COMMENT 325827
|
2012-09-29 10:55 AM |
|
The core issue here is that religion drags humanity down, not up.
|
| |
COMMENT 325382
|
2012-09-28 12:52 PM |
|
Could you imagine the uproar if some business that supported gay marriage were denied a permit because of what a private citizen said? If I were the franchise owner there would be a very large lawsuit for violating my civil rights. I know leftists hates them some First Amendment (unless they agree with what is said) but it is there for a reason and this is a blatant abuse of that very first amendment of the BILL of RIGHTS.
|
| |
DEE D
|
2012-09-27 08:02 PM |
|
This is a complicated situation for which the proper response is the working of the political process. I hope that our society is learning to recognize and respect innate differences, and that does appear to be the case. If the villagers really want a witch hunt, there is always the next election.
|
| |
COMMENT 324868
|
2012-09-27 01:28 PM |
|
A gutless decision by some council members who would likely use there own personal political agenda to influence their official decisions as the have in the past. The only difference is they have not publically disclosed the reasons as the ABR members did.
That kind of unethical if not illegal behavior undermines the entire concept that persons in elected or appointed positions must make their decisions free from the biases and prejudices they hold!
|
| |
COMMENT 324616
|
2012-09-26 08:53 PM |
|
Nope, don't remember Hotchkiss saying anything about plastic bags. But I do give him credit for his earlier quote "if you want to be in a gang, you don't get to live in Santa Barbara". (Or words to that effect). Great quote to hear someone bluntly put it all on the table. Keep it up Frank, there is a mayors position in the works for you.
|
| |
COMMENT 324562
|
2012-09-26 06:18 PM |
|
Who else remembers Hotchkiss stating that ingestion of a plastic bag by a marine mammal or sea turtle was no big deal, since the bag would be pooped out . . .in the end?
And people still listen to what he has to say? The more fool they. Who on this comment thread has attended an ABR meeting, ever? I have seen these people in action, many many times. They are all more than a bit looney toons, and definitely getting paid under the table for most of, if not all, their decisions.
Drive by and take gander at what used to be St. Francis Hospital. Does this ABR reflect what Santa Barbarans really want for our town? I don't think so. Abstention or no, ABR is a bunch of crooks.
|
| |
COMMENT 324554
|
2012-09-26 06:05 PM |
|
I was building a new home and hired one of the best architects in town to draw up plans. After 1 year or work and careful planning we submitted to SFDB. Gary Mosel looked at plans and said our a garage was in the wrong location and that we had to move it. We told him that he was looking at the plans upside down. He told us - regardless we need to move our garage. I complained to Blum at al. about the lunacy of the SFDB and how they are not qualified to provide input. Gary Mosel gets rewarded with a seat on the ARB. What a complete joke!
|
| |
COMMENT 324517
|
2012-09-26 05:12 PM |
|
I am completely in favor of Marriage Equality, also for the right to free speech even if I disagree with it and I won't be supporting Chick Fil A because I disagree with Cathays positions. That said the council made the wrong choice and should have enacted some form of punishment.
|
| |
COMMENT 324458P
|
2012-09-26 03:51 PM |
|
The ABR members blatantly abused their power, and this time they did it publicly and with an "in yer face" attitude. You can bet thet the next time they will be more covert. The City Council members who looked the other way, politicized the situation and refused to take affirmative action against the errent board members are spineless. They lack leadership and should not be making important decisions that affect the stability and flavor our community. For what it's worth, I'm a liberal Democrat who supports a person's right of self determination and choice and I promise this: I won't forget the council members' failure to protect, come election time.
|
| |
COMMENT 324378
|
2012-09-26 01:51 PM |
|
I really see no issue with abstaining. I think the whole thing was overblown by Rowse and Hotchkiss. Promise not to do it again, admit your guilt, sign a staement of loyalty. Sounds like the spanish inquisition to me. You know what they say No expects the Spanish Inquisition. Like someone else said. Remember this in November 2013. But I will remember Frank's witchhunt.
|
| |
COMMENT 324616
|
2012-09-26 01:44 PM |
|
Yet again another city council majority voting because special interest groups send reckless mobs in to the city council meetings and sitting council members become intimidated to vote no. Bravo Hotchkiss, Francisco and Rowse for looking directly into the belly of the beast and still voting no. It was the right thing to do. And never doubt you won the support of the silent majority watching this outside of city hall chambers who will remember this come election day. Standing up to the noisy claque is the real test of civic leadership and this city's future needs a lot more of this. Bendy White again disappoints his former supporters. One term only. Done.
|
| |
COMMENT 324368
|
2012-09-26 01:36 PM |
|
how is abstaining abusing power? I agree they did the right thing, voting a No because of their personal beliefs should have been grounds for firing, not abstaining. I agree with the captain.
|
| |
COMMENT 324357
|
2012-09-26 01:10 PM |
|
I'm an advocate for gay marriage, but I still think these folks should have been removed from their positions. They have a specific job to do and abused their power.
|
| |
COMMENT 324354P
|
2012-09-26 01:07 PM |
|
Anyone who has tried diligently to follow Robert's Rules sometimes runs into unique (new) situations that cause confusion, plus, the procedure is confusing at-times. A mistake was made in procedure at ABR. It was a unique mistake ... but, heh, it was a human slip. The need to abstain or recuse oneself on a vote from a case because of a possible conflict of interest or lack of impartiality was explained last night. Earlier in the day it appeared to me that Council-member Mr. Hotchkiss made an error in recusing himself. 1) He started out correctly, 2) asking the city attorney if he should recuse himself from the Safe Passage discussion because he lives near the area, 3) the attorney said he should if he lives nearby, 4) the attorney then explained to Mr. Hotchkiss that he needed to leave the room during the Safe Passage discussion. I think that THAT should have been the last we heard from Mr. Hotchkiss on the Safe Passage item .... but, no, Mr. Hotchkiss continued to talk, stating a couple of times the way he would have voted had he been allowed to vote. As I understand it, if you recuse yourself you do not continue talking and campaigning for your viewpoint as you leave the room. Robert's Rules and Board rules are not as simple as some think. And, I may be wrong about this take. (?)
|
| |
COMMENT 324350
|
2012-09-26 01:05 PM |
|
Ha ha! Glad to see nobody lost their job over some greasy chicken homophobes.
|
| |
COMMENT 324346
|
2012-09-26 12:55 PM |
|
Captain, the issue is that they are not allowed to vote on any project based on their personal views. They are supposed to vote based on the merits of the project. The only reason one would abstain is if they would personally gain from the project. I understand what you are saying but people in these positions must be able to rise above their personal beliefs and opinions and vote on projects. These individuals have proven they are unable to do so and one of them is still saying he was right. The council had a duty to clarify the standards of conduct for the positions and remove those who stated they were unable to act in that capacity.
|
| |
COMMENT 324342
|
2012-09-26 12:48 PM |
|
If the owner of the swill hut had shut his yap about his views, this thing would have flown under the radar. There's pretty much nothing wrong with the design they submitted - it's a swill hut - it's generic and it's not controversial. It's going to open and the usual and the inevitable will happen - truly nothing to worry about - we've all seen it before. Expecting anything with true direction or backbone from the Council is well, optimistic at best. Next...
|
| |
CAPTAIN HALEY
|
2012-09-26 12:31 PM |
|
OK. Alternate view here. Gary Mosel stated that he abstained in order to keep his personal views from coloring his decisions as an ABR member. His understanding of the training they received was that this was the appropriate thing to do. And in fact it makes sense to me. Let's say I have a project before the ABR and one of the Board members has a personal issue with me. Don't I want that person to abstain? They did not vote to deny the project. The abstentions in no way even delayed the project. I think it is totally crazy to subject these public servants to this kind of pressure for trying to do the right thing.
|
| |
COMMENT 324331P
|
2012-09-26 12:23 PM |
|
It is a sad day in Santa Barbara when local board members abstain in a routine vote because the head of a company expresses that he believes in traditional marriage between a man and a woman. This is especially true when the company does not discriminate in any way towards those that do not agree.
|
| |
COMMENT 324329
|
2012-09-26 12:22 PM |
|
Voting to remove these people from their positions for not doing their jobs would not have been a vote against gay and lesbian rights. It would have been a lesson to those on various committees that they cannot allow their personal and political views to cloud their decisions while they are serving on these committees. These are not political positions and their actions were clearly against the guidelines for conduct of persons holding those positions. One of these individuals believes he is owed an apology because he serves on a board for a gay and lesbian rights group?! This makes it painfully clear that he does not understand how to do his job without letting his personal beliefs cloud his judgement. After hearing his statement how could any of the council members think it was an isolated incident? There is a place for voicing your political views. That place is not in ABR votes or reviews. This board stopping projects because of the business owner's beliefs is oddly similar to the prejudice the owners of the business have against gay marriage. The "we don't agree with you so you can't do things we do" mentality is alive and well on both sides it seems.
|
| |
COMMENT 324325
|
2012-09-26 12:10 PM |
|
Except there are plenty of liberals who disagreed with the ABR's decision, not to mention the national uproar about Chik-Fil-A in the first place, 317. (Also, I could make similar arguments regarding conservatives but I won't, because just like liberals, conservatives are not some amorphous blob of a hive mind. Not everyone thinks the same way.)
|
| |
CHERPLAN
|
2012-09-26 12:07 PM |
|
I feel that the Council made a mistake to require future appointed officials to agree to eliminate "personal bias" from their decisions. I believe that it would be impossible for various appointed decision makers to eliminate personal bias, as well as impossible for the City Council to enforce. If the Council should choose to try to enforce this it could take up all of their time reviewing all of the decisions.
|
| |
COMMENT 324317
|
2012-09-26 11:54 AM |
|
Typical of the City's liberal ideology- Liberals or "progressives” like the ACLU and G-L-BI-TRANS (?) are all about free speech.... As long as whoever is speaking has their same viewpoint- Then the opposing view will be construed into an anti establishment- anti politically correct opinion that MUST be rejected....
So much for freedoms!
|
| |
COMMENT 324312P
|
2012-09-26 11:31 AM |
|
This is a procedural/ethical issue, NOT a political one. It is so revealing that the 4-3 vote was along political lines. While all the Council members seemed to agree that the abstentions for political reasons (especially Gary Mosel's) were improper and a violation of the rules, only the leftists on the Council voted to sweep it under the rug. To anyone watching, it was painfully obvious that what was going on was blatant pandering to the gay/lesbian groups. Why do liberals need to politicize everything???
|
| |
COMMENT 324306
|
2012-09-26 11:27 AM |
|
This was very sad that the City Council, our city council made no strong statement. t undermines any credibility in our city. Hey i support 100% fredom of speach and other's right to think differently than me. it's the american way. if you support someone's right to choose or right to marry or whatever, who cares when the task at hand is a building permit. To have no action taken against the ABR members who clearly stepped over the line of their duty/responsibility is a travesty. Having a city council that takes no action against them is more of a travesty. OK hopefully traveesties do not come in threes.
|
| |
COMMENT 324297P
|
2012-09-26 11:13 AM |
|
324272: huh?
|
| |
COMMENT 324284P
|
2012-09-26 10:50 AM |
|
The fox is watching the hen house.
|
| |
COMMENT 324616
|
2012-09-26 10:44 AM |
|
As long as (1) all ABR applicants are investigated for their private lives, opinions, donations and secret thoughts in a fair and equal manner and (2) ABR applications are rejected with prior restraint based upon publicly noticed politically-incorrect criteria (3) agreed to by all sitting ABR members, then I have no problems here. The city should not allow its municipal building standards to be degraded by the wrong sort of people applying for them.
|
| |
COMMENT 324276P
|
2012-09-26 10:38 AM |
|
Spineless.
|
| |
COMMENT 324275
|
2012-09-26 10:36 AM |
|
I, for one, am shocked! Oh wait...no, nevermind.
|
| |
COMMENT 324272
|
2012-09-26 10:30 AM |
|
No Chick-Fil-A! Yippee!
|
| |
COMMENT 324562
|
2012-09-26 10:28 AM |
|
I, for one, am extremely disappointed. The ABR gives new meaning to the words "graft" "special interest" and "payola."
|
| |
COMMENT 324263
|
2012-09-26 10:19 AM |
|
This should be a surprise to nobody. To start with, these people are all buddies. They all have the same political persuasion.
|
| |
COMMENT 324259
|
2012-09-26 10:11 AM |
|
What a joke! They needed the das boot!
|
| |
*** One comment was removed from this thread by the Edhat Board Nanny for violating Edhat Comments Board policy. Click Here to see it.
