Subscriber Comments for
Chick-fil-A

Comments in order of when they were received | (reverse order)

COMMENT 305839	2012-08-08 12:10 PM
Thank you for your thoughtful, commendable response, Mayor. Now call for the board members' resignations. It is unconscionable if they are allowed to remain in their posts. This is not Stalinist Russia.
COMMENT 305840	2012-08-08 12:13 PM
This was good. Approve the changes,unless they want to install big plastic chickens or anti-gay propoganda on the property. People that don't agree with their beliefs won't eat their food. If they don't make enough money then they won't stick around for long. Approve it and then let us citizens decide what to do...
COMMENT 305843P	2012-08-08 12:17 PM
Indeed, agreed that the resignations of the ABR members should be called for and a special set of applications called for. Unfortunately, that will seriously impact those with projects already in the pipeline, but given the history of the ABR (and how the city did nothing about the FPPC finding of the ethics violation, with the fine of one of the ABR members) the board should be reconstituted. Having presently practicing architects on that Board is an invitation to cronyism and worse. But as for the mayor's letter, well said. I noted that she said the County supported gay marriage; did the city of Santa Barbara, as well? Anyone know? ...not that it matters re ABR, but I am curious.
COMMENT 305846	2012-08-08 12:21 PM
If Helene truly wanted to be a leader, she would have called for all Santa Barbarans who share her feelings about marriage to never step foot in Chick-fil-A.
COMMENT 305848	2012-08-08 12:24 PM
Helene don't you have better things to focus on? Such as cleaning up the vagrants that continue to harass the people that live here. Oh I forgot, you brought them here, and want "equality for all". (sigh)
COMMENT 305849	2012-08-08 12:24 PM
This is the second time ABR members have had an ethics conflict with the public this year. Clean house. They are already doing ethics education on another conflicts of interest matter which was in itself egregious. This latest dust-up shows they either need a lot more ethics education as to their roles, limits and duties or they should be asked to leave the board. Does civic volunteerism still carry civic ethics any longer? This issue may well go a lot deeper. Mayor Schneider was a class act showing leadership for the whole and not for a special interest and that deserves a lot of credit, as qualified as her statement of principles was, she at least drew a bead on the substantive issue. Back to basics: How do they get appointed and who holds them to any standards. What does it take to get them removed? There is a mix of public and professional members. Who have been the biggest offenders to date? Which city council majority appointed them.
COMMENT 305850	2012-08-08 12:25 PM
843P: County Clerk's publicly available statistics show that the City of Santa Barbara voted "No" on 8: No 46127 46178 92305 53.53% Yes 36765 43352 80117 46.47% So almost the inverse of the statewide average. Source. (Remove the <*br> page break tag from the link. Edhat inserts them for some reason. Absolutely maddening.)
COMMENT 305863	2012-08-08 01:10 PM
All the stores I've seen look nice.
COMMENT 305865	2012-08-08 01:12 PM
Cleaning house is not easy when the Board is an all-volunteer position with specific background & expertise required and the job is a huge drain of time and energy.
GREG	2012-08-08 01:14 PM
Excellent, thoughtful response, Helene. Thank you.
COMMENT 305873	2012-08-08 01:17 PM
@865 And time is money. I wonder how many members of the "outraged public" would be willing to sacrifice their time, energy, and money purely in the interests of civic service. Any volunteers with both the necessary qualifications and the willingness? *crickets*
COMMENT 305877	2012-08-08 01:19 PM
Thank you Helene!
CAPTAIN HALEY	2012-08-08 01:19 PM
I don't see any need for changing the ABR. The only thing they did was postpone the vote for two weeks. And, if I understand correctly, the restaurant owner has all the required permits in hand. This is hardly Stalinist Russia, guys...
COMMENT 305882	2012-08-08 01:25 PM
As I understand it the members of the ABR have not voted against the project based on their conflict of interest rather they abstained from voting because of the conflict of interest which is exactly what the mayor has called for here. Asking civil servants to resign, as Mr Hotchkiss has, because they should not let conscience dictate professionalism is a high standard no proponent of it can live up to, least of all Mr. Hotchkiss.
COMMENT 305849	2012-08-08 01:26 PM
It is not public service to violate the obligations of the office. No, these people don't get a pass for being volunteers. This position is more likely abused for one's own business benefits anyway, than exerting any "sacrifice" of time and effort volunteering for this position. Time for true independence on public boards and commissions. And a way to quickly remedy those who clearly get off track and shirk their primary obligations. Plus these are young-buck architects who favor putting up jarring and ugly buildings in the first place - edgy modern seems to be their favorite genre. Get some people who care about Santa Barbara, and not their own careers and esoteric artistic sensibilities
COMMENT 305888P	2012-08-08 01:34 PM
Both the ABR and the HLC (Historic Landmarks Commission) have become populated by arrogant, high-handed, egotistic tyrants who think that their appointments allow them to abuse their authority and do anything they want to applicants without restraint. The time has come to remove these little jerks and reform the entire culture of corrupt review bodies in Santa Barbara.
COMMENT 305892P	2012-08-08 01:41 PM
The ABR's job is narrowly defined and the items they consider should not drag political overtones into it. If they accepted a position of public trust - volunteer or not - and can not fulfill the obligations of that job they should resign. As a supporter of marriage equality and the 1st Amendment I think the Mayor's response was excellent but would hope the council moves to make changes to the current makeup of the ABR.
COMMENT 305893	2012-08-08 01:44 PM
Wouldn't it be Stalinist USSR as Russia was just one state in the Socialist Paradise? What I find curious is in one jurisdiction we have a board that can stop something from being built, while in another jurisdiction they can cover a hillside with solar panels and say that there are no visual impacts. Do you think they can ever standardize their rules and regulations?
COMMENT 306014	2012-08-08 04:54 PM
Very well said. Truly the strongest stance that I (and those who also believe in equality for all Americans) can take is to steadfastly spend my money elsewhere. Thankfully, Santa Barbara is blessed with many choices when it comes to food. Thank you for your comment on the issue.
COMMENT 306043	2012-08-08 05:51 PM
Didn't the ABR have a person on it for several years that purported to be a licensed landscape architect, but had to resign after it came to light she wasn't actually licensed? I think her name was Carol. Does anybody know more about that?
COMMENT 306049	2012-08-08 06:08 PM
Bravo Mayor, well said, well spoken..
COMMENT 306050	2012-08-08 06:13 PM
now I know who not to re-elect next time this bias mayor's name shows up on the ballot. Keep you hands off my lunch Helene!
COMMENT 305849	2012-08-08 06:20 PM
This is a free speech issue: owner has a right to say what he believes in. Customers have a right to support, or stay away accordingly. These troubled ABR members could have used the public comment section of their ABR meeting to express their personal points of view. But when it came time to exercise their official authority, they needed to step back in their role of public representative and exercise their authority only within the scope of their job description. More disturbing is no one else on the ABR raised any objections about this misuse or contravention of ABR authority. They rather slavishly went along with this ersatz "politically correct" line of thinking, like robotic automotons. That is more disturbing in the larger picture. Those other members on the ABR thought this personal expression abuse was "okay" as an official act.
COMMENT 306055	2012-08-08 06:25 PM
050, did you read the same thing that everyone else did? Helene is keeping her hands off your lunch, as she believes it's not her, the ABR or the city's place to determine whether or not a restaurant is acceptable to open based on political or religious ideology. She herself will not be dining there, and that is her prerogative. But she does not support the ABR's decision to abstain for two weeks for what appear to be political reasons. Or you know. You can infer whatever meaning you want from it, I guess...
COMMENT 305839	2012-08-08 07:49 PM
Captain Haley - Because you said, "The only thing they did was postpone the vote for two weeks" you missed the point of this brouhaha. Think about the reason given as to WHY they postponed the vote. So, in fact, the allusion to 'Stalinist Russia' is apt. Or 'Stalinist USSR' if one wants to nit pick as another poster seems to want to. Big philosophical things at stake within this tempest-in-a-teapot that are worth thinking about and discussing in this public forum.
COMMENT 306079	2012-08-08 07:59 PM
I can see both sides of this. I can see that we need to be completely true to the aspect of separation of church and state (this even applies to businesses that adopt arcane attitudes based on their faith.) I also see that we have to stand up for people's basic civil rights. As far as the Supes go, I'm not sure I agree OR disagree with the idea that they need to be concerned with Chik Fil A's political and religious standing. It's a tough call. You don't want to punish someone because their business is based in what some people view as hate-thinking. But you also don't want to be the person who sits down when what you feel is wrong comes by at at time when you can do something about it. This, by the way, has nothing to do with Russia. It's the US and our state and it's happening here. Ad hominems don't help.
COMMENT 306087	2012-08-08 08:21 PM
Im not impressed with this response. It is well written, and merely a justification for allowing a business which is known to be bigoted to move into Santa Barbara. I agree that the ARB is not the forum for a no..but who IS letting this company in? To say that well, let the people decide is crazy. I say no to bullying and bigotry..period. Would it be ok to allow a company in who publicly flaunts an anti Semetic policy? Or how about KKK donuts? Seems like we dont need this kind of mindset in our town...nope..I dont want them here..nor their bigoted jobs, nor their bigoted taxes..let's improve the community in a positive way. I dont want to be a part of the city who said yes to a bigoted company despite its voters pro LGBTQ stance.
COMMENT 306090	2012-08-08 08:30 PM
As long as CFA isn't breaking the law in some respect (and to my knowledge, they have yet to break any federal/state/municipal anti-discrimination laws), it simply isn't the place of a city government (or state government, or the federal government) to restrict their ability to operate. While I appreciate your sentiment (and agree, at least on an emotional level), it's just not the way we do things. If we started banning companies from operating based on the actions of their executive officers...well, there'd be a lot less companies operating around here. Also, while I see what you were getting at, there's a big difference between a business operating as a discriminatory entity and one that is run by intolerant, bigoted individuals. A huge, huge difference. There's no "God Hates _____" chicken fingers at CFA.
SBITIZEN	2012-08-08 09:59 PM
079 Another basic right would be freedom of speech guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. The ABR members acted inappropriately as the Mayor said, I would take it a step further and say they need to go and I am someone who does support Marriage Equality.
COMMENT 306147	2012-08-09 07:14 AM
As an independent I always chuckle when Liberals, who fancy themselves so 'tolerant', continually show us otherwise as they prove themselves often to be rabidly 'INTOLERANT' of anybody who things differently than they do. Shame on you all. Tolerance is tolerance, not just tolerance of things and opinions you like. If they can't do their job, resign, if they won't resign, remove them. Tolerance should be especially required of city officials.
COMMENT 306180	2012-08-09 08:17 AM
I think the whole controversy started with the CEO of the restaurant being asked a question (by a religious entity I believe), to which he responded that he supported traditional marriage. That is a far cry from being anti gay or evidence of any discrimination on a business or personal level. It is also way different than calling a press conference and saying whatever he said. I t also was not at a company sponsored event. If we can't talk or share the same space with people who think differently, we are in deep doo doo. Maybe we are there now. Many, if not most, think differently than do I. That's to be expected.
COMMENT 306183P	2012-08-09 08:23 AM
849 I agree; it's a free speech issue; nobody is forcing folks to eat there. Put your money where your mouth is.
COMMENT 306190	2012-08-09 08:30 AM
This issue is NOT about what Cathy said in that publication. It is about the MILLIONS of dollars that his company donates to EXTREME anti-gay groups. We are talking groups that actually advocate for all gays TO BE KILLED. This is not a joke. Cathy is damaging our nation. These anti-gay groups are no better than the KKK. This is not just about what Cathy says. It is about the evil that he is actively promoting against gays using the money he receives from every CFA franchise. C'mon people. Look beneath the surface of an issue for once in your life.
COMMENT 305849	2012-08-09 08:51 AM
Having been now just scolded for "not looking beneath the surface for once in our lives", the poster making that statement is actually the one who needs to look a lot deeper. The deeper issue whether any individual's idea of political correctness should trump fundamental constitutional rights in the application of public policy. In this case, individual members of the ABR on their own initiative substituted their personal values of political correctness for established public policy, which they are not allowed to do. That is the deeper issue. Even deeper is the chilling effect of "political correctness" on constitutionally protected freedom of expression. The poster who thinks we did not dig deeply enough into the private life of the applicant needs to be reminded no one is forced to patronize this establishment, and that is as far as this needs to go under the current laws.
YIN YANG	2012-08-09 08:57 AM
Whatever happened to good old individual boycotts?! One person, one action. I've never eaten at a Carls Jr. for political reasons, but I've never eaten at a Burger King either, just because. Mcdonalds? 4-5 times; once a decade. Yes, of course I patronize grocery stores. I am unable/ unwilling to afford free range meat. I eat very little meat & gave up on salmon (farmed) many years ago. I make a small statement by boycotting fast food in general. I will boycott the fast food outlet in question on social/justice/political principles, along with having no interest in their food. Thanks, Helene; well stated, well handled. I've always appreciated Helene. I worked with her 18 or so years ago. I have direct experience with her; how she works; how she solves problems in groups and individually; how she works with others. She has superb interactive & people skills. She's one of the most competent, cool-headed, smartest and most people-savvy individuals I have ever known; she was a joy to work with. She's also extremely kind. Given that, I do not agree with all her political positions. The poster who pointed out that people are not leaping to be on the ARB (if it were to be dissolved or just had openings) had a very good point. On the other hand, yes, you'd think some local professionals would really want to get on the board. But I always hear that gov't is searching for board members. I would like to know how many would be eagerly waiting in the wings. I too agree that the ARB's behavior and their votes were absolutely inexcusable. I don't think that firing all of them or dissolving the board is the best solution, though I may well be wrong. They should all be ashamed of themselves and their conduct. And they should know the requirements and methodology of their position! I agree that recusal was more appropriate than abstention. Maybe they all are unfit to be on the Board. We can all think & act for ourselves! Perform your own boycott. So simple. DON'T BUY THE PRODUCT.... [ more ]
YIN YANG	2012-08-09 09:09 AM
The rest of my verbose post: We can all think & act for ourselves! Perform your own boycott. So simple. DON'T BUY THE PRODUCT. Stunning how America has changed since the late 70's - early 80's. We really do now try to effect, convince, or even force others to live by our opinions, in very nasty ways. It's not good; it's not polite or constructive, nor is it what I perceive to be the American, democratic way. It's part of the raging, nasty, vitriolic, and wholly counter-productive interaction of our populace, political parties and politicians. We can complain about this little stuff while wars continue and the environment degrades. I got onto the food tangent just because I'm really into food. Chick Fil A has every right to open and run a business here. And I have every right to never step foot on their property or spend any money there. Remember the Constitution?! I'll shut up now!
COMMENT 306257	2012-08-09 10:04 AM
I will NEVER set foot inside a Chick-Fil-A. Never ever. I don't support hate.
COMMENT 306268	2012-08-09 10:18 AM
This type of "priority" is why SB is finished..1st,the Mayor only says what she does in hopes of being re-seated in the next vote...& does`nt anybody realize we live down the coast from a vulnerable nuclear plant?,with earthquakes striking daily?,we`re about out of fresh water,almost bankrupt & the folks on the "hill" [Montecito] won`t save the city because they`re gonna stay rich no matter what happens to SB.,we have corruption in every room of city gov.,stabbings & rapes, & now the hills are gonna do their seasonal burn...panga boats bring immigrants & disease as well as drugs [poisonous herion]..So does it REALLY matter if a chicken sales-man does`nt approve of gay marriage? SB is a prostitute who`s congregation prays to the $.
COMMENT 305849	2012-08-09 11:19 AM
The culture of political correctness has undermined America. It has become a law unto itself with hair-splitting pettiness. There is nothing wrong with guidelines for thoughtful reflection to insure we remain a land of equal opportunity. However, political correctness as exercised today demands guaranteed equal outcomes, regardless of effort or personal responsibility. America's future is in your hands, folks.
COMMENT 306320	2012-08-09 11:29 AM
Certainly the political beliefs of corporate officers, shareholders, etc. should not affect decisions of our design review boards. The fact that Mr. Cathy is a bigot is reason to boycott his operations, but not deny him project review. [Our community has long hosted the corporate headquarters of CK Enterprises, despite Carl Karcher's similar inclinations.] However, the policies and actions that the company may or will take in our community should be considered. If there is reason to believe that the store will discriminate against any segment of our community, we cannot fault our commissioners for refusing to cooperate with their plans. Many of us proudly wore "NOT IN OUR TOWN" buttons for years, to say that Santa Barbara will not condone prejudice against any group of our residents. IF ABR members had a rational reason to believe that this corporation encourages discrimination by its management, abstaining from any vote that would allow them to operate here is entirely appropriate, indeed praiseworthy.
COMMENT 306352	2012-08-09 12:24 PM
The problem is that, outside of some noxious views held by its corporate officers, there is no proof that CFA (specifically, since it's relevant to this conversation) has discriminated against anyone. Whether it's customers or employees. We can talk hypothetical scenarios all we want but ultimately the ABR's decision to abstain for "political" reasons was wrong. :\
COMMENT 306398	2012-08-09 01:33 PM
Now Santa Barbara is turning into a national (international!) laughing stock as major media outlets pick up this story. Way to go ARB.
COMMENT 305849	2012-08-09 02:24 PM
Collectively if ABR members colluded by omission or commission to deny the applicant his due process rights and offered no grounds for cure or appeal within the guidelines of their discretionary power, there is a problem. ABR members are not handed a blank check when they exercise their powers. They approve or deny permits based upon objective criteria and support their judgement calls on those criteria with objective facts. This is the only way to run a public agency. This is what the law supports. These ABR members have some "splainin" to do. The applicant deserves no less. And that is the law. "We don't like you and what you stand for" is not a reason. Sorry.
COMMENT 306483	2012-08-09 03:49 PM
I haven't read the mayor's letter, but my position is that if the business up to be reviewed was run by a KKK member who espoused racism, I'd personally abstain. Likewise for Chick-fil-A.
COMMENT 306511P	2012-08-09 04:46 PM
Just to cut through the hysteria and off-topic rambles... 1) purpose of ARB = approve matters of design 2) Chick-Fil-A submission = meets all reasonable standards 3) Pass or not based on merit 4) ARB inaction and response doesn't address their mission 5) Say good bye to ARB members and appoint new ones willing to carry out their stated purpose. 6) Next?
COMMENT 306852	2012-08-10 11:48 AM
To those who say the company has done nothing except have anti-gay views...check this out. http://www.joshuakennon.com/chick-fil-a-anti-gay/ the company actively give money, publicity, and verbalizes bigotry and hate towards the LGBTQ community. It is well documented, and factual. Please done minimize it or justify it. Just call them bigots.
COMMENT 306864	2012-08-10 12:08 PM
The board members are lazy arm chair activists.. the worst kind. If Mr. Mosel was so invested with his cause he would have investigated Chick Fil A long ago and recused himself when the company first went before the ABR months ago. To do it NOW is jumping on a band wagon. Stand up earlier and I would actually think you know of what you spew. Mayor, you too. Your OPINION of gay marriage has nothing to do with this. You should be helping business move to town. Capitalism is a beautiful thing if government stays out of it. People vote with their pocketbook. If the people don't want the product, the business closes. The board members need to go.

21% of comments on this page were made by Edhat Community Members.

*** 3 comments were deleted from this thread by the Edhat Board Nanny for violating Edhat Comments Board policy. Click Here to see them.

EDHAT COMMENTS POLICY