Pappas Ads Bunk

You've hit on some very good points and I've had the same questions as a local Los Olivos homeowner.

That said, I also can't tell if your agenda is better or worse than that of Pappas and Herthel. Particularly with all the money running around this valley and the never-ending political repartee between the Chumash and everybody else.

In the end, I question the motives of all parties. Including yours. Frankly, I smell a political operative. Just my opinion

As for me, I'd just like for once to see a new restaurant or other community enhancing business be able to move into downtown Los Olivos instead of yet another wine tasting room that gets an ABC free ride.

Well, I think Duncan was right on, and I'm no operative. Everyone running for office is entitled to stretch the truth a little. But Pappas takes credit for an awful lot of things that either he didn't do alone, or that really didn't get accomplished.

A good example is when on the screen he flashes "stopped casino expansion." Not only did lots of people try but in fact the Casino is expanding, buying up property that serves the casino, asserting its sovereignty, and probably negotiating with the governor to expand its slots as did 4 other tribe. Anyone claiming that he stopped Casino expansion needs a reality check.

By the way, note that Victoria Pointer has been trying to duck her role in backing Prop 94 so that voters could ratify Arnold's deal with 4 other tribes. The passage of 94 is a very bad precedent for our SY Valley.

So if Pappas makes it to the next round he needs to acknowledge that he worked with others and he needs to also not claim a job is finished when it is only started.

I think that's the only point Duncan was trying to make and he made it well.

Part 1: As a citizen in the valley that has been to many of the GPAC and VPAC meetings over the years and has followed many of our local issues I would say that Lansing has left out a few details. Lansing, it was your style of leadership as the GPAC chair that got me interested in what was going on in the town that I live in. I have to thank you for that.

I attended those community landfill meetings, and I too like Steve Pappas did not agree with the county's plan to dig up years of contaminated waste and truck it in over 5,000 loads past my sons elementary school to deposit it on the hillside of the closed foxen canyon landfill just a couple of miles up stream from Los Olivos, Ballard, Solvang, and Buellton. I am glad that our local citizens got involved in that one.

I was also at the Board of Supervisors Meetings several years ago when dozens of concerned citizens showed up to beg our supervisors to oppose the tribe from removing more off reservation land in Santa Ynez from local control for casino expansion. The tribe said that they wanted to build a museum and commercial park on the land, but they don't have to annex the land to do that. Lets not forget their plans to partner with Fess Parker several years ago to annex over 500 acres for a new casino and 500 homes. When our board of supervisors ignored the public it was Steve Pappas and POLO that filed a lawsuit against the Federal Government (still pending). That lawsuit is the only thing that has stopped the tribe from annexing more land for casino expansion. By the way have you seen the video on UTube of tribal Chairman Vince Armenta saying that he wants congress to help him reclaim his lands which extend from Malibu to Morro Bay. He currently has his attorneys using a well meaning cultural resources law to gain control of over 50 private properties in our county. Santa Barbara, Montecito and Goleta residents. This is not just a Santa Ynez Valley issue. The tribe can buy land where you live too and petition the federal government to put up a casino in your neighborhood. And by the way, if that happens no local zoning or environmental laws apply. In case you are not familiar with the effects of this casino on our community, I can tell you that the entertainment factor of the major bands that they bring in does not offset the major increase in traffic, crime, drugs, and political corruption. At somewhere around $1 Million in daily profits it has some clout with the local officials.

Part 2: The community plan that Lansing is referring to was not a popular one. That is when hundred of citizens including myself became aware of what was planned for our community. For one, the plan was going to devalue agricultural land by changing zoning from 100 acre to much larger parcels like 300 and 600. They were also going to put some very high density housing projects in areas that many residents did not agree with. Lansing does not mention that a couple of years later with a new VPAC chair the community did agree on a revised plan that was sent for EIR a couple of years ago.

I was also at the VPAC meeting a couple of years ago when Dr. Herthel gave his presentation on the Montanaro property that his family purchased when POLO could not raise enough money to buy the property for a town park. (Investec had the backup offer on this property if POLO or Herthel were not able to purchase it) He has requested that the property be re-zoned along with the current community plan from the current residential zoning that would allow around 30 homes to 5 acre agricultural zoning, which would allow only a few if it was ever build on. I can tell you the room of 150 people was pretty happy with this voluntary devaluing of ones property.

In that same VPAC meeting a POLO member updated us on the park. I believe that they did not like some of potential uses allowed with the recreation zoning such as a PARKING Lot. Since our park is about 1/4 to 1/2 acre the membership did not want the county to ever get their hands on that property for a parking lot for the town. Instead they put deed restrictions on the property so that it would remain a Park in perpetuity.

I have to say that being a citizen who takes the time to show up at meetings in our county these people are legit. They are truly honest people that are working their butts off as private citizens. If Steve's face is Red in the ads it is probably from working so hard. The majority of the people in the know in this community are behind them as we have seen from their actions over the past 6 or 7 years that they are truly looking out for us.

As for Lansing, ..... to be expected.

Could your hit piece possibly be a ploy to discredit Steve Pappas to the benefit of your candidate Mrs. Farr?

Mr. Duncan was, of course, Ms. Marshall's Valley planning czar. He wants his job back. A lot of people disliked the way planning decisions were made at midnight during Duncan's regime, after the weary crowds gave up and went home. Doreen Farr will win in a walk if she'd promise never to appoint Lansing to anything.

The point Mr. Duncan made is valid. Pappas should not take credit for things he did not do.

Similar to Pappas I see "sbcres" is also engaging in exageration and hyperbole - campaign staffer perhaps?
So much to point out and yet so little time.

The POLO lawsuit was not the *only* thing that stopped Fess Parker and the Casino getting together - that was a very tenuous deal at best.

And the closed SY Airport Landfill collected community waste for 11 months in 1969 - hardly the "years of contaminated waste" described in your post. Pappas wrote a letter of opposition as did others, but I will give you both credit for making stuff up.

As the author of this letter I am glad to see it spark a community dialogue. Let’s hope it remains an informed one. The crux of the matter is that the campaign and record of any individual running for public office should exemplify “truth in advertising”.

For the record, I am not running for office. Nor am I so masochistic as to seek any additional official planning responsibility for our community. A total of ten years on the Planning Commission and the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) is enough for me.

Despite POLO's representations to the contrary, I am far more interested in preserving land than developing it. I am sure Pappas and Herthel recall how I met with them soon after POLO formed to share my experience as a founder of the Sedgwick Preservation Committee and suggest how they might go about preserving the Montanaro parcel.

It did not occur to me that they would use scare tactics and distortion to pull down the entire community's planning process because they could not differentiate between draft proposals outlined by staff and final decisions made by the GPAC, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.

I am sorry, but I don't see where Steve Pappas is saying that he did all of this on his own. I just heard one of his radio ads and he said that with help from others.

Mrs. Duncan's article is the only place I see this assertion being made.

Unfortunately It is always easy to criticize the player on the field making plays, much harder to criticize the guy sitting on the bench.

Actually I did not make that explicit assertion. But two other readers did.

Lansing Duncan claims:

"And it's a darn shame that all the recreational amenities and trails envisioned in the entire Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan got chucked so Pappas and POLO could save the corner park".

These amenities and trails were envisioned across private property. They were removed when it became apparent that no one had contacted the owners of the property where these trails were planned.

The comment regarding trails above and the comments of sbcres regarding the clean-closure of the Airport Landfill point out the challenge of balancing what individual residents perceive as an immediate personal threat with what is beneficial for the community at-large in the long term.

I grant sbcres that the clean-closure of the Airport Landfill would have been a messy process but the Regional Water Quality Control Board that Pappas claims to have alerted in his ad supported a clean-closure as the paragraph below from a report for the Board's meeting of Dec. 17, 2007 shows:...

“The County originally intended to clean-close the Landfill by removing the waste and preventing additional impacts to groundwater, but in 2004 efforts to clean-close the site were stopped due to local opposition. Water Board staff supported clean-closure as source removal is proven, effective strategy in groundwater remediation. As a result, the CEQA process associated with proposed clean-closure activities were also stopped. The nearby Foxen Canyon Landfill with more than 1.5 million cubic yards of waste in place had enough remaining capacity to accept the Santa Ynez Airport Landfill’s 55,000 cubic yards of waste. Since the waste from the Santa Ynez Airport Landfill would have been a relatively small volume on top of waste already in place at the Foxen Canyon Landfill, the depth to groundwater at Foxen Canyon Landfill is approximately 100 feet greater than the Santa Ynez Airport Landfill, and the waste at each site was similar, being municipal solid waste from the same community, the potential to further impact groundwater would have been greatly reduced.”

Pappas and POLO may have felt they were protecting Los Olivos when they opposed the project, but they may have increased the danger to the community's water supply. Perhaps a more effective Supervisor could have provided the leadership necessary to address the problem while addressing their concerns. But Pappas is not telling us the whole picture when he now casts himself as a righteous "whistle-blower" protecting the community.

Mr. Duncan,

May I ask if you have a candidate in this race?

cj138 A bit of clarification on your post.

"The POLO lawsuit was not the *only* thing that stopped Fess Parker and the Casino getting together - that was a very tenuous deal at best."
-----------
I am pretty sure that the POLO lawsuit was after the Fess Parker/Casino deal fell apart. That was the result of massive community outcry. However POLO and other community groups like SYV Concerned Citizens and POSY and possibly others were at the forefront of those efforts.

The POLO lawsuit with the federal government has stopped the current petitions that the tribe has for land annexations. A 6.9 and 5.8 acre parcel across hwy 246 from the casino.

jmoors and any one else interested in the topic mentioned above,

If you want to see something earlier on the issue of Casino Expansion and Tribal Annexation see if you can find my Opinion piece published in the Voices section, page G1 in the Santa Barbara News-Press of Dec. 10, 2000. It is entitled, "On a Collision Course with the Community". If you can't find it in the SBNP archives, I will see if I can dig up the text and post some relevant paragraphs, assuming anyone is interested.

Regarding your question, I do support a particular candidate in this race but I am not writing on the behalf of any candidate. I am writing because there needs to be some reality checks on the propaganda that passes for truth in campaigning. In the era of modern media and an ever-shortening news cycle, a community that remakes itself as frequently as ours needs some "institutional memory".

Lansing,

Aren't we missing a few more details in your article?

"I'm sure glad he stopped that “farmland” from becoming “high density housing” across the street from him. Of course it was residentially zoned land, had been for decades, and there never was an actual “high density housing” project proposed for the property."

The land may be residentially zoned, but it has been farmed for over 100 years straight. Does that not make it farmland?

"But that wasn't a high-density project, it only had thirty units on almost 28 acres"

Weren't the 30 units on the Northern part of the property that is around 8 acres? Didn't each house include an additional second units above detached garages.

"I am sure Pappas and Herthel recall how I met with them soon after POLO formed to share my experience as a founder of the Sedgwick Preservation Committee and suggest how they might go about preserving the Montanaro parcel."

Didn't Val Alexeef the Director of Planning and Development send a letter to the Montanaro Family during POLOs negotiations to purchase the land that offered them SLP zoning (5-7 units per acre) on the entire 28 acres. (5 x 28= 140 units 7 x 28 = 196 units) The terms of POLOs deal with the property owner went from a 1 year escrow to 45 days with a $700,000 price increase as a result of that letter.

Wasn't Val's boss at the time 3rd district supervisor Gail Marshall?

I assume that Mr. Pappas is not your candidate.

At least political ads tell you who they are being paid for by.

Lansing Duncan writes: "If you want to see something earlier on the issue of Casino Expansion and Tribal Annexation see if you can find my Opinion piece published in the Voices section, page G1 in the Santa Barbara News-Press of Dec. 10, 2000. It is entitled, "On a Collision Course with the Community". If you can't find it in the SBNP archives, I will see if I can dig up the text and post some relevant paragraphs, assuming anyone is interested."

I'd like to see it. So far, this is one of the best back-and-forth blogs I've seen in a long time.

Lansing: Not able to find your newspress article in the newspress online archives or on google. Can you please post it on the blog?

Did find something interesting in the google search though. It looks like you, Doreen Farr and Gail Marshall are the officers and directors of a group called SYV Alliance. That could give the impression that you might be pretty cozy with one of Steve Pappas opponents in the race.

http://www.santaynezvalleyalliance.org/c...

This link should get you to the News-Press Archives and my Opinion piece, "On a Collision Course with the Community" of Dec 10, 2000.
But I didn't actually check to make sure they have my article where they say it is. If they do, I think you will find it interesting. Paste if the link is not activated. Let me know what you find.
I am sure you found all kinds of interesting things when you googled my name including that I have been in a position to know what I am writing about.

www.newspress.com/Top/Article/article.js...

Posting #1

Jmoor’s questions are interesting but I am not sure the answers prove the point he wants to make or sharpen the axe he seeks to grind.

As we saw in the case of the Landfill / Contamination issue, real world events are complex and full of shades of gray, demanding thoughtful consideration. Knee-jerk reactions based on fear can drive us into danger as often as they prompt our escape.

The mere fact that jmoor has to pose his questions in the form of a Socratic dialogue with every answer framed suggests that context is all important. He only seeks “a few more details” but they are very specific. I will answer his questions by considering them in both a narrow and broad context where appropriate.

To begin with, jmoor takes my comments out of context by mischaracterizing my letter as an “article”. As a letter I have limited space and circulation.

Candidate Pappas, on the other hand has chosen to make his version of history the basis of his campaign and tout it far and wide, even broadcasting it into outer space with “I Love Lucy”. Pappas has chosen to ask the citizens of the Third District to place their confidence in him based on this history, If he is the candidate he makes himself out to be he should withstand closer scrutiny.

As to the “farmland” question - a more accurate portrayal of the land would have been “residentially–zoned land that has been historically farmed”. But that would not have served as well to tell the story he wanted to tell. It doesn’t make a very good sound bite. But Valley residents have discovered, zoning is important. Certainly every time the Montanaro’s paid their taxes they were aware that their land was residentially zoned.

Any neighbor of the Montanaros who had performed their own due diligence should have been aware of it. I suspect Pappas’s motivation to preserve this “farmland” had a lot more to do with proximity than land use. I don’t hear him talking about the agriculturally-zoned farmland west of Buellton that was proposed to be downzoned (increasing the minimum parcel size) in the previous community plan but has virtually no protection in the current plan.

I don’t hear Pappas talking about the 385 acre triangle of agriculturally-zoned ranchland east of Santa Ynez that was proposed to be downzoned in the previous community plan but has virtually no protection in the current plan and could potentially be turned into 77 five acre ranchettes.

Instead, Pappas’s website describes the downzoning of Agricultural land as a “devaluation” of the property and characterizes himself as a leader in the battle against it. Instead, he wants to maintain the development potential of Agricultural land. Only in the case of the land near him did he seek to have Agricultural land rezoned in a manner that would reduce the potential for development.

See Posting #2

Posting #2

As to the “high-density” question - The Ecological Village conceptual proposal sought to arrange the new units in a manner that would preserve the southern gateway to Los Olivos, protect the creek corridor, preserve the historic market, create a 5 acre organic farm, preserve the existing single family dwelling for one of the Montanaro sisters, and create a 1.8 acre public park. To achieve that goal the units were clustered around the public park in the northern half of the property. A uniform distribution of the units across the acreage was neither practical nor desirable. To describe the project as “high-density” requires looking at a particular component to the exclusion of all others. It omits more than a few important details. It does not tell the whole story but it might tell the story you want to tell.

However you describe the conceptual project, the property itself was not “in the final stages of being converted into a high-density condominium project”.

As to the “second units” question – the conceptual proposal included “detached garages with usable office space above”. The proposal did not include bathrooms or kitchens above the garages.

As to the question regarding the Housing Element Update inquiry letter – I can’t speak to the timing of the letter and POLO’s negotiations. As I noted in my original letter above, staff blindsided everybody but nobody supported their proposal for the Montanaro property. Supervisor Marshall had Planning & Development immediately withdraw the proposal. I doubt the newly-hired Val Alexeef (who worked for the entire Board of Supervisors) had any idea what he was signing. It was the classic bureaucratic malfunction of the left hand not telling the right what it was doing. Ultimately the countywide Housing Element Update was delayed and decisions for Santa Ynez were deferred to the community specific Community Plan.

As to the suggestion that my authorship or my amateur status is in question, this is a pretty weak assertion. My name is on my original letter and all my subsequent postings. I am not sure whether jmoor has or has not identified himself.

Sure Pappas overstates his case.

No different than Gail Marshall, who voted against including Isla Vista in the City of Goleta at LAFCO in 2001, with the comment `I don't want to waste my vote,' did with respect to Isla Vista.

Lansing Duncan was exceedingly dedicated and responsible when he served in various positions. I wish he were running.

But all of the 3rd District candidates are deeply flawed this time. Steve Pappas may be no worse than the rest.

Wild horses wouldn't get me to run!
But Thanks Pardall.

Wow! What enlightened civic discourse.

Sadly, it would all be much more compelling if the responses to Mr. Duncan's original entry were not posted with unidentifiable usernames, in essence the equivalent of an sending anonymous letters. Most newspapers refuse to accept such forms of communication. I suppose the internet condones this type of cowardly self-expression, but I'm sad to see that the Independent buys into such a convention.

At the risk of sounding sexist...MAN UP Santa Barbara and Santa Ynez! At least have the courage of your convictions and identify yourself as you throw political pooh at each other. Doing less than that makes you little more more than monkeys at the zoo.

Mr. Campbell,

While laudable that your newspaper encourages civic discourse by allowing the unidentified postings of your readers, I'm not sure that the standard of good behavior - which is apparently the only threshold one must meet in order to join the conversation - is sufficient.

Allowing anonymous postings, especially in political discourse, provides absolutely no accountability. I'm not sure that the polity is well-served by allowing anonymity, as such a shield encourages much expression that while, technically civil, is not also technically discourse. Personal attacks, electioneering, and advocacy of positions of naked self-interest appear to result when posters can hide behind anonymity. If that is what your newspaper wishes to encourage, why not provide free blog pages for all subscribers? That way, each of these folks, afraid to stand up publically for what they believe, can bloviate to their heart's content.

Well, we all know the dangers of anonymous posting. We all have to correct for the biases and possible lies.

But there is a benefit too: knowlegeable people can provide information without danger of retribution. And yes, there is plenty of inappropriate retribution.

A nice short story that relates to this subject... Running for Governor by Mark Twain...

http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine...

Thanks for the provision of anonymous postings. It puts the focus on what is said rather than by whom it is said, although I, too, appreciate those willing to list their names.

As for AlisonKeleher's probably unserious suggestion of free blogs, such are available at blogspot - and one can then write here and link to one's witandwisdom blog.

This has been a fascinating exchange, informative for a non-Valley resident. No longer a NP subscriber, I can not get online access to that Commentary without paying for it.

The discussion of anonymous postings is interesting. I am happy to say that overall I find myself more in agreement with those who choose to use their own names.

I find it ironic that jmoors tries to support Pappas and undercut my clearly attributed writings with the following assertion:

"At least political ads tell you who they are being paid for by."

In reality they don't tell you who is supplying the funds and they don't always disclose the campaign that is generating them.

Take the hit piece entirely dedicated to discrediting David Smyser mailed out on the eve of the election providing no time for rebuttal. It shows newspaper clippings surrounded by a background of red, white, and blue flag imagery. Not every clipping shows a source. Only the stories from the Santa Ynez Valley Journal show clear identification of the publication.

Nor is the source of the mailer entirely obvious. It shows an address of Citizens for Fair Government in Goleta but no other attribution. Looking online there is no record of such a group in Goleta, nor is it listed with the state.

The mailer was distributed following the release of polling results by the Pappas campaign that showed Pappas barely trailing Smyser. Pappas only needed a higher proportion of the undecided voters in order to overtake Smyser and make the November runoff.

Pappas's name is notably absent from the mailer. Most of the other candidates are mentioned at least tangentially. Pappas writes for the Valley Journal. Certainly Pappas had the most to gain from the last-minute poison pen mailing.

Pappas has denied knowledge of this mailing. Travis Armstrong of the Santa Barbara News-Press has been investigating a possible connection. Now that Pappas is in the November runoff perhaps there will be more scrutiny of the claims he makes.

If Pappas is connected to this mailer it certainly is at odds with the "squeaky clean" image his public relations campaign projects.