WATCH TONIGHT AT 9:30PM ON Design Santa Barbara

On this episode we travel up to the north of Santa Barbara County to a historic Hotel in Orcutt with esteemed local realtor Adam McKaig. Also we visit a beach property decorated by Leesa Wilson-Goldmuntz with your host MICHAEL KOUROSH

I want to thank YOU, the YTS Productions, the featured Interior Designers and my hard working crew for making the last 18 seasons a wonderful experience for me and the viewers from around the world. With appreciation, Michael Kourosh

Those behind the Greater Idaho Movement point out that “Oregon refuses to protect citizens from criminals, rioters, wildfire arsonists, illegals and the homeless but then infringes on your right to defend your family with firearms. Idaho enforces the law.”

In other words, a liberal Portlandia lifestyle does not suit conservative ranchers, loggers and sawmill workers in rural areas.

I asked Matt McCaw, spokesperson for the Greater Idaho Movement, why I cannot find opposition within Oregon to their proposal.

“There is no ongoing popular opposition against us,” he told me.

However, the bill for Oregon’s legislature to open discussion with Idaho, says Mr. McCaw, is stuck in committee because Senate President Peter Courtney “is not interested in looking at it.”

Several polls, both in Idaho and eastern Oregon, strongly support a new boundary so Mr. McCaw is hopeful that Salem’s politicos will come round. “If not this legislation session,” he told me, “we will try again next year.”

A poll conducted by Survey USA asked the question, “Should Oregon’s state government look into what the effect on Oregon would be if Oregon became part of Idaho, and how the transition could be done smoothly?”

Sixty-eight percent said Yes; 20%, No, and 12% Not sure.

I reached out to Oregon Senate President Rob Wagner for his thoughts on the proposed boundary change, also posing a question about why he will not allow the issue to advance beyond committee stage. He did not respond.

If the Greater Idaho Movement prevails, it would most certainly inspire the folks in the rural regions of blue states all around the country who do not want to be dictated to by big city governments, their hugely concentrated populations and non-proportional expenditure.

Secession As A Tool For Lower Taxes

Secession, while a steeply uphill battle, is not so outlandish as one may think. Declaring yourself independent of the United States is not likely to get you anywhere. But a strategy for part of one state to try to annex with another, or to create a wholly independent state within the U.S., has in the past led to positive results.

Case in point: In 1994, 120 residents of Long Island, off the coast of Maine, successfully seceded from the city of Portland after the city raised property taxes. Long Island held a referendum on election day in 1992 and, by a margin of threeto-one, favored secession. Maine legislators voted to allow the island to secede in so long as the islanders coughed up $1.3 million for city property, which was negotiated down to $600,000.

A Maine lawmaker said at the time, “It’s only fair to let the island’s voters decide their fate.”

Their fate included a 33% decrease in property tax

Just the threat of secession has caused governmental authority to cave in certain instances.

In 1992 , 11 counties in western Kansas threatened to secede and create the new state of West Kansas over the issue of disproportionate school tax. Those united counties planned a constitutional convention. But two weeks before convening, policymakers in Topeka capitulated and reapportioned school tax in favor of all 11 counties.

MONTECITO

Bringing it home to Montecito, everybody knows that the city of Santa Barbara takes more than it provides from Coast Village Road, which, everybody also knows, should belong to Montecito but for a bum deal 63 years ago when business and property owners along this stretch voted 38 to 15 to leave the unincorporated county and join the city. One month later the Santa Barbara City Council formally adopted the “Montecito Strip Annexation.”

The spirit with which the part of Montecito annexed itself to Santa Barbara has now dissipated.

The revenue brought in by Coast Village Road (property and sales tax) could more directly benefit its inhabitants if these funds were spent on maintenance and upgrades along what has become (since the annexation of 1960) a thriving thoroughfare.

So it makes sense that Coast Village Road’s business and property owners are entitled to a new referendum on whether to remain under the purview of the city or return to the unincorporated county. This is a realistic option for either selfdetermination or as a tool to exact leverage on the city for meeting its needs — or at least providing services commensurate with what they receive in taxes.

The mechanics for doing so are these: Coast Village Road’s residents and business owners would lobby the Montecito Association to organize a referendum on this issue. If an overwhelming majority votes in favor of splitting from the city, they could rightfully announce a return to county control (like the rest of Montecito) and offer to pay the city of Santa Barbara for anything that belongs to them.

Using the Portland, Maine case as precedent, one could define “overwhelming” as a 75% majority in favor.

Coast Village Road would thereafter withhold various tax revenues that normally go to the city of Santa Barbara and utilize these funds for upgrading sidewalks, landscape improvements and street lighting, in addition to having a major say in planning issues, currently the city’s domain.

Rather than cede to majority rule, the city may sue over withheld taxes. Courts would then interpret and adjudicate laws and, years on, the Supreme Court of California would issue a decision.

More likely, the city of Santa Barbara would negotiate a ceding — as did Portland, Maine — rather than absorb the huge expense of multiyear litigation.

Robert Eringer is a longtime Montecito author with vast experience in investigative journalism. He welcomes questions or comments at reringer@gmail. com.