Anonymous
By Jerry Roberts
Key differences emerged among the four candidates for City Council in Santa Barbara’s Westside District during a one-hour Newsmakers TV roundtable discussion this week, over issues from rent control and granny units to how much population the city can support, at a time when each of them is calling to expand housing construction.
Each of the contenders also confronted tough questions that have been raised about their campaign: Oscar Gutierrez addressed charges he would be a puppet of Mayor Cathy Murillo; Elizabeth Hunter sought to explain how she could square the time commitment needed from a council member with the demands of being a full time college student; Ken Rivas explored reasons why he has not received major endorsements despite years of community activism; and Michael Vidal set forth some reasons why he has never voted in Santa Barbara.
At the same time, the rivals found common ground on immigration (they all think Santa Barbara should be a “sanctuary city”), State Street panhandlers (they don’t believe street people are a major cause of decline along the city’s main retail corridor) and the need to fight for more services and resources in District 3 (they say that City Hall has historically neglected the Westside).
Read more on newsmakerswithjr.com
Would Vidal be so independent? I see that Vidal has taken money from the short-term rental “king”. SB fought hard for a reasonable short term rental policy. I would hate to think that might be re-considered if Vidal would win.
Looking at Roger’s police blotter calls, keep in mind many of city-funded law enforcement calls go to the east and west sides of town, along with the downtown commercial area. When one asks for “more services” for their own district, keep in mind how much of the city budget funding is already going to various geographical districts already. Police and fire take up 50% of the city budget – so reducing the need for police and fire demands on the budget is the only way there will be more funding for other city services. Which is unlikely considering the increasing city pension demands that are escalating every year. Which candidate fully understands the city’s current income and expense inter-relationship?
If this is the case, the short-term rental people are wasting their money. The people have already spoken – STR policy has been established by the past city council and it will not be changing. At some point the city has to stop working against itself. Eg: demanding more residential housing units while at the same taking housing units off the table for STR; spending and committing more than it can responsibly bring in; promoting the city’s small town charm as a tourism revenue draw, while approving high rise, high density with high parking and traffic congestions, along with zero architectural compatibility to the prevailing aesthetics that made this city unique. STR’s and high rise, high density infill development crowding out the Westside small residential family units is a loss this city cannot sustain. Nor is rent control the answer either- both will inflict long term and permanent damage to this down. There is no reason Santa Barbara alone must provide housing for Goleta’s commercial growth machines, including UCSB. Which candidate can and will simply say no to these competing pressures And mean it..
Pathetic! District elections resulted in 4 very weak candidates . Do I vote for the continued deterioration of SB? Vidal, the outsider by virtue of not being born & raised on the Westside, is the only candidate marginally qualified to read, understand, and address financial and public policy issues. The others seem hopeless. Isn’t it time to demand SB to include on the ballot ‘none of the above’? It’s outrageous to learn there’s no candidate knowledge that District 4 residents are SB’s primarysource of revenues while Districts 1 & 3 require majority of social services, public housing, public school meal subsidies, and costly law enforcement interactions. It’s shameful that 65% of children require publicly paid case management, to be fed and too many housed, at taxpayer expense with parents entitled to whatever City gives away at a cost to others – me – struggling to live here, too. None of the District 3 candidates get the big picture. Let’s hope District 6 delivers smart, wise, executive level, fiscal savvy candidates. With that said, Vidal seems best of 4. Perhaps folks don’t vote when there’s no stand out choice. I support ending sanctuary statehood that is unconstitutional and unlawful. Who do I vote for? Do I stay home because there’s no choice between the 4?
The best of available lousy options, after viewing this and attending a forum, seems to be Vidal. I’ll vote Vidal hoping to stop the other 3 from holding leadership positions way over their abilities.
Oscar = Puppet of Murillo, Unions & Hart – They gave him 58% ($9,000.00) of his campaign contributions to date. He could never win without their talking points, money or support. He has no experience that can be translated to the City Council unless he becomes their cameraman. You can’t govern a City with nearly $1 BILLION Dollars in liabilities with his experience or inability to grasps the issues. If you want the City to continue to be run by the likes of Murillo and the special interests of Unions and Developers choose him. If you want experience, skills, and the drive to Fight for residents and change the AUD choose Michael Vidal.
Were all puppets in one way or the otter.
unfair criticism. candidates get money from other candidates, unions, real estate developers, everyone. no reason to give back a campaign donation. if you really object, then find a way for folks to run without raising any money at all.
People living in other districts are quickly learning it matters who wins in city districts other than their own. If you like a candidate and feel their presence on city council best serves the entire city, find ways to support them even if you cannot vote for them. Volunteer- donate money – help get out the vote on election day, walk the precincts.
Ah the infamous Mary Rose. Runs campaigns, is running Oscar’s. Sits on the board of League of Women’s Voters, Santa Barbara Women’s Political Committee, Planned Parenthood, etc. Rigs these same groups’ endorsement for her candidates and makes sure the League doesn’t ask them any hard questions in forums. Democracy? No, more like a few people dealing themselves all the winning cards.
LWV Forum Rigged!?! Yes! Last week they said they had 1 more question. There was lots of activity in the back and suddenly there were 3 or 4 questions. The last question was: How many Council Meetings had the cadidates been too? Oscar totally LIED! People we’re laughing in the back. He said he had been to HUNDREDS! He was a cameraman for Carpinteria’s City Council they meet about 2x per month. Hunreds my axx! No way could he have been to hundreds. Overstating his experience, abilities and getting rigged questions! Apparently hiring a unethical (my definition) campaign manager and believing that he can, by osmosis, know what he needs to know about governing, bugets decision making is how he wants/thinks he can win… The LWV should be ashamed of themselves and boot Mary Rose and anyone too cosy with a candidate. The people that had the forum the week before did it right. I didn’t see anything like this. No questions planted for any candidates. Ditch the LWV Forums!
I sure could use 5,000 grand Maybe I should run from office.
“Transparent California” is just one of the many names used by the tax-exempt “free-market think tank” Nevada Policy Research Institute (NPRI). NPRI refuses to provide its own funding sources, stating, “NPRI respects the privacy of our donors, which includes the amount of a donor’s gift”.
NPRI’s primary funding source, as determined by The Conservative Transparency Project, is Donors Capital Fund, a dark-money source of funding for conservative groups. Its donors also include The Cato Institute, co-founded by the Koch brothers, and organizations affiliated with the climate change denial movement.
NPRI spends 75% of its revenue on six-figure salaries and benefits. Its goal is to undermine support for employee unions nationwide, thereby decreasing salaries and increasing corporate profits.
Oscar is DEFINITELY Murrillo’s Puppet!