The conventional wisdom held that the three incumbents seeking re-election to the Santa Barbara City Council could cake walk their way into second terms. But on the night of Tuesday, Nov. 6, the conventional wisdom was proven wrong.
In a low turn-out election where very few voters bothered going to the polls—the vast majority of ballots were cast, absentee style, by mail—incumbents Das Williams and Helene Schneider managed to win re-election by comfortable margins. But their fellow incumbent Brian Barnwell was knocked off, placing fifth in a field of eight candidates with only three seats up for grab. Barnwell will be replaced on the council by challenger Dale Francisco, a newcomer to city politics and an outspoken critic of the mini-roundabouts and other traffic calming devices installed on the upper East Side. “The middle of the road is no longer fashionable,” Barnwell concluded of his surprising loss. “You’re either one extreme or the other. That’s the way it went tonight.”
Paul Wellman
Brain Barnwell gets a consoling hug from Nancy Davis after the final tally.
While Francisco’s election will not alter the fundamental tilt of City Hall, it will change the council’s composition. He will be the only Republican on an elected body that for the past two years was composed exclusively of Democrats. On the campaign trial, Francisco proved prickly with his throw-the-bums-out rhetoric—often getting under Williams’ skin—but he pledged to work hard, learn the ropes, and try to be constructive. His perspective will be more openly skeptical of the council’s clear tilt in favor of alternative transportation, but Francisco harbors no illusions that he can single-handedly turn the council around. “I start with the assumption that everybody has good intentions,” he said. "If I want to get things done, I will have to work with them. But I’m confident I can work with all kinds of people.” As to Barnwell’s theory of the extremes, he commented, “I don’t think anybody could be more middle-of-the-road than me.”
Paul Wellman
Helene Schneider
Williams and Schneider both expressed satisfaction in their own victories, and disappointment for their colleague Barnwell. “It’s bittersweet,” Schneider said. Williams and Schneider have been the progressive wing of the council, advocating for the living wage, arguing against many developments, and pushing for affordable housing. Both enjoyed strong support from the social activist core constituencies. And both were willing to do the grunt work required to raise campaign funds and walk precincts.
By contrast, Barnwell proved to be a man without a country. The environmental community always tended to regard Barnwell as too pro-growth, and were not won over by his born-again support for city-wide sustainability policies. And the business community—which supported Barnwell during his first campaign—found him too unpredictable for their comfort the second time around. Barnwell lead the charge to impose more stringent height restrictions for new development in Santa Barbara, something bitterly opposed by many in the development community. Nor did it help Barnwell any that he was regularly reviled in the editorial pages of the Santa Barbara News-Press, often for reasons more personal than political. Compounding matters, Barnwell never embraced the money-raising-door-knocking rigors of the campaign trail the way Williams and Schneider did. When volunteers for the Latino-advocacy group PUEBLO went door-to-door throughout Eastside and Westside precincts, they asked voters to support Williams and Schneider, not Barnwell. PUEBLO organizers said Barnwell never showed up for his interview or responded to their candidates’ questionnaire.
Paul Wellman
Peggy Jo Love-House, Das Williams, and Marty Blum
Santa Barbara voters also overwhelmingly rejected Measure A, which would have changed the timing of Santa Barbara’s elections from odd-number years to even numbered years, to coincide with state and federal elections. City Hall pushed for the change because it would save hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in election costs, and a coalition of progressive-minded activists argued the change would almost double the number of people who turned out to vote. By a margin of nearly 2,000 votes, however, voters turned it down.
Measure A organizer Cathy Murillo vowed to come back with a similar measure next year, but this time run a more organized effort to get it approved. “We were naïve," Murillo said. "We didn’t think anyone would oppose this. Who in their right mind could be against something that increased voter turn-out and saved lots of money? I still don’t get it.”
Voter turnout: 31 percent
Council race results:
Das Williams: 7,315
Helene Schneider: 6,539
Dale Francisco: 6,290
Michelle Giddens: 5,802
Brian Barnwell: 5,725
Frank Hotchkiss: 5,319
Bob Hansen: 724
Dan Litten: 1,874
Measure A:
No: 7,554
Yes: 5,804
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
Contact an Editor
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
Previous Month


Comments
Discussion Guidelines
Was the 31% turnout about the same as in past Council elections?
Steve_Johnson (anonymous profile)
November 7, 2007 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Answer:
November 1995 - 30.44%
November 1997 - 31.80%
November 2001 - 35.32%
November 2003 - 21.66%
November 2005 - 60.97% (combined with special Statewide)
It's a cinch that passage of Measure A would have resulted in higher turnouts. Not clear whether that is good or not.
Steve_Johnson (anonymous profile)
November 7, 2007 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
That's right, Steve_Johnson, whether higher voter participation and voter turnout is good or not certainly is a serious public policy and ethical question.
Our Democracy would be much better off if some people who are eligible and registered did not vote because they would end up voting the wrong way or simply check a box based only on name recognition.
Times obviously were much better for Democracy when literate, white, property-owning men were the only ones allowed to vote under law.
FirstDistrictStreetfighter (anonymous profile)
November 7, 2007 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
November 1995 - 30.44%
November 1997 - 31.80%
November 2001 - 35.32%
November 2003 - 21.66%
November 2005 - 60.97% (combined with special Statewide)
Total: 180.19% That's good voter turnout. But when all is said and done, there is no indication that the problems of overcrowding, unaffordable housing, and gang violence will get better. How did we get to this point?
billclausen (anonymous profile)
November 7, 2007 at 6:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Turn-out does not explain the decline in the actual number of votes cast for the top vote getters compared to prior elections, even those with similar turnout figures.
The top vote getters received about 15-45% fewer votes than in the last several elections. This is a dramatic decline.
In this election the top 2 vote getters received: 7315 and 6,539 votes. By comparison, in the last 4 city elections, the top vote getter received: 13,070, 8597, 8359, 10,413 votes, respectively.
It would seem to support the argument for voter apathy; people just stayed home.
Such a dramatic drop in the absolute number of votes tends to favor and exagerate the effect of conservative voters and, conversely, it disfavors and dilutes the effect of liberal voters who vote less reliably.
HueyChapala (anonymous profile)
November 7, 2007 at 11:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment