Solvang lost some of its Danish charm in a battle over one partially developed lot with nine almost-built little cottages on it. A fight over what the developer calls whimsical and how closely it resembles the permit granted to him by the city landed the two sides in court.
The gloves came off, and the Americans have taken over.
Ed St. George is accusing the city of allowing political bias to taint its treatment of the project, while the city’s accusing St. George of filing a lawsuit too quickly—without “exhausting” all “administrative” remedies first.
The fight, which started last year, involves what one might call artistic license on St. George’s part when it comes to the color choices of his cottages and the city’s choice to shut him down over that and what it claims are a handful of other things.
“The project is being singled out for scrutiny,” court documents allege.
The support? City employees told St. George as much. Plus, Solvang City Councilmember Claudia Orona of Solvang Ice Cream and Trolley fame isn’t a fan because a competing ice cream parlor was set to become a tenant in one of the cottages, according to the lawsuit.
But remember, just because it’s in a court document doesn’t mean it’s true (even though, legally speaking, it’s illegal if it isn’t true). To add more credence to St. George’s bias claims, the documents add this little nugget:
“On multiple occasions while the trolley has been parked in front of the project, the [tour] narrator … comments about the project using derogatory terms, including that the project is ugly and that the owner of the project has done everything wrong,” the lawsuit claims.
Solvang referred to the claims as part of “a vague conspiracy theory,” which is what it sounds like. But a judge seemed to think otherwise. Judge James Rigali ruled against the city’s motion to dismiss the case, concluding that the lawsuit did enough to show that any appeal of the city’s decision to shut St. George down could have met the same fate: A halted project.
Whether St. Goerge “will be able to demonstrate this at trial is an entirely different matter,” Rigali wrote in his ruling. True, true.
In Lompoc, one person who was unable to demonstrate his innocence during a trial just walked away from prison on July 23. Convicted drug-trafficker Omar Briceno-Quijano was “discovered missing,” according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, after missing for three consecutive counts in a row.
Why does it take three counts to establish whether someone is missing from prison? It feels like Shawshank Redemption over there.
After that third missed tally, the federal penitentiary complex conducted “a search of all internal and appropriate areas” before placing the 5-foot-7 Houdini on “escape status.” He’s a “walkaway.” As in, he just walked away from minimum security prison.
So how minimum is this minimum security facility?
Low enough that someone sent to a 14-year prison sentence for meth distribution and money laundering can just walk away after serving four years. I guess he was done!
Should we be concerned? Is he a “dangerous” felon?
No idea! But feel free to call the U.S. Marshals Service with any information you might have on this guy’s whereabouts as he’s on a walkabout.
The Canary loves a good walkabout. Send tips to canary@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in July 30 – August 6, 2026.
