AnonymousBy Stephen Meade
I have been told Measure T is simple; a yes vote will stop the hotel project. I question that, if it was as easy as yes or no, why is there no mention of a hotel in the wording of Measure T?
Truth is, it’s complicated.
The City Attorney wrote an impartial analysis of Measure T and warned the initiative would create multiple problems and could only be undone by another election. 4 out of 5 members of the City Council called the wording of Measure T “dishonest and unfair” and added “The unclear provisions of Measure T would draw expensive litigation.”
Proponents of Measure T say we can’t trust our city attorney or the city council, claiming that they are not listening to the people.
When exactly did that happen?
For 57 years, Carpinteria’s city council, planning commission and legal staff have created the town you see today. The General Plan developed in 2003, updated in 2011 and again in 2018 invited participation from all citizens. Many hearings and meetings on how we want the city to look have been very public and well publicized.
When signatures were gathered for Measure T, proponents told me multiple times the effort was to “give people a voice.” Again, not a word was spoken about the hotel, just a plea to “save open space” because the government wasn’t listening.
Accusing our city leaders of not listening is simply incorrect and frankly quite rude. Our city council is made up of good people who have studied city needs based on years of public input.
If Measure T is about saving a parking lot, I believe we all have better things to do. If measure T is about stopping a hotel, proponents should write an initiative that says that rather than hiding behind the myth of saving open space.
I stand with the city attorney and 4 out of 5 elected city leaders, Wade Nomura, Ben Lee, Greg Carty and Natalia Alarcon. Vote no on Measure T.
Op-Ed’s are written by community members and local organizations, not representatives of edhat unless explicitly stated. Nevertheless, the views and opinions expressed in Op-Ed articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of edhat.
Do you have an opinion on something local? Share it with us at info@edhat.com.
[Editor’s Note: Stephen Meade is a Carpinteria resident and member of the edhat staff]
“why is there no mention of a hotel in the wording of Measure T?”
Because that’s not how zoning laws work.
“The City Attorney wrote an impartial analysis of Measure T”
Which says
“These changes would prohibit commercial development” and “development of the Surfliner Inn would not be possible”
“warned the initiative would create multiple problems”
I can’t find any warnings or the use of the word “problem” in the analysis, That statement is the arch opposite of an impartial analysis–it’s a very partial interpretation by the OP.
The OP says both “I have been told Measure T is simple; a yes vote will stop the hotel project” and “proponents told me multiple times the effort was to “give people a voice.” Again, not a word was spoken about the hotel” — the OP doesn’t seem to be able to decide what he was or wasn’t told.
“If measure T is about stopping a hotel, proponents should write an initiative that says that”
The impartial analysis that the OP touts says that.
I don’t live in Carp, I don’t know anything about the plans there or the background, I don’t have a dog in this fight and I don’t know whether Measure T is good or bad. What I do know is that this Op-Ed is an intentionally misleading piece of propaganda.