Saturday, February 24 , 2018, 2:01 pm | Fair 59º

 
 
 
 

Letter to the Editor: Censorship of Opposition to Measure P Campaign

With all the buzz on Measure P, I went to a social network site and visited both sides to see what’s being thrown at each other. I was quickly banned from commenting on the “No on P” Facebook site. On the “Yes on P” site, however, I got fully involved with key arguments on both sides and got immersed with commenting freely.

My wife wanted to leave a comment on a “No on P” site article, so I told her to get a screenshot as soon as she posted the comment in case it got deleted. Attached to this story is a copy of her posting. It not only got deleted after a few hours, but she is now banned from making comments on the site.

I didn’t see any basis for the post to be deleted other than it factually contradicted their views. The “Yes on P” site has a published guideline so you know why comments are deleted; they sometimes even post warnings to offending posts before being deleted.

We found this tactic of extreme censoring the “No on P” site is doing as very disturbing and made us wonder what else they are being deceitful about.

While it’s clear that the “Yes on P” group wants to ban future invasive oil extraction methods that pump foreign and dangerous substances into the ground, the “No on P” side seemed more concerned about the measure going too far as it could cause job loss and tax revenue losses. I thought this might have been a valid concern until I read the actual measure’s text. In the measure’s text, it clearly stated a list of exemptions including some specifics on existing projects.

Abad
A screenshot of the deleted post.

From the full text of the measure, it is stated on Section 5-C in Page 26: “The provisions of this Initiative shall not be applicable to any person or entity that has obtained, as of the Effective Date of this Initiative, a vested right, pursuant to State law, to conduct a High-Intensity Petroleum Operation.”

I then looked up how the California state law interprets “vested rights,” and here is what I found: "A vested mining right is a constitutionally protected property right to continue operating in a certain location and in a certain way without being required to conform to all current land use restrictions. Under most local zoning ordinances, a vested mining right falls into the category of a "nonconforming use" of land.

The leading court case in this area has described a "nonconforming use" in this way: "A legal nonconforming use is one that existed lawfully before a zoning restriction became effective and that is not in conformity with the ordinance when it continues thereafter. The use of the land, not its ownership, at the time the use becomes nonconforming determines the right to continue the use. Transfer of title does not affect the right to continue a lawful nonconforming use which runs with the land. Hansen Brothers Enterprises v. Board of Supervisors, 12 Cal. 4th 533, 540 fn. 1 (1996).”

Clearly from the measure’s text, no jobs will be lost on existing projects or even on those barely starting before the measure passes; therefore, the county taxes wouldn’t even be affected at all. The measure doesn’t even address offshore oil extractions where actual fracking might be occurring. With oil prices down almost half of its peak within the past couple years, there might not even be any new projects started even if the measure was not around.

To the contrary of the “no” claim of it going too far, it actually is sounding like this measure is not going far enough. But I’ll vote for it anyway as it is a step in the right direction.

Jonathan Abad
Goleta

  • 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 >

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 through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.



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 >