The County Split

By Robert Evan Cuthbert

An issue looming on the horizon, and one that will have profound and long-range impacts on this community is the new movement to split our county. The arguments seem clear and straightforward.

It's granted that we have been slighted, but there's the rub. The only real arguments for a new county are more to the benefit of our emotions. The new county is perceived as retaliation for years of frustration. The ad hoc committee that purports to represent the North would have us believe that Mission County would create a new political dynamic; a representative Board of Supervisors, more aligned with common goals, and a government more orientated to local needs.

But, in reality and with perspective, the costs associated to divide the county outweigh the positives. To start a county at a deficit of 25 million, and not knowing unforeseen costs, is nothing less than a gamble. The expertise needed to manage any county government is expensive and difficult to find. The new county would duplicate bureaucracy, duplicating many services except at the "ground level". The net effects; more taxes, more government workers, more bureaucracy. Those who argue the new county will simply provide fewer social services know nothing of the state and federal mandates required of local government.

Our clout with the state and nation would be diminished considerably. The new Mission County would be obscure, compared to Santa Barbara County. Tourism would be affected, and companies would be less likely to relocate or develop facilities. The growing wine industry has developed a world-renowned reputation for Santa Barbara, a reputation developed in the North.

What this county needs is not more division, but reform. The issues that divide us are slowly being addressed. We all agree in the North that what measures have been taken are too little and too late. Rather than drive further division, the energies put to establish a new county should be put to reform. More supervisorial seats allowing for more compact and cohesive constituencies, for example. Also, more essential county facilities located in the North would be a viable reform.

In the long run the North is to dominate the county. The demographic transition of greater population growth, as well as, expanding industry and housing growth destine the North to change the balance.

The appeal to create a new county is essentially based on poor facts, or worse it furthers the agenda of a few. The costs and social impacts cannot be foreseen no matter how much it is studied. Rather than leap into the unknown, the prudent will seek further reform. Hopefully, this proposal is as ill fated as it is ill conceived.