Michael Jordan Endorses Measure Y Campaign

Hot Topic Reset: Originally published on May 4, 2012.

While a dozen city leaders including Marty Blum, Steve Cushman, Dan Secord, and Grant House gathered on the steps of City Hall on Wednesday to promote a yes vote on Measure Y in the June 5 election, yet another mailer hit Santa Barbara mailboxes.

The latest mailing includes a letter from Michael Jordan (current member of the Planning Commission, but not identifying himself as such, only as a former Chair of the Creeks Advisory Committee, yet using the phrase, “This is a unique opportunity that I believe has benefits from both a planning point of view and a clean water perspective.”). A second letter is on NOAA letterhead from its Santa Rosa office. Also included is a color brochure from this well-funded group. All three pieces now include prominent recycled symbols when none previously did, as reported on Santa Barbara View.


About Editor

Publishing since 2005, the mission of the award-winning website is to help Keep Santa Barbara Santa Barbara™. Please bookmark, www.sbview.com

45 Responses to Michael Jordan Endorses Measure Y Campaign

  1. John Vasi May 4, 2012 at 7:35 am #

    The advertising campaign for Measure Y has had a negative effect on me. From what I have read and seen about this project, I’m going to vote for it despite the bad taste I have from the ad campaign. If the mailings just explained that this is a development project for housing, and that a side benefit would be a first-class, environmentally-sound restoration of a deteriorating creekbed, I would have no trouble voting for it. I realize that some people believe that housing in that location is a bad decision, but I accept that it can be built without dire consequences.

    The creekbed restoration in a minor component of this housing project. Most of the literature avoids mention of the reason for the project–the housing. Give credit to the intelligence of the voters. Trying to influence a vote by hiding the facts and only mentioning the trendy, but small, aspect of this housing development shows how little respect the Measure Y team has for the electorate.

    Its a close call, but I’m voting for it. It would have been a much easier call for me if the advertising campaign were honest and straightforward.

    • el_smurfo May 4, 2012 at 8:20 am #

      Agree John, but the deception was enough to tip me into the No camp. There are few things I hate more than government getting into people personal and property rights, but one of those things is being deceived and this campaign is about as close to photoshopped champaign flutes as they come.

  2. HomeSweetHome May 4, 2012 at 7:53 am #

    Measure Y campaign literature has been intentionally deceptive. Agree, reason enough to vote this down until this developer can sell the real deal on its strengths; not sneak it through by stealth. The cast of characters supporting this Measure is too strange and have betrayed us in the past for too long to get my vote. Come clean is all I can say. This smells of something rotten.

  3. Anonymous May 4, 2012 at 8:10 am #

    That is a strange alliance of backers. All middle aged white men and Marty Blum. Maybe Marty should step away from the political spotlight.

  4. citywatching May 4, 2012 at 8:38 am #

    Is it ethical for a Planning Commissioner (whose role is to decide – without bias – on building projects) to send out to probably all registered voters a letter in support of a developer’s project? Perhaps it would be acceptable if he paid for it himself? Did he? If not, who paid for it? And when/where is the accounting for how much is being spent by Mark Lee on this campaign of glossy, quite deceptive mailers?

    Mr. Jordan used to talk of his “pea-sized brain”. He hasn’t done so recently; perhaps he should. And definitely the City should revisit the requirements and obligations of sitting planning commissioners (and ABR board members, as well); there’s more to a conflict of (public) interest than financial gain.

    As for the video, yes, Don Olson is right in that it is not only about the bridge. It’s about the environment and how this meadow area, the lungs of Santa Barbara, as it has been called, should be open-space for people and wildlife. Not manicured “park” land, not city-maintained streets; not a 140-foot-long bridge on city land. Present councilmembers Grant House and Dale Francisco may hold hands but that does not convince that this is anything but a developer’s dream. As for the environmental benefits to the Creek, why is it that most all environmentalists oppose this project?!

  5. Anonymous May 4, 2012 at 8:59 am #

    Hint: Find out how much money the developer has given to all these candidates over the last decade.

  6. Martha's Messes May 4, 2012 at 10:05 am #

    As long as there are public assets somewhere to waste and give away in exchange for political favors, you can guess who will be leading the charge. This developer-backed coalition smells. Don’t do it.

  7. Marc my words May 4, 2012 at 10:13 am #

    Jordan is a soild guy. Headed creeks commission during an important period.

    I think all this fuss is silly. Y is a really good deal. We get goodies – property owner pays – neighborhood protected.

    Only person who loses is the ambulance chasing lawyer.

    I’m impressed with Ys mailings. They must be working – truth is Y uses a small piece of land for a seriously cool bridge over a awful dirty embassasing creek – we get creek fixed – park land.

    I get why neighbors, Dems, reps – enviros (other than the lawyer getting paid to fight) are al,and business leaders are Yes.

    I’m Yes. Y is good.

  8. Frank May 4, 2012 at 10:13 am #

    This seems like a lot of noise about a non-issue. Mark Lee has been forced to have this ballot measure so that the 25 homes don’t have to increase traffic on Alan Road. There are many of us who told Mark that using Alan Road was unacceptable, and he listened.

    This small piece of land will allow Alan Road to stay as is, while also helping the city, and all of us who love it. Santa Barbara does not have the funds to do what is necessary for that piece of land. That piece of land needs to be cleaned up and repaired.

    Those are facts – Voting Yes on Y solves both those problems.

    I care about the facts and am voting Yes on Y.

  9. NowInformed May 4, 2012 at 10:52 am #

    I’ve appreciated the Yes on Y mailings as I didn’t know about Measure Y prior to receiving them. I’ve gotten two. Real clear and real simple.

    They clearly explained what was being asked of me – vote to give away a small piece of city land. In return, the city gets a nasty area cleaned up, a safe trail to the beach, and a park.

    Not sure why it matters what kind of paper they used. What matters to me is making good decisions for our city.

    Yes on Y is a good decision.

  10. el_smurfo May 4, 2012 at 10:59 am #

    Welcome to the Astroturf Brigade…money well spent.

    • Axman May 4, 2012 at 12:08 pm #

      Seriously. In the future these guys should try to space their messages out a bit more to make it less obvious.

  11. Marc my words May 4, 2012 at 12:20 pm #

    El smurfo, the money that’s been spent over the last few years is the money paid to the ambulance chasing environmental lawyers that have denied our community a model creek clean up, a safe trail to the beach, and a park.

    Just because we care about this one issue, and don’t comment on every other silly issue, doesn’t mean we’re AstroTurf. Are you el smurfo? Or Anon? Or anonymous?

    • anon. May 4, 2012 at 2:00 pm #

      This is not a “model creek cleanup” by a scouring of 1,800′, leaving the much longer remainder to Cliff and the Arroyo Burro (true) restoration area and bordering Alan Road, as is. The EIR called it a Class One impact, causing irreparable changes to a natural area. (And, yes, I have been there.)

      As for Jordan, it’s immaterial what he did/said in the early days of the Creeks Committee. The point is he is on the Planning Commission (a vice chair of it, with pretty obvious City Council leaning) and he _should not_ be writing/mailing (if he did both of those) or sending under his name a developer’s propaganda.

      Alan Road will not remain unchanged, “as is” (actually, no place ever is), Frank, but there will be access to three new homes at the end of it; the trail from Elings and the West Side, as is hoped, will go through Alan Road. Not all of the Alan Road neighbors are happy about this. The three houses can be built whatever happens, bridge or no bridge.

  12. TREY ACORN May 4, 2012 at 1:24 pm #

    I wonder if we are all misguided in these worries when our country doesnt have a budget (3yrs) and unemployment #s are not better, more on foodstamps the ever in history and now the market is way down! should we spend more?

  13. Convinced May 4, 2012 at 4:06 pm #

    Oh anon. You try so very hard. You are creative, but oh my – you reasons are so so weak.

    It’s almost sad. Now the creek restoration should not go forward because the city doesn’t have the money to extend it.

    In the courts – you can try all your arguments evn if they are counter to one another. In the blog world it’s just unproductive.

    So cleaning up a horrible creek – turning it into a natural state is now an envirnmental impact?

    Y gives us a creek restoration, turns degraded city land into a park.

    Y allows for the use of 1% of the land for 100% restored and improved.

    No matter what the smurf/anon says Y is still a Yes. Seems there’s overwhelming support joining the fight in favor.

  14. Anonymous May 4, 2012 at 4:29 pm #

    Sorry but 25 Orange County cookie cutter homes is NOT a small deal.

  15. Convinced May 4, 2012 at 5:31 pm #

    A new restored 6 acre park is no small deal.

    A one third mile natural creek restoration is no small deal.

    44 acres of open space forever is no small deal.

    Homes are where we all live and create familiy memories. Not sure how anon/smurf/anonymous turns a home into something bad.

    Do you live in a cave? Or should your home be removed?

    • Axman May 4, 2012 at 8:55 pm #

      Your lame posts should be removed, you astroturf dork.

  16. Yawn May 4, 2012 at 9:39 pm #

    Deceptive political campaigns can be so much fun. I miss Randall Van Wolfswinkel and Preserve Our Santa Barbara.

  17. Convinced May 5, 2012 at 2:31 pm #

    Axman – I’m impressed with your intelligence and communications skills. I’m sure that has helped you succeed in life.

    I’m just lame and support a good measure that helps our community – Measure Y.

    I love watching as you and others who are opposed hopelessly look for a reason and one unable then turn to personally attacking and belittling everyone who is in support. Fun to read your utter frustration at not having a relevant factual thing to say.

    You attacks tell the story well – there is no factual reason to oppose Y.

    If it takes being called a dork – I’m willing to be one to share my point of view. Y makes great sense to me and to a huge cross section of leaders in our community.

  18. Anonymous May 5, 2012 at 6:32 pm #

    After reading these and other comments, the Yes on Y arguments seem to actually be about the project: Measure Y will restore the creek, build a safe bike path, save Alan Road from excess traffic, privately fund a new public 6 acre park, and 44 acres will remain open space.

    The anti-Measure Y arguments are about the mailings and criticizing people for supporting the project.

    Can someone who isn’t in Jr. High tell me an actual reason to oppose this measure? Seems like a good idea to me, especially since the houses were already approved by the Planning Commission, the City Council, and the Coastal Commission.

  19. Convinced May 6, 2012 at 9:44 am #

    Axman – that link leads to a letter to the editor is an example of silly weak arguments.

    First, it talks about campaign mailers.

    Second says a bridge over a degraded dirty creek that is home to collapsing banks, full of invasive plants thats choking the life out of the creek with no animals other than rats. Just silly nonsense.

    Second it talks about the bridge and road – all paid for by the property owner, how they are a financial burdon to the city, really? I guess the 25 homes property tax just do not matter.

    It does not mention that Measure Y ensures property owner will pay to clean up the creek along with 6-acres of vacant city – and will maintain it forever.

  20. Anonymous May 6, 2012 at 9:53 am #

    Thanks, but I’ve read that.

    The creek is already degraded and trashy, creek restoration will be good for the environment.

    Traffic would need to slow down on Las Positas if it were to ever become safe for non-automobiles.

    The Alan Road Neighborhood currently has one exit, a second emergency exit would be good during an evacuation.

    If the houses have already been approved they will be built no matter what. We are arguing about the access points here.

    And at no point did the article mention the maintained open space or the free 6 acre public park.

    As I said before, No on Y arguments don’t really hold much water.

    Yes on Y seems to have the better of the two in that regard.

  21. Axman May 6, 2012 at 11:25 am #

    I’m voting no on Y to punish this insultingly stupid astroturf campaign.

    • el_smurfo May 6, 2012 at 11:51 am #

      sbview really needs to look into the IP ranges of comments on ballot issues such as this. the voters deserve to know when the 1% are throwing their weight around on the web.

      • Axman May 6, 2012 at 12:20 pm #

        Agreed. I’m sending the moderators an email about this right now.

  22. el_smurfo May 6, 2012 at 12:49 pm #

    Looks like an easy plugin

    http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/statpress-reloaded/

  23. Convinced May 6, 2012 at 3:32 pm #

    It’s getting funnier Axman and el_marco. You’ve entered censorship now for those who disagree. Please moderate and look up IP ranges. I would like to see all Mission Canyon.

  24. No on Y May 6, 2012 at 5:08 pm #

    Measure Y is a horrible idea for our community. We’re GIVING AWAY city parkland to a DEVELOPER for the entrance to a GATED COMMUNITY, and we the taxpayers will need to PAY FOR THE UPKEEP OF THIS ENTRY FOREVER.

    The Measure Y supporters pretend the developer is doing us some kind of favor, but all this amounts to is a LAND GIVEAWAY to benefit THE ULTRA WEALTHY.

    Vote NO on Measure Y!

    • Yes on Y May 6, 2012 at 9:23 pm #

      Where does it say gated community?

      Where does it say taxpayers pay upkeep?

      The truth is the exact opposite.

      What part of public 6 acre park and safe bike path through is “gated community?”

      What part of Mark Lee and new homeowners pay for upkeep is not understood?

      YES ON Y, because I like seeing community benefits at NO COST to the taxpayers.

  25. Wide Awake May 6, 2012 at 5:10 pm #

    Agreed! As a citizen of Santa Barbara who is totally not the guy who just posted, I can’t believe the Measure Y supporters think that the average taxpayer would be STUPID enough to fall for this DEVELOPER LAND GRAB!

    Vote NO on Measure Y!

    • Wide Awake May 6, 2012 at 9:31 pm #

      The average taxpayer pays too much money as it is (another discussion), so when they see a plan that will restore part of the creek, build a safe bike path, create a six acre public park, maintain 44 acres of open space, prevent a neighborhood from being overrun with traffic, and do all of it at NO COST TO THEM…EVER, they start to realize why voting Yes on Y makes sense.

  26. Yes -Y May 6, 2012 at 5:54 pm #

    The land is not a park, but it will be thanks to Measure Y. A 6-acre natural park.

    It’s not a gated community – in fact it provides a safe route to the beach – from Elings, avoiding a dangerous section of Las Positas.

    The property owner pays for the creek restoration, the park restoration and then the homeowners will pay for upkeep. No cost to taxpayers.

    And oh my yes – the bridge will use 1% of the land – and we get 100% as a park – this is a very good deal and the very reason environmentalist and pro-business leaders stand together in support.

    Those opposed equal a handful led by a ‘for hire’ nimby ambulance chaser.

    Yes – Y – good for the environment. Good for neighbors. Good for taxpayers.

  27. Yawn May 6, 2012 at 8:29 pm #

    It’s all quite boring. Yet entertaining. I read. I laugh. I see the hypocrisy.

    I vote yes. It’s simple. Yes is something good, no is seriously lame.

    End of story. Yes – Y. Y for Yawn. Y for Yes.

    Let’s be done.

  28. Yes. May 6, 2012 at 9:08 pm #

    It’s clear. Voting Yes. Hate development. This is a smart. I’m a yes. My wife is yes.

  29. Anonymous May 7, 2012 at 4:48 pm #

    It’s clear.

    The tools of the developer have convinced me.

    VOTE NO ON Y!

  30. Now I get it. YES May 16, 2012 at 10:36 pm #

    There is no reason to vote no.

    There are dozrens to vote yes.

    From respecting the closest neighbors – to the creek and park fix – it all makes sense.

    And best – some property owner pays! No taxpayer money whatsoever.

    I’m a yes. My husband is yes. My mon is a yes. And my teenage son is a yes.

    Those opposed seem silly and childish. Sorry – I’m just saying . . .

    • Wide Awaker May 16, 2012 at 11:43 pm #

      I’m a brand new guy that has never posted here before, and just happened to find this two week old story that nobody has posted to in 10 days.

      Anyway, I get paid $0.50 per post on this website, with a bonus of $0.25 if Measure Y passes, so please vote yes on measure Y.

      • No on Y May 17, 2012 at 7:27 am #

        You can smell this astro-turf pro-Y junk a mile away. Except when the astro-turf junk gets dropped in all our mailboxes so the stench comes directly into our homes. Yes on Y stupidly sinks itself by treating voters as mindless droids.

        Pro-Y is known by the company it keeps, who failed us before and they shall not fail us again. Vote No on Y. No city gifts to developers.

      • el_smurfo May 17, 2012 at 8:57 am #

        Yeah…me too…my name is…Le Smurf…yeah…new here…that’s the ticket. Anyways, Yes on Y, it’s for the Children.

        • Parkfield May 17, 2012 at 9:13 am #

          If its for the children, then clean up the parks in their own backyards first. Until you can keep Bohnett Park from being a chronically vandalized needle park and Alameda Park from being an RV dweller day camp, don’t talk to me about adding more more city park to our stable of unusable public spaces.

  31. anon May 16, 2012 at 10:56 pm #

    I’m done. Who cares about the creek, a park or all the other bs, I hate anyone building even one home any where.

    Leave our town. Take the dirty creek with you. We don’t need money to fix the creek, we don’t need a park. We don’t need jobs. Kids can deal with traffic I did. The taxpayers can afford it.

    Oh and westside kids riding to the beach. Not going to happen. They are lazy and never going to the beach – why should we help.

    I don’t care what anyone does, not one more nail – if you dont have a home here now – leave – go to Ventura or Oxnard. I have a home. The creek is miles away. I have job, my family all work – we dont need a thing No needs man.

    It’s a dog eat dog world. And my dog is biggest. So screw you. I got mine and you don’t! leave town.

    • Parkfield May 17, 2012 at 9:10 am #

      We need to clean up the parks we already have and keep the bums from ruining them for the rest of the public. We don’t need any more fake parks like this Measure Y boondoggle. We can’t even enjoy the ones we have now. Vote no on Y – stop over-burdening our system.

Leave a Reply