Pixel Tracker

Tuesday, November 20 , 2018, 11:13 pm | Fair 51º

 
 
 
 

Kevin Boss: A Tale of Three Scandals and the City of Santa Barbara

Architectural Board of Review's cowardly action, council's cowardly response raise constitutional red flags

The recent spectacle at the City of Santa Barbara’s Architectural Board of Review would have been amusing if not for the incredible impotence shown by the mayor and the progressive majority of the City Council.

Exposed by this episode are really three scandals.

First, at the ABR we have a panel of unelected volunteers, serving at the City Council’s pleasure, who decided that their personal political beliefs have something to do with architectural and landscape design. Rather than do their job they decided to impose an ideological litmus test to the merits of a proposed project.

The chosen method of expressing their disapproval of the applicant’s personal beliefs says a lot about them. Instead of voting to deny the applicant’s permit, they courageously abstained. Profiles in Courage, indeed. Those members who were absent or feign ignorance of the political context were complicit in the action by not immediately condemning it. The videos shown of the ABR meeting suggest obvious collusion among all abstaining members.

Are those who abstained for personal political reasons capable of understanding that they themselves were committing bias and bigotry in abusing their power? Do they think the public can take seriously any of their professional design expertise again?

The mayor and the other progressives on the council think that more “training” and better “guidance” for volunteer board members will suffice — as if there has been a training devised to instill common sense.

The City Council’s refusal to remove or punish any of the abstainers shows an appalling lack of leadership. If the mayor and council are unable to exert some control over their own subordinates and the city’s bureaucracy they are useless. They have sent a signal to city staff and board members that they are welcome to discriminate against individuals and businesses on the basis of their personal political and social beliefs.

Future transactions with city government may be based, not on clearly defined rules, but on politics. It is a question of trust and good governance. The majority of the council has sent a message to Santa Barbara that, to do business here, you must pay homage to the gods of political correctness.

The council meeting last week highlighted another scandal. The Chick-fil-A permit approval timeline presented by Councilman Dale Francisco showed that it has taken the city’s various regulatory agencies more than a year since application without final approval or a permit issued.

One year to gain approval to turn a former fast-food restaurant into a new fast-food restaurant? Something is seriously wrong with the city’s regulatory apparatus.

Anyone who has dealt with this process can testify to its onerous nature. Board and staff members are frequently imperious and unconcerned with the financial implications of their decisions. Applicants tread carefully in fear of more delays or requirements.

Residents and businesses have to navigate through the city’s many regulatory hurdles, pay thousands of dollars in excessive fees, fines and time lost waiting for approvals or revisions. Why would anyone want to open a business in Santa Barbara? Who could afford to?

We have a City Council unwilling to lead a bureaucracy run amok. We have residents waiting months and paying thousands of dollars for permission to remodel their houses. We have companies retaining expensive legal representation to guide them through the complex development process. It is a complete misallocation of time and money.

And now we are to have our personal beliefs examined to get a landscaping permit?

The third, and possibly more serious, scandal is the blatant disregard for the constitutional and civil rights of the applicant. The effective intent of the ABR abstentions was to stop the permit process. By its inaction, the City Council voted to support the city’s violation of the applicant’s due process rights under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

The majority of our elected representatives showed absolutely no concern for those rights. The City Attorney sat quietly as they did so, apparently oblivious. In fact, the council seemed far more concerned with the rights and feelings of the abstaining ABR members.

We must ask ourselves if we want to continue to elect and employ politicians and officials who are unwilling to uphold the laws of this country and recognize the constitutional rights of its citizens.

This is what “liberal fascism” looks like. Do you have thoughts that are not what Orwell termed “goodthink”? If so, you may soon be visited by the thought police and given a chance to correct your thinking. In the meantime, be prepared to wait for months to find out whether you may plant yellow or red kangaroo paws in your garden. Welcome to 1984.

— Kevin Boss is a Santa Barbara business owner.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made using a credit card, Apple Pay or Google Pay, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Email
Select your monthly membership
Or choose an annual membership
×

Payment Information

Membership Subscription

You are enrolling in . Thank you for joining the Hawks Club.

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.
You may cancel your membership at any time by sending an email to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

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

Sign Up Now >