Edhat Reader
By Denice Spangler Adams
Have you every heard the expressions: Caution, it’s a slipper slope that could pick up momentum; or PAUSE, it’s best to wait to think now steps ahead to consider the possible consequences before proceeding.
Having been an activist in statewide public policy formation since 1978, I don’t hear either expression often enough from elected officials. I do know now is the time to PAUSE with our NO votes, as once advised in 2016 by then City Councilman Gregg Hart.
2016, I first heard “PAUSE” from Councilman Hart after I had moved here in February 1980. I had worked diligently for 17 years trying to gain City of Santa Barbara’s compliance with Proposition 218-2016 which requires that all taxes and fees imposed by a public agency (SB Water District) must not be any greater than the “cost of service” to the individual.
Litigants prevailed in the San Juan Capistrano Case arguing that higher tiers do not involve higher costs per unit, and therefore violated Proposition 218. Dang! Locally, I and 7000 other water dependents were paying the SB Warer District 30% more for water. WHY? In my case, I ultimately paid over $178,000 more for water than my neighbor two doors down with a house in the city, only because my house is in the county.
Worse, the City had on my property one of its main city water lines serving Eucalyptus Hill properties (that I was told to “insert a straw for water, just don’t go public”). Even worse, a 1907 adjudicated Barker Pass Water Agreement gave me first rights to water. I had to spent weeks in the rat infested Archieves to find that BPW Agreement which I then had verified in writing by three still living former City Attorneys for presentation to then City Attorney Ariel Calzone, who agreed. It’s the law! Act! Act fast because I’m sinking from unlawful water bills! However, Councilman Hart said: PAUSE, let’s wait a year because if we comply with Prop 218 it could cost the city its entire reserve funds. We need a financial analysis, a solid plan to deal with compliance. Then turning to me, Hart added, I’m sure you understand.
Yep, I did understand and I prevailed to the benefit of 7000 locals.
Moreover, I learned that if a private citizen does not hold elected officials accountable, collectively we will be charged, taxed, and fee-ed until individually we are broke!
What troubles me is how civic duty is lost on most citizens, and why we aren’t organized into watchdog units to oversee and respond at public meetings. Unless and until we organize, it’s Que Sera, Sera.
By direct request, I was asked to oppose local Measure P2024 in the County’s Official Voter Ballot Guide because of 1) my highly involved 44 year history at SBCC, and 2) having defeated school bond measure L2020, which was subsequently reviewed by the SB Grand Jury and turned over for criminal prosecution. This also led to requests to oppose bonds Propositions 2 and 5.
All three — Measure P, Propositions 2 and 5 — are wastes of money that will increase the cost of housing. Prop 2 is bond financing for effectively only 3 of CA’s 116 community colleges. Nothing forecast for SBCC.
OF GREATER IMPORTANCE, MODIFICATION OF CA CONSTITUTION. If voters approve Proposition 5, it will lower the voting requirement needed from two-thirds to 55% to approve local bonds and increase property taxes to pay off bond debt for “affordable housing or public infrastructure projects”. Here’s the twist: What’s not been disclosed to voters is that bond financing for affordable housing can now be sneaked into voter approved school bond financing at 55% rather than 66.6%.
A recent SBCC consultant report suggests 400 units of 1500 needed units be pursued by Trustees. In response, an SBCC Trustee organized housing group is meeting. Trustee Croninger asked if these 400-1500 housing units are needed by in-District students; or needed by the majority of out-of-District enrolled students in our ‘community’ college funded only by local District taxpayers — you and me.
In 2000, California voters approved a similar to Measure 5 Constitutional Amendment Prop 39 lowering voter approval on school bonds from 66.6% to 55%.
Remember, under voter approved Prop 98, 50% of paid property taxes go to K-14 public schools with a discretionary reserve fund. A boatload of money is already sent to public K-14 schools. The shenanigans are another OpEd topic.
I voted NO on Propositions 2 and 5, and on SBCC’s Measure P.
These anti-tax complaints and fabrications sure get tiresome.
Did that fascist whackjob SBWoman really claim that your identity and salary are known, Anon?
Yes, and was spectacularly wrong. But that’s no surprise.
This was difficult to comprehend and seemed largely made up. Are there any facts or evidence to back Ms. Adam’s claims?
I’m all for cautionary spending but the no tax crowd is sure hard to get behind most of the time with their weird arguments and support of unrelated conspiracy theories.
I think the appropriate term is “gadfly”.
I can’t find any rational argument here. There’s a lot of irrelevant biography and then the completely unsupported claim that “All three — Measure P, Propositions 2 and 5 — are wastes of money that will increase the cost of housing”.
“I voted NO on Propositions 2 and 5, and on SBCC’s Measure P.”
Who cares what you did?
Oh look, the author is a Trumpkin: https://www.noozhawk.com/denice_spangler_adams_why_i_disagree_with_randy_alcorn_20201206/
Thanks for finding and sharing that. It explains her attempt at “the weave” in this column.
The author has published many editorials opposing Prop P. My favorite is the one in the far right rag SB Current, where the commenters include all my favorite arch right wingers like Thomas Cole, Lou Segal, Bill Clausen, and that old standby CarsAreBasic.
Oh my.
https://www.sbcurrent.com/
I hope some posters here find it; it’s a good place for them to hang out!
The campus is underutilized. There are no classes on Fridays, etc. City College enrollment peaked in 2010, at 18,761 full-time students. By 2023,
that number had fallen to 11,565, a nearly 40 percent drop. And of that greatly
diminished number of students in 2023, 39 percent of the classes those
students were taking were online-only—meaning students in those classes
didn’t need to set foot on campus
Q: Is there a difference between “Online” and “Zoom” video conference classes?
A: Your “Zoom” class may be listed as an “Online” class. However, some online classes have no times or days listed – these classes are not taught via Zoom. Zoom classes generally list specific times and dates. It is very important for you to check your campus email notifications from your instructor for class information and changes to the schedule. Below is a breakdown of the class formats:
Fully Online/Asynchronous: If your class is listed as “Online” with NO days and times listed in the class schedule, the class will be taught completely remotely. You will not be expected to log-in or attend at specific times for your class meeting.
In-Person/Face-to-Face: If your class lists a day, time AND a location (i.e., a room on campus) your class will meet in-person.
Hybrid: Your class might be a hybrid class meaning that you will be in-person for part of the course (day[s], time[s] and on-campus room location listed) and also be expected to complete some work remotely/online.
Hyflex: Class can be taken either in-person or via live videoconference (Zoom). These are synchronously taught.
Synchronous: If your class is listed with days and times in the class schedule, but lists “Online” as the location, please be prepared to attend the online course at the days and times listed. Your instructor will likely offer live, online, Zoom instruction at the time listed in the schedule of classes. It is important that you connect with your instructor for the Zoom link to the class.
Extended Learning Student Support Services
Honestly, Denice, I just get confused and tripped up following your discourses. I am not voting for P but it is not for the reasons you put out, it is because SBCC is large enough to accomplish its work already and we need a new administration to martial the available resources and redirect the mission away from athletics and international student tourism, both of which do harm to our local housing market as well.
Martial? I think the word you wanted was marshal. Maybe time for an English class. I hear SBCC is excellent.
Anonymous pedant, do you have a response to the argument or just to the obvious mistake? And, really, did you not get the point? Childish stuff.
Just pointing out how often the con commenters display a lack of education.
Who TF spends 178k on water?
$550/month for water sounds about right or even low for a hillside property in high fire zone: $178K divided by 27 years x 12 months.
High fire zone??? Must be from all the tar on the beach.
Not sure about that, I think she wrote “seventeen years”, which would pencil out to about 800.00 a month and she also wrote that she paid “178k MORE” than her neighbors, so 800.00 per month MORE than people two doors down–which might put here at 1200 a month (wild guess), which is still a fucking ridiculous use of water.
She also seems to have had seventeen years to figure out how to go to a creative lower water use approach and save herself a significant amount of money–seems like her priorities were maintaining an insanely wasteful water bill and then being mad about it.
People can spend their money however they want, but I don’t have a lot of sympathy when they cry about it afterwards.
I think the appropriate term is “gadfly”.
Gadfly: a person who stimulates or annoys other people especially by persistent criticism
//a political gadfly