Buellton Growth and Transparency in Land Use

Preservation of Los Olivos (P.O.L.O.) is a group of citizens who are interested in preserving the quality of life in our rural community. Our mission is to be actively involved in the creation of guidelines and goals in order to ensure a balanced community plan. We endeavor to protect our water, air, open spaces, habitat areas, cultural resources and our heritage that make up the quality of life in the Santa Ynez Valley.

P.O.L.O. is extremely concerned about the large expansion plans of Buellton, or significantly increasing the size of the “sphere/zone of interest” boundaries in Buellton.

The main reason to study this increase is for increasing the density and development of Buellton.   Increasing density, and especially housing, in Buellton will affect all other areas of the Santa Ynez Valley. Highway 246 is a major artery of transportation and could be severely impacted with more traffic. Alamo Pintado, Ballard Canyon, and other alternative roads could be affected as congestion of Highway 246 increases.

P.O.L.O. supports transparency in land use issues.  If  by expanding Buellton, or increasing the “sphere if influence boundaries,” the plan is to increase housing/development/density in Buellton, then before any increase of boundaries is considered, the question to the citizens of Buellton, Solvang, Los Olivos, Ballard and Santa Ynez must be:  “Buellton is considering increasing density.  This density could affect roads and traffic throughout Buellton, Solvang, Los Olivos, Ballard and Santa Ynez.  It would also affect the quality of life in other areas of the Valley.  Do the citizens of Buellton and the surrounding towns and unincorporated areas support this magnitude of increased development in Buellton and if so how much and how big should the town of  

Buellton be?

Quality growth has many advantages over quantity growth for any rural town and POLO appreciates the need for measured quality growth and planning. POLO also strongly believes that saving Agricultural zoning from development is important for the long term quality of life, sustainability and agricultural economy of the Valley.

Sincerely, Michelle Griffoul, Preservation of Los Olivos, P.O.L.O.

693-5090

 

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Buellton Is Our Town wishes to thank the more than 800 residents of the Santa Ynez Valley — 450 from Buellton alone — for signing a petition telling the Buellton City Council that they do not want its sphere of influence expanded; we do not want its population to grow beyond what was promised at the time it became a city (8,500); and we do not want to see the land surrounding the city taken out of prime agricultural production. More Buellton residents signed this petition than voted for in the last Buellton election. Sounds like a mandate!  We also thank the Valley Journal for featuring this issue on its front page and understanding the issue’s significance to the Santa Ynez Valley.

Buellton is Our Town is a grassroots citizens group committed to maintaining Buellton’s rural character by persuading the Buellton City Council to live within its current city limits and sphere of influence.

We still need your help. Please join us at the next Buellton City Council Meeting, July 12, 5:15 PM, at Oak Valley School in Buellton. Vote with your presence!

Judi Stauffer

Buellton Is Our Town

www.buelltonisourtown.org

 

 

Response to: Fast Track to Unregulated Indian Gaming Article Published June 22
Hi Jared,
This was a fantastic article. Keep it up. We have to get the facts out.

Kathy Cleary, POLO

 

 

Dear Editor,

I am writing in response to the article "California Healthy Pets Act Stirs Widespread Controversy".

How unfortunate that your reporter took his data directly from the politician trying to push this punitive legislation and not other sources.  This article quotes a VOLUNTEER with perceived factual information of the Santa Cruz County mandatory spay/neuter model (64% decline in shelter numbers and a 75% decline in euthanasia).  As required under law, Santa Cruz county has reported their shelter statistics to the California Department of Health Services, Veterinary Public Health Section (CDHS-VPH) and these statistics show NO CHANGE in animals entering the Santa Cruz shelter since the passage of the mandatory spay/neuter law.  I find it to be rather alarming that your newspaper did not check this information with the California Department of Health Services, and instead relied on the word of political VOLUNTEER backing the bill.  This is not good journalism!!

AB 1634 "The Pet Extinction Act" is based on misleading numbers and exaggerated statistics.  If the state of California was facing such a severe pet overpopulation problem that requires the mandatory castration of all dogs and cats, then I'd like to answers to the following questions:

If California shelters are over burdened with more pets than they can handle, then why were THOUSANDS of displaced pets from Hurricane Katrina brought into California shelters to be re-homed?

Why do California shelters import dogs from other states and Mexico to place for adoption?

Why do some California shelters have such few animals of their own that they regularly transfer pets from the LA County shelters to meet their adoption demands from the public?

If we have so many un-wanted pets in California that a punitive legislation such as AB 1634 is required, then why did my neighbor have her name selected out of a lottery of over 10 other potential applications to adopt her 40 lb. adorable mutt with one eye and a skin condition?

AB 1634 is un-warranted social legislation at it's worst.  It is backed by animal rights extremists who use faulty data to validate their goals of eradicating domestic pet ownership.

J. Sullivan

Santa Rosa Valley

 

(Response) Dear Ms. Sullivan,

We thank you for writing in about your concerns; however, we stand by our reporter 100 percent and respectfully disagree with your accusations.  If you read our reporter’s follow-up story “Santa Cruz Spay and Neuter Bill Works” published one week after the original article you are referring to, you will see that our reporter did check his facts very thoroughly.  The follow-up article gives direct statements by the main Santa Cruz Animal Shelter stating that they are pleased with the effects the Bill is having on their shelters.  Further the follow-up article shows that the data used to generate the graphs and other numbers published in our original article was in fact accurate.  Please read the below clips from our follow-up article that was published on June 22, 2007.

“... the data used to generate the graphs that California Healthy Pets Act proponents are distributing was acquired from the “Santa Cruz Animal Services intake and euthanasia rates from before and after the mandatory spay and neuter law was passed in that county.”

“Incoming animals have drastically dropped. There has been staff that has been here a long time who can remember boxes of cats and dogs showing up. Now it’s been a year and a half,” said Santa Cruz County Animal Services General Manager Katherine Vos, a 27-year veteran of the industry.

“Yes we are experiencing a reduction. You ask any other shelter in the state of California, who can hold a cat in their shelter for three months because they have the space to do so? This I can vouch for. When I walked into this organization in March, there were cats that were here from December. And I went, ‘Wow, that’s amazing. That’s unheard of in this business.’”

“I’ve had to put boxes and boxes of kittens and puppies to sleep. What’s incredible here in Santa Cruz is our euthanasia list is one or two animals,” she said. “We just don’t euthanize all that much. What does that do to the psychological health of the staff? It’s extremely important to the psychological health and morale of our staff.”

Thank you -MLM

 

 

Response to: California Healthy Pets Act Stirs Widespread Controversy published on June 15

I realize as a reporter you try to get the facts straight.  However, have you checked out the economic impact the bill will have on different communities.  The same size shoe does not fit all people.  What may work in Santa Cruz County doesn't work for Kern County or even Santa Barbara County.

Many communities are having trouble meeting their budget needs for their communities.  This bill "mandates" the establishing of this policy.  Where is a small community going to get the approximately $15,000.00 to pay for staffing each person plus the equipment to enforce it?  The local budgets will suffer somehow.  The "fees" collected will not cover the costs of this plan.  Remember, the state says this has to be enforced.  A community has no choice.  This is micromanagement by the State.  Too Bad for California.

I feel if the current laws on the books were enforced, puppy mills from out of state and in the state were eliminated, many of the problems would be addressed and save the same money.  Stressing education of the public is very important.  As those in the dog world know, not everyone is the right person to own a terrier.

Please re-think you stand.  Can your community afford to add staffing and equipment for this bill and not cut education and health items from the budget?

Rita Harrington

 

(Response) Dear Rita,

Thank you for your letter. We have not taken a stand of any kind on this issue.  We simply print the facts as they come.  As a pet owner, I myself have concerns about this particular Bill. However, I am also torn by the number of animals that are euthanized.  Like you, we will continue to follow this story.  We will continue to print new information as we receive it.  I hope you read our follow-up article on June 22, 2007 which also discusses cost to the state and the possible benefits of this Bill. You can read the latest article printed by the Valley Journal at: http://syvjournal.com/archive/5/13/244/

Thank you – Valley Journal Staff.