As a Santa Barbara resident for more than 20 years, I couldn’t help but laugh at the Feb. 1 article, “Experts Discuss How to Revitalize Santa Barbara Retail” — a “first of its kind” meeting.
I guess everyone has forgotten the half-dozen or so studies and strategic plans the city has commissioned at considerable expense over the last decade. Perhaps they have also forgotten the numerous economic forums that have addressed the issue.
A simple artificial intelligence search will produce several. And all have come to the same conclusions and made the same recommendations: Remove or streamline the burdensome regulations on development, ease and expedite the permitting process, and make the area welcoming, attractive and safe (by removing homeless loitering and cleaning up the trash).
No commercial developer is going to invest time and money until these changes are made.
I say to the City Council: There is no need for any more experts, discussions or expensive studies. Just pull your heads out of the sand, observe the obvious, and take action.
Lawrence Dam
Santa Barbara
• • •
Regarding the Jan. 27 article, “Santa Barbara Council Approves Temporary Rent Freeze in Split Vote,” as an owner of several old, small rental units, I am greatly affected by the current freeze on rents and whatever the rent stabilization discussions come up with.
I would love it if we could solve the problem of affordable rent in Santa Barbara. Rent has never been affordable in Santa Barbara compared to other locations.
Property is not affordable for most people. Houses are out of reach for buyers. Limiting rent increases to only older buildings is ridiculous.
I realize that state law doesn’t allow the same control over newer properties. But that doesn’t make trying to make older properties bear the entire burden of the problem reasonable.
Adding a new level of bureaucracy in the city to oversee rental units will only add cost to landlords and create complex regulations. Please do not do that.
In addition to all the normal costs that have increased, we have been hit with an insurance increase this year to $9,000 for a triplex on the Westside from $2,064.15 — a $6,900 increase, almost $200 per unit, per month.
Where does this type of cost increase fit into the city’s planning?
Why should landlords be the only ones to have to absorb this type of reduction in their livelihood?
City employees’ pensions are assured. They will not suddenly be subject to insurance increases. Rental properties are my “pension.”
Anne-Marie Castleberg
Santa Barbara
• • •
I work for a few small apartment owners. I am what people call a handyman. I have a cousin who does gardening for them and another who is a cleaner for when a renter moves out and a place needs to be cleaned to be able to rent again.
I know other people who work in the trades and work on these apartments and others all over the city.
I am worried that, if this rent control ordinance is passed, we might lose work. The owners I work for are good people, but if they can’t raise their rents, it might affect me because they might not be able to pay me to do work, and others like me.
I’m a renter and I don’t like my rent going up, but I also understand the need to raise rents. I have had to raise my prices because parts, gas and other things I have to pay for cost me more.
I don’t understand why the city council members, like Wendy Santamaria and Oscar Gutierrez, are voting for this. They are Latino like me and many Latinos will lose work if this passes.
Who are they representing? Not me!
Miguel Hernandez
Santa Barbara
• • •
Once again, Noozhawk glorifies another questionable “need” that causes serious pollution and disposes of precious fossil fuels into our atmosphere with the Feb. 2 article, “Falcon Rocket Carries Starlink Craft From Vandenberg Space Force Base as SpaceX Reveals Stargaze Control System.”
Last week it was burning hundreds of pounds of gasoline chasing orcas across the Santa Barbara Channel in a Zodiac for photos. This week it s littering the skies with rockets and little toaster satellites so people can have faster phone calls or better game playing experiences, maybe get into a more remote habitat and keep up their urban connectivity habits, not to mention making drone wars more convenient.
Absolutely unnecessary and a shameless waste of resources that seem to be constantly glorified as great achievements.
Of course freeway gridlock is just as ridiculous, but who is writing puff pieces on that?
Once or twice a week, the windows of our house rattle and shake loudly as the strange rumbles are heard in the direction of Vandenberg Space Force Base, more than 20 miles away.
In Santa Barbara, people stand outside and gawk at the rainbow chemical cloud trails as these giant bullets carrying rare earth metal satellites join the rest of the litter in the stratosphere sent up by us and others.
I suggest when writing these pieces — which obviously have a very large environmental downside component to them — more should be shared about the whole picture, not just the rocket toy aspect.
One of these rockets burns 200 or more metric tons of fuel per flight, plus all of the other fabrication and management costs.
Many people remain numb and essentially ignorant of the casual and entitled overuse of finite fuel and material resources we take as business as usual.
We live in a civilization that is falling apart, and spending our precious resources on these wasteful sideshows is merely a reflection of the immaturity of our leadership and cultural priorities.
The same could be said about many things obviously, but we must start somewhere and bring the real costs of our obsessions out of the shadows.
Please tell the whole story in your articles. Let’s get through the 21st century alive and green, like chlorophyll, not Martians.
William Dentzel
Solvang
• • •
William Dentzel’s Jan. 30 letter to the editor was laughable. This radical “environmentalist” would have all motorized boat trips for excursions, fishing or other recreation or commercial uses cease.
In an almost religious fervor, he demonizes anything fun or economically productive … if it requires using fossilized fuel.
Sorry kids, no boat rides. Indeed, Dentzel must live a very simple life in which he chops wood and carries water.
It has been said that “The cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.” Let us not let this writer’s limited opinions about taking boat rides and whale watching curtail our fun and our own pursuit of happiness.
J.W. Burk
Santa Barbara
• • •
William Dentzel wrote that “… one can estimate it took 78 gallons of gasoline, which weighs close to 500 (note: actually 484) pounds. ChatGTP says, Burning 78 gallons of gasoline produces roughly 3,460 pounds (about 1.57 metric tons) of CO2.”
While his point about the value of a whale photo boat trip may be valid, using ChatGPT got him a seriously incorrect answer that shows two of the problems with AI: wrong info taken as true and not checking to see obvious faults in the info.
In fact, using federal EPA figures, burning one gallon of gasoline produces 8,887 grams of CO2 (source EPA). While the actual amount from the Zodiac motors is not available, the EPA numbers should be close. So 78 (estimated) times 8,887 equals 693,186 grams, or 1,528, not 3,460, pounds.
Artificial intelligence has its place. But we need to be careful about believing everything produced by it.
Addison Thompson
Santa Barbara
• • •
Dr. Dan Brennan’s Feb. 3 column, “Whoops! The 100-Day Cough is Making a Comeback,” was of great interest to me.
At the age of 5, I contracted whooping cough at school in the United Kingdom and then infected my baby sister who was under a 1 year old.
I have never forgotten the terrifying uncontrollable coughing attacks that I experienced and the extreme lengths my parents went to to aid our convalescence.
Pertussis vaccination is vital to the health not just of children but of the general population. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
Susan Shields
Santa Barbara
• • •
Traffic circles were not designed to be a free-for-all or a game of bumper cars.
Roundabouts have increasingly been introduced to roads in the United States to lower frequency and severity of crashes, for drivers and pedestrians. They eliminate conflict (if rules are understood and followed) and dangerous left turns, and reduce intersection speeds.
With the increasing prevalence of this traffic management tool, drivers have to adapt and learn. It is possible that some of us learned to drive before traffic circles were introduced to our communities and not discussed in the relevant state DMV codes when we studied to acquire our license.
Having witnessed many near misses and a fender-bender at the new roundabout at San Ysidro Road, North Jameson Lane and Highway 101, we clearly have a problem.
Drivers often do not yield to those already in the circle, enter at street speed and do not signal if they are staying in or exiting out at the next road. The latter issue results in back-ups as drivers waiting to enter can’t read the minds of circling drivers: Will they stay or will they go?
Roundabouts are meant to improve efficiency and reduce jams, when properly used.
So, please take a note of the California DMV rules of the roundabout road. It’s not hard, folks. Please just slow down, yield and signal.
Nancy Crouse
Montecito
• • •
Regarding the Jan. 30 article, “‘I’m Not the Story’: Beth Goodman Reflects On Getting Pepper-Sprayed by Federal Agent,” I just want to thank the white lady for sacrificing herself for “her Hispanic neighbors.”
I grew up down the block from that intersection. My aunt still lives there. I will bet that woman doesn’t live in that neighborhood.
You know who DOES live in that neighborhood? Several gang members. If U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers were there to get rid of them, my aunt and “her Hispanic neighbors” were all for it.
Luisa Sanchez
Ventura
• • •
“I’m Not the Story,” Beth Goodman says — in interviews with Noozhawk and other news outlets from all over California.
T. Roberts
Santa Barbara
• • •
Have any of these protesters heard of “white savior complex”? Asking for a friend.
Jon Harris
Santa Maria
• • •
The one-sided tone of the Jan. 28 article, “Federal ICE Agent Pepper Sprays Person in Face in Santa Barbara Eastside Incident,” was jarring. Noozhawk should try harder to be an objective reporter.
I find it interesting that publisher Bill Macfadyen’s Jan. 30 column, “Pepper Spray Salts Immigration Confrontation in Santa Barbara,” actually did just that — even though he always starts his columns with a disclaimer that what follows is his opinion column.
So on Noozhawk, what’s “opinion” is written objectively and matter of factly, and what’s “news” is written like it’s opinion.
Macfadyen should explain to his reporters how good journalism is supposed to work.
Connie Volk
Buellton
• • •
To those who oppose cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, I’d ask you to consider a simple principle: Law must apply consistently or it means nothing.
When someone resides in a city, that city operates within a county, that county within a state, and that state within a union governed by federal law.
This layered structure isn’t arbitrary — it’s what makes property rights, commerce and civil order possible for everyone.
If localities can nullify federal immigration law based on disagreement, which other federal laws become optional?
Could a county ignore environmental regulations it finds burdensome? Could a state disregard civil rights statutes?
The principle cuts both ways.
Consider also the immigrant who spent years navigating the legal process — filing paperwork, paying fees, attending interviews, waiting.
Sanctuary policies effectively tell that person their effort was optional. This creates a two-tiered system that rewards circumventing the rules rather than following them.
Compassion is admirable, but compassion expressed through selective enforcement eventually undermines the predictable institutions that protect everyone — including immigrant communities themselves.
A nation that enforces laws based on political sympathy rather than consistent application isn’t governed by law at all. It’s governed by mood.
We can debate whether immigration laws should change. That’s legitimate democratic work.
But while they remain law, expecting consistent enforcement isn’t cruelty. It’s the basic bargain that holds a society together.
John Roberts
Santa Maria
• • •
Mayor Randy Rowse’s Jan. 31 column, “What Santa Barbara Can — and Cannot — Do About ICE,” presents an image of inevitability and powerlessness: that Santa Barbara can neither aid nor interfere with ICE, and therefore the city’s hands are clean.
That framing is deeply misleading. While it is true that immigration enforcement is a federal function, it is not true that cities are neutral bystanders with no meaningful choices.
In reality, what a city chooses not to do can be just as consequential as what it does.
First, asserting that “the rule of law must be upheld” without specifying which laws and whose rights are being protected is a rhetorical sleight of hand.
Federal immigration law does not override constitutional protections, nor does it compel local governments to cooperate with federal enforcement beyond narrow circumstances.
Courts have been clear: cities are not required to assist ICE, share information, provide facilities, or otherwise facilitate enforcement actions that erode due process or civil liberties.
Declining to cooperate is not lawlessness; it is a lawful exercise of local authority.
Second, Rowse’s claim that the city “does not aid or interfere” with ICE masks the real issue: noninterference is not neutrality.
When ICE conducts operations that instill fear in immigrant communities, silence from city leadership is not benign — it functions as tacit approval.
Local governments shape the environment in which federal actions occur. By failing to set firm boundaries, demand transparency or publicly defend residents’ rights, the city allows harm to occur while disclaiming responsibility.
Third, praising the professionalism and oversight of Santa Barbara police, while important, sidesteps the central concern residents are raising: trust.
Immigrant communities need more than assurances of good intentions; they need enforceable policies.
Will SBPD refuse to honor ICE detainers without judicial warrants? Will city resources, databases and facilities be explicitly closed to immigration enforcement? Will SBPD officers be prohibited from assisting in civil immigration actions?
These are policy choices squarely within local control — and Rowse’s article avoids addressing them.
Fourth, the assertion that Santa Barbara lacks authority to demand identification from ICE officers is a distraction. No one is asking the city to police ICE.
Residents are asking their leaders to defend them — through sanctuary ordinances, clear noncooperation rules, public reporting of ICE activity, legal defense funds, and unequivocal statements that Santa Barbara will not be complicit in actions that separate families or chill access to schools, health care and civic life.
Finally, leadership is not merely about describing constraints; it is about using the power you do have.
Cities throughout California have demonstrated that local governments can meaningfully reduce harm from aggressive immigration enforcement while remaining within the law. Santa Barbara can do the same — if it chooses to.
The fear residents feel today is not caused by confusion. It is caused by lived experience. What they are asking for is not interference with federal law, but solidarity, courage and moral clarity from their local leaders.
On that front, neutrality is not enough — and it never has been.
Gina Rodarte Quiroz
Santa Barbara
• • •
As leaders and members of the Women’s Political Committee of Santa Barbara County and the Democratic Women of Santa Barbara County we have spent the past week listening to residents who are frightened, confused and deeply unsettled by the recent ICE activity in our community.
Last week, we met directly with Santa Barbara police Chief Kelly Gordon and City Administrator Kelly McAdoo because our residents deserve clarity and consistent communication from their local government in moments like this. We appreciate the time they took to explain jurisdictional boundaries and operational realities. That clarity is important.
But clarity of process is not the same as moral clarity.
What people need to hear in this moment was simple: that the fear families are feeling is real, that their neighbors see them, and that the values of Santa Barbara are rooted in dignity, humanity, and respect for the people who live and work here regardless of immigration status.
This is not a question of whether local law enforcement follows the law. The Police Department was not the source of residents’ fear. The fear came from watching unidentified federal agents operating in our community in ways that felt alarming, opaque, and deeply destabilizing to families and neighborhoods.
When residents ask their leaders to speak, they are not asking for a legal explanation of what cannot be done. They are asking for reassurance about who we are and what we can expect as far as protection from our local law enforcement.
Santa Barbara is a community where people look out for one another. Where children go to school together, where families work side by side, where neighbors know each other by name. Many of those neighbors are immigrants. They are part of the fabric of this city.
We believe it is possible to explain jurisdictional limits and still clearly state our values. We believe it is possible to describe what the city cannot control while also affirming what this community stands for.
And what we stand for is this: dignity, transparency and the basic humanity of every person who calls Santa Barbara home.
We are proud of the residents who showed up, who asked questions, and who stood on the right side of history by insisting that fear and silence are not acceptable responses in moments like this.
Now more than ever, we must stand together and not be divided by process, but united by principle.
Christina Pizarro
Santa Barbara Women’s Political Committee president
Claudette Roehrig
Democratic Women of Santa Barbara County board president
• • •
Regarding the Jan. 30 article, “Santa Barbara Students Organize Huge Walkouts to Protest ICE,” I remember my junior high campus (La Colina) as a closed campus.
If you left campus during school hours, it would result in a suspension, and you certainly weren’t excused from any class work you may have missed while avoiding classes.
The article quoted Santa Barbara Junior High School Principal Dan Dupont as being “proud of his students“ for their disregard of school rules.
It’s getting harder for the Santa Barbara Unified School District and the California Teachers Association to hide the fact that they no longer care about our children’s education and simply want to turn them into good little protesting liberals.
If the teachers union is truly concerned with the education of our children, which they profess to be, shouldn’t they be insisting that they be in class and learning how to read, write and add?
If they did, maybe more than 30% could pass a grade-level test in reading, writing or arithmetic. But I get a disturbing feeling they’re getting the results that they want, judging by the unlawful actions going on by protesters citywide.
God help us all.
Brian MacIsaac
Santa Barbara
• • •
Are the ICE protesters aware that ICE was protecting these indoctrinated, truant kids by
arresting a child predator, a kidnapper and a rapist at a Carpinteria pot farm last year?
Noozhawk’s cheerleading for the protests in this one-party, big blue bubble is in fact
dangerous to the kids and society at large.
This UCSB-controlled area is at odds with national public opinion.
A.J. Tarman
Buellton
• • •
Regarding the Jan. 31 article, “Solvang Backs Denmark in ‘Hands Off Greenland’ Rally,” again there’s a segment of Americans suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome who don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.
Last month, President Donald Trump proposed a deal that is being considered by Denmark and Greenland that is short of taking the island by force.
So the Solvang protest, I suspect organized as an excuse to hit the local watering holes, is another delusional TDS psychotic attack.
Keep up with the news for pity’s sake. Turn your cap round, the bill is meant to shade your eyes so you won’t go blind, not to keep you neck from turning red.
Sheesh!
Jan Lipski
Lompoc
• • •
I laughed when I read Roy Belluz’s Jan. 30 letter in which he wrote that “a minority of people who do not want established federal immigration law enforced.”
In a January Reuters/Ipsos poll, 58% of the respondents say ICE has “gone too far.” A New York Times/Siena poll says 36% approve of ICE’s job performance and 63% disapprove.
Polling isn’t exact, but the fact remains: Mr. Belluz is wrong.
Brian Epstein
Santa Barbara
• • •
Mail Calls
Noozhawk welcomes and encourages expressions of all views on Santa Barbara County issues. Click here to submit a letter to the editor.
Letters should be BRIEF — as in 200 words-BRIEF — and letters under 150 words are given priority. Each must include a valid mailing address and contact information. Pseudonyms will not be accepted, and repeat letters will be skipped. Letters may be edited for clarity, length and style.
As a hyperlocal news site, we ask that you keep your opinions and information relevant to Santa Barbara County and the Central Coast. Letters about issues beyond our local region have the absolute lowest priority of everything we publish.
With rare exceptions, this feature is published on Saturdays.
By submitting any content to Noozhawk, you warrant that the material is your original expression, free of plagiarism, and does not violate any copyright, proprietary, contract or personal right of anyone else. Noozhawk reserves, at our sole discretion, the right to choose not to publish a submission.
Click here for Noozhawk’s Terms of Use, and click here for more information about how to submit letters to the editor and other announcements, tips and stories.