• CREATE AN ACCOUNT
  • LOG.IN
  • CONTENTS
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • ARCHIVE
  • INFO | ADVERTISING | CONTACT US

  • Home
  • News
    • Business
    • NewsFlash
  • A&E
    • Movie Times
    • TV Listings
    • A&E Blog
    • Art Galleries
    • Best Bets
  • Opinion
    • Columns
    • Voices
    • Letters
    • In Memoriam
  • Events
    • Today
    • Search
    • Submit
    • Best Bets
  • Living
    • Travel
    • Sports
    • Peeps
  • Food & Drink
    • All Restaurants
    • Delivery
    • All Bars & Clubs
    • Drink Specials
    • Open Now
  • Outdoors
    • Outside Insider
    • Spotlight On
    • Features
  • Classifieds
    • Real Estate
    • Jobs
    • Autos
  • Personals
  • Obits

File photo by Paul Wellman

3rd District Supervisor Brooks Firestone


Burning Bridges

Mollie Drafts a Letter to the Board of Supervisors


Tuesday, August 21, 2007
By Mollie Vandor
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Contact an Editor
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us. del.icio.us.
Digg! Digg!
furl furl
google google
newsvine newsvine
reddit reddit
technorati technorati
Facebook Facebook
Yahoo! My Web 2.0 Yahoo!

Dear Board of Supervisors,

Like Britney Spears, you can't seem to get out of your own way, can you? And, continuing in the Britney-themed vein of the last column I wrote in response to the unmerited — and largely unmitigated — attacks on Isla Vista's festivities, all I can say is that you are creating a situation that will be nothing short of toxic should you continue on your current path.

Normally I wouldn't want to insult the fine men and women who selflessly serve Santa Barbara County, devoting countless quantities of time and effort to the Board of Supervisors, by comparing them to the bastion of bad decisions that is Britney Spears. But, this time, you deserve it. That's right, I've seen your agenda for this Tuesday's meeting, with that insidious little item entitled "Amended Ordinances for Isla Vista." And I'm pissed. How pissed? Let's just say that you're lucky I don't have an umbrella and easy access to your automobiles.

From extending the punishment for providing alcohol to minors to creating harsher financial penalties for playing loud music in the period before, during, and after Halloween, the Amended Ordinances are nothing short of a no-holds-barred attack on Isla Vista. You're even planning on amending a so-called "Nuisance Party Ordinance" passed in 2002, which "declares that a social gathering constitutes a public nuisance when three or more violations of local or state law ordinances occur. The proposed revisions would amend Section 36-6 of Chapter 36 of the Party Ordinance to include additional violations pertaining to fires, public nudity, urinating in public, and furnishing alcohol to a minor." What's the penalty for throwing a party deemed to be a public nuisance? A guaranteed misdemeanor charge, the possibility of prosecution "by county authorities in the name of the people of the state of California," and up to $500 in fines for multiple offenses.

Sure, unless you make the same mistakes more than once, you're most likely going to face fines of only about $100 for the first offense. And sure, that's about what you would spend to buy booze for a given party anyway. But, that's not the point. It's the principle of the thing. Much like Brit Brit, I feel as though the people of Isla Vista are under unfair and unmerited attack by forces beyond our control. You may not be as obnoxious as the stalkerazzi, but you sure are ballsy, given the fact that most of you will need our votes to win what looks to be a contentious reelection campaign in the near future — Brooksie, I'm talking to you in particular here.

If you think endorsing an ordinance that characterizes Isla Vista as a place full of "excessive and disturbing noise, and uncontrollable litter and waste," featuring "a hostile environment and diminished quality of life for the public and law enforcement officers" is the way to win over Isla Vistans, you are as deluded as Miss Spears herself. Attacking the so-called "party atmosphere" of I.V. is not the way to solve any problems.

The only thing you're guaranteed to accomplish with these new ordinances is the alienation of the Isla Vista electorate. Sure, we forgive you for taking our tax dollars without fixing I.V.'s sidewalks, streetlights, and similar public fixtures. And sure, we have patience with the protracted, probably-never-going-to-be-finished process of putting the Master Plan into place. And sure, we'll even conveniently forget the way you let political maneuvering get in the way of the residents' best interests when it came to the D.P. evictions and the Conquest Housing debacle. Because of our relatively temporary time of residence in Santa Barbara County, us Isla Vistans tend to be a pretty forgetful — and forgiving — bunch. But, you've started screwing our soirees. And that we won't stand for.

You see, men and women of the board, we know you have a point. Halloween has its problems, including those I mentioned above, along with many others. But what you don't seem to understand is that we have about as much to do with most of those problems as Britney does with writing her own music. It's a widely acknowledged fact that the vast majority of I.V.'s Halloween-related woes come from visitors, not residents. In a November, 2006 article published in The Daily Nexus, Santa Barbara Sheriff's Dept. Spokesman, Erik Raney said that over 80 percent of the people arrested during the 2006 Halloween festivities were visitors from out of town. Why should I.V. residents be blanket punished by extended ordinances prohibiting such relatively innocent activities as having live bands in our backyards and choosing not to wear clothing in the privacy of our own parties, when it's clearly out-of-town visitors who are to blame for most of the more-dangerous behaviors the board says it finds objectionable?

My fear is that these seemingly innocuous new amendments — a $100 fine isn't the end of the world after all — be as easy to abuse as Promises' lax policies on leaving the grounds during a rehab stint. And, in my opinion, they are just as ridiculous and liable to lead to just as slippery of a slope. If you want to do something about I.V.'s Halloween problems, don't make up silly laws and try to get them passed while most of the student population is away for summer vacation. Involve us, include us and encourage us to help come up with ways to make Halloween more local — which is really the only long-term solution I can see to help ensure the safety of I.V.'s residents during the holiday. I'm sure we'd be as happy to talk things out as Brit is to defend herself to any paparazzi who will listen — and infinitely more lucid and rational to boot. We're not all crazy partiers looking to drunkenly drain the county's coffers. We're students, we're county residents, and most importantly, we're voters. And, we are just as entitled to a safe and enjoyable celebration as Santa Barbara's older residents are to that other loud, alcohol-fueled mecca for out-of-towners in S.B. I think it's called Fiesta. And by the way, when was the last time someone was fatally shot during an I.V. Halloween party? A digression, I know, but food for thought nonetheless.

In conclusion, I am going to tell you the same thing I would like to say to Brit on behalf of all of us who bought her albums back in 1999, still harbor repressed teeny-bopper tendencies, and continue rooting for her success. I'm not mad. I'm disappointed. And I truly hope we can work this out, together, before you do anything else to ruin our relationship — for our sake and yours.

Sincerely,

Mollie Vandor

Story Help (Click-ability)
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.

Comments

Discussion Guidelines

I wonder where old BF got that red nose from, Maybe stumbling across Zaca Station road after a shindig?

He’s a hypocrite with an agenda.

easternpacific (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2007 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That is all nice and all Mollie, but are you and your 5000 friends there in Isla Vista actually going to vote for anyone but Firestone during the upcoming election on June 3, 2008 ?

Vote up or shut up.

FirstDistrictStreetfighter (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2007 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

UCSB is on a mission to clean up its image in case you are unaware. The entire part of that image is now on the shoulders of Isla Vista as the UCSB policy is no alcohol in the dorms.

They are continuing because it is paying off. The 2008 college rankings just released in US News and World Report places UCSB 3 spots higher as #44 now on par with UC Irvine. They made a very clear point during orentation that the uncontrolled party will stop one way or another.

NotForYou (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2007 at 8:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mollie - you missed the most harsh part of this County crackdown... an MIP or DUI (for under 21) causes the **loss of your driver's license**.

This is not mainly coming from BF... the County staff love to crack down on IV. The most sane guy is Sheriff Brown, and you would do well to cultivate him.

BF, after all, is in the alcohol biz, and is a bit of a party animal himself (that is where the red nose comes from).

The Streetfighter surely nose that Bill Wallace and Gail Marshall supported the crackdown in IV in their respective times.

Contrary to your belief, IV was totally lost by BF in `04, and it didn't matter one bit. However, to beat him you need a massive registration campaign to double the number of registered voters in IV. The last time IV did that was in the 1970's, when IV controlled the Goleta Water Board. And those folks that IV got on the Water Board turned around and stabbed IV in the back and kept IV out of the City of Goleta.

IV has at most a single friend out there in the County... and that friend is Sheriff Brown.

pardallchewinggumspot (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2007 at 11:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Fine UCSB for cramming to many mice into too small of a cage.

The City of Santa Barbara should enforce its original agreement with UCSB to limit enrollment back to reasonable levels. But then again State Education bureaucrats might lose their political kickbacks from their buddys the classroom and dorm development corporation.

Georgy (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2007 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yaow Georgy! IV is County land, and was zoned to that density at the behest of hundreds of out-of-town landlords in the late 1950's who wanted a killing.

City of Santa Barbara is more or less out of the picture... sure they own the airport, which is pretty unholy itself... connected by a water tube to the main city.

UCSB has kept its part of the enrollment deal, keeping students to under 20,000. Now they're asking for more ya know, but it ain't approved yet dude.

sevendolphins (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2007 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

FirstDistrictStreetfighter, not only does your comment exhibit utter disdain for Isla Vista voters; it also shows extreme ignorance. UCSB's students are an extraordinarily active electorate. On-campus voter registration efforts consistently register thousands more students to vote than any other UC campus, and Isla Vista has played a critical role in determining the outcome of many elections--including, most recently, Bill Brown's victory against incumbent sheriff Jim Anderson. Brown received a higher percentage of votes in I.V. than anywhere else in the county, demonstrating that I.V. voters are more than able to mobilize en masse for the right candidates.

As for Firestone, his contempt for I.V. residents is even greater. He has a track record of dissing every possible I.V. constituency, with actions from last year's ridiculous couch burning ordinance to his lack of support for Measure D to his complete apathy in the face of the Cedarwood tenants' evictions. Now, in the face of far more serious infrastructural and safety issues, he is pushing for things like stiffer penalties for urination in public--this, coming from a man who peddled his alcoholic products to I.V. residents in exchange for votes.

Mollie, I appreciate your outrage and your conciliatory tone towards the County in the face of this latest crackdown on I.V. residents, but I hope that you and your fellow journalists won't forget any of this come next spring. The Independent and others' endorsement of Arnold last year was bad enough.

Giggles (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2007 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gigs... sure glad we agree on Bill Brown.

Hey, Gail and Bill Wallace supported the same ordinances that BF is supporting. The Supes never have liked IV when it comes to streetlife. And Mark Chaconas was a burnt-out slacker for the last 8 years who did nothing for IV.

BF actually arranged to a purchase of low income housing ( see http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=... ). He also arranged the purchase of what is now Capps' park... sure there were glitches, but Bill Wallace and Gail couldn't get it done in their time.

Outside politicos always want to jerk IV around... Ed Maschke is an expert. Anyone who thinks Doreen Farr or David Bearman gives a rat's A about IV is dreaming. They'd be just about the same as BF

sevendolphins (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2007 at 10:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sevendolphins, do not romanticize Brooks Firestone for "arranging" the purchase of low income housing. The project was long overdue.

Legally, those county funds appropriated for affordable housing were mandated by the State to be spent sooner and it was due to Brooks Firestone's neglect, incompetence, and dismissal of local needs that he did not ensure that this occurred.

There is a limit on how much the RDA fund could grow; once it accumulates to a certain amount, the funds need to be spent on affordable housing. It was actually Craig Geyer, chair of IVPAC, who learned that the County needed to spend those funds to be in legal compliance. Brooks Firestone did not galvanize the building of affordable housing; he was obligated to do it.

Brooks Firestone was NEVER perceived by the long-term, low-income residents of Isla Vista as an advocate of affordable housing, so don't try to pull one on us by saying he ever was. Those who care about affordable housing would be more than happy to see him go in 2008.

madison82 (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2007 at 7:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Post a comment

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment:

EVENT CALENDAR

Previous Month | Next Month

Today's Events Best Bets Submit an Event

Local Weather

Currently:
Mist
Temperature:
59.0°
Wind:
5 S

Surf Report
  • Specials
  • InPrint
  • Top Emails
  • Blue Green Guide 2008
  • Summer Camp Guide 2008
  • Wedding Guide 2008
  • SBIFF 2008 All Access
  • 2008 Election Info
  • Best of Reader's Poll 2007
  • Calendar of Fundraisers
  • Local Bands
  • Kid's Mother's Day Issue
  • Made in Santa Barbara
  • Zaca Fire 2007
  • Taxi Timebomb
  • Fiesta Preview
  • The Tragic End of Gregory Ghan
  • The Big Bow-Wowski
  • Local Label and Studio Stand Alone
  • Remembering Jim Zant, Teacher, Notre Dame Irish Fanatic, and My Little Brother
  1. Miramar Decision Postponed Until August 6
  2. Mental Health Budget Slashed After All
  3. Closure of Goleta Center Leaves Moms-to-Be One Less Choice
  4. Obituary for Ralph Auf der Heide
  5. Catalytic Converters Stolen in Santa Barbara
  6. A Gal in the Guys’ Gym
  • CREATE AN ACCOUNT
  • LOG.IN
  • CONTENTS
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • ARCHIVE
  • INFO | ADVERTISING | CONTACT US
Google
 
Independent.com Web
Copyright ©2008 Santa Barbara Independent, Inc. Reproduction of material from any Independent.com pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. If you believe an Independent.com user or any material appearing on Independent.com is copyrighted material used without proper permission, please click here.
This is our Privacy Policy.