Page 1 of 2
Posted on November 13 at 10:30 a.m.
Thank's to all who are keeping this conversation about SBCC out there. You will make change happen!
It is time for President Lori Gaskin and the Board of Trustees to start doing their jobs as to the criminal element attending SBCC. Zero tolerance and.. throw them out for even minor offences.
It is time for the administration to limit the number of out of state and foreign students and to have Kaplan School leave the campus as soon as their lease permits.
The City of Santa Barbara must pass a just cause eviction ordinance to prevent the continuing eviction of our local population so that outside students can move into their homes at higher and higher rents. Let SBCC students from outside the district commute instead of our local residents!
SBCC should not get one more cent of local district taxpayer's money until the reality of change and progress at the school meets their promises.
To all of you: Keep the pressure on!
On City College Mending Fences with Neighbors?
Posted on November 7 at 8:28 p.m.
Dr.Dan: Line by line building and other needs and numbers and a 4-year funding period on any new bond measure is exactly what I suggested in a separate email I sent out on Nov. 5. The plan to build an Aquatics Center was deleted by SBCC in early 2014. You should trust the public, but...had the true facts and consequences of Measure S not been made public, Measure S would have passed. Why? Because the trusting public would have relied only on the pro Measure S $600,000 propaganda machine and the praise it received from all the elected and education officials that supported it. Remember that even with all the facts out there, about 50% of the voters voted Yes. I would bet that most did not know what they were even voting for in content and in cost for the next 38 years."Measure S is for our local students." is all they would have heard.
Your $150,000,000 "ballpark figure" for a new SBCC bond issue is not valid because neither you nor anyone else in the SBCC district knows how much is really necessary for repairs and replacement of facilities.
First, SBCC has to present a by facility, dollar by dollar laundry list of construction and other needs and only then can anyone talk about a "ballpark figure" for a new bond issue. You are putting the cart before the horse much like Gaskin and Co. did with Measure S.
On Election Day Takeaways
Posted on November 7 at 5:45 p.m.
Much of the writing I did went to the media with facts and figures, though I had some letters posted. I started this campaign against Measure S in September and was a forming member of the No on S Committee. I left the committee for the only reason that committees by nature are slow to react and the fact that all communications over the name of the committee required a lot of time and back and forth.
This is what I sent to my Measure S mail list on Nov. 5th:
("The media in most cases, learned many of the difficult facts of Measure S and their coverage was fair. Special thanks to Jim Buckley and the Montecito Journal, Giana Magnoli and Noozhawk, EdHat, Nick Welsh and Kelsey Brugger of the Independent and Don Katich and the News Press reporting team. With Measure S, KEYT had a complicated subject to cover on a news broadcast. My thanks to Victoria Sanchez and Tracy Lehr and CJ Ward for their efforts and KEYT's story on the unholy eviction of wheel chair bound and MS patient, Ms. Strong-Smith by PAC Properties, The Landlord with a Soul!
Special Thanks to The Montecito Journal, News-Press and the UCSB Daily Nexus for their editorial opposition to Measure S.
There were many people who worked hard to defeat Measure S against tough odds and a big money funded campaign. I want to name a few: Glen Mowrer and Lou Siegal worked hard with the tiny No on S Committee and me. NO on S had very little money to work with; Yes on S had tons of money from the building businesses, bond sellers, advisors and lawyers who would have profited from Measure S and they even used about $260,000 of SBCC Foundation money that donors had given to support education and got into trouble with the FPPC for not naming the SBCC Foundation as a big donor
Last, but by no means least, I thank the of thousands of voters in our area who took the time to read, listen and to learn the facts of Measure S. Not an easy task. Bond measures and money are not a simple art.")
I did what I did because it was the right thing to do and for no other reason. The committee did not receive much outside help and received little in the nature of outside donations. We were outspent 200 to 1!
The only thing that matters is that Measure S was defeated. SBCC's administration has to go back to the drawing board and present sensible future bond requests that are not an open ended spendathon. The major issues of out of state and foreign students also have to be addressed, along with the schools mission to provide education and enrichment to our local population. The city also must pass a just cause eviction ordinance!
There is much to be done. To all of you: JOIN US!
Posted on October 18 at 10:50 a.m.
This is how owner Marianne Partridge expresses her support of Measure P in the paper's endorsement of Measure P: "If fears of climate change trump your concerns about good governance, vote “yes.” But if not, vote “no.”
In my words: If your fears about the very existence of the world as we know it trump your concerns about good government, vote Yes. But if you are not concerned about our very existence and are more concerned about good government, Vote No.
Marianne has chosen good governance. So what if eventually there is no good governance left, and no one left to govern because of climate change.
Marianne, there is only one logical choice between the two as you frame them!
On Endorsements 2014
Posted on October 17 at 12:41 p.m.
Firstly, the paper has a right to do what it wants to do. It is a business enterprise and no doubt business considerations played a part in your Measure S endorsement, even though a great percentage of your readers are against Measure S from the polls that I understand the paper has taken. You have stabbed your paper's constituents and the people of the SBCC school district in the back. SBCC and its 12,000 or more outside students is a growing cancer on our community, especially on the Westside of Santa Barbara and Isle Vista. These students are a growing menace to other residents' quiet enjoyment and a portion of them are nothing but common criminals. Measure S is a blank check for Lori Gaskin & Co. to spend almost $300 million dollars as they see fit with no oversight on what the money is spent for. The Measure itself has no specific spending objectives listed. The present oversight committee for measure V is a group of political cronies, who for the most part don't have any background in financial matters and construction. The Measure V oversight committee's applications are sent to Lori Gaskin and then they will be chosen by the SBCC trustees, the very people that they are supposed to ove see. The Measure S oversight committee will be chosen in the same manner.
Any existing housing for outside the SBCC district students that is purchased with Measure V or Measure S money will cause the forced move of existing non-student renters, including workers, the poor, the elderly and those on fixed income. Many will have to leave Santa Barbara and commute. It will also take those apartment complexes off the property tax rolls, just as the purchase of Torres Towers did by UCSB. This purchase resulted in a loss of property taxes and assessments of at least one million dollars per year and contributes to the reduction in law enforcement funding and the reduced funding of other public agencies in Isle Vista. Because of this purchased by UCSB, Isle Vista has a poor tax base for public service. SBCC buying apartment complexes will have the same results. For the Independent to take the position of first giving Gaskin & Co. $288 million and then she and the school will solve the many problems that the school has dumped on the district is an Orwellian concept. You have it backwards! The Independent has done a gross injustice to our people by supporting Measure S, but then business is business.
Posted on October 10 at 9:15 p.m.
Those of you that have taken the time to understand Measure S and have expressed your views should be proud of yourselves. Many voters have not learned anything about Measure S.
SBCC tried to buy a 100 unit apartment complex on the Mesa this year and offered $30 million. Gaskin & Co. was outbid by a private party who bought it for $33 million. SBCC wanted to buy the complex to house some of the over 12,000 students at SBCC who come from everywhere but the SBCC District.
Here are the effects of what will happen when SBCC buys existing apartment complexes to house outside students because SBCC pays no taxes:
The building(s) will go off the property tax rolls. Had SBCC purchased this particular complex, it would have REDUCED local property taxes by about $300,000 a year and in ten years it would amount to a reduction of $3 million dollars, plus assessments. Conversely, the new owners will pay about $350,000 yearly and $3.5 million dollars over ten years, again plus assessments.
Interest on any money used by SBCC to purchase an existing apartment complex, such as the $30 million dollar deal that they lost, would bring the cost to district property owners to around $50+ million dollars over the lifetime of any bonds used to pay it.
Existing non-student renters would be forced out of their apartments to allow out of area SBCC students to move in. Existing renters would either have to find a vacant local apartment to move into, or to move away from Santa Barbara and commute, as so many workers have been forced to do already.
Any apartment complex purchased by SBCC will reduce the already short supply of local apartments available for our working people and will increase rents.
SBCC President Lori Gaskin just stated that there is no room on the campus to build student housing. There is no room in Santa Barbara to build student housing either. The buying of apartments by SBCC will only make an already housing market worse.
Bottom Line: Should SBCC District property owners and renters pay for the housing of SBCC students who come from everywhere but the SBCC District?
In my opinion, SBCC is becoming a financial and social cancer to SBCC district citizens. Harsh words yes, but the reality is harsh as well. The school has lost its way and is starting to do more harm than good to our community!
Gaskin and Co. need to go back to the drawing boards!
VOTE NO ON S!
On City College's Sprawling Impact
Posted on October 7 at 9:56 a.m.
Firstly, my thanks to Mark Taylor's excellent piece outlining the core social impact reasons that Measure S must be defeated.
I got involved in working all my waking hours to defeat Measure S when I found out how many outside students from all over the map attend SBCC and the horrlible cost that local working class people, especially those renting on the Westside and in Isle Vista, have paid because they have not only faced higher and higher rents, but in many cases they have actually been forced out of their residences and have had to leave Santa Barbara and commute to work here. I know of one person who lived here for 14 years and was forced to move to North County because his Westside apartments rent went into the ozones. The apartment was then rented to two SBCC students.
If you look at all the negative impacts concerning the cost of Measure S, both financial and social, you will join the thousands other SBCC District voters who have decided to VOTE NO ON MEASURE S!
Check out www.votenoons.com and get the real deal on S
On Don't Reward the Wayward College
Posted on September 25 at 1:41 p.m.
SBCC President Lori Gaskin and her merry band of Measure S Bonds proponents estimate that for the next 40-years, the tax rates for property owners will be no more than $16.65 per $100,000 of assessed valuation.
They have a minor problem in their claimed, uncanny ability to predict the future: Robert Geis!
According to Robert Geis, SB County Auditor-Controller, "there’s no way to guarantee or estimate future tax rates" (on Measure S).
On Measure S Speculates with Taxpayer Money
Posted on September 11 at 11:39 a.m.
Lanny Ebenstein is race baiting again in bringing race into the Measure S debate! Shameful!
Lanny Ebenstein today in the Independent:"According to Ebenstein, the percentage of Hispanic students who live in the community has gone up significantly in past decades. Between 2008-2012, the percentage of Hispanic students in the credit division increased from 28 to 33 percent, according to school records." There is no legitimate reason to work to divide and conquer between our Mexican kids and the rest of the kids in our community. Measure S affects Mexican students no more or less than it affects any other racial, religious, social or ethnic segment of the local SBCC student population! All of us involved with Vote No on S have made it a point not to talk about his previous racially charged comments about our Mexican kids and his tying them to Measure S. But, I am going to "let loose" on him for continually trying to paint opponents of Measure S as not only being against education, but specifically against the education of our Mexican kids!
He is trying to pit our Mexican Community against those who are against Measure S. He has one major problem: Our Mexican Community is not as dumb as he is! Your damn right I'm angry!
On Democrats Split on SBCC Bond
Posted on September 3 at 5:36 p.m.
Half truths, lies of omission that Ebenstein keeps repeating on S. Ebenstein fixes cost of the increased property tax @ $16.65 per $100,000 of assessed valuation. Fact: A fixed property tax assessment of $16.65 from S added to every tax bill from Gaviota to the Ventura County line cannot be determined until interest rates are determined. Lanny writes about the cost of the bonds to condos and single family homes using the MEDIAN assessed value of homes and condos. He neglects to mention every rental and commercial property in the entire district, as if they don't exist and will not be taxed.
Fact: Every residential and commercial property will pay increased property taxes for Measure S These added taxes will be passed on to all renters! These added costs to commercial tenants will be passed on to consumers with higher prices! One Mesa apartment house with Lanny's assessment of $16.65 per $100,000 of assessed valuation will see their property tax bill go up at least $5,650 a year for 25 years. This added tax will be passed on to renters!
How many homes in the Santa Barbara area are worth only $458,000, the median assessed amount he is trying to sell as "the assessed valuation" that will determine what homeowners pay. IS YOUR PROPERTY ASSESSED FOR ONLY $458,000? He states that 43% of local high school graduates enrolled in SBCC last September and then goes on to mention three Santa Barbara High Schools. The 43% he mentions, if fact, are under 500 students and many of these never finish SBCC and drop out. Less than 500 SBCC graduates a year go into the UC system and many of these are out of district students! Lanny states that we are investing in our local students if Measure S passes.
Fact: 12,000 students attending SBCC are not local! They come from out of the SBCC District and this over half billion dollar with interest bond will finance them! The bonds will expand the buildings at SBCC and in turn bring in more outside students, adding to the hundreds of thousands who are already destined to attend SBCC. High rents and less affordable housing will suffer even more, as more local residents are forced out of their homes and apartments and forced move elsewhere and commute! Joan Galvan, Public Information Officer of SBCC wrote to me on 8/25/14:"WE DO NOT COLLECT DATA ON WHAT DATE A STUDENT MOVES INTO OR OUT OF THE DISTRICT."
SBCC doesn't even know if a student is a foreign or out of state student if what Galvan says is true in her letter to me and I believe it is! I believe their total enrollment number is correct but...I could move here from outside the state or country, get a local address and CA Driver's License prior to enrollment and I would be counted as a local CA resident. Therefore, it is my belief that their outside CA student numbers cannot be and are not accurate and are low. Their 'outside of state student numbers' cannot be correct or proven by them.
On Answers to Questions About Measure S