Local Stories by Local People
updated: Dec 20, 2012, 10:05 AM

The City of Santa Barbara was ordered to pay $420,000 to three Sycamore Canyon property owners who were denied permits to rebuild their homes in the wake of the Tea Fire.

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

COMMENT 355975	2012-12-20 10:27 AM
This seems like a very complicated case that is not done justice by the short Independent article. It seems that the City or County allowed these houses to be built in the first place, but then passed an ordinance preventing them from being rebuilt. This of course would drop their property value by a lot, so I guess the Court sees it as a "taking"? Does the City continue to provide water and sewer service to this area? If so, it must not be that unstable. If the City has the money I wonder if they would purchase the homes at a fair value and remove them from the market? It would be interesting to see an in depth article on these issues, does anyone in SB do that anymore?
COMMENT 355980P	2012-12-20 10:33 AM
975, all you have to do is click "Tea Fire" at the top to see every article ever associated with it on the Independent. There are plenty of articles documenting the progress, and most if not ALL of your questions are answered in them. http://www.independent.com/news/tea-fire/
COMMENT 356062	2012-12-20 01:21 PM
Interesting - Steven Wiley objects to these people trying to rebuild due to some ordinance - yet when he built his new home in Ontare Hills he was able to circumvent the building plan approved by the city to in order to get his home built. Talk about a conflict of interest. Now city tax payers are on the hook for over $1.2M due to his ineptness in properly assessing this situation.
COMMENT 356088P	2012-12-20 02:26 PM
I admire anybody with the fortitude for a law degree. And Mr. Wiley seems to have made a smart move to stay in the public sector. A private practice or partnership wouldn't be so kind to him in terms of job security.
COMMENT 356151P	2012-12-20 04:48 PM
I didn't see the names of the parties involved. I know a lot of the homes were not rebuilt and the City was extremely slow about doing the permits. One person I know wanted to live on the property in a trailer, and the City wouldn't allow it. And, at the same time, the City wouldn't approve his permits...
COMMENT 356357P	2012-12-21 09:27 AM
I have not read up on the history of this issue. However it seems to me from the bare bones explanation provided by the Independent that rebuilding a home after a disaster is not "new" or "further" construction. And, if the City wants to condemn those sites, which it can do in the interest of public safety, it should invoke eminent domain and provide the property owners with replacement properties or compensation. There's plenty of precedent.
COMMENT 356387	2012-12-21 10:14 AM
Listening to the countless tales over the past 4 years of city ineptitude by a friend who had to deal with rebuilding their home after the Tea Fire, it would take a book the size of War & Peace to tell all.

57% of comments on this page were made by Edhat Community Members.

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