AnonymousBy Alan Koch
To City of Carpinteria Registered Voters:
The Rebuttal Argument in Favor of Measure T2022, signed by four City Council members [CVN 8/18/22], contends that the overall Measure is “misleading,” when, in fact, it is the Council’s statements that are intended to mislead and spread disinformation. To wit:
Statement 1. The assertion that if Measure T2022 is approved, it would make General Plan Changes that “could” lead to the replacement of the Garden by multi-family housing. This is false. Measure T2022 does not alter the Garden’s existing General Plan land use of Open Space Recreation (OSR) with a zoning designation of Recreation (REC).
The Rebuttal Argument in Favor of Measure T2022, signed by four City Council members [CVN 8/18/22], contends that the overall Measure is “misleading,” when, in fact, it is the Council’s statements that are intended to mislead and deceive. To wit:
Statement 1. The assertion that if Measure T2022 is approved, it would make General Plan Changes that “could” lead to the replacement of the Garden by multi-family housing. This is false. Measure T2022 does not alter the Garden’s existing General Plan land use of Open Space Recreation (OSR) with a zoning designation of Recreation (REC).
Statement 2. The assertion that Measure T2022 does not prevent development of Parking Lot 3; but, instead allows for development with high density, multi-family residential development. Again false. Parking Lot 3 is currently zoned to Commercial Property Development (CPD). Measure T changes this to Open Space Recreation (OSR) land use with zoning designation of Recreation (REC).
Per the City Staff 9212 Report (12/13/21), under state law, the density allowable for residential housing follows the underlying density consistent with the local open-space plan. The City’s REC Zone district for the above two parcels would only allow caretaker dwellings. Any additional residential development is not appropriate or permitted (page 11/paragraph 3).
The City Council’s Rebuttal will be published in every City voters’ 2022 Ballot Pamphlet. The Council members’ statements regarding the above two parcels are not factual. Their statements can only be viewed as politically motivated. With the intent to spread disinformation if Measure T2022 is passed to stop private development on our public parking lot.
Op-Ed’s are written by community members and local organizations, not representatives of edhat. 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.
