone know to vote NO on the poorly-written Measure B.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 01:16 PM
...looks like she’s looking for her lost cat in that picture.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 02:29 PM
Way to go Bill Mahan. Don’t let those special interests get you down.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 02:31 PM
...doesn’t looked too whipped to me.
He once told me he has supported Measure B (before that was its designation) since last April.
These personal attacks on the supporters of Measure B only make the political opponents appear all the more desperate. This is going to pass with 70 percent.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 02:43 PM
It took me 20 minutes to drive from San Andres to State on Carrillo street last friday afternoon.
Anyone wanting more growth in this City has their own agenda, as it is definitely not in the interest of the people who are already crammed into this City.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 02:56 PM
You just don’t get it!
It is our city process that is out of control.
We citizens cannot trust our council, or city planning staff, to protect and preserve our city, or our quality of life.
In fact it is they who want to transform and ruin it with hundreds of 60 feet high rise buildings and a whole lot of high density population growth.
The good and caring citizens had NO CHOICE but to take matters into their own hands and and lower the height limit in the city charter to prevent the city Council from ruining our city by allowing hundreds of new 60 feet high rise monster buildings.
So join the citizens in taking back control of the destiny of our town. Preserve our small town feel and quality of life. prevent massive traffic congestion downtown and VOTE YES ON MEASURE B.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 04:40 PM
reply @ Picture Tells a Thousand Stories.
WOW! How insulting and disrespectful can one young person get?
I got news for you, Buckwheat. We were all once young, and wet behind the ears, like you but there is truth to the old saying that wisdom comes with age.
You, too, Buckwheat, will grow old some day and i hope the young show you more respect than you are showing us.
I was undecided until reading your comment but now consider my vote as canceling out your vote, Buckwheat.
And I have a feeling I will not be the only one moved by your words to Vote Yes On measure B.
p.s. I’m sure glad the vast majority of the voters are not young. Because they don’t know any better than to destroy Santa Barbara. That we all worked so hard to create and provide for you to live here and enjoy. It’s obvious that you don’t even begin appreciate how unique and special an oasis we have here. I feel sorry for you, Buckwheat.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 05:00 PM
You are only half right. Measure B is going to pass by 80% o 20% . A sure thing. Because after all this is the will of the people. the will of the people is not to destroy Santa Barbara with high rise development.
It’s such a sure thing because nobody in his or her right mind, unless they make a lot of money on the development of big buildings, is going to miss the opportunity to prevent any more of those behemoth 60 feet buildings ( some of call them the QE2), as well as preventing the gridlock traffic congestion that they cause, as well as preventing excessive population growth, as well as sticking it to the far left radical socialists who don’t want the voters to be in control of their own town and who want us all to have to live only in a high rise in the future.
Well I say SCREW THEM, Vote yes on measure B, and take back our town from the nasty development community.
Just say no to high rise over-development
Vote yes on B.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 05:44 PM
To the SEPV writer who posted the six lies.
Measure B will do six things, and do them well: (really?)
1. It will stop any more huge and looming 60 feet behemoths like those new 60 feet high rise behemoths on Chapala.
Lie number one, Chapala One is not a high rise and only a very small part of the building is 60’, the rest is lower. So, many more building like this one could be built with the new limit, but with fewer taller architectural features (like towers or steeples).
2. It will allow slow controlled growth, but It will stop excessive growth.
Lie number two. The measure only lops the top off of buildings, there is nothing in the measure to stop or control growth.
3. It will prevent high density development from causing total gridlock traffic congestion downtown.
Lie number three. Since the measure is a “height ordinance” it has no impact on traffic, which is determined by growth and street capacity. The city has done more to cause horrendous traffic by removing street capacity than it has by allowing growth.
4. It will protect our small town feel.
Lie number four. Since the measure does not control growth, reduce traffic, stop gang violence, deal with vagrancy, deal with the economic problems or (and most importantly) transport SB back through time to when it actually was a small town and felt like one (cir. 1892), then it will not preserve what does not exist.
5. It will preserve our quality of life.
Lie number five. As a building height limit, it will have absolutely no impact on anyone’s quality of life including Bill Mahan’s and Less is More or any SEPV member.
6. It will assure that we live within our resources and are sustainable.
Lie Number six. It will do nothing of a sort. Squishing buildings will not affect how many and how much resources this community consumes. To make such a stretch shows a complete lack of depth of understanding in how urban communities work.
So, SEPV writers (or Less is More) keep publishing this emotion driven illogical rubbish. The more you do the sillier I can make you look. Cheers!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 06:14 PM
Reply to “...was undecided…”
Who says I’m young, middle-aged or old for that matter? You jumped to an incorrect conclusion, I’m afraid.
Just because I am one age or another doesn’t mean I want a group of older people making decisions for future generations. Unfortunately, if you look at the lead proponents of Measure B they are for the most part in the latter stages of life. As such, they are somewhat disconnected from the needs, desires and culture of younger and future generations. They are in fact a special interest group themselves.
The point of this observation, and my earlier somewhat disrespectful post (done intentionally) was to illustrate that if we’re truly open-minded, educated folks, we don’t want any one class, age group, or other special interest group concocting legislation or policy for the rest of us, particularly if the special interest group is not going to be around to deal with the damage and consequences their efforts have caused.
If you choose to look at this a ageist or disrespectful, I’m sorry but that’s the reality of the situation.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 07:20 PM
Yours quoting architectural history and travel books (which of the latter?) shows why the foolish lawsuit lost. It’s not about such books but about the common usage of words, whether ballot language should be that for architectural historians and builders or for ordinary people.
Most people understand that a high-rise building is considered such by the person in the street standing next to it, especially in comparison with other buildings in the area.
This was a stupid lawsuit, wasting money and energies, giving a much-needed boost to the Yes on B people. Thank you for it!
As for David Pritchett, it’s admirable that he is willing to stand up against the opinions of friends and speak as he thinks. Admirable and rare. He’s got my vote. Noted that neither White nor Channing, Yes on B committee members, were quoted at that press conference.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 08:45 PM
Having given energy over to Health Care Reform, I come back to this nonsense. May I just say that I agree with these posts:
“...whole debate is amazing….a few buildings get built on Chapala that are (granted) a bit oversized….fine, let’s tinker with the rules….But instead of tinkering with abstract planning rules to scale down a bit, Mahan, Lodge, Bendy White etc are all hot to AMEND the city charter! This is a big, big deal. It’s like amending the US Constitution and should not be taken lightly.”
DO YOU PEOPLE know anything about what builders have to put up with to BUILD anything in this town? I thought not. We need a thorough thrashing of our ordinances, such as getting rid of mandatory inclusionary housing - which caused “Chapala One” to come to be. MAHAN knows all about that. But he also knows it’s easier to DUPE the people with fear, rather than work through the real issues.
If our town ends up ugly and flat, this local will be ashamed of the sheep that yelled “bah…!”
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.02.09 @ 09:39 PM
Go Bill Mahan, and team. What a wonderful initiative this is shaping up to be. The NO on B people keep indicating their ignorance and they will be shocked, SHOCKED, when they hear from the citizens that they can’t keep proposing White Elephant, bankrupt large buildings in our town anymore in November. Ask any of the NO on B people, not one of them live downtown, they all live in the suburbs among single-story residences. Their formula is OVER and a new day will dawn when they finally will have to listen to the voters of Santa Barbara!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.03.09 @ 12:26 AM
Reply to SBnative:
Who gives a flying fig what developers have to go through?
Is that your best reason for voting No on B?
You’ve got to be kidding, right?
This just goes to prove how SBNative and AN50 ( who are one in the same person) are totally out of touch with reality, and the will of the people. Oh, I forgot, they don’t give a flying fig about the will of the people, because, after all they know what’s best for you, and think that the voters are idiots.
They also think the voters should somehow, I don’t quite get their reasoning, should somehow accept hundreds more of those monstrosities on Chapala that they love and all the rest of us despise.
They keep trying to counter our remarks without success due to their lies ( like saying towers can not be possible when towers are exempt from the height limit), and faulty reasoning. For example who cares if those monstrosities on Chapala are 59 feet or 60 feet, or meet the definition of high rise. The whole point , and the only point that matters is the vast majority of the public despises them and does not want hundreds more just like them.
SBNative and AN50 throw out so many Red Herrings that they must stink like the lies that they spin.
Measure B is really very simple, folks:
Either a voter loves those 60 feet monstrosities on Chapala, and wants 100 more high rises just like them , or they despise them, as the vast majority of the voters do and will vote Yes on measure B in order to prevent any more 60 feet high rises just like them.
Be sure to Vote Yes on B, and prevent high rises in Santa Barbara.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.03.09 @ 12:37 AM
Go home LA, and take the nasty no on B high rise developers with you.
Come election day this will be the end of the developers high rise vision for transforming Santa Barbara and the voters will have reaffirmed their desire for slow growth and low density development and their preference for preserving our cherished small town character and quality of life.
It will be the end of the temporary high rise high density era, and a bright new dawn where Santa Barbara shall remain the oasis it has been for 200 years where people come fro all over to get away from the hustle and bustle of big city high rise life.
It will be a joy to behold on election day, with dancing and rejoicing in the streets, when the citizens get together, vote yes on B, and take back their town from the nasty developers with their high density high rise development dreams and aspirations.
Send them Home to LA!
Vote yes On B
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.03.09 @ 06:53 AM
AN50 just loves to try and find one teeny point to dispute, as if this somehow really matters and somehow makes the main point invalid. he is also doing this to deflect the voter away from the real facts and the real issue.
For example he makes the weak point that the REALLY tall buildings on Chapala are not really high rises but something less, and that while mostly 60 feet are not ALL quite 60 feet or may be only 59 feet. all in a lame excuse to be able to call someone else a liar, and deflect the argument away from an argument that you know you can’t win.
Now lets look at the indisputable facts:
FACT: No matter how AN50 tries to spin it the new super-size buildings on Chapala exist. They aren’t a figment of our imagination ( if only they were). And they are tall! REALLY REALLY TALL.
FACT: And most of us don’t like them one bit and don’t want any more like them ! right? another understatement.
FACT: Measure B will force them to be less than 40 feet as opposed to less than 60 feet. another indisputable fact. Now 40 feet is 33% less than 60 feet. therefore future buildings under measure B will all be a whopping 33% less tall! YET another inconvenient fact for AN50. Gee AN50 who will you try and spin this one? another lie and try and say future buildings won’t be any less tall. That is a factual statement if measure B does NOT pass. Under a 60 feet height limit we would get , on average, about five such super-sized REALLY tall buildings each year. Gee, AN50 , thats 100 more , just like the ones on Chapala over the next 50 years.
Now , in my book, that really transforms the VISUAL character of Santa Barbara. and changes it from our current small town feel to being just like another California city.
Oh, I forgot, AN50 likes tall buildings. the taller the better.
So lets see, AN50 , how shall we spin this one. Oh, I know, lets point out that Santa Barbara is not the perfect paradise because we have gang violence. Nice deflection try, AN50, but it just doesn’t play in my book. We still have the height issue and it just doesn’t go away.
FACT; Tall high density building use more energy to build, heat, cool and light, and government studies show that the carbon footprint of high density tall buildings is greater per capita than low density buildings. Therefore, its a fact that, low density buildings are far more sustainable than high density tall buildings.
FACT; It’s an indisputable fact that with new big and tall buildings come new people. and its an indisputable fact that with new people comes new traffic—-An inconvenient fact for the likes of AN50. Gee, how shall we try and spin this, AN50? Oh, I know, lets try and see if the voters are dumb enough to let us get away with saying that a building that is 33% less tall and therefore 33% less square feet will hold the same number of people and so the traffic will not increase.
Well, Gee, AN50 even if the traffic in a 40 feet building was the same it would still be new traffic congestion added to the downtown. But in reality the 60 feet building allowed if measure B does not pass will be 33% larger and therefore hold 33% more people and therefore 33% more new traffic congestion.
Lest see, how can we spin this> Oh, I know, lets see if the voters are stupid enough to buy the argument that everybody will live downtown in high density and tall buildings ( no matter if they don;t get to have a little yard of their own) and give up their car and walk to work. Now lets see, AN50, how do we deal with the inconvenient fact that government studies have shown that people who live near transit are not giving up their car, and while driving about 10% less, still keep their car and still drive it a significant amount, including to work. Because after all, people mostly don;t work downtown but all over the South coast.
FACT: Its a fact that measure B will reduce new traffic congestion 33% downtown because all new buildings will have to be a whopping and significant 33% shorter. Gee, thats a significant amount. And its a fact that measure B will have the effect of preserving the current visual and aesthetic character of Santa Barbara which is now mostly 1, 2 and 3 story buildings. Its a fact that less than 1% of all buildings in Santa Barbara are more than 3 stories. Its a fact that one cant get a four story mixed use building in 40 feet so only 2 stories of residential can fit over the commercial instead of 3. Gee thats exactly a 33% decrease. Gee , how do we get the public to believe differently. Oh, i know, AN50 , lets use your spin lie about how 4 stories of mixed use could fit if it had a flat roof and how all buildings will be squashed flat. another nice spin lie to deflect away from the real facts and the real truth that measure B will prevent hundreds of more super-sized 4 story 60 feet buildings like those on Chapala. Oh, I know, AN50, lets try and deflect thee whole argument by saying its a lie to call these monsters a high rise. As if that somehow makes them less tall and less super-sized and somehow acceptable , because after all, they are not a high rise, right?
FACT: Since the buildings are 33% smaller and contain 33% fewer people then measure B will reduce the population carrying capacity and growth by a whopping 33%. This significant less growth is reason enough all by itself to vote YES on measure B. Unless your like AN50 and desires to have our city grow to 300,000 people. Well the way AN50 spin this fact is by trying to get away with the ridiculous statement that measure B will not reduce growth. YEAH, RIGHT! Tell yet another lie and hope the voter falls for it.
AN50, you have told us, many times before, how dumb you think the voters are but WE ARE NOT DUMB AND WE CAN SEE RIGHT THROUGH YOUR LIES, YOUR SPIN, YOUR ATTEMPT AT DEFLECTION AND YOUR RED HERRINGS.
The vast majority of us, for dozens of very valid reasons, are all going to vote YES on B to prevent more super sized high rises like those on Chapala, So, put that in your pipe and smoke it, AN50.
PREVENT HIGH RISE CONSTRUCTION IN SANTA BARBARA
VOTE YES ON B
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.03.09 @ 07:33 AM
Less is More, none of your arguments holds water. They are all vapor. I warned you that if you kept arguing I would have so much fun making you look silly and irrational. So folks more fun and laughs from the Less and AN50 show!
Lester the Skyline Molester (I picked that name just for you, my friend), you cannot “reduce” traffic by lopping off elevator towers, bell towers or steeples. In fact, and this is really important, even if all buildings built from this day forward were only one story tall, they would increase traffic. Traffic is a function of growth and capacity, so ANY growth will increase traffic. Sheesh, take an anger management class, calm down and try to not take my attacks on your arguments so personal. Now then you are right that reducing building density will reduce the TOTAL amount of growth. But you make the asinine argument that somehow with a new height limit no or little growth will occur, but without the new limit the maximum growth will occur. That is simply BS and you know it.
Look my friend, I tried to tell you once before this is an aesthetics problem. Leave all the other “scare tactics” BS out of it and argue from the point of what you think looks good. I know you don’t have a leg to stand on with that either, because aesthetics is a very personal and subjective matter and I have numerous times before showed the historical precedent FOR taller buildings NOT shorter ones. Leave your personal trauma you sustained in the people’s republic of Santa Monica out of this. It is not relevant here. We, yes even those of us in favor of a more dynamic and lively city that embraces change and accommodates our fellow countrymen, have NO intention of seeing our city wrecked by over development. Now go take a chill pill or two and stop writing all these annoying “reply to” comments. Fer God’s sake we all know who is writing them just put your moniker on them. I’m sure most commenters to the Noozhawk are thoroughly sick of seeing AN50 as a commenter, but at least, by using a consistent screen name, I give readers the opportunity to self edit my long winded tirades. You need to do the same Less. Any way Cheers! More later I’m sure!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.03.09 @ 11:56 AM
1. The idea that the foes of Measure B are part of a secret conspiracy of developers and construction professionals to enrich themselves at the expense of downtown residents. It’s been said here way too many times for a crackpot conspiracy theory. If you believe that, then sorry but in my book you’re gonna get filed away in the loony bin along with those people who think Obama is an illegal alien.
2. The idea that Brian Hofer has some sort of ulterior motive in filing this lawsuit, other than the obvious concern of a citizen with a background in architecture in this town. As anyone who knows him personally can tell you, he wasn’t in this to line his own pockets. In general he doesn’t even work on this sort of building in the downtown area. What he DOES have is many years of experience doing weekend walking tours of historical downtown architecture for the SB Architectural Foundation. As such, it seems to me that he should be more qualified than most people, even other long time residents, to pass judgment on the aesthetics and direction of downtown growth. Which brings me to number…
3. People talking about"pro” and “anti” growth. If you are against growth in this city, then frankly you are an idiot. Growth is INEVITABLE, not just here but anywhere. If you try to prevent growth through draconian building regulations and forcing out all but the wealthy vacation condo-owning people, you will still fail and drive away Santa Barbara’s bohemians, young adults, and working class people while you’re at it, groups that contribute to this town’s vitality and unique character a lot more than the height of its buildings does. As long as the world’s population continues to increase (and you can bet it will) traffic, population density, and the other things you anti-growth people continually harp on will not improve. No one likes it, but that’s the world we live in. That being said, you can either try to stick your finger in the dike to hold back the flood, or you can try to plan for the best future possible. Change is inevitable people, lets make sure Santa Barbara isn’t left behind.
4. Complaints that this Measure is necessary because “We can not trust our elected officials to represent us, so we need to tighten up their decision making capabilities”. HELLO?? What country do we live in? If you don’t like the decisions the council or the planning commission are making, THROW THE BUMS OUT! If you don’t want people to make these kinds of decisions for our community, why do we bother electing people to these positions? It isn’t necessary to alter the city charter just because you don’t like the current crop of city officials; you have other recourses.
In conclusion, if you are thinking of making some comment related to what I’ve said above, don’t. Such ideas are unhealthy and are a detriment to this debate. This case should be measured on its merits, without all the hysterical name-calling, laughable conspiracy theories, and arguments lacking any logical or factual basis.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.03.09 @ 12:02 PM
Well AN50, I’d like to be able to take credit for every single reply on here but I can’t.
I can assure you that I post no more total words here than you do.
You really think there is only one person in favor of measure B?
Get real!
All of my arguments hold water and it is your arguments that are vapor. You are the one looking silly by spewing garbage out of your mouth. I think I’ll name you AN50 the RED HERRING MAN
You just said; “Now then you are right that reducing building density will reduce the TOTAL amount of growth.
Well thats my main point. Vote yes on B and reduce the total amount of growth because a building 33% taller can hold 33% more density.
I beg to differ with you my friend about whether or not what happened in Santa Monica is relevant here. 30 years ago Santa Monica was a nice place to live just like Santa Barbara is now. Santa Monica implemented high density vertical smart growth exactly like the No on B folks are trying to implement here now. the smart growth advocates promise the residents that if they only would build a whole lot of high density tall buildings in the urban core that it would get people out of their cars and decrease traffic congestion. Well the residents were sold a bill of goods because they got lots and lots of high density tall buildings, but along with it came a whole lot of population growth and a whole lot of new traffic congestion. When I lived there 30 years ago I could drive from one end to the other at rush hour in 10 minutes. Now it takes 1 1/2 hours of total gridlock traffic congestion to travel the same distance.
In other words Santa monica was a real world test case to see it high density vertical smart growth worked as promised and it failed miserably. But now Santa Monica is ruined, and they can never get it back. Well measure B can preserve and protect Santa Barbara from being ruined like Santa Monica was by high density vertical smart growth and lots and lots of tall high density buildings.
Any idiot can see that this applies to measure B. Oh, I forgot, your goal is not to face the real issue, which is a total transformation of our beloved city, but to deflect the conversation by throwing out your RED HERRING spin.
The bottom line for the voters is whether or not they want to vote Yes on B and save Santa Barbara as we know and love it or vote No on B and totally transform and ruin Santa Barbara with hundreds of high rises over the next 20 years, one at a time, and cause total gridlock traffic congestion, just like it did in Santa Monica. Remember once its gone there will never be another Santa Barbara.
Join with your fellow 11,500 voters who signed the petition to put measure B on the ballot by voting yes on B to save Santa Barbara from being ruined by high rises.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.03.09 @ 02:54 PM
In the end, regardless of how the vote comes out, this whole Measure B issue will come to be known as “Mahan’s Folly”.
People, please understand that growth of some kind is natural and organic. If you go forward with voting YES on Measure B, the growth will go OUTWARD which equates to urban sprawl. Is that what you all want?
Why do you think the Democratic Party, the Santa Barbara Independent and many others are urging a NO VOTE ON MEASURE B? Because they’re smart enough to not be taken in by the false, fear-mongering lies of the SEPV crowd, and actually understand the negative consequences enactment of Measure B will have on our city.
I encourage everyone to read the SB Independent endorsement of NO ON MEASURE B and think before you vote. Use your heads a bit, and not get caught up in the knee-jerk response the supporters of Measure B are banking on to pass the ridiculous and poorly-written ballot measure.
Join the more calm, sane Santa Barbarans in voting NO ON MEASURE B. NO ON MAHAN’S FOLLY!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.03.09 @ 02:55 PM
Will someone please help Sheila Lodge find her missing cat.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.03.09 @ 03:47 PM
Less, I would believe you that you only comment under your own moniker if it weren’t for the fact that all pro B comments sound EXACTLY like you, my friend. No matter though, I don’t really care THAT much.
I can truly appreciate what you went through in SM, as I have told you before. However, SM is surrounded on three sides by LA, quite a difference in setting from SB which is really isolated from the drumbeat of the urban sprawl of So Cal. And that difference is very significant. The pressure for growth in SM is tremendous and they really have no other reference for what is acceptable with a 12,000 lb gorilla on their back. It is sad that SM was ruined but it was hardly inevitable. We enjoy our isolation up here. It gives us a different perspective. We don’t have to surround ourselves with the barbed wire of draconian limits to fend off LA style development, because no one living here, including those of us pro growthers, wants anything to do with it. But I guarantee you, as sure as the sun is hot, if this measure is passed, you will get more growth and it will be bad. We can argue all we want on what we think looks good, but the bottom line is its still about subjective appeal and has nothing to do with growth.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.03.09 @ 06:40 PM
“Absurd statements that I’m sick of seeing reprinte” said: ” Growth is inevitable.
It is change that is inevitable. A library can have 10,000 books and can change 1.000 of them each year and improve the library while the total population of books stays the same 10,000.
It is a fact that, due to our growth controls, the population of Santa Barbara has not growth over the last 5 years, but has been constant. This is proof that it can be done.
Yes change occurs and people come and go but the total has stayed the same and we stopped growth here, while the population if the state increases by 600,000 people per year.
If you vote no on B then when city council doubles the density, as they are Hell bent on doing as part of the general plan update going on right now, then a 60 feet height limit, which will encourage and allow hundreds of new massive four story buildings, will allow our population to grow from our present 100,000 to around 300,000.
Vote yes on B and lower the height limit which will continue our slow growth and prevent hundreds more new massive tall high rise buildings like those battleships on
Chapala,
p.s. Our high housing prices are a result of our being a very desirable coastal beach community, and are the exact same prices as desirable beach communities all up and down the coast, and have nothing whatsoever to do with whether buildings are 3 stories and 40 feet or 4 stories and 60 feet. If 60 feet will somehow miraculously give us affordable housing prices, then I ask you why hasn’t the 60 feet limit in place now done so during the past? The answer is because it can’t and it won’t.
The truth is that the developers and architect only are fighting for 60 feet because they want to put 15 feet ceiling heights in the luxury $1,000,000 units.
This is a cruel lie played on the voters by the NO on B folks, by promising the voters that if they only vote No on B they will somehow miraculously be given a housing unit of their own at a price they can afford. It didn’t happen here during the last 20 years, with the 60 feet height limit in place, and it sure as Hell won’t happen during the next 20 years, if measure B is defeated, for the very same reason: Greed on the part of the development community prevents it.
So ,why ruin our city all for nothing.
Yes on B
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.03.09 @ 07:15 PM
“People, please understand that growth of some kind is natural and organic”
Believe it or big brother will make you.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.03.09 @ 10:49 PM
Dear Mahan’s Folly
You said:” People, please understand that growth of some kind is natural and organic. If you go forward with voting YES on Measure B, the growth will go OUTWARD which equates to urban sprawl. Is that what you all want?”
You just admitted that voting Yes on b will prevent excessive growth in Santa Barbara.
Yes, the growth will grow outward but all of Santa Barbara County can just say no to growth and sprawl, and then it will have to occur as high density vertical smart growth in downtown LA which is the center of our region and where such high density vertical smart growth occur.
So vote yes on B and we can and will tell the State what it can do with its State Mandate.
This is our town and we are enforcing our legal rights as a charter city, and we are not going to allow the State to force us to accept growth, as we are in control of our own destiny.
Vote for local control by voting Yes on measure B.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.04.09 @ 06:34 AM
The Independent came out against Measure B, but quickly buried it on their website.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.04.09 @ 08:25 AM
Ah the SEPV logic an exercise in roundabouts. So if all Santa Barbara can just say no to low rise urban sprawl, then why can’t the same people say no to the number of taller buildings? Seems like your logic will work WITHOUT the height limit to curtail growth. Thanks, once again for making my point for me. You make it to easy.
You can believe what you want, but taking a bulldozer to your city to spite developers, well that is just plain sicko my friends. We do not need a big nanny state government, imposing the will of small minded suburbanites, to control growth. We can do that right now, according to the pro B commenters. Measure B will NOT stop growth, that is a LIE and they know it. This is about a political power grab. It is about a few people using fear of development to grab power from elected bodies. They demonize developers. Funny thing is many developers are in FAVOR of the limits for aesthetic reasons. As I have said many times before (and SEPV has yet to refute with a rational argument), the issue is aesthetics, period. All the other arguments both pro and con are irrelevant. The measure is about making Santa Barbara look a certain way whether you agree with it or not. B will transform SB from a city to a suburb, complete with shopping mall and low rise sprawling development. The downtown core will be a tourist attraction with no useful function to anyone but a looky loo.
This is not the city I found 40 years ago. True, socially SB was in a coma back then, no night life and the arts were rarely celebrated. What I found was the ghost of SB past. The urban core was dense and city like, nothing like the mindless, flat, two dimensional suburban sprawl I grew up in down south. But it was quite dead. I research the history, found my family roots went back to the Presidio. I discovered that at one time, SB was a great city, a city that was alive and wielded power. The city’s pioneers had grand visions and thus built grand buildings. Where did all that go? Who killed it? Why is being dead so preferential here? It wasn’t growth mind you, because I came from where the growth was happening and it wasn’t happening here. So why the full tilt toward regression?
FEAR! There was much animosity and FEAR here toward change. Not social changes mind you. No most of our traditional social values were thrown out the window during the hippy salad days. No the resistance to change was a physical thing. As social norms became ever weirder and the stabilizing force of the nuclear family eroded the more intense the need to “preserve” ones physical surrounding became. FEAR was most prevalent. It now dominates local politics. “Development will change your city!!!! OMG, how horrible is that?!!!!” cried the fear mongers. Meanwhile, the social decay ushered in after the teenaged hippy movement grew older but not wiser, continues to produce its unintended consequences, drug abuse, gangs, vagrancy, shallow worthless goals and empty mindless souls.
No height limit will bring back the stability of traditional values. No iron fisted, totalitarian government control over the physical appearance of your city will bring back what you gave up long ago. For those of you who do not fear change, because you were not swept up into the dehumanizing wreckage of our wayward youth, development looks like it should, a tool for change. It does not mean we cannot or should not preserve our past works or architecture. It also means not allowing FEAR to ruin any chance of creating new great works of architecture. Vote NO on B and take that first step, the first step to rebuilding American exceptionalism. Those on the left and right who have become so polarized over our social condition, it is not too late to regain the idealistic pursuit of a better life for all. Time to put FEAR to rest.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.04.09 @ 09:55 AM
My name is Nancy. I am in the 5th grade at Washington school.
Our teacher held a discussion of measure B during class.
We young people don’t like tall buildings in Santa Barbara, either. They look pretty darn big to us, and we are not used to seeing them in Santa Barbara.
We think our city is a pretty wonderful place to live our just the way it is and we can’t figure out why the Architects want to change it.
Wouldn’t tall buildings block all of our mountain views?
And it makes sense to us that adding a whole lot more people downtown will increase traffic. My Mom gets really upset when we are stuck in traffic.
Also, we kids were wondering where we would play if we had to live downtown. There are no parks downtown and no schools and nothing for us kids to do downtown. And no place to skateboard. And no place for my two cats, Mickey and Minnie, if I have to live on the fourth floor with no yard. Most of us were worried about the gang violence that happens downtown and someone mentioned that the kids living east of State Street downtown would fight the kids living west side of State street and it would happen right on the State Street dividing line. Will there be more police to protect us kids living downtown? Right now I am afraid to go downtown by myself, especially after it gets dark. It would make me very sad to have to live downtown.
it seems a good place for tourists to live but not us kids.
Some kid in my class, named Joey, mentioned that it too bad we kids can’t vote as we would vote Yes for Measure B.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.04.09 @ 11:26 AM
Polar Issue: By “burying” it you mean putting it on the home page of their web site?
If you can’t find it, here’s the link:
http://www.independent.com/news/2009/sep/03/vote-no-measure-b/
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.04.09 @ 12:05 PM
AN50, Less (or someone - I’ve lost track) has brought up the example of the ruining of Santa Monica by overdevelopment with tall buildings. You have repeatly said that tall buildings will not bring SM type overpopulation and traffic.
Could you please state one example where the traffic was reduced by the presence of tall buildings? How about one example of a city that has tried what you are suggesting that Santa Barbara become?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.04.09 @ 02:03 PM
An open letter to the residents of Santa Barbara:
The State Department of Housing is trying to implement high density smart growth.
But the concept of Smart growth is to look at the whole region.
The urban core of your region is downtown LA. that is the location that is rich with transit and that is where we want to see a high density of 60 units per acre with a lot of people living near the urban core of your region.
For your information we have designated all of Santa Barbara County, including the City of Santa Barbara as a semi rural region. The highest density we ask of such a semi rural region such as the city of Santa Barbara is 20 units per acre.
The city of Santa Barbara already has an allowed density of 20 units per acre therefore you do not have to increase your density to 60 units per acre or try to become a regional urban center. Like I said that role is transit rich downtown LA , and you just don’t have the transit rich environment in order for such high density to work.
lastly I want to point out that SBCAG we have assigned the city of Santa Barbara its RHNA number of housing units to be zoned for of around 4500 units. But we have been informed by your planning staff that your existing density of 20 units per acre could provide for another 10,000 units in your city with 1, 2 and 3 story buildings and a 40 feet height limit.
Therefore there is absolutely for a semi rural town like Santa Barbara, located in a semi rural county where we the State has not targeted you for high density smart growth should even want to transform your fine city into a high density regional urban center like LA.
You are meeting all of your required share of the State population growth now, and you don’t have to change the way you have been doing things.
So, you can vote yes on B, and you will have met your obligations, as a designated semi-rural city in a semi-rural county to the State to accept your fair share of future growth
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.04.09 @ 02:41 PM
AN50 said: “So if all Santa Barbara can just say no to low rise urban sprawl, then why can’t the same people say no to the number of taller buildings?”
AN50, you just don’t get it.
The WAY the majority of the residents can say no to sprawl or to tall buildings is through ballot measures.
There is simply no other way because just because the majority wishes it to be so doesn’t make it so.
This is because such growth control ordinances are simply not being put in place by the politicians.
Politicians all get elected by promising many things to the voters, one of which is to provide affordable housing. So they refuse to put in place growth control ordinance. In fact they want to encourage growth by increasing our density.
Therefore if the majority of the residents desire for slow growth, to be sustainable and live within our resources, to not increase traffic congestion, and do not allow hundreds more new monster 4 story and 60 feet high rise buildings like those on Chapala all over town, they simply have o choice but to put a measure on the ballot and vote yes on measure B.
I wish there was, but there is no other way. Same goes for preventing sprawl in the county. The citizens living in the county simply need to put a measure on the ballot and it will prevent sprawl everywhere in our County. We will do that next year. It is up to each county to look after itself, and to determine its own destiny. As the last commenter said, Santa Barbara County is a semi-rural county, and we need to keep it that way!
VOTE YES ON B
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.04.09 @ 04:25 PM
Cast your vote with the Democratic Party of Santa Barbara and the Independent. VOTE NO ON MEASURE B!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.04.09 @ 06:49 PM
Both the democratic party central committee, who made the endorsement on measure B, and the Independent, are both far left wing socialist radical extremists.
No need for moderate democrats, or republicans, to vote their socialist way.
They want Santa Barbara to grow to 300,000 people, and to provide subsidized, almost free, housing for all the poor for 100 miles around, in literally hundreds and hundreds of monster 60 feet high rises like those on Chapala.
All paid for by you and me.
Vote the smart, moderate and more sustainable way. Live within our resources and
VORE YES ON B
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.04.09 @ 09:10 PM
My wife and I were undecided on measure B.
My wife and I just read all the responses to this article and after talking it over for several, hours, have just decided, while both sides made some good points, that we just have to vote yes on B.
The bottom line is we just don’t want Santa Barbara to grow into a big city, with lots of tall buildings, lots of population growth and the traffic congestion that comes with it.
The comment, how Santa Monica tried what the No on B group is proposing, and how it failed to produce the promised results, but actually caused significant traffic congestion and ruined their city and quality of life, was enough to convince us.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.05.09 @ 02:15 AM
I hate high rises and sure don’t want any more in Santa Barbara in the future. I want to move here permanently because there are so few high rises here, especially before those new ones on Chapala. I can see them from the back from where I live and they are sure an ugly eyesore.
Living in something like that is not for me, because I have a Australian Shepherd that means the world to me. .
Can somebody please tell me if out of town city college students like me get to vote on this?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.05.09 @ 08:34 AM
Gordo, I have suggested doing nothing more than rejecting height limits to stop growth. The pro B people will not accept any rejection of this measure without demonizing their opponents, engaging in fear mongering and extreme hyperbole. The fact that 9 out of 10 pro B comments sound the same, use the same debunked talking points and make the same pitch at the end suggest the same writer is posting them. But even if not the same writer certainly there is a lack of bona-fide case argument here, yours is the first. The writer citing the State Department of Housing (SDH) is the second.
My vision is simple, Santa Barbara is a city and as such is an urban area, (not semi-rural). It is unique in that it has a cohesive and well defined downtown core that goes against the flat two dimensional suburban strip mall landscapes so common in the rest of So Cal. Its history is rich and at one time was grand. Its pioneers were visionaries and had great plans for the city and those visions are reflected in many of the city’s old buildings. Very few buildings built since that grand vision of the last century come close to reflecting greatness. I simply want the city to be a place of exceptionalism once again.
As far as traffic goes the SDH comment makes my case beautifully and answers your question as well. The key in managing traffic in the core and the city as a whole is setting DENSITY limits, NOT height limits. By establishing a city wide density limit in conjunction with a city wide graduated height limit you can knock three birds out with two stones. All large cities here in the states (LA was the pioneer) use density and height restrictions to control where density is maximized and where it is minimized. We can do that here too and don’t have to ruin SB’s urban ambience to do it. Once an area wide density is set based on what we want as a maximum build out population to be, you allocate density credits to all land owners. Those credits can be marketed. Now say you want to build a 4 or 5 story hotel, like the Canary, in downtown. Your density says you can only build 3.5 floors worth, but your long range ROI on the property suggests 5 floors. You then look at the purchase of density credits your neighbors have and see if you can buy some up to make up the difference. If all goes well you get enough credits to build to 5 floors and now your neighbors, having sold credits will be limited to fewer floors. It keeps the skyline interesting (buildings of differing height rather than all the same), prevents adjacent buildings from being too tall and keeps the density at a lower level throughout the city, thus controlling growth and traffic generation.
Does this method work? I will not lie to you Gordo, it has worked very well in some cities while failing miserably in others. Why? Most often the failures are due to setting arbitrarily high density limits to begin with, not having a graduated height limit as a guideline and not having a clear vision for what the outcome should look like. We don’t have to make those mistakes as they did in Santa Monica. We can do better. We can have the architectural freedom to once again design exceptional buildings, allow for growth of BUSINESS in our urban core (rather than watch it all go out to industrial parks in Goleta) and we can actually REDUCE our total citywide density, thus improving traffic flow everywhere with this method. But we still need to apply height limits (way more reasonable ones) and put limits on how many density credits can be traded (another failure mode) to ensure that some one doesn’t buy all credits and build a 20 story high rise in La Cumbre shopping center like Bud Smith did down in Oxnard.
Anyway I shared my vision of “cluster urbanization” with Less once and he and I agreed it was good and desirable, we just can’t get past our firm disagreement on what is “too tall”. Hope that helps answer your question. I have many many more ideas and visions for our city, but I’m afraid none of them involve being in a coma, dressing a city of 90,000 people in the clothes of a city of 5000 and trying to pretend your small when you are obviously not.
Cheers and same to you Less!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 09.08.09 @ 02:57 PM
Cast your vote with the Democratic Party of Santa Barbara and the Independent. VOTE NO ON MEASURE B!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
More Local News »
Tom Watson Kicks Off 23rd District Congressional Campaign
Speaking in Santa Barbara, the candidate tells supporters, 'I promise I will not waste your money'
Republican Tom Watson Running for Congress in Bid to Promote Change
The 23rd District candidate talks with Noozhawk ahead of Thursday's formal announcement
County Budget Concerns Fuel Dan Secord’s Bid for Supervisor
The Second District candidate says he's ready to use his experience to help turn local government around
Goldberg Files Nomination Papers as Republican in Assembly Race
Candidate to vie with Stoker for Republican nomination
Wolf, Secord Ready for Rematch in Race for 2nd District Supervisor
In filing campaign paperwork, Wolf cites record while Secord focuses on county's budget woes
Weather: Partly Cloudy 68.0º
Search Noozhawk »
