Panelists Debate the Pros, Cons of Measure B

» B for Building Less on 09.10.09 @ 06:40 AM

Santa Barbara is my home. I pay rent, which shocks people in other parts of the state and the nation when they hear the cost. I can’t afford to buy a home, but I have friends, family, and a career here. So what do I do? I stay and I pay the price, but I live in a beautiful, small-town place.

That’s what it takes to live here. Santa Barbara would be a different place if we built homes for everyone who wanted to live here. Where? Where would new homes go anyway? I’m worried that the building industry is getting desperate. They have to build to stay in business so they build up, like on Chapala. Those buildings triggered this initiative. The builders went too far.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Joe Andrulaitis on 09.10.09 @ 07:16 AM

A big thank you to my fellow debaters for a lively discussion.

The video at the end of my presentation can be found here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFD-e02CVUM

...and for reality bites, there were at least two of us who rode our bikes to the event

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Peter Butler on 09.10.09 @ 07:26 AM

I was under the impression that this event was put on by the Museum of Natural History.  Whomever was responsible for making this happen deserves the community’s gratitude.  It was an enlightening debate on a very complex issue.  What ever side you’re on, it was certainly a healthy debate that needs to happen.  What could be wrong with that.  Seems to me EVERY voter has the obligation to watch this on public access TV prior to casting their vote.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Alex Pujo on 09.10.09 @ 07:29 AM

The community owes a big “Thank You!” to the Museum of Natural History for organizing and hosting this debate. It was long overdue, and it would have saved a lot of heartache and money if it had taken place before this proposal became so political and the sides so entrenched.

A special Thank You! to moderator Stan Roden for an excellent job in giving both sides the opportunity to present their points.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Yes on B on 09.10.09 @ 07:58 AM

With all due respect to Mr. Davis, I think we’ve got a clear picture of the issue: do we want to keep Santa Barbara as it is, the spirit of Santa Barbara, or do we want its streets to be lined with 60’ tall buildings, shadow-casting, dwarfing the people, cutting off views.

Do we trust our City Council, the last bulwark against high-rises, do we trust our fluctuating membership review boards to say “NO!” our advisory boards that gave us Chapala One?

He, with a lifetime in city government, does. No, most of us do not. This is not Measure E time, 20 years ago, this is now—- and Measure B responds to the needs of now.

We all share the environmental sustainability wishes for Santa Barbara; some recognize more than others that LOCAL resources are limited, not just the world-wide demands of “peak oil. We differ in approaches. Those of us saying Yes on B say an important step is to think locally, save Santa Barbara, the Santa Barbara we all love —- and then work for the greater good.

That’s a fine animation. I like it a lot but it does not speak to the issue of Measure B: 40’ and uniqueness and livability OR high rise downtown, obliterating the historic core and irrevocably changing the low key commercial zones, bringing in, btw, even more people needing to be housed.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 09.10.09 @ 08:19 AM

I will agree that every time these socialist do gooders speak out against measure B they get another 100 votes for it. But still it does not detract from the fact that commenters like Jax is dead wrong. Builders are NOT building ever higher buildings or many more of them. That’s just plain BS. This city has not grown substantially since the ill fated El Mirasol project. 99.9% of the growth that has occurred has been in the form of single family dwelling units. So cut the damned fear mongering crap. 40 years of this BS is enough. If you conservatives want to make a political battle out of something then what you should be focusing on is that height limits will NOT STOP growth, just make it cheaper and uglier. Density control is how you do it and anyone in the urban planning business knows it. SEVP admitted both in public meetings and through their surrogates in these online forums that lowering the limits will not affect floor count for buildings. Architects may argue, but what that means is instead of a nice 4 story 60’ condo with gable roofs done in Spanish Moorish revival style motif you get a 4 story flat roofed barracks instead.  The hysteria over building heights is born out of architectural ignorance and the use of fear over development as a political tool is not only stupid it’s dangerous. The existing height limit at 60’ is stupid. It is the equivalent of removing weeds from your lawn with a bulldozer. They are a one size fits all lazy stupid mans solution to complex urban problems. The existing limit has caused more damage architecturally than any other government intervention yet imposed on a community. It is an insidious damage that can be seen in action with the current Cottage hospital mess. Our cities do not need the all powerful nanny state coming in to rescue them. What they need is a more intelligent voting population not motivated by fear.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» No on B on 09.10.09 @ 08:40 AM

Dear Reality Bites,

I rode my bike, and saw numerous others parked outside the museum. You should really check you facts before you make such an accusation.

Thank you.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Another Yes on B on 09.10.09 @ 08:54 AM

Recently the city hired a San Francisco consulting firm to show that massive 4-story buildings are required to provide workforce-affordable housing. Two local architects demonstrated very convincingly that building smaller, compact buildings in existing R-3 zones would do the job better, more affordably, and not harm our city’s character. Affordable housing on the most expensive land in the city with the most expensive construction required does not make sense. Vote yes on B.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» local on 09.10.09 @ 09:13 AM

Like it or not, former Barbarian (and apparently you didn’t like it since you are “former”), tourism is the engine of Santa Barbara’s economy. It drives the city and pays the salaries of city employees, boosts the housing prices by showing how attractive SB is—- and, unfortunately, creates many, many low wage jobs where housing is difficult. Recognizing that, the city has spent a lot on housing, 11% of its housing is affordable, permanently so, Lodge said - I thought it was higher.

To become high-rise (and people are fooling themselves if they think 60’ is what’s wanted: one of the strong opponents of B has said she wants 10 story apartment buildings downtown; another has insisted this area could carry 300,000 people) would curdle that tourist egg, putting nothing in its place.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Another Yes on B on 09.10.09 @ 09:32 AM

Recently the city hired a San Francisco consulting firm to show that massive 4-story buildings are required to provide workforce-affordable housing. Two local architects demonstrated very convincingly that building smaller, compact buildings in existing R-3 zones would do the job better, more affordably, and not harm our city’s character. Affordable housing on the most expensive land in the city with the most expensive construction required does not make sense. Vote yes on B.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» WAKE UP LITTLE SUZY on 09.10.09 @ 09:38 AM

Those opposing measure B say that their main reason for opposing it is because it will tie the hands of future city councils.

What they don’t say it that what it prevents is any present or future City Council from approving literally hundreds of behemoth 60 feet buildings just like those on Chapala.

An average of 5 each year adds up folks.  Do the math: Five per year times 20 years is 100.  Oh My God!

I don’t know about you but I don’t want even one more such behemoth.

I moved here to get away from high rises and big city congestion.  And those opposing measure B want to bring high rises and congestion here.

Read my lips;
THANKS, BUT NO THANKS.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» SBres on 09.10.09 @ 09:56 AM

The fear tactics used by Yes on B folks are ridiculous! “Santa Barbara streets will be lined with canyonizing 60 foot towers that will blot out the sun and destroy the natural beauty of our city!” There has been a 60 foot height limit for 30 years and we still don’t have the problems that B proposes to fix so what is the point? A 60 foot height limit is working just fine. One building on Chapala is hardly a sign of the apocalypse that proponents warn of.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» surfmom on 09.10.09 @ 10:40 AM

You bet this is about “growth”. But always remember this: we are wedged between the mountains and the sea in a narrow coastal strip existing in drought-prone SCal. We will always have some growth, but we certainly don’t need to enhance it at the expense of everyone else. I want quality, not quantity. Show me where more WATER is going to come from first. In the meantime, developers… please go back to LA or wherever if you can’t design something to fit within our space and our imited resources.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Now I'm NO on B on 09.10.09 @ 11:22 AM

I attended last evening’s town hall meeting as somewhat undecided, and left feeling strongly opposed to what Measure B would mean to our community.

First of all, I am not worried that the existing 60 foot height limit, which has been in place for 30+ years, would somehow suddenly mean that our streets would be lined with “dozens and dozens” of 60-foot buildings built to the limits of their setbacks. This is why we have our professional design review boards, design guidelines, and a planning commission in place - to give each project case-by-case review.  These boards would never allow it, and that’s why it hasn’t happened to date.

The proponents of this Measure kept referring to Chapala One as their impetus. I don’t agree that one faulty project should mean an across-the-boards charter revision. Dave Davis and Joe Andrulaitus had some very thoughtful and compelling comments regarding the importance of studying all of the issues and their impacts.

Personally, I’m now fearful of what this Measure, if it passes, will do to our community. It needs more thought, and it sounds like the discussions on the General Plan are attempting to address all of the issues brought up about the Chapala One project and more. Why are the proponents so vehemently opposed to openly discussing ALL of the issues and their impacts rather than focusing on one? It really came off as “old” Santa Barbarans not being very forward-thinking. The impacts of our carbon footprint are real and very frightening. Santa Barbara is unique place it is due largely in fact to those of us who work here, and who deserve to live here just as much as the temporary residents and the lucky few who can afford to purchase property. More affordable residences downtown seems pretty logical to me.

And for the record, I walked to this event.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 09.10.09 @ 12:36 PM

I guess if you tell a lie about something long enough people will eventually believe it. The pro building height limit folks have been repeating the same lie for forty years and 11,500 people now believe it. Height limits did not stop growth for forty years and making the limit shorter will not do it either. It is a grotesque lie and SEPV knows it. Height limits are about imposing a peter pan image of Santa Barbara on the city. The city is not a small town, lost its charm 60 years ago when it went into a coma and no amount of past drug use will change what was nor will abdicating what’s left of your rational thinking make SB what it isn’t. 60’ is not a high rise. There is no precedent in recent history to prove that the existing 60’ limit is imperiling the city unless the sprawling two block long Cottage hospital project is used. Only in that case it would suggest 60’ is to damned short since the whole hospital could have been built in one block with ancillary structures to boot (which now cover an additional 2 blocks) if allowed to go up rather than out. Less is More is absolutely wrong when he says shorter buildings are cheaper to build and operate than taller ones. Ever heard of economy of scale? It’s true that some things don’t scale up, but at 3 to 6 stories it does. Further, since SEPV already made the argument to the housing advocates that you can still cram four floors into a 40’ structure they just shot their own density argument in the foot. So there is another pro B argument that has gang green and is close to death.
It’s pretty simple folks, forget what the socialist housing factions are telling you, they are as full of BS as SEPV is. Forget the 40 year old lies SEPV is spewing about growth and change, there has simply not been much of either and as some have pointed out here, one building is not a precedent. What is precedent is that Santa Barbara is a CITY with all the ills of a large city and we got those ills due to cultural neglect, a doozy of a case of bury-your-head-in-the-sand, the lunacy of throwing all your economic eggs in the most horrifically unstable fair weather industries of all time, tourism and a good dose of live-in-the-past. What did not cause this city’s charm to get pissed on by the hobo are tall buildings or non-existent growth. Peddle that lying BS somewhere else and shame on all of you who bought into it. Time to wake up and grow up and behave like an adult and not some peter pan pining away for your long lost youth. Being a great city is more than just saying no all the time. If I want that kind of mental exercise I can get it from any two year old.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Ann on 09.10.09 @ 01:32 PM

A few folks still don’t quite get it:

The reason we didn’t get a lot of tall buildings under our old 60-foot limit is because we hadn’t implemented high density vertical smart growth.

The whole point of measure B is to prevent the high density smart growth advocated form implementing THEIR vision for Santa Barbara which is to double our density and then build a whole bunch of new high density 4 story 60 feet buildings. 

The reason the opponents to measure B, who are all high density smart growth advocates and who all want to build a whole lot of new 60 feet buildings here is because they know measure B will not allow them to implement their vision of transforming our small town into a big city.

And now they have the gaul to lie to us and say that if voters vote No on B that we will not get a lot of new 60 feet buildings——the very thing that they want.

I was born at night, but not last night.

They must really think the voters are stupid and cant see through their lie, and that if measure B fails then Santa barbara will most assuredly be transformed into a big city, with high rises and lots of congestion.  It could not be any other way.  Not with these high density folks controlling the development inn our city—-who never saw a high rise they didn’t like. 

What they don’t realize is that most of us moved here to get away from high rises and congestion and so were sure not going to vote No and get a lot of what we don’t want.

This choice is a very easy one:  Vote yes on B, and BE ASSURED that we wont get a lot of ugly 60 feet high rise buildings and the congestion that goes along with them.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Less Is More on 09.10.09 @ 02:05 PM

AN50 talks about economy of scale.

Well words are cheap my friend.
lets take a look at reality:

It is a fact that there are no big parcels left to build on so the vast majority of projects are going to be on small lots of 1/4 acre which hold 10 units at 40 units to the acre density.

Now such a 10 unit project could be built in two stories over one story of commercial with 5 units per floor, or it could be built with four units on the second and three on the third and three on the fourth.   
The same 10 units either way!

So where is this economy of scale you are talking about?  Its a figment of your imagination because you didn’t bother to look at the reality. 

now lets look at it another way.

lets say 5 units could be built on the second floor and 5 on the third, for 10 units total and a density of 40 units to the acre.

Now if you added a fourth story at 60 feet containing another 5 units, then there would be 15 units for a density of 60 units to the acre.

Of course a minor inconvenient truth is that there is no space to provide adequate parking for these additional ,units so lets reduce the parking requirements and let them park on the neighboring streets.  I’m sure the neighbors wont mind.  And I’m sure the shoppers who cone to the commercial wont mind not being able to find a parking space.  And I’m sure the merchant wont mind when he loses business when his customers drive to Goleta instead.

lets now look at the economy of scale you say will miraculously some how make the new units all affordable to the workforce:

Well now the contractor buys 15 of everything instead of 10. 

WOW! 

A very big deal to the supplier.  As if he cares enough to sell 15 instead of 10 to give a discount.  I got news for you buckwheat!    A $5000 wolf range is still $5000 whether one orders 10 or 15 of them and a $100 light fixture is still $1000 whether or not one orders 15 of them or 10 and the electrician still charges $50 for the same one hour to install each one of them.  So where is the economy of scale you keep promising us.  its only in your mind thats where, not the reality of the construction marketplace. 

Now lets look at the selling price;  lets say all 15 units are the same 1000 sq., ft and lets say such a new 1000 sq., ft unit located downtown currently has a market value
of $700 per sq. ft or $700,000.

Now if a developer builds 20 units, instead of 15, all the units still have the same market value of $700,000.  Do you really expect us to believe that a developer would sell a unit in a 20 units project for less than the $700,000 market value , even if a   economy of scale allowed him to build each unit for $10,000 less per unit?

What have you been smoking, my friend?

And even if he gave up some easy profit and sold them for $690,000 instead of $700,000 tell us just how this makes the units suddenly affordable to the workforce who can’t even qualify for a $500,000 unit.

I’m so disgusted at all the “Red Herrings” you no on B folks keep throwing out.
You are really playing a very cruel trick of the young voters by telling them the lie that if only they will vote no on B and allow 60 feet buildings that you will provide all 20,000 of them with a brand new unit of their own in a 60-foot unit downtown.

YEAH RIGHT!  Tell us another whopper.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» DorothyD on 09.10.09 @ 04:24 PM

B- is for Blue Sky Vote Yes! I am proud to be an environmentalist. If there weren’t residents who liked our environment and worked hard to save it there would be condos over Alice Keck Park’s Park, and condos over Stowe House and Lake Los Carneros Park. There would also be mega development golf courses, etc. all the way up to Gaviota, and y’know what? Having this sprawl would not prevent high density nor vice versa. You can’t be a promoter of sprawl and high-density like the County of SB has been and say you are promoting sustainability. Obviously the County of SB doesn’t really care about affordable housing or they wouldn’t have sold 4 4-plex Housing Authority units in IV for around and under a million $s each - units in IV where disabled and underprivileged, vulnerable residents had lived without cars for many years. They were kicked out and all those units were turned into student rental housing. Red Herring, surfmom and all about $$$ are right- we have a limited area with limited resources. Everyone knows that most all downtown is used for rentals and as long as students’ numbers keep being increased, landlords will try to cram them into as many places as possible. Thank Goodness there are residents who go to the meetings, etc. but guess what? 10+ years of meeting for the Goleta Valley and Isla Vista plans went unheeded. Bureaucrats (funded by developers) had pre-decided against all residents’ public input and insisted on thrusting units more and denser right over farmland even planning buildings over (an already deficient amount of)parkland- and even parking lots over parks in Isla Vista (which was voted down with a measure D) that was absolutely lied about claiming it was “improving parks” by the very officials who appointed themselves! DO NOT believe that any development will make it so you can own an affordable city dwelling- dream on- the day they decide to put crosswalks, bikepaths, parks, organic gardens and trees into a beautiful dream town- then maybe we could let them build more. That is not what is happening here- VOTE YES- so you can still see the blue sky that you’re paying the high rent for!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Not-so-Dumb Voter on 09.10.09 @ 07:36 PM

Dave Davis comments were: “There will be no more 60 feet buildings, we just want the 60 feet “just in case” the city council need it in the future.  There are no excessively tall building being built here. Do you believe me or your lying eyes?”

Well, Dave, I hate to burst your bubble, arrogant as it is, but I believe my lying eyes. (over your lying lips).

And what were all those nasty comments of yours about the voters not knowing what was good for hem but you do.  I got news for you, bub!

The voters are not as stupid as you think.  They can see that they can’t trust the self serving City Council, who all take huge contributions from the developers, to protect and preserve our small town feel, so we decided to take matters into our own hands, After all its our city not yours or theirs.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!  READ MY LIPS: “NO MORE HIGH RISES!”  YES ON MEASURE B!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» T is for Think on 09.10.09 @ 07:40 PM

Why can’t the City buy already built housing and convert it to workforce housing?  It’s scary how many City council candidates think we can actually cram more new housing into the City limits.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Judy on 09.10.09 @ 09:54 PM

reply to Hey Reality Bites:

You’ve got it backwards buster. You don’t know the history of Santa Barbarta.

Santa Barbara is so nice because of the slow growth community leaders and the ballot box measures. The very same type of community leaders that are leading Yes on B, and the very same type of ballot box measures as measure B.

This is just that latest in a long path of environmental conservation and preservation.

Santa Barbara nice IN SPITE of the planning staff and planning process, and nasty developers,  who, if they had their way, would have ruined Santa Barbara by overdevelopment years ago, just like every other city in Southern California.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Reply to Judy on 09.11.09 @ 07:08 AM

Yup. It must have been elves…

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Tom on 09.11.09 @ 07:41 AM

reply to Steve Johnson:

The demand to develop in Santa Barbara is infinite because we are the most desirable city I which to live and there are 20,000,000 people living within a 100 mile radius of us.

therefore the demand to build three story buildings on R-3 land is the exact same whether downtown is build with 3 story buildings or 4 story buildings.

and were not talking about a ‘few” more projects on Chapala but an average of five 60-foot projects spread over the entire downtown area which is a whopping 100 monstrosities like those on Chapala over the next 20 years and 500 over the next 100 years.  There is no way for the city to restrict them only to Chapala, This would allow the population of Santa Barbara to grow to 300,000 and cause bumper to bumper gridlock traffic congestion here.

lastly you are completely wrong about mixed use.  It is a fact that three story mixed use projects can and will be built in 40 feet.  Thats 15 feet for the first story and 11 feet for second and third and 3 feet for the sloped roof.  We can build some three story projects downtown so it all wont occur in the R-3 zone.

the buyers of houses in the R-3 zone knew the risk when they purchased their property and if they didn’t want the risk of a 3 story building next door they should have purchased in a single family zone where purchasers get that protection.  As I said you are subject to a development next door to you whether downtown buildings are 40 feet or 60 feet, and its the fact that R-3 land is half the price which will draw developers to the R-3 zone.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Townie on 09.11.09 @ 09:59 AM

It was clear as day for those of us on the fence. Davis and Andrulaitis, opponents to the Measure B were clearly stating HOW this measure will affect Santa Barbara’s growth, affordable housing issues, sustainability, and dwindling resources.  It was informative hearing the facts and answers to the many myths that the Measure B proponents are using to get this on the ballot. 

Many Commenters on this website are against overdevelopment and somehow believe that a ‘Yes on A’ will prevent this.  Wrong, if you don’t build up there WILL be sprawl.  This sprawl will either go to neighboring cities (more traffic) or into your own neighborhoods.  Many neighborhoods are zoned for more than one residential unit on a lot.  You can bet that houses can turn into duplexes when there is a housing demand.  You will not be able to change that one. 

By the end of the Town Meeting, the only issue which Yes on A could stand behind was maintaing the ‘charm’ of Santa Barbara.  Ironically, the charm was built under our current land use plan and historically, an even higher height limit.  Btw, Measure B isn’t helping maintain charm, it will limit what the charm looks like.

I understand why Lodge, Barry, and others initiated their movement but want to know if they now have hesitations after clearly understanding the facts?  After that evening they can no longer plead ignorance to some of the misguided information they are providing the public. I would appreciate that they reevaluate the consequences to the workforce who is younger than they are.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Reality Bites on 09.11.09 @ 12:32 PM

Hey Reality Bites replied to me by saying ‘the process” is what is responsible for our great little city.

She has it backwards.
“The process” is what gave us those monstrosities on Chapala, and ‘the process” is what will give us hundreds more high rises just like them.

‘The failure of “The process” is what led to 11,500 grass roots citizens putting measure B on the ballot.  11,500 citizens realized that if they didn’t take matters into their own hands that “the process” was going to not only allow , but encourage, hundreds more high rises and the traffic congestion that goes with them.

Thousands of us moved here to GET AWAUY from high rises and the congestion that goes with them.  Now those opposing measure B want to bring high rises and traffic congestion here.

Well, 11,500 of us say No! to City Staffs high density vertical smart growth.

Join with the vast majority of the voters and vote Yes on Measure B, to prevent high rise development from devastating our great little city.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Response to Reality Bites (the latter one) on 09.11.09 @ 02:31 PM

You don’t get the big picture.  We are a growing city and we can choose to grow smart or backwards. The buildings you are speaking about are not high rises and they do not create traffic congestion.

When people live in downtown they are able to walk or ride their bike to work.  There will be more traffic from people who commute outside of Santa Barbara as you notice currently on our freeways into town.  Do you think that people will stop moving to Santa Barbara because of your efforts?  No, your neighborhoods will get more crowded and you will not be able to control the amount of people in each house or apartment.  You say NO to smart growth?  Are you expecting Goleta, Ventura and other cities to accommodate for your selfishness of no smart growth?  Let the other people be responsible.

You do not fully understand what you are espousing. Did you know that multifamily housing (which you call ‘high rise’?), by code, accommodates parking requirements?  Did you know that parking studies are done on projects in downtown to prevent congestion.  Measure B has nothing to do with preventing traffic or high rises.

And, if you do understand fully what Measure B will do then, honestly, you are concerned more with your convenience then the big picture.
 
Vote NO on B!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» JAX on 09.11.09 @ 04:17 PM

AN50 It is you that either has been bamboozled or you are the arch bamboozler yourself.  I don’t know how long you have lived here, but the City attempted to limit dwelling density, as you put it, years ago.  That case was challenged and went all the way to the California Supreme Court who held the City had no authority to say how many people could live in any dwelling unit.

“Ballot Box” planning is a direct result of the complete failure of the existing planning and development framers including the planning commission, the transportation and parking comnmittees and other utopian pinheads that have no common sense, don’t understand an iota of what they are doing and either have some hairbrained agenda or are wholly corrupted. 

These “smart growth” advocates came up with such brilliant planning ideas like the plan that mixed use developements could evade the long standing parking and zoning requirements by arguing that the people in the mixed use project who lived in the dwelling units would be off at work during the day and the customers of the commercial businesses would then park in those vacated parking places and then when the businesses closed it would be safe for the residents to come home (not for lunch of course) as the residents would then be able to use those vacated parking places. (I don’t know what was supposed to happen on weekends, perhaps multiple cases of road rage)!

These are the same planners that think they will force people to ride buses or bikes or walk by eliminating parking, narrowing the streets and erecting a wide variety of silly obstructions in the streets like “bulb-outs” which they euphamisticaly call “traffic calming devices”.

They would tell you without blinking and eye, that the person who would spend over a million dollars for a condo (or even one of the handful of “affordable” $280,000 dollar “below market” condos) would then willingly and gladly give up there BMW or Porsche so that they could walk or ride a bike to work, for barely minimum wages, in one of the many restaurants or retail stores in the downtown area.

This kind of Alice in Wonderland dreaming is why we have the ugly Disney-like canyonization on Chapala street with no set backs and inadequate parking and transportation considerations.  The current government of the City of Santa Barbara (i.e.most of the City Council) is so addicted to tourist industry dollars that they continually approve commercial developement that employs large numbers of low paid workers who cannot afford to live here and either commute by car, clogging the roads, or live in increasingly higher dwelling densities, pooling their rent or house payments to make ends meet.

The recent studies conducted under the auspices of SBCAG identified the City of Santa Barbara as THE one City in the County with a major jobs to housing imbalance. i.e. they created the jobs without providing the housing. This has resulted in increased construction of taxpayer subsidized housing because the taxpayers then have a duty to house these folks. The latest expression of this mis-percieved socail agenda is the current ridiculous scam of planning and zoning to create “affordable housing” by giving “bonus density” to developers (that is higher density than that allowed under existing zoning) so that these developers will include a handful of so called affordable, below market rate units amongst their million dollar 60 foot high condominium monstrosities.

Under the “guidance” of this City Council the measure “E” growth limitation were promptly ignored, using excuses like “in fill”, “spot zoning” and claims of “exemption for special projects in the public interest”!

Measure B will not stop growth but it will be one tool to curb this high rise “bonus density” game being shoveled by developers and construction mavens and assisted in those efforts, by either an extremely foolish and “sustainably” utopian and naive city government or one so badly corrupted they are intentionally looking the other way!

AN50 in the Marine Corps we had people who thought and acted like you, who could quickly degenerate into name calling when people disagreed with them and when marching their motto was always “everybody is out of step but me”.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Measure B is the far more sustainable vision on 09.11.09 @ 06:56 PM

Measure B will not stop growth but it sure as hell will slow growth
and prevent overpopulation, and traffic congestion,  to a level that will be environmentally unsustainable, and exceed the capacity of our recourses, like water.

A side benefit is that it gives the power to the will of the people, and takes it away from the city council, who think their vision of tall building is better than the desire of the people to grow slow, and not devastate our city with high rises and bumper to bumper traffic congestion.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Remember on 09.12.09 @ 05:59 PM

B is for Blue sky.

Stop high rises from coming to Santa Barbara by voting yes on B.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 09.13.09 @ 11:27 AM

Jax, I don’t know what you are referring to but as I remember the city’s attempt at reduction of density was to cut multi family zoning by 50% across the board in a vain attempt at stopping the city’s population growth at 85,000. It was a complete failure as the population is now 90,000+. What it did do is stop the building of multi family structures in the city. It left r zoned properties with old dilapidated termite eaten structures one alternative, remodel and subdivide the existing house. Those developers with lots of corporate backing could afford to build at the lower density but many local property owners simply gave up their investments and sold out to out of town investors. Ah, the ugly side of unintended consequences and the use of “brute force one size fits all” government control.
The type of density reduction I’m talking about sets an “overall” build out density for the entire city while allowing individual property owners the freedom to pursue higher or lower densities by buying or selling density credits (the difference between what the over all density allows and your current lot density zoning). This method has been used very successfully in communities that want to control growth but not through draconian limits that employ over bearing government in the equation. These types of limits along with “air rights” credits are far more agile in allowing development in downtown cores than single blanket limits. This would allow for more architecturally significant structures to be built while still preserving views and controlling over all growth. It also allows for intelligent planners to focus more density at nodes and transit corridors while allowing lower density neighborhoods to stay that way. This method has NEVER been attempted by the city in any of its successful incarnations. The objection to this type of planning is stunning in its ignorance and hostility and no one including you has brought up any cogent argument to support its rejection. Instead it is the drum beat of talking point shout down slogans by SEPV, most of which are factual lies. I implore you to reject the “smart growth” being peddled locally, it is an imposter and you and many who have discovered it are right that it is a disaster. Just don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
I will agree that the city’s attempts at controlling growth while catering to special interests has been a disaster but two wrongs don’t make a right. A blanket architectural limit is not they way to do this and you know it. In fact anyone with at least half a brain can see it, which leads me to believe this is not about controlling growth (as stated by SEPV) but rather an attempt to use objection to one building to impose a dramatic change in the character of the city, from urban to suburban. Thus Santa Barbara, rather than bucking the So Cal trend of “suburbs in search of a city” can now joint the rest of the urban sprawl of California with its own red tile roofed version. It really does make me ill thinking about it. What an utter mind blowing mistake all done out of fear and small mindedness.
I personally do not want SB to become Palm Springs North, a sprawling suburb of upper income retirees that never have to go up more than two flights of stairs in any one building and the atmosphere is that of a nearly comatose country club. Sorry, my conservative credentials reviles at the old county club GOP mentality of “just go away and leave us alone”. I don’t like the fact that liberals have hitched a star on the NO on B campaign, simply because it causes a knee jerk reaction by conservatives to oppose their opposition. I sincerely hope that is not the case with you and we will discover, like I have with Less is More that it is personal taste in architecture that drives you rather than blind politics.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 09.14.09 @ 08:54 AM

Litmus Test, if that is how you approach politics we’re all doomed, particularly conservatives. Most of us conservatives vote based on our principles, some of you just follow the crowd with nary a thought about why.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Reality on 09.15.09 @ 08:12 AM

Grow up not out, because we’re going to grow.  Growth is inevitable so let’s plan for it, instead of overcrowding in existing stock. SB downtown is our urban area.  Let’s grow the urban core,with denser rental and smaller owner units, so the rural area surrounding SB can stay that way.  I want my firemen, teachers, dry cleaner, etc. to be able to live where they work.  No one building in this town ever says real estate development is a slam-dunk.  The ARB and the planning process may not be perfect, but it certainly enforces a high standard.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Local on 09.16.09 @ 07:34 AM

to An50: most conservatives vote based on their own wallet, not principles. This is a clear case of the developer’s wallet.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Follow the Money on 09.16.09 @ 01:29 PM

Follow the money.
All the developers oppose measure B because they want to build hundreds of huge 60 feet high rise buildings which make them many Millions in profits.

vote Yes On B

Follow the Money.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.