Filet-O-Dawg
Homophobic Chicken Sandwiches, Mass Abstentions, and Plummeting Property Values
Thursday, August 16, 2012
SURE GLAD I DIDN’T STEP IN IT: This being summertime in Santa Barbara, our biggest problem, it would seem, is that five members of Santa Barbara’s Architectural Board of Review (ABR) mysteriously abstained en masse over an exceedingly obscure, and almost irrelevant, vote involving patio furniture and shrubberies planned for the Chick-fil-A slated for 3707 State Street. One might have thought the proposal to charge parking fees — for the first time ever — at Hendry’s and Goleta beach would have generated a bigger controversy, but such expectations have yet to yield fruit.
Angry Poodle
Like most people, I’d never heard of Chick-fil-A until recently, even though it’s a national chain with 1,600 outlets and $4 billion in annual sales. I accidentally stumbled into one with my son about a year ago. As a dining experience, it was pretty whatever. But afterward, we both felt sorry for the woman behind the cash register who expended way too much energy inquiring about our general tranquility, peace of mind, and whether we were having a nice day.
It turns out another link in Chick-fil-A’s sizable chain is slated for the now abandoned site of the Burger King out on upper State Street. Since January, the Architectural Board of Review had been mulling over its design plans. The shite hit the proverbial fan a month ago, when Chick CEO Dan Cathy proudly pled “guilty as charged” in some obscure Baptist publication to being a big-ticket supporter to that sprawling dysfunctionality known as the “traditional family.” When it comes to the theological primacy of Adam and Eve over Adam and Steve, Mr. Cathy is not just a firm believer but Viagrally tumescent. Under his leadership, Chick-fil-A has given millions to organizations implacably opposed to gay civil rights and gay marriage, and even a few that support pseudo-therapies that gay people can somehow be “cured,” by making them watch hetero porn and sticking electrical wires to their skull.
By July, Santa Barbara’s latest entry into the fast-food game had been all but approved. Then some last-minute exceedingly minor changes were proposed encompassing an area of about 180 square feet of outdoor patio space. On July 23, two members of the ABR abstained from the vote, one citing political and personal concerns with Chick-fil-A’s anti-gay corporate philanthropy. Then, at the first hearing in August, no less than five members of the ABR abstained, for a host of reasons, many of which still remain shrouded in mystery and confusion. Normally, organizations supporting family values are big fans of abstinence, but not in this case. City Hall has since been seized by a hue and cry that the five abstainers be shot at dawn, drawn and quartered, or summarily booted from the ABR, whose institutional sanctity and probity they have so egregiously violated.
To clear the air on a few points, no such mass abstention has occurred here since the De la Guerras ripped off Santa Barbara from Chief Yanonalit. This is a historic first. But contrary to what any sane person might have surmised, this was not the product of any nefarious political conspiracy to make a political statement. To the extent most members of the ABR said anything, they were mumbling with food in their mouths. Most of the boardmembers did not explain their votes at the time and have declined to so publicly since. The clearest and most outspoken — Gary Mosel — belongs to the Gay & Lesbian Business Association, and his lawfully wedded spouse sits on the Board of the Pacific Pride Foundation, two organizations which have taken positions hostile to Chick-fil-A. In hindsight, Mosel should have recused himself from participating — which means getting up and leaving the room — in any discussion on Chick-fil-A, rather than abstaining, an obscure parliamentary maneuver reserved for officials who haven’t done the requisite homework to render a decision. In fact, two of the commissars abstained for just that reason, one of whom has since taken issue with his abstaining peers for the politically tainted manner of their collective nonaction.
At the heart of the issue, as always in Santa Barbara, is real estate. Millions of dollars’ worth of plans are submitted to the ABR for review every year on properties that, combined, are worth billions. The sanctity of Santa Barbara’s aesthetic guidelines cannot be — or appear to be — adulterated or tainted by extraneous considerations having nothing to do with design. If people can’t trust the ABR, then the center of our political universe crumbles and property values plummet. City Attorney Steve Wiley has since issued a one-page memo instructing all members of city boards and commissions that they are legally required to check their personal opinions at the door, but he has declined to release it publicly. If I actually saw what he wrote, I’d no doubt say he was correct on this. You don’t want government boards and commissions sucker-punching applicants for peripheral political reasons. That’s dangerous turf. ABR members are free to boycott Chick-fil-A, and they’re free to call on others to do the same. But when you mess with the company’s patio furniture, that’s where we draw the line.
Chick-fil-A has suffered nothing from this slight other than an avalanche of free publicity. It’s clear City Hall has work to do with its boardmembers and commissioners. But calls for mass terminations — which would also be a historic first — are overblown and a bit hysterical. City Councilmember Frank Hotchkiss was the first one out of the gate demanding that the abstainers resign or apologize. But even Hotchkiss himself has abstained on a couple of votes — rather than casting a no vote — where it’s questionable that abstention was, in fact, appropriate under Robert’s Rules of Order. The good news is that the City Council is taking a three-week vacation, and by the time it reconvenes, we’ll have found other causes for outrage. I’m hoping beach parking fees become one. And if Chick-fil-A spent less money supporting anti-gay crusaders, maybe its employees wouldn’t have to spend so much energy wondering how its customers were feeling.
Related Links
Comments
Thanks , Dawg , for getting in an almost insignificant mention about beach access fees. Too bad you didn't find the time or motivation to construct an entire piece on the subject. It is an issue that will impact county residents far longer than the issue of a few misguided board members skipping a vote.
For others who may be opposed to the county charging us money to access beaches , the next hearing is today (Thursday) and the info is in this link. Please attend and speak to the park commissioners about what a bad idea this is.
http://www.independent.com/events/201...
geeber (anonymous profile)
August 16, 2012 at 4:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh it's time for a loud and latent 'Viagrally tumescent' show tune for Dan Cathy. 'You say recusal, I say abstention, recusal, abstention, recusal, abstention, let's just call the whole Chic-Fil-A off.'
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
August 16, 2012 at 6:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Fire 'em all.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
August 16, 2012 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Was the patio furniture supposed to be mauve or taupe? In the words of William Shatner: GET A LIFE PEOPLE! Total embarrassment for this wanna be cosmo city.
I thought it was a good column, but yes Dawg, get down with your bad self on the beach fee controversy. I think it will become more of an issue soon.
bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
August 16, 2012 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This beach parking issue could destroy some political futures, especially those who voted for the Caruso tax gift.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 16, 2012 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't understand this column. Usually the Poodle can get rabid about the slightest controversy, with the column exploding in hyperbolic righteousness. But today, we get a column that seems to be searching for some reason to let these guys off the hook. How much more wrong can a board member be than to put personal feelings above the basic charge and civic responsibility of this Board?
Is the Poodle saying that it's okay these guys abstained en masse because they didn't offer a reason for their abstentions? Wait a sec--I think I have a good guess why they abstained even if the Poodle can't figure it out. I read the Poodle column because I like the over-the-top rhetoric, the feigned objectivity (which I agree with politically), and the sense of moral outrage over insignificant local squabbles. The let's-give-them-a-break stance here is pretty thin gruel. If I want a reasoned opinion from a nice guy, I go to Barney's column.
johnvasi (anonymous profile)
August 16, 2012 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think if this column appears to any reader as being "an attempt" to get anyone off the hook, it's most likely in the reader's imagination.
Things get misread when we approach them as assuming then to be "hyperbolic" and "self-righteous"; one can fall victim to those very traits.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 16, 2012 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Too bad the City Council Meeting minutes don't record member-specific votes. I'd like to find out which votes Hotchkiss abstained on "ABR style".
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
August 16, 2012 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It wouldn't make sense for an ABR style abstainment from a legislator- which a City Council person is... every vote is political whether it's intended to be or not on the Council.
Council abstainment would infer a financial or other beneficiary connection to an issue.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 16, 2012 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@Ken_Volok ... I see your point. I've seen Hotchkiss (as an example) explain his vote by saying he agreed with the other side's talking points but was voting the other way in protest. There does seem to be more voting latitude in the City Council than in the ABR, especially if they already know what the outcome will be so as not to get the Council in legal hot water.
But my intent was to follow up on Nick Welsh's suggestion that a Hotchkiss abstention may have violated Robert's Rules to see if it's really true.
If true, then Hotchkiss' letter demanding the conditional resignation of some ABR members would seem hypocritcal. If not true, then Welsh's suggestion would have gone nowhere.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
August 16, 2012 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Certain ABR members have opened up a whole can of worms!
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 16, 2012 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
At least Nick said Hendry's Beach versus Henry's Beach
passagerider (anonymous profile)
August 16, 2012 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Councilmember Hotchkiss abstained from voting on this year's Human Services Commission recommendations for funding based on his opposition to funding a meal sharing program for the homeless. He stated that feeding the homeless is "like feeding pigeons - they come from all over". He stated that he did not want to vote against the Human Services Commission recommendations and instead would abstain from voting and did so.
java805 (anonymous profile)
August 16, 2012 at 4:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"... City Attorney Steve Wiley ... has declined to release it publicly."
-- Poodle
It's time for a FOI request.
"Fire 'em all."
-- JohnLocke
You can't fire volunteers. You're starting to lose it, JohnLocke.
"Council abstainment would infer a financial or other beneficiary connection to an issue."
-- Ken_Volok
"infer" is the wrong word, You should have used "imply". Don't go down the tubes with JohnLocke.
SezMe (anonymous profile)
August 17, 2012 at 4:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
SezMe, doesn't like JohnLocke. But what does sez_me think about JohnLocke? What does John_Locke think about SezMe? I know SezMe and sez_me don't get along. These are profound questions with long-term impli... infer... never mind.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 18, 2012 at 2:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
GluteousMaximus (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2012 at 8:29 p.m.
I find their methods of "curing" Gayness to be fairly interesting, you're going to show them Porn? yeah, that'll work...
GluteousMaximus (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2012 at 8:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)