County Roundup

One of the bigger political issues here locally is the proposed County Split. New lines would be drawn at Gaviota and create Mission County, which would then encompass the area from Gaviota to the San Luis Obispo County line just north of Santa Maria.

Proponents of the split have finally produced a summary for inclusion on County ballots where residents will decide the issue: Three members of the Citizens for County Organization - the North County group that gathered 21,000 signatures in 2003 to put a county-split measure on the June 6 ballot - submitted a ballot argument detailing their reasons for backing the division, which would create Mission County from Santa Barbara County land north of Gaviota.

The statement is co-authored by Santa Maria business owner Dave Cross, Cuyama rancher Richard Russell and Santa Ynez business owner Sharon Steele, and focuses on what they say are the benefits of a government more representative of the North County's needs, which vary greatly from those of South Coast residents.

“Obviously I feel that it's in the best interest of the people to do it,” Cross said. “I mean that's my whole interest. I've lived here my whole life and I want what's best for the whole community.”

The proponents' argument will run next [to] the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisor's statement against the county split, which was unanimously approved a week ago.

Additionally, both sides are considering writing rebuttals against the statements of the other: Both sides will now have an opportunity to write a 250-word rebuttal, due March 24 at 5 p.m. At that time, the county Elections Division will release all of the arguments for a 10-day public review, said Bob Smith, elections division manager.

When the supervisors authorized 3rd District Supervisor Brooks Firestone and 1st District Supervisor Salud Carbajal to craft a statement against the split last month, the motion also permitted them to write a rebuttal argument.

Firestone said late Thursday that he's already written a draft statement for the board's consideration. “I'm going to point out that what it says in the argument is speculative,” Firestone said.

The three CFCO members will “definitely” be writing a rebuttal to the supervisors' statement, Cross said.

And that’s where we’re at. Both sides appear passionate about the issue. South County advocates believe the split is bad for both halves of the County. Cross recently wrote that North County cities are woefully under-represented in Santa Barbara and urged voters to approve Mission County’s formation:

Our needs and priorities are not being addressed enough in north Santa Barbara County. We are given less than our share. We are smothered by regulations that reflect the philosophy and limitations of the South Coast, even though they do not fit here.

As I wrote before this is exemplified by the fight over Measure D. Opponents of the split however, do not think it enough to justify the move. As articulated in a recent Times’ editorial:

…opposition to the split goes beyond the wants and needs of individual board members, who probably see the split proposal for what it really is - an emotional attempt to separate the North County and the South Coast along political lines, without any realistic consideration or concern for the problems and hardships that could be caused by forming a new county.

A special commission appointed by the governor spent months analyzing the various technical effects of such a split. Its findings, without equivocation, point to keeping Santa Barbara County whole. Among the major problems would be a $30 million annual deficit the new Mission County would acquire, not counting the additional millions needed in startup costs.

The fact that everyone needs to face is that this issue has now been studied, dissected and studied again, and it seems abundantly clear that the numbers just do not add up. Certainly the commission's specific findings are open to debate, but the overall hurdle of $30 million in red ink isn't going to be overcome without drastic changes.

And in the world of government, “change” usually equates to higher taxes and/or fewer services - a couple of things that North County residents can ill-afford.

From the limited reading on the subject that I’ve done, I gather that the projected $30 million dollar deficit is the biggest question and apprehension that people have about the move. Cross insists, not only is it not a problem, it’s not an accurate number: In the end, it is not about money. New property tax figures have already reduced the reported deficit for Mission County from $30 million to $5 million. It is about what you want the future to be like.

And in relation to the ballot argument, he says: ...he focused his ballot argument on the notion that Mission County residents would face a tax increase if the split were approved, which opponents have frequently used to refute claims that the divorce would prove beneficial for residents. Cross' statement says, “There will be no new taxes involved in this measure. Any new taxes must be voted on and approved by two-thirds majority on a separate ballot.”

As a would-be taxpayer in the proposed Mission County, that is the question that must be answered. Who ya going to believe?

Frankly, I'm not sure I like either choice. The status quo doesn’t serve us well up here, but the pro-change forces are long on vision but short on facts that prove they can deliver.