WHERE PIGS FLY: As we enter the final stretch of Santa Barbara’s mayoral and City Council elections — where the number of candidates promises to exceed the number of actual voters — I’m reminded of the old adage: “Beware of Billionaires Bearing Gifts.” We have no less than two big-spending billionaires — one from Russia, the other from Texas — who have entered “small-town” Santa Barbara’s political fray, spending enough to buy up about half the radio and TV air space available during the next month, plus enough glossy, oversized political mailers to rupture the discs of all postal carriers who deliver them.
Angry Poodle
When it comes to checkbook politics, the 10,000-pound gorilla in the race clearly is Randall Van Wolfswinkel, a Texas-based residential developer so big he ranks among America’s top 50 home builders. He’s already donated $270,000 to various candidates and causes, most notably Measure B, the ill-considered if well-intentioned initiative to reduce maximum allowable building heights. He’s backing the conservative slate of Dale Francisco for mayor, and Michael Self, Frank Hotchkiss, and Cathie McCammon for council. While Van Wolfswinkel has given substantial amounts directly to all of those campaigns except Francisco’s — Francisco has pledged he would take no money from developers or public employee unions — he’s focusing most of his time, money, and attention on the campaign currently being waged by Preserve Our Santa Barbara, the political action committee he created. To get his message out, Van Wolfswinkel has hired some of the scariest political hitmen money can buy. One, David Gilliard, led the successful recall campaign against former governor Gray Davis, thus paving the way for the Terminator’s ascent to power.
In contrast, billionaire Russian banker Sergey Grishin seems like small potatoes, having coughed up a mere $50,000 on behalf of mayoral candidate Steve Cushman. That’s roughly half of Cushman’s entire war chest. Grishin declined to discuss his political philanthropy, so we don’t know if he’ll be giving to other candidates or not. We do know he has owned property in Montecito for eight years and just bought the historic Val Verde Estate — once a retreat for the nation’s gay elite — for a cool $15.3 million. Cushman tells us he’s met just once with Grishin for a 90-minute chat, during which time Sergey explained he didn’t want to see “what happened to Moscow” happen to Santa Barbara. To that end, he whipped out his checkbook and gave Steve a whopping $50k. Frankly, I fail to see any parallels between Moscow and Santa Barbara. But then, not being a billionaire, I probably wouldn’t understand such things.
I’ve also heard from others in the Cushman camp that Grishin is interested in getting involved in the area’s banking scene and might want to be part of the new Bank of Santa Barbara now being created by the exceptionally talented Eloy Ortega. That Ortega happens to be a key member of the Cushman campaign team — treasurer — might just be a curious coincidence.
Until now, a typical council race costs $35,000-$50,000 to run. In recent years, when councilmembers Iya Falcone and Das Williams exceeded the $80,000 mark, good-government types like the League of Women Voters began muttering indignantly about campaign finance reform. Strangely, it is conspicuously silent now. Could that be because Van Wolfswinkel also supports Measure B, a cause near and dear to the league’s heart? I have no idea. But I do know that the League of Women Voters — which in years past has been outspoken in its quest for campaign reform — felt so strongly about Measure B that it endorsed the measure after having declined numerous entreaties from the other side to discuss the matter. I was also struck that the league’s forum — usually notoriously balanced — on Measure B featured four speakers who supported the height restriction and not one who was against it.
I have not spoken with Van Wolfswinkel — though I’ve placed more than a few calls — and I don’t pretend to know his real motivation. I am told he grew up in Santa Barbara and attended the area’s public schools. Although he made his fortune in Texas real estate, his heart belongs to Santa Barbara. When the City Council approved plans to demolish the Union 76 in Montecito and replace it with a mix of commercial space and condos, over the heated opposition of some neighbors, Van Wolfswinkel — who also owns property in Montecito — reportedly was outraged. In response, he vowed to get new, more responsive leadership on the council, and was willing to spend as much as $50,000 per candidate to get the job done. In this light, he’s yet another masked billionaire selflessly coming to Santa Barbara’s rescue. How could anyone object?
Maybe Van Wolfswinkel, having re-sculpted vast swaths of the Texas landscape — building roughly 1,500 new homes a year — really has a princess-and-the-pea sensitivity when it comes to development back in his native land. Maybe he’s really offended by the behemoths that have sprung up on Chapala Street, giving rise to Measure B.
But even if all that’s true — and if Van Wolfswinkel is exactly what his political beneficiaries want to believe he is — he’s still scary. The last Texas billionaire to come to town on a political spending spree was Republican Michael Huffington, who spent five million of his own dollars in 1992 to wrest control of our just-redistricted congressional seat from longtime incumbent Robert Lagomarsino. Because he was spending his own money, Huffington repeatedly declared, he was beholden to no one. Naturally, we bought it, hook, line, and sinker. And why not? Huffington had a glamorous celebrity wife, and he sneezed $10,000 checks written to all the right charities.
But what Huffington really meant, as we would soon discover, was that he was accountable to no one but himself. He routinely refused to tell his own staff people where he was, and his chief of staff was ordered to destroy official annual reports of Huffington’s voting record. His press secretary was told to stiff arm reporters seeking basic information. “It’s for me to know,” she said Huffington told her, “and for them to find out.” Before serving his first term, Huffington grew weary of Congress, finding it petty, tiresome, and beneath him. He opted to take on Dianne Feinstein in the Senate race in 1994, and spent nearly $20 million — mostly his own money. Huffington would have won, too, had it not come out how he’d hired an illegal immigrant to care for his daughters. The timing could not have been worse: This revelation was sprung just after he’d endorsed Proposition 187, the virulently anti-immigrant initiative then on the statewide ballot.
The other altruistic billionaire who has given Santa Barbara a terminal case of buyer’s remorse, of course, is Wendy McCaw, owner of the Santa Barbara News-Press. When she bought the paper from the New York Times in 2000, everyone in Santa Barbara rejoiced. A local buyer! With deep pockets! What could be better in the age of corporate cookie-cutter journalism?
The honeymoon quickly turned into a nightmare. McCaw’s pathological “talk to the hand” attitude — to all but the abused animals — profoundly alienated just about everyone in town, not just her own newsroom. The paper’s meltdown is now the stuff of journalistic legend, but no one could (or should) forget how the News-Press attempted to smear former editor Jerry Roberts — then in litigation with McCaw — as a child-porn aficionado. The paper ran an unsigned article on the front page strongly insinuating, without actually stating, that Roberts had downloaded kiddie porn onto his hard drive. At the time the article was written, police investigators had stated emphatically there was absolutely no way to tie the porn to any one employee; anyone, they stressed, could have done it. Even those utterly indifferent to the plight of newsroom workers — and actively hostile to unionization efforts — were appalled. Subscribers cancelled by the droves. Although the News-Press has improved since those dark days, it remains at best an anorexic shadow of its former self.
Maybe Randall is the best thing since sliced bread. Maybe Sergey is as pure as the Russian snow. But when it comes to civic-minded billionaires, we’ve been burned before. Not just once, but twice. In this arithmetic, I’m afraid to find out what kind of “charm” the third time will be.
Related Links
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
Previous Month


Comments
Discussion Guidelines
According to the last reporting, Van Wolfswinkel has given $9,400 to Measure B campaign. The $243,000 was to support the slate of FRancisco, Self, Hotchkiss and McCammon, all of whom also support "B" --- but then so do others, Pritchett, White (the Indy's anoited), Channing, Tevis, not blessed by the Texan kiss.
Francisco saying he is not taking money from developers is not believable. If he truly felt that way, he would have demanded that his name not be included in that mailer.
It is very disturbing what has happened to Santa Barbara politics and it all began when simple-minded/good-hearted people voted to increase council-mayor salaries, thereby making the job more valuable and therefore campaigning more expensive.
It's sort of funny that Grishin, who must have profitted by the destruction of old Moscow but now calls out against it, is supporting Cushman, the mayoral candidate who is strongly against Measure B and wants high rise buildings downtown ...with similar effects and benefitting some of the same occupations, architects, realtors as in Moscow.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 1
citti (anonymous profile)
October 1, 2009 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
None of these Vampires live the city limits, but I'm all for not having nuclear warheads in Alice Keck, looks like one of them has bought off the Daily Sound, if I add a Von or Van in front of my last name and let them suck my blood will I find new wealth? get invited to lavish estates? get my own radio show? Maybe is time to call in Van Helsing or just find a nice wooden stake and stick it in my ballot.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 2 • Thumbs Down: 1 of 2
lordleadbetter (anonymous profile)
October 1, 2009 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Randall Van Wolfswinkel is a native Santa Barbaran. Yes, he built homes in Texas, where there is lots of space. Not his plan for Santa Barbara. C'mon Indy, if you're gonna call him a Texas Developer, at least tell the rest of the story. BTW, you left out "greedy", as in "Greedydeveloper".
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 2 of 4 • Thumbs Down: 2 of 4
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
October 1, 2009 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How about we stop looking at the money (they all have "questionable" donations), and start looking at the candidates.
One of these candidates has pushed union salaries so far into the stratosphere that Santa Barbarians are now actually accepting "furlough" days as normal operating procedure for city services. The same candidate who's priorities and allegiances would have put a "blue line" through the heart of our downtown, killing property values and decimating businesses, while ignoring the budget crunch she helped create, and ignoring the very valid concerns residents have with gangs and the rising homeless epidemic now facing our fair city.
Another of these candidates has been near violent with his no compromise attitude, and has shown he has little regard for the overwhelming rejection the city voter's had toward Proposition 8, by donating money to restrict the civil rights of our gay brethren. Combine this with his outright lies concerning Von Wolfswinkle's support, and his nasty attacks on his opponents, and you have to be concerned with how this "reformer" plans on running city hall. I mean, can ANYONE here actually name one thing he has done for Santa Barbara? One donation? (other than to oppose gay rights?)
What we are left with is a candidate who has done so much for our community that I don't have time to write his accomplishments out. A man who has been doing all he can for the last twenty-some-odd years to promote Santa Barbara, and it's residents and businesses, as well as address the many problems that face our unique city.
I know that many voters will follow ideology when voting. I only hope they will place their "Santa Barbara" ideology above their various party affiliations, and elect a real leader to the mayor's seat. It's about time Santa Barbara got things right, we deserve better.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 3 • Thumbs Down: 2 of 3
FedUpInSB (anonymous profile)
October 1, 2009 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nick! You rarely disappoint, but I was taken aback by your comment "I was also struck that the league’s forum — usually notoriously balanced — on Measure B featured four speakers who supported the height restriction and not one who was against it." Laddie, the SB chapter of the LWV has been anything but balanced over the past many years. It has regularly taken positions on issues - always on the NIMBY side -- which has always seemed in direct contrast to LWV chapters in general which strive to scrupulously maintain neutral positions on issues, instead wanting to serve as a truly objective civic resource where issues can be debated fairly. The SB chapter, befitting the Santa Barbara philosophy of "having your cake and eating it, too", has wanted to have it both ways, and the mystery is why more people don't understand - and find objectionable - the hypocrisy. Including, apparently, SB's usually reliable watch poodle.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 1
Pagurus (anonymous profile)
October 2, 2009 at 12:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Indy needs to be honest about why they are against measure B. The excuses they're giving don't add up.
Thanks for all the reporting on Wendy McCaw's smear campaign on Jerry Roberts.
Hopefully the Indy won't resort to smear and scare tactics against candidates they don't support with non-issues. Judging candidates by the issues that are important to the citizens of Santa Barbara would be better, more responsible journalism.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
Georgy (anonymous profile)
October 2, 2009 at 7:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Daily Sound has endorsed Dale Francisco. Curious. He claims that he's not taking money from developers. Yet his campaign efforts are being supported at a record level by a developer who's trying to get him and three picks for council installed in City Hall for reasons that are still unclear. Maybe it's through a loophole and a small-print disclaimer that offer him plausible deniability, but if the hypocritical inconsistency truly escapes Mr. Francisco, he thereby disqualifies himself for mayor.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 1
anemonefish (anonymous profile)
October 2, 2009 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Once again, for those who either have memory loss or just a conveniently short memory, the League advocates on issues it has studied and on which it has reached consensus. We have member agreement as to what consititutes sustainability and what would push us beyond our water, air and infrastructure capabilities. Had the Poodle bothered to come to the Measure B advocacy meeting of the membership and the public 9/16/09 or had any of the disgruntled opponents, who only support the League when their issues agree with League issues and pout and snarl when they do not, they would have heard the long history of League support for living within the city's resources and support for neighborhood compatability.
Do not fault the League for taking stands on issues. We have been doing that since our founding in 1920 and the chartering of the Santa Barbara chapter in 1939. We do not support or oppose candidates or parties; we do advocate for issues on which we have come to agreement.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 1
beverlyking (anonymous profile)
October 2, 2009 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So would most of the people upset with the money involved in the race be so terribly offended if it went to their chosen candidate? Magic 8 ball says no
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 2 • Thumbs Down: 1 of 2
pointssouth (anonymous profile)
October 5, 2009 at 7:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let me see...if you make money you are evil....but if you can find a myriad of ways to spend it, you are a caring child of the community. If you actually built a business that creates jobs you are somehow a blight on society...but if you work for others it is an inconvenient necessity that comes with guaranteed rights...medical care, etc. Well then it just makes sense to tell these pesky capitalists to sit down, shut up, and don't even think you can put your money where your mouth is. Better yet...save your money and give it to us to spend. Daniel Petry
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 2 of 5 • Thumbs Down: 3 of 5
jcrdan (anonymous profile)
October 7, 2009 at 7:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Straw Man, meet your maker in Daniel Petry (who's so furiously shadow boxing I fear he may knock himself out).
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 2 • Thumbs Down: 2 of 2
binky (anonymous profile)
October 8, 2009 at 12:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh binky..binky. You must realize that to practice mental gymnastics you must first look in the mirror and say to yourself three times....”mirror mirror on the wall, who is the fairest one of all, me or Dennis Miller”. And one should never try to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition, and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. In my case the refutation is obvious. I assume that providing false witness would not be a valid approach to one as illustrious as thee. So...from this point forward I honor your thoughtful distractions by changing from jcrdan to Straw Man. That way I will never have to shadow box or practice in front of a mirror...I can maintain my preference to the actual feeling of flesh on flesh.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 2 • Thumbs Down: 1 of 2
jcrdan (anonymous profile)
October 11, 2009 at 4:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good post pointsouth. Plus I like Petry's posts. Especially the satire in the last. Some of these people are so full of themselves.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 1
Perez (anonymous profile)
October 12, 2009 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment