Measure A

There's a lot of information available for reading about Measure A. Here is some:



( Graph courtesy of www.YesOnMeasureA.blogspot.com )



[ Excerpt from "Measure A Draws Fans, Detractors: Proclaimed Money-Saver Lengthens City Council Terms," by Chris Meagher, August 30, 2007, SB INDEPENDENT ]


Proponents of Measure A, a proposition that would move Santa Barbara’s city council elections from odd- to even-numbered years, kicked off their campaign Tuesday. Those against the measure, meanwhile, continued to voice their belief that the measure would be bad for Santa Barbara.

The city is the only municipality in the county to run its elections in odd-numbered years, while two special districts — the Goleta Sanitary and the Goleta West Sanitary districts — also run odd-year elections. This year, because the county wanted to charge between $500,000 and $650,000 to run the city’s elections, the latter has budgeted $300,000 to run the election on its own. If the city consolidated with the general election schedule, the cost would be an estimated $30,000 to $60,000 each election year.

According to advocates of the measure — including activist power couple David Pritchett and Cathy Murillo — switching election schedules could increase voter turnout in addition to saving money. According to a July 25 email from county Elections Division Manager Billie Alvarez to City Clerk Cyndi Rodriguez, Alvarez concluded that moving elections to even-numbered years could double voter turnout. Voter turnout in even-year elections since 1995 is about 66.8 percent, while the odd-year average is 37.8 percent. “Democracy doesn’t work unless people participate,” said longtime city councilmember and onetime mayor Hal Conklin at a pro-Measure A press conference Tuesday.

But the anti-Measure A crowd says that it is a guise for current councilmembers to extend their tenure by a year while masquerading as a measure to save money. Should the measure pass, it will extend by one year the terms of Mayor Marty Blum and councilmembers Iya Falcone, Grant House, and Roger Horton. The passage of the measure would also mean whoever claims the three seats up for grabs this fall — incumbents Brian Barnwell, Helene Schneider, and Das Williams are facing five challengers — would be slipping into a council seat for five years. “The existing members would like to have an additional year in office and found this to accomplish their goal,” said Lanny Ebenstein, who ran for mayor against Blum in 2005. “This is a slick attempt by city councilmembers to grab another year in office,” echoed community activist John McKinney.

Both McKinney and Ebenstein have signed the ballot argument against Measure A. When they voted to place the measure on the ballot on July 3, councilmembers also decided that none of them would file an argument for or against the charter amendment. “They have to be careful not to make it look like they want an extra year,” said Murillo, who was formerly a reporter for The Independent and is currently the KCSB radio news director. Despite that, the seven councilmembers did vote unanimously to take the matter to the voters, the culmination of a process that opponents have also criticized.

Opponents of the measure aren’t protesting just the content of the measure, but also the process by which the matter was placed on the ballot. The City Council voted to place the issue on the ballot without having citizens come forward with thousands of signatures or a great deal of community discussion, they argue. “If we’re going to have electoral reform in Santa Barbara, then we should talk about it,” Ebenstein said. Jim Kahan, another signatory against Measure A, said the council was trying to sneak the issue through under the radar. But Pritchett, who is sympathetic to many of the councilmembers, called the sentiments against Measure A a conspiracy.

Ebenstein said that while city officials should have gone above and beyond to ensure the process was open, they had failed to do so by refusing to allow him to make a rebuttal argument on the subject of Measure A. Pritchett too said he wished he could have made a rebuttal but acknowledged that the process didn’t leave enough time for such arguments to be added.

------------------------------

[ Some Comments to the article above, available at SB INDEPENDENT

Posted by JimKahan on August 30, 2007 at 9:15 a.m.:

This article misportrays the scope and emphasis of the opponents’ opposition to Measure A. Their primary opposition is their belief that local issues and candidates will get lost in even-year elections when forced to compete for the attention of the voter with State and Federal measures and politicians. The opponents’ Ballot Argument in Opposition emphasizes that the opponents strongly object to the substantive content of Measure A and states “Measure A greatly alters the nature of local elections by moving them from odd-numbered years to even-numbered years. Our current system allows citizens to focus on local candidates and issues because they are the only ones on the ballot. Local issues and candidates will get lost when forced to compete for the attention of the voter with State and Federal measures and politicians.”

The opponents’ Rebuttal, which the City refused to accept, reiterated this major substantive objection when it stated “The issues Santa Barbarans care about—growth and development, public safety, traffic congestion—are nonpartisan and are important to all citizens regardless of party affiliation. No one wants City Council elections to become an afterthought to Federal, State and County races.”

-------------------------------

Posted by David_Pritchett on August 30, 2007 at 10:25 a.m.:

The full story is at the Yes-on-A website, where even the theories of the critics are recognized and then analyzed for what their claims really are.

www.YesOnMeasureA.blogspot.com

Fair news coverage by the Independent is critical because the opponents of Measure A have and certainly will again get their writings injected directly into the News-Press editorials (not an opinion letter to editor, but the actual lead editorial is what Ebenstein wrote).

As for this article by Meagher, some clarifications:

The Goleta special districts mentioned may have elections scheduled for 2007, but they often never have enough candidates filed so no election happens. Therefore, Santa Barbara City usually is the ONLY jurisdiction in the County.

Along with former Mayor Hal Conklin, former 4-term County Registrar of Voters Ken Pettit also is one of the signatories on the Ballot Argument for Measure A. Pettit knows a thing or ten about voter behaviour and how to increase voter turnout. The past 12+ years of data show a consistently wide gap between voter turnout during odd-year elections and even years; the discrepancy is nearly double the voter turnout during even years.

Some opponents of Measure A really seem to be motivated by a political desire to keep voter turnout low, so their kinds of candidates would get elected instead. “Bigger turnout by itself does not mean better” wrote Ebenstein on their behalf, published as the News-Press editorial on 28th August.

The deflecting complaints about the necessary one-time, 1-year extension on one of the City Council terms --a necessary transition and catch up to the even-year election cycles-- is all designed as a cynical, Karl-Rovian distraction to motivate a political base for voting this year for Council candidates who are anyone but the incumbents. One of the signatories in the Ballot Argument against Measure A is one of those candidates.

If they were so concerned about the true democracy and accountability of the Council, they would support Measure A because it would lead to nearly double the voter turnout... unless the boost of voters during even years are not the kinds of voters the opponents of Measure A like.

As for reporting that I am "sympathetic" to the Council members, that is a stretch over the top.

While I try to maintian a civil and cordial relationship with all of them, I hardly am sympathetic. They only agree with my requests or suggestions about 80% of the time, and that is on a good day. Recall the Veronica Creek mess from a year ago, and many other examples. Those Council votes then are nothing to be "sympathetic" about.

The ultimate test and indicator of a City election getting lost in the shuffle is whether voters bother to vote. Thus, little is getting lost, by definition, if nearly twice the numbers of eligible voters are voting during elections held during the even years, when the State and Federal issues are enticing voters to vote.

----------------------------------

Posted by David_Pritchett on August 30, 2007 at 10:27 a.m.:

correction:

the Council only agrees with my suggestions or requests only 20% of the time, so thus DISAGREE about 80% of the time.

-----------------------------

Posted by FirstDistrictStreetfighter on August 30, 2007 at 1:49 p.m.:

Kahan and his pals are big crybabies.

The city indicated in many reports during the past few months and a history going back more than 20 years that rebuttal arguments are not included in the city policy and thus would not be accepted because they never are.

Kahan and Lanny-Boy knew that but wrote up their "rebuttal" and presented to the city clerk in the last few hours of the last of the 10 days in the public inspection period.

Then, when the city told them then what the city has been telling them for months, the opponents of Measure A then threw a fit, all staged for some rightous indignation so they would have more to bitch about later and put on a big show that the city done them wrong.

This is all a game that is purposely distracting from what the ballot measure really is about, saving city money from the escalating costs of elections, with a bonus of higher voter turnout as well.

What is wrong with higher voter turnout?

Nothing, unless you are a Libertarian as the opponents of Measure A all are.



( Image courtesy of Hal Conklin, Emily Allen and David Pritchett courtesy of Paul Wellman and SB INDEPENDENT )


-------------------------------


[ Excerpt of "Voters to pick election cycle," BY ERIC LINDBERG, DAILY SOUND, 29 August 2007 ]


After Santa Barbara city leaders decided to take on the responsibility of running city elections earlier this year, proponents of Measure A hope to switch municipal elections to an even-year cycle, thereby returning that responsibility to the County of Santa Barbara.

Supporters of the measure, which will appear on the ballot this November, say it will save the city close to $250,000 every election, significantly increase voter turnout and make voting in Santa Barbara more convenient and efficient.

Opponents call the ballot measure a calculated attempt by the current City Council to increase their terms another year and argue that the changeover will bury local issues and bring party politics into normally neutral local issues.

Measure A, if approved by a two-thirds majority, will change local elections from odd years to even years to coincide with county, state and federal elections. The proposed change will shift the 2009 city election to 2010 instead.

“Having served on the City Council for 18 years, I think we need to do everything we can to increase voter participation,” said Hal Conklin, a former Santa Barbara mayor who signed the Yes on A ballot argument. “...Democracy doesn’t work if people don’t participate.”

Standing in front of the Lower Westside Community Center yesterday, Conklin joined members of the Santa Barbara Clean Elections Working Group to voice support for the measure.

“It will increase voter turnout nearly double based on the past 12 years of elections in Santa Barbara,” said David Pritchett, cochairman of the Clean Elections group. Pritchett held up a graph comparing odd-year and even-year election turnout figures in Santa Barbara County.

“The odd-year elections are substantially lower every time,” he said.

Dale Francisco, who signed the ballot argument against Measure A, said he isn’t convinced that the switch to even years will bring more people to the polls to vote on regional issues.

“The gross turnout may be bigger,” Francisco said. “What I’d like to know is if the number of people who vote on local, city issues — is that bigger?”

James Kahan, another local resident who supports the No on A movement, also said an increase in voter turnout shouldn’t be automatically accepted as positive.

“Turnout figures don’t mean anything,” Kahan said. “Numbers don’t really do it. I think there are some issues in the city that have to stand out.”

Pritchett dismissed the concept that local issues will be diluted by federal and state issues on a combined ballot, calling it a “pessimistic theory” that doesn’t hold true.

“To say that the city needs to have its own stand-alone election because the people won’t get it otherwise is bunk,” Pritchett said.

Conklin agreed, saying that city issues get very few voters when they are on an odd-year ballot, and increasing the turnout is key in garnering more interest in local government.

Sharon Westby, another supporter for the argument against Measure A, disagreed, saying she believes combining the elections will fatigue voters and leave them less than enthusiastic about local ballot topics.

“I think having the elections for city officers at a time when we have the federal and state elections would really cloud the issue of our local interests and our local issues,” Westby said. “We all know when the presidential election is running there is a lot of focus on the state and national level, and it would be difficult to get to the issues we face here in Santa Barbara.”

Opponents have argued that voters will gradually lose interest in the voting booth as they wade through national and state proposals and propositions, leaving the city issues at the bottom of the ballot blank.

Measure A supporters said this “downballot dropoff” does exist, but only to a limited degree. They cite a 2007 report by Billie Alvarez, the County Deputy Registrar of Voters, that shows voters skipped ballot items only five percent of the time during even-year elections in Carpinteria, Lompoc and Santa Maria since 2000.
Proponents of the measure also argue that bringing municipal elections in line with federal and state elections will save the city a bundle of money, about $245,000 for each election.

City leaders voted earlier this year to have city staff run local elections at a cost of around $280,000 per election after deciding that the County of Santa Barbara charged too much for its election services. Measure A proponents say the city can lower that figure to $35,000 for each election if it aligns with the county, state and national governments.

Westby, however, argued that she isn’t convinced that the measure will save the city money.

“I haven’t seen any of the figures and I don’t think that even if it saved dollars, I don’t think that is a good enough reason,” Westby said. “I think having the right city officials and having people understand the issues, those are much more important than saving money.”

Measure A supporters said they have confirmed the potential savings with several county election officials. In his impartial analysis of Measure A, City Attorney Steve Wiley wrote that county officials said the city would pay between $30,000 and $60,000 for each election if the measure passes.

The move to an even-year cycle will also place the responsibility of running the elections back in the hands of county officials, something Francisco agreed is a good idea.

“I think it’s a huge problem that employees of the City Council are regulating the city election,” Francisco said.

Proponents decried arguments that the ballot measure is an attempt for current Councilmembers to extend their terms an additional year.

“I think that’s a smokescreen issue,” Conklin said. “We’re more concerned about the next 50 years than the next two years.”

Pritchett also agreed, saying that there is no conspiracy in place and that his group isn’t “any happier with the City Council than anyone else.”

However, opponents focus on that argument in their ballot argument against Measure A, arguing that local residents should not reward city leaders with an extra year in office.

“This is a calculated attempt by current City Council members to receive special treatment by increasing their terms of office from four to five years while masquerading as a measure to save money,” the argument states. Francisco, Kahan, Westby and John McKinney penned the No on A argument that will appear on ballots this fall.

Pritchett fired back at that attack yesterday, calling it shortsighted and a desperate attempt to distract local residents from the benefits of Measure A.
“I think the voters are smart enough to understand what is going on,” Pritchett said.
Sandy Stites, a charter member of the Santa Barbara Clean Elections Working Group, also dismissed the idea that Measure A is being backed by people who want the current City Council to stick around for a bonus year.

“It isn’t, oh, we love the City Council as it stands,” Stites said. “We just love democracy.”

Commuter Rail

[ Excerpt from "Making a Statement About Commuter Rail: City Council Looks to Create New SB-to-Ventura Train," by Nick Welsh, SB INDEPENDENT, 22 August 2007 ]


The Santa Barbara City Council made an unequivocal policy statement Tuesday that commuter rail in Santa Barbara isn’t dead — just in hibernation. And its own quiet way, the council put other elected officials throughout the county on notice that there better some money — no matter how token — for commuter rail in the next incarnation of Measure D to go before county voters.

This comes in the face of many sobering setbacks suffered by commuter rail proponents, lead on the council by Helene Schneider, Grant House, and Roger Horton. In recent months, City officials have met with representatives from Union Pacific — which owns the railroad tracks — and officials from Ventura County — whose cooperation is essential for any commuter rail program to work.

Union Pacific told City officials in no uncertain terms that it was not interested in commuter rail and that its resources would be dedicated to expanding freight service on their limited tracks. Likewise, Ventura County officials have maintained they have far more pressing transit demands than those experienced by the thousands of Ventura residents who commute to and from their jobs in Santa Barbara every day. And even many Santa Barbara officials contend there’s just not enough money in the proposed Measure D — which will go before county voters next November — for freeway widening, street improvements, and commuter rail.

That’s because the next time Measure D goes before county voters, it will ask them to renew a half-percent sales tax surcharge that’s been in effect 20 years. Last year’s Measure D asked for an expansion of the tax to three-quarters of a percent, and was beaten in large measure because of opposition to commuter rail by North County voters, who regarded it as a south coast extravagance.

But commuter rail advocates have yet to fly the white flag. They insist that Measure D did as well as it did in the South Coast only because commuter rail played so prominent a role. (The measure needs a two-thirds super-majority to pass.)

On Tuesday, the council outlined seemingly innocuous objectives for commuter rail: Start out slowly, lobby Amtrak to improve the reliability of its service and then change the schedule to better accommodate the real work-a-day schedules of commuters making the trekking between Santa Barbara and Ventura. The plan follows then that whatever success that brings should be used as building block to bigger and better projects. But above all, the plan stresses that commuter rail should be kept alive as a bureaucratic planning concept for the day that fiscal and political realities catch up.

Horton, a stalwart supporter of commuter rail, noted that construction was slated to begin on three major expansions to Highway 101 beginning in 2008 and would continue unabated for the next 20 years. During this prolonged construction hell, he said, commuters would be desperate to find other ways into and out of Santa Barbara. “When these projects get underway, it’s going to be an absolute nightmare,” he said. Councilmember Iya Falcone asked several pointed questions that highlighted the unilateralism of Santa Barbara’s proposed approach. “Do we have any partners in this?”

... The answer, it turned, was no, prompting Falcone to caution her colleagues about getting out too far ahead of agencies upon whose cooperation the success of any such venture absolutely depends. But even with such reservations, Falcone voted in support of the policy statement, explaining she took the train whenever and wherever she could. This prompted her council colleague Das Williams to point out teasingly that Falcone is deathly afraid to fly.

Williams then launched into a lengthy discourse on a series of small measures that might help move commuter rail forward. He noted that Union Pacific is looking for political support in its bid to win Coastal Commission approval to build a much-needed new siding that will allow trains moving in opposite directions along a single track line to pass each other. By helping out Union Pacific, he suggested, perhaps there could be some “quid pro quo.” In addition, he said that Ventura City Manager Rick Cole had suggested holding a transit summit with other government entities.

At the end, Horton suggested approving the plan “in principle.” This prompted councilmember Brian Barnwell to object that “in principal” seemed a little squishy, and that if the council was to make a statement, it should do so more boldly. (Barnwell, by the way, remains skeptical that commuter rail will ever become anything more than a well-intentioned pipe dream.) “In principal” was removed and the measure passed seven-to-nothing.

Middle-Class Housing

[ Excerpt from "City Aims to Subsidize Middle-Class Housing," By Martha Sadler, SB INDEPENDENT, August 17, 2007 ]


Attempting to halt Santa Barbara's transformation into a city of pricey condos in which even the better-paid service workers cannot find housing, the City Council voted at its Tuesday meeting to collect a developer fee from every condo project regardless of its size. The resulting pot of money would likely be used to create affordable housing for middle-income workers, who do not qualify for most government housing assistance.

Since 2004, the city has demanded the inclusion of affordable units in projects of 10 units or more. As far as it goes, the existing ordinance is effective, according to Housing Programs Supervisor Steve Faulstich, in that almost all of those buying the affordable units created so far are people who hold jobs on the South Coast. The buyers ranged in professions from a pre-school teacher to a spa masseuse, from a hotel front desk manager to a housekeeper, from a family practice physician to a college instructor — all of them working on the South Coast, he said.

However, the ordinance hardly solves the affordable housing crunch, as the vast majority of condo projects go up without creating any such units. Of the 13 condo projects submitted to the city in the past four weeks, said Faulstich, only two propose developments of ten or more units. The others being smaller than ten units are therefore unaffected by the inclusionary ordinance. An additional 20 projects of just two-to-four units are pending, said Faulstich, representing another 58 market-priced condos sporting price-tags of around $1.2 million, which is the asking price for a brand new condo in the City of Santa Barbara. Sellers may not be getting that price, but condo costs have done nothing but steadily rise beyond the reach of middle-class workers. Three years ago the median selling price for a two-bedroom South Coast condo was $500,000, according to Multiple Listing Services; it is now $670,000.

As it stands, developers of ten units or more must make 15 percent of them affordable or pay an in-lieu fee. As per the recommendation of the Housing Policy Steering Committee — which drafted the proposed revisions — developers of smaller projects would be required to allot a smaller percentage as affordable, with that percent being based on a sliding scale depending on how many condos they are creating. Furthermore, the smaller project developers would pay in-lieu fees instead of building the affordable units themselves. In this way, the city could accumulate a pot of money to subsidize middle-class housing.

Currently, the in-lieu fee is steep: Developers must pay $488,000 for each affordable unit they opt not to include in the project. (The city arrived at that fee by subtracting the sale price of an affordable unit from the cost to build it.) Besides reducing the threshold from 10 condos to two, the council directed the ordinance committee to reduce the in-lieu fee to $370,000 or less, as middle-income buyers can afford to pay more for the home and require a smaller subsidy.

Part of the rationale for making market-rate developers subsidize affordable housing in the first place is that new residents moving into higher-priced condos create the need for more service workers, from gardeners to doctors. This point is not universally accepted, however...

... councilmembers may face [criticism] as they craft and ultimately adopt such an ordinance, which would affect many property owners as well as the politically active real estate lobby. This heat may burn especially hot for current council members Helene Schneider, Das Williams and Brian Barnwell, whose seats are open to challengers in the coming election.

The decision to proceed came only after much hand-wringing and heated discussion among council members, some of whom initially insisted that this move was precipitous. Beginning with City Council member Brian Barnwell — who sat on the Housing Policy Task Force that hammered out the proposal, but said he voted to send it to council only to show them how impossibly complicated it was — the council members said more discussion was needed before the council was ready to amend the inclusionary housing ordinance.

Council member Grant House agreed, saying that affordable housing solutions are too complicated and controversial to be laid at the feet of the Ordinance Committee, of which he is a member. Among other things, House said he worried that the money developers spend on in-lieu fees would be diverted from efforts put into quality design and construction, especially considering the city's stringent architectural standards.

At the Tuesday meeting, Mayor Marty Blum reiterated that the amendment raised difficult questions which should be addressed as part of the city's general plan update. Among the sticky wickets, she said, is the question of whether fees should be calculated according to the number of units, the number of bedrooms, or by square footage. That the five-member super majority was needed to pass the amendment seemed to sound its death knell at least for the next few years. Council members Roger Horton and Iya Falcone concurred, adding that council needed to continue discussing various ways of solving the middle-class housing issue, including real-estate transfer taxes and employer-sponsored housing, which Falcone called "the wave of the future." Several council members referred to the need to first establish the "big picture" of affordable housing in the city.

The turnaround started with Helene Schneider and Das Williams' insistence that the council needed to do something about the city's housing situation soon. "It has been talked and talked and talked about over and over again," Schneider said. Schneider assured her colleagues that all of the outstanding issues associated with density and other concerns could still be taken up during the general plan update and did not need to be resolved before reducing the threshold to two units for an in-lieu fee. Schneider said that the staff proposal had been duly vetted in the Planning Commission, and claimed that the financial analysis leading to the pro-rated in-lieu fee rate card was thorough and sound. Finally, she reminded her colleagues of last year's highly publicized eviction last year of working families from apartments at 85 North La Cumbre Avenue to make way for condos, an event accompanied by emotional pleas, organized resistance and political speeches bemoaning the loss of affordable housing. In that as in other such situations, Schneider said she felt bound to approve the condo project because it conformed existing city ordinances and procedures, but felt badly that the city could offer little other accommodation to the displaced.

Schneider and Williams were firmly supported not only by Faulstich, the lead staff in developing the proposal, but by Community Development Director Paul Casey. "I heard lots of lamenting after 85 North La Cumbre that you wanted to do something about this issue," Casey said. If the council did not want to pursue the amendment immediately, he said, the next opportunity would be two and a half years from now, after the city was out of the thick of the general plan update process, assuming that the amendment — and not some other aspect of the update — was the council's top priority at that time. "It's not a complex task for the Ordinance Committee to take on to lower the threshold [to two units]," Faulstich said. "It's not as complicated as [what] I heard some councilmembers talking about." Even City Attorney Steve Wiley chipped in, saying that employer-sponsored housing could be addressed in a separate ordinance.

Ultimately, the council sent the proposed amendment to the ordinance committee on a motion by Barnwell, who added the condition that the inclusionary rate should remain at 15 percent for developments of 10 or more units, and not increase to 20 for larger projects, as called for in the staff report. Following several smaller caveats and conditions councilmembers worked out as the revision began to seem more like a reality, the council council voted unanimously to forward the matter to the ordinance committee, which will begin to craft the amendment to the inclusonary housing ordinance at an as-of-yet unspecified date.

9 Candidates

[ Excerpt of "Council Incumbents Face Six Challengers - No Free Pass," by Nick Welsh, SB INDEPENDENT, August 16, 2007 ]


For months, it appeared as if this November’s City Council race would be a total non-event. No one, other than the three incumbents seeking re-election — Brian Barnwell, Helene Schneider, and Das Williams — evidenced any interest in the contest...

But by last Friday, six challengers had submitted the signatures necessary to qualify for the November ballot; all said they were motivated to some degree by their rage at the Light Blue Line, a public art statement against uncontrolled global warming. Additionally, many of the challengers say they are outraged by the mini roundabouts sprouting up throughout the upper East Side.

Of the challengers, only one — Bob Hansen — has run before. A homeless rights advocate, Hansen has run for elected office more times than all the other candidates combined... Hansen advocates converting the National Guard Armory into a tech training academy so that teens can learn a gainful trade.

Of the... [non-encumbents] perhaps dentist Dr. Michael Cooper has the longest track record of civic involvement, serving in both the Downtown Organization and on the city’s Transportation and Circulation Committee. A onetime Republican who registered as a Democrat after watching George W. Bush in action, Cooper said he’s most concerned about City Hall’s not-so-subliminal campaign to use “anger and frustration” to encourage residents to use other forms of transportation.

Dale Francisco, a Republican computer engineer and resident of Santa Barbara for 23 years, became actively involved in the campaign to stop the mini-roundabouts. City Hall, he charged, ties up smaller projects in bureaucratic red tape while giving the green light to developers it likes.

Dan Litten, a Libertarian, doctor, and five-year resident, complained the council wastes time on silly symbolism — like the Light Blue Line — while ignoring the pollution caused by gas-powered leaf-blowers despite the existence of a citywide ban.

Frank Hotchkiss — a real estate broker and onetime actor, reporter, and PR executive — described himself as a “conservative Libertarian” and charged that the Light Blue Line will depress property values. He said he’s also concerned about overdevelopment and gang activity.

Finally, there’s Michelle Giddens, the Mesa resident who campaigned against the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance that the council recently passed in an effort to limit the proliferation of mini-mansions and large homes in more modest residential neighborhoods. A registered Democrat and owner of an air purification business, Giddens said she favored “fairness, flexibility, and appropriate size.” She complained that too often the council acts without reflecting adequately on the consequences. But for councilmembers Barnwell and Schneider, who spent two years laboring on the Neighborhood Preservation Committee, there was nothing the least bit hasty in the deliberations.

SBCC Election Candidates

Eleven candidates have filed paperwork with the city for this year's election. Three seats will be decided November 6th. All three incumbents will run for re-election:

1. Das Williams (incumbent)
2. Dr. Michael Cooper
3. Frank Hotchkiss
4. Brian Barnwell (incumbent)
5. Bob Hansen
6. Helene Schneider (incumbent)
7. Dr. Daniel Litten
8. Cruzito Cruz
9. Dale Francisco
10. Michelle Giddens
11. Nicholas Sebastian

For some comments, please see SantaBarbarasBlog at:

SBB: Candidates for 2007

Youth Issues: #1 Priority

[ Excerpt of "Youth issues named city's top priority," by ERIC LINDBERG, DAILY SOUND August 1, 2007 ]


Santa Barbara city officials lauded a resolution aimed at making youth problems the top priority in Santa Barbara at yesterday’s City Council meeting, calling it a crucial step in eliminating gang violence that has plagued city streets.

The resolution supports a platform designed by the National League of Cities (NLC) that highlights key action steps that Santa Barbara can take to meet the needs of youth and families. More than 70 cities in 31 states have already adopted the platform, city staff said.

“This is one of the strongest foundations we could have,” Councilmember Roger Horton said. “I believe that this will be a model plan for the whole United States.”
The centerpiece of the platform is a document that identifies key areas of need, what the city is already doing to meet those needs, and what still needs improvement...

“We’re already doing many of the things we need to do,” Councilmember Barnwell said, describing the document as “packed” with examples of programs and services already in place.

Councilmember Grant House quickly pointed out that the city’s leaders understand there is still plenty of work ahead.

”There’s still stuff brewing out there,” he said, “and I think everyone on the Council knows that.”

City staff said Santa Barbara offers more than 100 city services aimed at supporting families and youth, and while developing the resolution they came up with 40 additional areas for improvement.

Expanded afterschool and summer programs, more opportunities for community input, and improved childcare are among the suggestions offered by the plan. City officials also emphasized the crucial need for collaboration between city leaders, advisory groups, schools and nonprofit organizations.

Sarah Hanna, recreation programs manager, highlighted several of the city’s recent efforts to give teens an alternative to joining gangs, including the expansion of the summer drop-in program at Franklin, Harding and McKinley schools, and the city’s job apprenticeship program. Hanna said the drop-in program serves 250-300 kids daily, and the apprenticeship program has already placed 37 teens in businesses throughout the city.

Councilmember Iya Falcone emphasized the positive response from parents to the apprenticeship program, saying, “They would like very much to see an opportunity for their kids to have a job.”

Babatunde Folayemi, a youth advocate and former member of the City Council, said he started pushing for a resolution making kids the city’s top priority after a gang stabbing on State Street earlier this year that resulted in the death of 15-year-old Angel Linares.

“There is a lot of work to do,” Folayemi said. “This is the first step. It’s a positive step, and it’s a great step.”

... Laura Inks, owner of Arts Alive!, told the City Council she is trying to get local teens involved in alternative art programs in cartooning, graffiti and street art. A graffiti event held in June attracted 200 people, many of them teenagers, Inks said.

“I’m trying to give them an alternative,” she said. “We’re trying to get them off the streets and on to canvas and plywood.”

Councilmember Das Williams called the resolution a road map that will allow the city to see what needs to be done, adding that all public policy decisions should be made after considering their impact on youth. Christina Gonzalez, who had just been appointed as a youth intern to the Park and Recreation Commission, echoed that concept, calling on members of the Council to make the resolution a “reminder to keep youth in your mind when you are making decisions about the city.”

---------------------------

View KCOY-TV coverage at:

KCOY-TV: SBCC Youth Issues #1