more articles like this

Second Sight: The memoir of Frank Frost (Part 3)
updated: Jan 01, 2011, 9:00 AM

By Frank Frost

| Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 |

In 1972, Frank Frost, then an associate professor of ancient history at UCSB, ran for county supervisor in what has been recognized as the first environmentally inspired campaign for that office. Santa Barbara voters were ready for the message, and Frost was able to eliminate Mayor Jerry Firestone in the June primary election. He would face Carpinterian George Bliss, a popular business leader, in November.

In recent years, Santa Barbara supervisorial campaigns have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. In a 2002 recall election, opponents of third district supervisor, Gail Marshall spent more than $800,000 to oust her - and lost - 54 to 46 percent. The recall supporters were primarily oil and development interests who were convinced that Marshall was holding up projects worth millions of dollars.

In 1972, the oil and development industries were thriving in Santa Barbara County. They had never thought to raise gigantic sums of money because they believed themselves firmly in control of county politics. In that sense, my campaign sandbagged them. With very limited money, I had printed a pamphlet and some posters with the headline: GIVE US BACK OUR SANTA BARBARA! I had decided not to run against my opponents, but concentrate community animosity against the people who had brought us the 1969 oil spill and were tearing up orchards to build housing tracts and inflate the population growth rate.

In early March, the Santa Barbara News Press invited me to write an op-ed column stating my views on growth and the local economy. Reading it today, I still find it well written and convincing, but boring and much too long. But I got my name and picture in the paper and friendly editors at the paper later wrote a generous profile, describing my views and background. I had enough money to publish a quarter page ad in the paper. It showed me in profile, saddened by the loss of our old Santa Barbara, blaming our woes on the oil industry and the developers, who were "working twenty-four hours a day" to destroy our environment and flood the quiet streets of our town with thousands of new residents.

The ad was a scandalous overstatement of questionable facts, in other words, a perfect bit of campaign advertising. At the bottom of the ad, sympathizers were invited to send me money to help publicize the serious issues about which I was warning the community. A week later I was amazed to tote up the flow of checks and find that contributions had actually paid for the ad twice over. I told Tom Kleveland that I thought I might actually win this thing. Why not, he said. As an old newspaperman with contacts everywhere, he had heard that there was consternation in many quarters over my candidacy. The election was supposed to have been clear-cut between Jerry Firestone and George Bliss. A third candidate was not only a complication; it could possibly continue the campaign past the June primary and into the November election.

But my appeal to stop growth was winning me an amazing number of friends. I had hoped that environmentally minded Democrats would prefer me to Jerry Firestone and had worried that the wealthy, highly Republican enclave of Montecito - entirely within my district - would throw all its weight to George Bliss. Not at all. My old employer at the San Ysidro Ranch, Al Weingand, called me as soon as he heard about my campaign.

Al was a legend in Santa Barbara. He and Ronald Colman had transformed the Ranch in the 1930s into a secluded hideaway for show business celebrities and the elite of the eastern seaboard. Al was the most affable and gregarious of hosts and knew everyone within a day's ride from Santa Barbara. Although a Democrat, he was on friendly terms with all the local Republicans. That day in early 1972 when he called, he told me, "Frank, Jerry Firestone just called me up and asked for my endorsement. And George Bliss called last week. I had to tell them both, ‘you are all fine friends and distinguished community leaders. But only Frank Frost has played the piano for me at the Plow and Angel and I'm going to support him.'" That was pure Al Weingand. More to the point, he informed me that many Montecitans were concerned about the rapid growth of the Santa Barbara area. "They'll vote for you, Frank," he said. "But more important, they'll write checks. And he organized a number of cocktail parties at which I could make my pitch and shamelessly ask for funding.

Very important in Santa Barbara were local forums, where the candidates could debate and face relentless questioning from citizens of all demographics and levels of adjustment. I found that I was running with a like-minded candidate for the third district, a lawyer named Jim Slater. We were thought to be young, idealistic, unrealistic environmentalists and the cynics didn't give either of us a chance. At the end of one of these forums, we were all having a convivial drink at a bar in Goleta when a slick, out-of-town type, who was a George Bliss campgain "consultant," took me aside.

"Frank," he said, "You've got great political potential, good looks, you talk a good line. You'll go far some day. But this isn't the race you're looking for."

I told him that I thought I had made it obvious that, first, I had no interest in a political career, and second, that the First District Supervisor position was exactly where I thought I could make a difference. He laughed and clapped me on the back. "You're a good man. But George Bliss is going to win this thing and all he needs to do is beat Firestone." He lowered his voice. "Most of these people out there don't realize that Jerry Firestone is a Jew. This just isn't a Jewish town, and when it's clear that Jerry is one of the chosen people you're going to see some changes."

I could hardly believe what I was hearing. It sounded like bad dialogue from a bad movie from a different era. "You're going to run ads telling people that Jerry is a Jew?" I asked, trying to stay calm. He just smiled and winked. In fact, no trace of anti-Semitism ever entered the campaign and I never saw the "consultant" again. I like to think that he broached his ideas to George Bliss and George canned him.

We sailed into the June election with great confidence. I was getting great response at community meetings and the money kept coming in. I had decided that all I needed was newspaper advertising and the publicity I was getting from the media covering campaign events. In those days, no one ran polls and few people were willing to predict the election, although privately, the prevailing opinion was that Bliss and Firestone would prevail and go on to the general election in November.

RUN-OFF ELECTIONS FOR SUPERVISOR IN TWO DISTRICTS was the headline in the News Press on 6 June. George Bliss had the lead with 8784 votes, I had 6532, and Jerry was out of the running, with 5495.

The coming runoff in November might have been close, but George Bliss torpedoed his own campaign, finally and utterly, in fact had made the fatal error even before the June election in the trial of sheriff's captain Joel Honey.

[ go to part four ]

***

Opinions expressed on Edhat websites are those of the author and do not reflect the viewpoints or beliefs of Edhat, Inc., its management, it Board of Directors, its owners, or its staff. Edhat is not liable for comments and statements made by guest contributors.

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

COMMENT 132355P	2011-01-01 10:48 AM
Thanks for posting these, Frank. They are very interesting.
COMMENT 132378	2011-01-01 11:57 AM
"flood the quiet streets of our town with thousands of new residents" So it was ok to object to such population growth in the 70s, but not today? Why can't we even question if there should be limits to population growth and immigration nowadays without being called racist by the Democratic establishment? Huh Frank?
COMMENT 132426P	2011-01-01 02:42 PM
@378 -- probably because the Democrat establishment has changed. It was then quite old guard, including, yes, from Montecito which was not all Republican by any means. And the price of housing had not skyrocketed, as it did in the 90's. The Democrat establishment now is such as Williams, House, Larimore-Hall, Uribe.... And, another reason, also, risking being called racist, it would be interesting to know the percentages of Hispanic-"White" now as compared with then.
COMMENT 132475	2011-01-01 07:05 PM
As an old time SB Dem, we did not leave the local Dem Party. It left us. Daraka-Das Dems can still blindside local voters so the machine rolls on, but with fewer and fewer genial sorts among the true Marxist believers that steer its fate now. Stoker showed the former Dem majority is shrinking, shrinking shrinking. This is a good trend. House called it right on Rowse because he too must have felt the old style Dem majority was put at risk by the new Dem-Das-Dar unholy trinity that has gone too far out of touch with local sensibilities.
COMMENT 132540P	2011-01-02 09:52 AM
Uribe is the new Democratic establishment?
COMMENT 132547	2011-01-02 10:04 AM
Thanks, Frank. I lived in Montecito and remember your campaign well. Thought you were a really great supervisor. Sorry to read the "sour grapes" commentary about you. The disgruntled man doesn't realize history is the memory of people and events, as each person remembers it. Your experience and memory of it is different than his, neither of you is likely right or wrong. Looking forward to your next installment.
COMMENT 132555	2011-01-02 10:12 AM
Apparently "Marxist" is the new "Nazi" for absurd critical conflation when one runs out of debating points based in reality.
COMMENT 132557	2011-01-02 10:13 AM
Uribe got the official Dem Central benediction in the last city council race. She as chosen as the fresh new face for the SB Dem Party in Santa Barbara over far more qualified and loyal long time Dem party supporters. Too bad her drunk driving problems tanked her budding campaign as she had the progressive party line memorized down to their finest details. She departed gracefully and one can only wish her well.
COMMENT 132560	2011-01-02 10:18 AM
My question for the Uribistas and David A. Pritchett is the same as for Mr. Frost. How can one claim to be concerned about sustainability and women's rights without being concerned about overpopulation and high birth rates. California's population is growing by over 300,000 a year -- how can this be viewed as sustainable? Teenage pregnancies and lack of family planning are the biggest obstacle to educational achievement and economic success for young women, and especially among Latinas. Or maybe the Reconquista agenda trumps all? Hard questions, but we have to ask them if we're going to view ourselves as a single, sustainable community instead of a collection of squabbling ethnicities fighting for ownership of the most desirable parts of California.
COMMENT 132581	2011-01-02 11:04 AM
Marxist is short-hand for the anti-capitalist, hate the rich, demonize corporate fat cats and celebrate mandated wealth re-distribution wing of the Democratic Party.
COMMENT 132583P	2011-01-02 11:07 AM
And blanket statements that have no basis in fact that demonize the party you don't belong to are what? Communist? What name do you want to call THAT? Ridiculous. At least stick to the topic and pretend to be making a contribution rather than a political statement.

36% of comments on this page were made by Edhat Community Members.

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

Comments on this thread are only open to Community Members.

# # # #