Naples on the Gaviota Coast

The question I always want to ask is, "Why?" Why build more houses? Do we need more huge mansions? Has anyone considering this ever been to LA or OC and seen how awful it is? The only answer is greed.

I just don't understand this huge anti-development feeling from all these smug Santa Barbarans. Naples, Bishop Ranch, a Target store, a Costco gas station, etc.

The fact that many have lobbied for additional housing has nothing to do with greed; it's simple economics. A huge market exists for housing on the south coast, and developers are simply responding to that market.

Oh well. I guess common sense sometimes just doesn't exist. I happily drive my gas guzzler a few times a week to go shopping in Ventura because of the lack of many stores in SB, and I don't feel a tiny bit guilty about it.

I do have a question for the article writer though. I do understand that you want to preserve the environment here. Why not call for a completely destruction of Goleta/Santa Barbara and return the entire south coast to a natural landscape? It seems that razing the south coast would only bring positive benefits.

Smug? Ha, that is good. Who you calling smug Willis?

You have turned it into a simple question of housing and supply and demand. What kind of housing does the South Coast/Naples coast need? More ranches or mansions on the beach? Vacation homes for multi-millionaire out of towner's to purchase? Sort of another little mini Hollister Ranch right in Goleta's own back yard? Then tell me about all the great jobs and boost to the economy this will provide. Lame response dude. While development is inevitable, I think it should be scrutinized to the max. Because whatever you get is final and the tongue in cheek razing comment is never going to happen. I recently got this one regarding beach access to the parking lot at the Bacara: A friend just let me know that the Goleta city council may go with the Bacara’s recommendation to close the parking lot from dusk to dawn. So Mr. RC251, who should say when you get to go to the beach and where and when? Who ever has the most money? Don't you like long walks on the beach in the moonlight? I understand private property rights, but trust me, no developer is going to go hungry taking into account some decent beach access and parking, for that matter a few less houses. Also, trust me or not, this housing will not be affordable, nor add significantly to the local economy (long term). I think there needs to some serious thought put into access and enforcement on the beach so we don't wind up with 10 more Wendy McCaws or Geffen’s telling us we can't go down to the beach.

Well, I mean, I'm not the biggest fan of this particular project either. I just don't understand the automatic hostility towards any kind of development around here. I agree that that coastal access should be protected. But what I found funny on the Save Naples website is that they said "The developer and new owner of Naples, Vintage Communities of Orange County, has proposed to build up to 54 homes on the property. Now that sounds better than the 400+ lots that the previous owner claimed possessed development rights." That sounds like they'd rather have mansions than smaller homes.

And I mean, look at Montecito, Hope Ranch, etc. This place is already filled with mansions, and that's always the reputation this area has had.

I just don't get the hypocrisy sometimes. I'm sure Goleta was one of the most beautiful areas in the country before it was paved over to create the homes Goletians now enjoy. And as soon as all of you moved in, you became environmentalists trying to protect the land. I'm sure the people who move into Naples will also become environmentalists when talk begins of further development on the Gaviota coast. I just think it's all so hilarious.

Thanks why I think turning the entire south coast into a national park would be a good thing. I mean, we all agree that we shouldn't add any housing in the area because it will damage the natural beauty in this area. Why not take it a step further and restore this beauty that was so destroyed by the development of Goleta?

But anyway, what's your solution to the problem? What's your solution to the thousands of commuters who pollute the air who have to drive from Ventura County to Santa Barbara to attend work?

My point was about keeping the place in it's natural state and coastal access. No one is going to mow down anything and put it back to where it was, but I think many that live in the area would like it NOT to be like Montecito, or Hope Ranch. Well other than the developer and owner of course. Can YOU go to the beach in either area?

Regarding your mass transit deal:
My solution would be working on a legitimate mass transit system, train subway style situation similar to what exists in many larger cities. Have it run from Camarillo to Lompoc, and have express trains running during rush hours. A few large parking facilities near the points of organ. I had a friend that took the boat from Oxnard one day when the highway was out a few years ago. I thought that was kind of crazy. Would you take a train from Ventura if it took you 15 minutes to Santa Barbara, and another 5 after a 10 minute stop to Goleta? It would be fast, but if we want to be cutting edge and enviro, let’s go.

Regarding the Homes:
I agree with you on the 56 homes better than the 400 plus, but with these mansions come high profile people with security goon squads which will hamper costal access which is more of the thrust of my point. Currently the Bacarra will shut down the access to the beach when ever they feel it is appropriate regardless of what they have agreed upon with the California Coastal Commission to get the project passed in the first place. Then you have some one mowing down all the eucalyptus a couple miles north of the Bacarra saying, “duh, I thought they were non native species.....” Do you think that these mansions owners will give a #@$%@ about people being able to have coastal access? In fact I will be they will try to hinder it for their own private Idaho any chance they get. The reason I mention Bacarra repeatedly, is that in a way, the area has already gone thru these battles with them, and come out on the bad end of the stick. They ignore the city of Goleta and I think the Naples project would be out side of that boundary, so who would enforce anything? They will do what they want.

Hopefully whatever happens to the area, it will be agreed upon by enviros and owners, and also have some consistent enforcement. Is this a pipe dream?

Thanks for the response. Sorry for my abrasive tone, but I thought maybe that would provoke some discussion. I do think this is an important issue that needs to be talked about.

As far as mass transit, I completely agree on this point. I'm not sure why commuter rail (and double tracking of the rail line) hasn't occurred yet. I'm sure the Montecito residents wouldn't be happy about any kind of rail/freeway expansion but they honestly need to stuff it.

My point about the mansions was a reply to the first poster, decrying the building of more of them. My point is that Santa Barbara doesn't have much of a reputation to protect. I mean, the whole place is already filled with mansions, and the reputation Santa Barbara has is a bunch of rich folks.

I even think that the move against building a Target ties into this. I mean, look at downtown Santa Barbara, filed with botique shops like Blue Bee and filled with upscale chains like Saks and Nordstrom and Abercrombie. However, when a chain like Target tries to move in, everyone in Santa Barbara complains. I have a small feeling that Target may be a little more affordable for our poor than Saks and Nordtstrom. But I guess we wouldn't want anyone knowing we actually have poor people in SB, huh?

And for coast access, I do agree with you on that point. I want to protect coast access, and I do hope that the Naples development gets scrutinized for that. However, where else can you develop? It's clear that their is an imbalance between jobs and housing in SB. But check out this poll:

http://www.independent.com/polls/2007/se...

61% of people say "No way in hell", while only 22% say "Maybe, if it is done in a balanced way". This makes me think that the majority of people don't want any development whatsoever. And as far as I can tell, the development in Bishop Ranch doesn't call for McMansions. I think the Naples development is easy to target because it has McMansions, but the underlying anger against it is the fact that any kind of development is being considered on the South Coast.

But of course, what's a coast for except to develop? Notwithstanding the continuous sprawl from Mexico to Malibu, why should we leave an inch untouched? Let's leave aside the ecological uniqueness of Gaviota, and trample over the last vestiges of what California used to be like before we screwed over it all.

Naples is a special case, but just the beginning as we see the mansions sneak through every loophole and take advantage of every particle of political advantage they can buy. It's all about the money and there are too few people interested in putting a finger in the dike to stop it eroding the public's right to control land use.

That's why I propose leveling Goleta and Santa Barbara and converting the entire South Coast to a national park. It seems like that's the perfect and most fair solution.

But in all seriousness, what's your solution? Why is it ok for your plot of land in Goleta to destroy the natural beauty of the south coast, but it isn't for someone in Naples and Bishop Ranch?

And what do you think we should do about that sprawl? Do you think we should put up a huge fence at the Mexican border and ban immigration to the United States completely so we don't have population growth in Southern California? Should we institute a 1 child policy like in China?

In all seriousness, development of land is the last link in a very long chain of issues. If you really want a solution to this issue, you wouldn't be sticking your finger in a dike, you'd be building a new dike. But that goes way beyond these money hungry developers.

Ok you can level Goleta and Santa Barbara, and I am also ok with your fence on the Mexican boarder and one child policy. In return, we get a National park that includes Naples, and Bishop Ranch? For this, I will donate 1$ to the United Developers College Fund, because a mind is a terrible thing to waste. You can't stop developers, you can only hope to contain them.

The only reason that developers have this huge power is that there are citizens willing to buy their property.

And just to clarify, I'm not all gung-ho happy about every square inch of beautiful land being developed. I love nature and the outdoors, but development is a necessary evil. As long as the population grows, land will need to be developed. The middle class is already being squeezed out of Santa Barbara, and the lower class even more severely.

I remember when the postal shooting happened, the victims were mentioned from being from places like Lompoc and Oxnard. It just got me thinking that it sucks that people who have to do the dirty work for all the wealthy Santa Barbarans have to commute for an hour, and even longer because the extremely rich of Montecito thought they were too good to have a freeway widened. I wonder what they would say if all those poor workers just decided to stop commuting to Santa Barbara one day.

Now, this issue is about Naples, which obviously isn't providing housing to the lower class. But because Santa Barbara is already such a rich person's paradise, I don't see why it's a big deal.

A couple of facts for you folks. (I do NOT work for the developer.)

1. There is NO access now. And stopping development will not create access. The only way to get access is to let the private landowner develop. Sorry but that is the way it is in the United States given the pesky document called the Constitution.

2. The developer has hundreds of legal lots which he can merge at will and sell to individual rich people who will have development rights. If the current proposal is stopped, the result would be completely unplanned development which would be disastrous for wildlife and views. And NO access.

3. The sale value of these lots is probably over $250 million. What did I say? Yes, $250 million. The communities (NOT EDC) only raised $10-20 million for Ellswood and Carpinteria Bluffs. Unless a super wealthy person contributes in the very high 8 figures (over $70 million), TDR is a waste of time. If it is imposed on the developer he will just start selling lots to John Travolta, Robert Murdoch and Wendy McCaw.

Finally, the bluff should not be developed - it is spectacular and special. But the alternative to the current proposal is not a national park. The alternative is Travolta and McCaw. The current plan is unfortunate. But if the community raises some money (EDC and Surfrider won't do it), then some of the bluff lots could be saved.