Community Partners Help Keep Santa Barbara Santa Barbara ™ Partners

No on Measure Y Campaign Takes Flight

Opposition to the well-funded Yes on Measure Y campaign kicks into gear today with a press conference at Arroyo Burro Creek and Estuary Restoration Area and bridge to Douglas Family Preserve, 10 a.m. The media advisory is being dubbed “No on Measure Y 2012: No Gifts of Parkland to Developers! It’s a planned gathering to show opposition to the ballot measure and to rebut misleading campaign statements by the developer-backed campaign.” Those urging a no vote on Measure Y include:

  • Mayor Helene Schneider
  • Supervisor Janet Wolf
  • City Councilmembers Bendy White & Cathy Murillo
  • Allied Neighborhoods Association
  • Citizens Planning Association
  • Democratic Party of Santa Barbara County
  • Democratic Women of Santa Barbara
  • Environmental Defense Center
  • La Mesa Neighborhood Association
  • League of Women Voters of Santa Barbara
  • Santa Barbara County Action Fund
  • Santa Barbara Urban Creeks Council
  • Santa Barbara Women’s Political Committee
  • Sierra Club

57 Responses to “No on Measure Y Campaign Takes Flight”

  1. Anonymous

    This is and odd endorsement split. Mayor, Murillo and Bendy on one side with Dale and House on the other. Where’s Frank?

  2. Anonymous

    Misleading claims?

    Fact: Yes on Y will lead to the restoration of a section of Arroyo Burro Creek.

    Fact: Yes on Y will lead to a safe bike path to Hendrys.

    Fact: Yes on Y will lead to a free public 6 acre park.

    Fact: Yes on Y will preserve 44 acres of open space.

    Fact: Yes on Y will do all of this at no taxpayer expense.

    If there is any gift involved, it’s a gift of these great benefits to the city.

    • anon.

      To anonymous, misleading claims
      1 – the “restoration” will scour the bottom, build creek walls, result in a “deadzone” under the bridge that dwarfs that opposed for Mission Creek and will create an overflow on private properties;
      2 – there is now a safe bike path paralleling Las Positas on Elings;
      3 – there already is city park land; private developers should not “develop” city parks;
      4 – the 44 acres of open space already exists; it is steep hillside on Rincon Shale that would never built on anyway;
      5 – taypayers will be responsible for upkeep of the bridge and the new streets, as well as any liability from accidents thereon.

      —This is a “gift” so tied with strings of deception it is hard to see what exactly is there. No wonder the Alan Road neighborhood blossoms with No on Y signs.

      • If there is a safe bike path at Elings, I sure don’t know about it. Sure, I’ve seen folks riding the mountain bike path, but that is hardly the same. I dread every time I ride on Las Positas with my kids; it is so dangerous!

  3. Vox Populi

    Wow. I am impressed. Plus it is mainly the voices of the affected neighborhoods. Listen up.

  4. PhotoShop

    Fact: Yes, it will provide one more un-patrolled, drug-dealing homeless encampment and opportunity to knock of bikers riding this “safe” path to the beach.

    They should admit this will be paved with astroturf, just like their overly slick, overly managed campaign for voter approval. While their are local faces being exploited the Yes campaign, the actual neighborhoods are not behind them following their up-front publicity shot leads.

    • PhotoShop

      I’ve never seen anything about what the path will be made of, but it doesn’t matter. Las Positas traffic goes 60mph and any path away from the traffic is a fantastic win for bikers!

      Neighborhood residents and community leaders support Measure Y. Marty Blum, Dan Secord, Kim Kimball, and Grant House are just some on the list.

      It’s sad that you guys have to make up false rumors just to have something to complain about.

      • Anonymous

        There’s already a bike and walking path trail away from the traffic of Las Positas: it runs along Elings Psrk and looks across to V. M. and ends at the intersection, where there does need to be a crosswalk.

  5. el_smurfo

    Fact: If the Sierra Club is against your “restoration”, you’re probably not doing it right.

    Fact: Why do we need a park right across the street from one of the largest in town?

    Fact: Santa Barbara has already voted for creek restoration. Measure B funds could be used to clean up this area without handing over public land for a bridge to McMansionLand.

    Fact: The 44 acres of “open space” is the part that is not usable for housing, i.e. steep hillside.

    Fact: Santa Barbara has a long history of being conned into “free parks” in exchange for poorly planned developments i.e. the “park” in front of Fess Parker’s hotel.

    Fact: Las Positas is no place for more traffic or T intersections…accidents are regular and serious, even where the signal was installed at Portesuello

    Fact: The Yes on Y campaign is a dishonest astroturf media blitz. You will find word for word arguments such as those by “Convinced” on every blog and news outlet in town.

  6. Some of those listed actually support the move, but asked for additional support. Sierra Club (Of which I am a member) wants to ensure a natural path, and oversight over the restoration, but not the no vote.

    Democratic party of Santa Barbara has endorsed it, though their material has been misleading due to confusing sarcasm.

    Furthermore, the parkland isn’t being “gifted” to the developer. He is actually spending a lot of money to make it an enjoyable area instead of a backed-up and thus polluted creek.

    • Anonymous

      Agree. Well written Mr. Henderson.

    • Anonymous

      Both Sierra Club and Democratic Party both urge a NO vote on Measure Y.

  7. Axman

    I emailed the moderators about putting some kind of limits on the pro-Y spam campaign, but I haven’t heard back yet.

    • Anonymous

      So you asked the moderators to limit the other side of the argument? I agree, who needs free speech anyways?

    • Anonymous

      So you requested to limit your opponents ability to say their point? I agree, who needs free speech?

      • el_smurfo

        I would not argue that speech should be moderated, but if it turns out every pro post is from a PR firm, lawyer or even the developer’s wife, I think it adds another data point to the generally deceptive nature of the Yes campaign.

        • Anonymous

          I’m sad there is no “like” button here to indicate that I agree.

          • Publican

            Sad? Really this makes you “sad”?

  8. Anonymous

    False Claim: Yes on Y will lead to the restoration of a section of Arroyo Burro Creek.

    Fact: The project will lead to class one environmental impacts (unmitigatable impacts) to this section of Arroy Burro Creek. Who ever heard of a real restoration with class one impacts? Actually this is just a redone bank stabilization program that will protect the new bridge.

    False Claim: Yes on Y will lead to a safe bike path to Hendrys.

    Fact: This depends on where you are. If you start at the new development, and go down Alan Road, yeah, it might be pretty safe. If you start at Elings Park it’s a nightmare. Do you really want a cross-walk along Las Positas? Much better path would be to improve the existing trail through Elings down to Cliff & Las Positas – that would separate people from traffic.

    False Claim: Yes on Y will lead to a free public 6 acre park.

    Fact: The taxpayers paid for the parkland in 1989. It already is a park. This proposed “restored park” will mainly benefit the new homeowners of the luxury development. There isn’t any proposed parking or other amenities.

    Fact: Yes on Y will preserve 44 acres of open space.
    Ok, I’ll agree with that statement, however to put this in context the 44 acres is steep unbuildable hillside, and there will be no public access.

    False Claim: Yes on Y will do all of this at no taxpayer expense.
    Fact: The taxpayers paid for the park. The taxpayers will have to pay for the road and bridge maintenance

    • William Munny

      It might make sense to improve the trails through Elings for flow purposes rather than make people cross the street at that location. Too bad some of the neighbors convinced Janet Wolf to have the County sue the Park a few years ago to force them to remove some of the existing trails including the ones you are referring to. That is why they aren’t maintained and are in poor condition. It seems funny that now some of those same neighbors are opposed to this project too with, apparently, one of the arguments being that the trails through Elings should be improved and extended instead. Whoops!

  9. Needle Park

    Alameda Park, Alice Keck Park Memorial Gardens, Ortega Park, Shoreline Park, Bohnett Park, McKensie Park …how many more do we need to list that have been taken over by vagrants and druggies and are of little use to local residents or families. Selling this as one more “park” for local residents sounds scary.

    • Axman

      I’d love to see how many of these posts are from the same IP address.

      • because of what, stating facts?

        Based on that logic, I bet all you “No on Y” people are really a 32 year old virgin living in the one basement in SB.

        The facts are out there, yet you choose to not look. We tell you, you choose not to listen. We try to reason, and you change topics.

        Examples of ignorant logic:

        2 or more people disagree – “they must be the same spammer”

        • el_smurfo

          You’re showing your age again Martin by resulting to name calling. Average voters generally don’t regurgitate talking points such as “44 acres of open space”…who talks like that, really? The fact is, the facts don’t really matter…people are tired of rich developers making end runs around the process that the rest of us are stuck with. Fess got the boot and Lee will find he’s in the same boat come election day.

          • FlowrPowr

            Former Mayor Blum quoted today saying people will find ways to build on those unusable, steep hillside acres so better lock them up permanently now with this developer give-away. She should know.

            “People can build almost everywhere. If they haven’t figured it out now, they will in the future.” is not this developer boondoggle Blum favors the perfect example of how people will figure out to get around the regulations? Talk about creating your own reality.

        • Publican

          “We” ? — you sign with a single name yet your insist on the Royal We? Fess up Martin, who are you fronting.

        • Axman

          Let’s see the IP addresses and find out.

    • Funny, because I love all of the parks you just mentioned.

  10. BelWeather

    Some of the opposition may come from the we love high-density, subsidized-housing at other people’s expense crowd. Strange, strange bedfellows in this town.

  11. Convinced

    This is more fun than one should be able to have.

    So the vacant land is already park? But if we improve it, it will be a drug park, but only residents will use it.

    FACT: it’s not park land according to the Park Department. No one but a drug dealer or a rat would go near it.

    After Measure Y – it will be a restored park – 6-acres of natural creek side vegetation along with a trail to the beach.

    FACT: Los Positas is not a safe route for kids to walk or ride to the beach. In fact , a annoumous above agrees in some odd way, as he does not want a cross walk because it is dangerous, but it’s okay to ride along?

    A safe route to the beach is a huge benefit. It’s okay to admit that it’s safer – just like you admitted 44 acres of open space out of 50 acres (BTW – that’s 88% open space).

    FACT: 44 acres will be removed forever from develpment. And have you never seen building on steep land – look around CA. It’s possible and could happen some day, Y ensures it will not.

    FACT: the creek is a mess – its dirty, it’s collapsing, invasive plants dominate and choke the life out of the creek. Cleaning it up naturally at great expense will impact the dirty mess – really now.

    The more I read of those opposed the more I’m convinced Yes is right!

  12. I'm voting No on Y!!

    I’m glad to see that the neighbors and community leaders have come out to OPPOSE MEASURE Y.

    Now Lee’s online campaign can no longer promulgate their false claims that everyone has approved this nonsense.


    • Anonymous

      Strange, when I saw the Newpress the other day I saw a large group of community leaders in favor of Yes on Y. Then I read another article about the “Bipartisan coalition” that supports the project. Don’t really see that on the No side.

  13. Anonymous

    I have seen the light.

    I’m the one who has been posting as Anonymous and I want to retract everything I have said.

    You have convinced me…Measure Y is a bad idea! Defeat this measure and it’s a win-win-win

    A win for the City, a win for the Community and a win for TRUTH!


    • Anonymous

      Sad guys.

      First you guys complain about the mail. Then you complain about people supporting the project. Now you are lying. What will the No on Y machine do next? Steal campaign signs? Start horrible rumors? It’s a desperate strategy for a campaign that has no legit argument.

      Meanwhile Yes on Y talks about issues because the truth is on their side. A new public park, creek restoration, a safe bike trail, and 44 acres of open space all at no cost to the taxpayers. All of that is true. Yes on Y.

  14. BelWeather

    If the city can’t clean up Bohnett, Ortega, Alameda, Alice Keck Park, Shoreline parks why will they do any better with one more park in their current inventory?

    Show us you can take care of what you already own first. The only reason we need a “new park” is because of the lousy stewardship of the ones we already own have made them unusable by families and children.

    So now the “solution” is to funnel kids down Las Positas Road so they can finally find a safe bikeway for a few hundred yards until they hit another busy drunk-driving intersection before they get to the Pit and the Boathouse happy hour crowd?

  15. Likely No Voter

    Got a phone call from the Yes folks today, a nice pleasant young sounding woman. Asked if I was going to vote Yes to preserve the creek. Said I was probably a no vote – I’ve read the articles, mailers and blogs – I just don’t think it is right to give away parkland (maybe if he paid for it, but not as a give-away of land that the taxpayers bought). She pressed, did that mean I was voting no. I said I was voting no. Then she asked if I knew that the project had already been approved by the City Council to go through Alan Road. Now I know that is a lie, so I’m now a definite No Voter.

  16. Convinced

    Veronica Meadows has been approved by the city and by the Calfornia Coastal Commission.

    No matter how you wish it not – its a fact.

    And BelWeather – you hit it on the head. The Veronica Meadows HOA will pay to maintain the new restored park and no city funds will be needed.

    • BelWeather

      Prior poster claimed the Yes on Y caller said the city already approved the project to go through Alan Road. Fact or fiction?

  17. BelWeather

    I have no faith in public-private partnerships. Look at the mess right next next door at Eling’s Park and the BMX track.

    • William Munny

      No faith in public-private partnerships? So your preference is to use tax dollars for everything or let the private side handle it?

      Would your preference for Elings be to just shut the whole place down? Not sure if you’ve been paying attention but the City Parks and Rec department has had its budget slashed for years…..only way Elings Park stays open for everyone to enjoy is through a public-private partnership. You might want to rethink your faith as it seems to be lacking any basis in fundamental facts.

      • BelWhether

        Public-private partnerships are great buzz words, until you actually deal with one – private interests will put their own needs first when push comes to shove. As they should. And the public will always want to over-ride any later concerns of the private owners.

        You can never right the contract tight enough to cover all contingencies or even be guaranteed remedies in case of breach.

        This alleged “homeowners association” who is going to be responsible for this alleged “park maintenance” is really going to enforce not letting vagrants camp out on the property, drug deals get made onsite and not be held liable in case this “safe” bikeway turns out not to be so safe?

        Any guarantees these homeowners will always fund city policy pesticide free (IPM) park maintenance in perpetuity?

        How much grief did the quasi “public-private” Ehlings Park partnership give the surrounding neighbors when they thought fund-raising was more important than honoring their original contract terms that got them their park?

        • William Munny

          So you’re argument against the physical improvements to this area are that the private landowner may not fund pesticide free maintenance in perpetuity? And you think the City is better off allowing vagrants to continue to sleep and live on this property in its current state because you are concerned about whether or not the private landowner will force the vagrants off in the future after the improvements are made? Do you really think this bikeway is going to somehow turn out to be less safe than people continuing to ride through that area on Las Positas?

          As for Elings, its funny that you would refer to a public park as “their park”. You make it sound like the park is being operated like its some private property that isn’t open for everyone to enjoy. You should stop and ask yourself who gains by the operation of Elings Park. Its the neighbors and the community as a whole, not the limited numbers donating funds to keep it open.

          It seems some people would prefer we simply abandon both properties and let them become the homeless base camps for all the vagrants that have ruined downtown.

          • BelWhether

            The city has means to get rid of vagrant camps in the creeks and bushes, but is choosing not to do so. Will the HomeOwners Association pay to play cop better than the city?

            Other than that, there is little purpose responding to those who put words into other people’s mouths and then pick a fight with themselves.

  18. Convinced

    Another day comes to a close and there has been not one legitimate fact on the no side.

    • BelWeather

      The fact is there is a very impressive list of No on Y supporters. This is a game changer.

      • Anon.

        And take a walk up Alan Road and see the large number of “NO” signs, showing how the neighborhood thinks. …It’s a peaceful neighborhood now, but with development looming, that won’t last. Pity that once quiet, off-the-track and affordable ‘hood.

        • Publican

          Let the people speak either through existing zoning regulations or the ballot box that changes them. Mob rule is not majority rule – read Thomas Sowell today in the NewsPress. It does matter who you put into office.

  19. No bridge over troubled waters, classic!

  20. I am going to vote No on Y because:

    The development has already been approved. So no need for yet another Bridge to Nowhere.

    Santa Barbara does not need more luxury housing. See any realtor in town to learn about the ample available housing. As approved, without the bridge, 3 new holes can be built. 22 more are completely unnecessary.

    The work that will be done to the hillside and creek will cause permanent damage to the ecology and disrupt natural wildlife areas.

    I’ve not heard of a plan to guarantee financing of the ongoing maintenance of the bridge, creek, roads or traffic signals.

    A traffic signal is not needed in the location of the proposed bridge.

    The City surrendering land to a developer should be considered only in exceptional circumstances and should provide greater benefit to more of the People.

    The property being offered in exchange for this public land has no use to the People, would be inaccessible to the public, and would only increase the City’s liability. (especially after the lower hillside is devastated by the expanded development.

    Mark Lee has dishonestly represented his agenda and the real Issues around Measure Y.

    For these and countless other reasons, I encourage you to joining me in voting No on Y.

    • ITune

      The city can always use more luxury home buyers. They support city activities while the county and schools benefit from their higher property taxes. Santa Barbara is what it is because of its long-standing attractions for wealthy and philanthropic residents. Bring ‘em on!

    • el_smurfo

      Thank you for highlighting my main issue with this campaign. Nowhere in any of the “Yes” material or astroturf assault is it stated that the bridge comes bundled with 22 homes. This deception is my main objection to an issue I would otherwise support based on the property rights of the owner.

      • ITune

        Good ideas are good on their own merits. Bad ideas try to sneak in by stealth.

  21. DesertStorm

    One can lose a city by inches, as well as by miles. Draw the line in the sand, now. Vote no on Y.

  22. Anonymous

    The 25 home Project has been approved by the coastal commission, the city council,and the planning commission.

    By lying and saying it will be fewer you are intentionally misleading the voters and the neighbors who are the ones actually impacted.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, you guys are trying to argue against a great idea and therefore have to lie to make your points. It’s really sad that it has come to this.

    • Axman

      They are approved conditional on Y passing. If it doesn’t, the project is dead, which is why you’re spamming the hell out of us.

  23. StormDrainDebris

    If Measure Y goes down to defeat, as it should, the developer need look no further than the end of his own nose looking down on the voters. It simply a matter of treating the voters as stupid, stupid.