BY LORETTA REDD
“I want it all,” stated Councilmember Horton last Tuesday evening, as he weighed in on the proposed composition of the Transit Center project on Chapala and Figueroa. To be fair, Councilwoman Iya Falcone, later trumped him, saying, “I want it all…and then some!”
Having it ‘all’ equated to generally ignoring the pleas of MTD’s Dave Davis, who dared to request that bus service actually remain the primary focus at the Transit Center. Sorry, Dave, the Council has its sites set on this 1.8 acre parcel for massive ‘affordable’ housing, 6,000 square feet of daycare, rooftop gardens, commercial space, and above and underground parking.
Oh yeah, and the buses…well, the diagram suggested no increase in bus capacity, showing 3 stalls on site, with 5 others offsite in the public right of way.
Damn the riders, full speed ahead. We should have known back in 2003, when the City Redevelopment Agency found willing converts on council, that the renovation of a transportation hub would eventually turn into a ‘village’ for every imaginable asset, as long as you don’t mind enjoying the last remaining view of our mountains from the grassy top of a four story building, and believe that childcare is compatible with exhaust fumes.
When the pesky ‘size, bulk and scale’ issue was raised for the massive complex, suggesting that three stories of market condos or workforce housing might actually suffice, Councilman Williams publicly defined the reduction in dwelling units as “the wussy alternative.”
Before the housing advocates go apoplectic, I am very well aware of our inflated cost of housing, and that the ‘big A’ affordable is a relative term. But this is the same Council, RDA and Planning Commission that approved the lower Chapala monoliths now under construction, which will inevitably increase property values and the eventual loss of those older Westside middle class neighborhood homes from Chapala to the 101.
Get on the bus with me folks, is this not supposed to be a transit-oriented development? I agree with MTD’s Davis as he reasonably suggested using the lot for enhanced mass transit parking and turnarounds, staff and public restrooms, some green space for those waiting or enjoying lunch downtown, some beverage or food amenities, parking for commuters, bicycle racks and possibly a police satellite station.
The priority of the transit center is to move workers into and out of downtown Santa Barbara, not house them or offer another trendy shopping experience. With all the money that goes into the PR campaigns designed to increase bus ridership, the investment in our new clean air mass transit units, the skyrocketing gas prices and economically challenged bus-dependent riders, one would think the Council might demand building a transit hub suitable for the future, rather than barely replacing the existing capacity.
But as Will Rogers said, “I don’t make jokes I just watch the government and report the facts.”
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Buses? We don't need no stinkin' buses
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I challenge all the council members to give up their cars and use the bus for ONE WEEK before making another decision about public transportation in this town.
Dear Ms. Redd,
What's your real beef with this project? Also, are you a regular MTD bus rider (or how often do you take MTD)? I'm just curious, as knowing that might give your "Damn the riders!" outcry more weight -- if I knew you were personally affected, rather than 'merely' propelled by a outsized sense of altruism for your fellow, bus-riding citizens.
And you're worried about Westside (betw. Chapala & 101) property values being increased and the "eventual" loss of "middle class" neighborhoods? Zillow currently values those properties at $600K and up, which, from my point of view, isn't exactly "middle class" anymore. Let me get this straight, just for the record: Are you saying you're against the increase of property values?
Also, when was the last time you went down to Chapala & Carrillo in order to enjoy the "last remaining view of our mountains"? It's a shame that the two-minute walk to your car after you've finished shopping at Ralphs will be so blighted if something is built on the parking lot across the street.
I agree that transportation and MTD needs (current and future) must be addressed by any project on the site in question, so Mr. Davis's concerns should be duly addressed. However, the idea that meeting MTD needs in the context of a multi-use project that incorporates housing and childcare is somehow incongruous or at cross-purposes with transportation is a bankrupt argument.
I appreciate your heartfelt concern for all of us bus riders, but the meanspiritedness of your rant about mixed-use development belies some other agenda. Unless you are just exhorting us to "think of the children!" when noting the environmental hazards of placing childcare near a parking garage.
Thank you,
A Daily MTD Commuter
Loretta Redd shops at Ralph's?
What I took away from this article was that once again an enormous downtown project is being considered and will most likely be approved. Do we really need another huge buiding in this area? I think not.
It sounds as if the needs of the Transit Dept. are secondary to adding yet another huge "mixed use" building. Enough, already!
Mixed use is great when all the buses at the transit center are electric.
Lets not have buses in a holding pattern on the street. The counsel seems to need a large building on that side of State St to balance the parking garage by the Courthouse.
Post a Comment