Send in the Political Wackos

Murillo, according to her television advertisements, appears to be for everything for everybody. In reality she clearly appears to be for everything for illegal aliens. I suspect her "40 units per acre" idea would not apply to illegals as she would decry that "they are living in overcrowded conditions which is why despite working 4 jobs per day, their children don't graduate from high school and instead become gang members".
Can someone explain why Barney B is supposedly a legend in this little town?

italiansurg, do enlighten us all with some actual evidence that Murillo "clearly appears to be for everything for illegal aliens."

Methinks your comment is more about your own problems and prejudices and not about anything to do with any candidate.

Most of downtown with apartment and condo buildings already is at 40 units per acre density or higher. Unfortunately, some commenters and Barney Brantingham himself don't know how to put numbers in perspective. Gutter talk, indeed.

Methinks you do not understand the difference between having absolute prejudice against people who break Federal Law to enter this nation and having zero prejudice against everyone, regardless of race, creed or color that arrives legally.
Methinks you have not followed Murillo's career at UCSB and her numerous statements in the press over the years.
Methinks I have precious few problems. I arrived in this country nearly pennyless. I now own several properties, my family is doing well, and I'm financially and personally successful. I dislike more than ever people that steal their way to the U.S. and then want special consideration and those that advocate for lawbreakers.
Methinks increasing the number of 40 residence per acre density zones will radically and for the worse change the nature of this community.

Maybe the INDY didn't need Francisco's money, unlike the struggling "Liberal" Daily Sound.

It's ridiculous to think that a Council candidate who promotes herself as financially responsible and capable of oversight of the city budget but who is being sued for a $34,000 debt and owes the IRS should be supported by anyone, except someone who doesn't think the municipal budget is particularly important. It's sad but the Indy has become much too partisan, too aligned completely predictably with the Democratic Party. "Bias"? Point the finger at the News-Press, sure, but look in the mirror, Indy!

Murrillo says she's for the environment, but avoids mentioning the unhealthy concentrated air pollution and poor water quality that density brings.

Self is against banning plastic bags, but avoids mentioning all the deaths to wildlife from these plastics.

The Indy is the yin to the the new-press's yang.

No surprise the two papers are not saying a bad word against their candidates, but trashing the candidates they don't like. I love how objective reporting goes out the window during election time. Barney appears to be the most level-headed about local politics that I've read.

Apparently Georgy thinks that apartment buildings downtown will be served by leaky septic systems and generate congested highway commutes by smoggy clunkers.

And if those apartment buildings do not go downtown, they will be sprawled out in the San Roque or Samarkand instead, cuz they have to go somewhere under the plan that Dale Francisco just approved.

And "italiansurg" still has not cited one specific example of how Murillo "clearly appears to be for everything for illegal aliens," because, yes, thousands of Santa Barbara voters actually have followed Murillo's career and statements over the years.

Just a little over a week ago I heard her comment again that she was for the Dream Act. So you understand what that is John_Adams; it gives away public funds to illegal aliens. Even legal Americans from another state pay a higher rate.
Oh yea, gangs in this town are nearly 100% Latino and she is against Gang Injunctions even though they have been found CONSTITUTIONAL all over California. Admittedly, not all of the Mexican gang members are illegal, so maybe she's just zenophobic towards the rest of us...

Nice try John_Adams,
Apparently, urban runoff doesn't exist nor does the idea of no new apartment buildings.

re: Schwartz. Yes. Why is the Independent endorsing someone who cannot manage her own finances but yet is running on a platform of being able to manage a city budget? It's a poor choice on the Indy's part--and misleads their readership as the paper has yet to write about Schwartz's IRS problems.

Balanced journalism, anyone?

Nice try, Georgy. Downtown already is urban and the runoff is the same because the ground surface already is impervious. New housing projects actually install stormwater management systems as well, so the runoff is the same or less intense.

And, yes, italiansurg, based on prior public statements, Murillo supports DREAM act, and Murillo believes that the currently proposed gang injunction in Santa Barbara is full of problems.
Deal with that.

I enjoy your opinions John_Adams, but theory doesn't replace reality. For example,

The affordable housing development located at 512 Bath Street destroyed the last open-space garden area in the neighborhood.
This was real soil where real trees and plants grew which actually lets nature do its job protecting air quality and water quality from urban runoff, right next to Mission Creek. If it wasn't for environmentalists pushing this disastrous project back from the creek the runoff would have dumped right into the creek flushing out to the wharf. The new stormwater management system directs runoff onto Haley and Bath streets, picking up oil and debris before it finds its way to the creek.The open space garden area also gave the kids in the neighborhood a place to be in nature and play.

High-density developments destroy nature and take away yards from familys and children. Growing up without nature or a yard is not "progressive". Computers and TV don't replace a yard. Now the nearest park is under the freeway to Pershing park. Would you let your kid walk Castillo street under the freeway with all the high-density traffic there? Traffic downtown is worse than ever with all the new cars coming from the in-fill developments. Why do you think the working poor are so against the density scam?

I suggest John_Adams you look at what's best for your neighborhood, not what some planner learned in college about smart growth. Density has not benefitted the Westside or other urban areas along the coast.

http://www.survey.ucsb.edu/ccs

"When presented with this choice, a small plurality of respondents preferred a plan to build low density housing on open land, followed by a preference not to build at all. High density housing was the least popular option. There is a clear difference between the preferences of North and South County residents, with North County respondents less supportive of high density housing and more supportive of the “don’t build” option, while South County respondents were about evenly divided between those two options, with slightly more respondents preferring high density housing to not building at all. Latinos and lower income respondents offered more support than other groups for building low density housing in undeveloped open spaces, and were less supportive of high density housing or not building."

http://www.independent.com/news/2010/...

Dream Act=Pro illegal alien=case closed
Thanks JA for making our job so easy.

Looks like Murillo lost the decided-already-regardless-of-anything votes of the spurious interpreters of polls that asked different questions from how they are interpreted, dislikers of "density" without ever defining any density rate, stormwater treatment system misunderstanders, straw-arguers, their familys, and of xenophobes.

And clearly gained the votes of the brain dead, ultra left, social justice, socialist one world type, nanny state Dems. Fair enough?

Not fair, but definitely will be more votes cast from those kinds of voters, resulting in some retired city council incumbents.

That is what Democracy looks like.