HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/14/2025 Item 7c, Slem
Charles M. Slem <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Community Goals on tonight’s agenda
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Seasonal respiratory illnesses preclude attendance at tonight’s meeting, and so I will belatedly offer a brief
summary of what I might have commented about.
From the cranky response of the automated verification system when I originally attempted to fill out the
survey, I am not sure whether my perspectives, well known to some of you I’m sure, were captured.
In looking at the survey responses in the agenda package, almost all seem worthy, but I would like to offer
another integrated approach that recognizes the needs/issues of the constituencies that are impacted when
thinking about community level goals.
There are at least two ways of looking at goals that will benefit all constituencies.
I. Neighborhoods
One could be done through the reasonable filter of neighborhoods which often reflect a diversity of
constituencies that might get lost in just addressing the general issue.
For example, expanding affordable housing in R-1 areas, and maintaining a close relationship with Cal Poly are
commendable but have led to a problem with the residents of surrounding neighborhoods which continues to
be overlooked except during Saint Fratty’s Day.
Using neighborhood integrity and wellbeing as a criteria for analysis would seemingly increase the efforts to
reign in unauthorized fraternity residences and seriously address those neighborhood issues.
I can think of several other general worthy goals that have had that impact of being tone deaf to
neighborhoods (e.g. the rv safe parking plan for Palm Street). It was obvious that the worthy goal — safe
homeless housing — was being implemented in a way that was causing more problems than it was resolving.
II. Anticipating the Impact on often unrepresented groups.
Among the many under represented groups that often get overlooked when general goals are being
considered and implemented, the numerically growing senior and disabled population is a good example of
the unimagined consequences of city initiatives.
As an example, when the parking structure fee increase was made with the accompanying host of new
procedures, technology and apps unfolding, the confusion was as disruptive to seniors as the fee increase
itself.
1
Although the lines for help in the parking structures were also populated by younger confused patrons, the
percentage of seniors was much greater. The default assumption that must have framed the creation of these
technologically challenging procedures must have envisioned a belief that Slo was comprised of
technologically sophisticated younger people.
Another example has to do with the traffic calming initiatives which have had the perhaps unintended
consequences of making many senior drivers (who traditionally are safer drivers than the general population)
more uncomfortable in driving in their own town.
The senior/disabled population does not fit into our stereotypical view of the Slo life, but consistent with the
recent report to the Santa Barbara BOS, this population is growing with a whole series of issues that will only
grow over the next decade in our community which should be embracing a broad definition of inclusivity.
While I am more intimately aware of the needs of this particular group, I can imagine the perspectives of other
segments of under represented constituencies would increase the likelihood that the quest to fill general goals
with benefit the whole community.
HEALTH CARE CRISIS
An independent unintended consequence of our quest at increasing the housing stock in this desirable
community is that it is increasing the population that cannot find adequate healthcare because we are
considered a rural community and cannot keep/attract enough doctors.
Like the availability of other infrastructure services, it seems prudent to consider whether or not a new
development will place new residents in this predicament and make finding healthcare more difficult for the
residents who are already here.
Thanks for your consideration and I am sorry I will not be attending tonight.
Chuck Slem
348 Lincoln Street
2