What happened to “Letters should be BRIEF — as in 200 words-BRIEF — and letters under 150 words are given priority”?
The Oct. 25 Letters to the Editor are rife with lengthy missives that definitely violate this policy.
Perhaps a bit of editing by the editor might be in order? Please?!
Art Thomas
Santa Barbara
• • •
I wish Noozhawk would enforce its Letters to the Editor word count that is clearly spelled out at the bottom of the article.
The Oct. 25 edition is unreadable and tedious. More than a few letters also are suspiciously similar in their wording.
Jim Harrison
Santa Barbara
• • •
Why does Noozhawk even bother with a “200-word” limit on its Letters to the Editor when it allows letter writers to ignore it and drone on and on and on and on? How about some editing?
F. Fournier
Santa Barbara
• • •
At one time, Santa Barbara’s State Street was one of the most attractive and vibrant streets in California. A drive down State Street was a must for visitors and locals alike to enjoy the Spanish motif as well as get a glimpse of the many boutique shops that adorned the street.
Equally enjoyable was the convenience of the electric trolleys and, of course, the parades and festivals that make Santa Barbara special.
This changed with COVID-19 as restaurants struggled to survive and the city offered help by closing off State Street and allowing restaurants to erect parklets for outdoor dining.
As a result, State Street became less accessible and the parklets turned out to be eyesores as well as breeding grounds for dirt and rodents. Businesses began to close and leave Santa Barbara, and the city began to experience a significant loss of revenue from taxes, tourism and parking.
When it was possible to return State Street to its pre-COVID status, the City Council decided instead to focus on developing a Master Plan for the future.
Mayor Randy Rowse noted that the continued closure of State Street and the ongoing planning process are unrelated. Reopening, cleaning and improving the lighting on those downtown blocks does not preclude the Master Plan’s eventual completion and might just help spur economic recovery.
A recent research study by Magid, the world’s largest research-based strategy consulting company, reported that 56% of the residents of Santa Barbara supported returning State Street to its pre-COVID status while the Master Plan is being finalized, while only 19% opposed doing so.
Such a move is economically feasible and could be done in time to celebrate the opening of the State Street Undercrossing Project and the Santa Barbara International Film Festival.
George Lilly
Montecito
• • •
Regarding the Oct. 16 article, “SpaceX Sues Coastal Commission After Vote to Limit Vandenberg Space Force Base Launches,” what objections do you suppose would have been raised and what do you think the vote would have been if Elon Musk was a supporter of Democratic Party presidential nominee Kamala Harris?
I thought I was living in America and that the Coastal Commission was not a part of the Democratic Party.
To deny the increase of launches based on the politics of the SpaceX CEO and principal shareholder doesn’t seem consistent with the Constitution.
Kelly Rose
Los Olivos
• • •
Thank you for the beautiful fall poems in Annie Lane’s Oct. 30 column, “Thoughts for Autumn.”
Carol Redhead
Lompoc
• • •
Carlos Lopez’s Oct. 18 letter to the editor attacked Santa Barbara City Councilwoman Alejandra Gutierrez for accepting “thousands of dollars” in donations from “corporate landlords and wealthy developers.” Fair.
But he praises Wendy Santamaria for the humble support she receives from “the Santa Barbara County Democratic Party, Santa Barbara Firefighters, SEIU Local 620, CAUSE Action Fund and the Planned Parenthood Central Coast Action Fund.”
What a hypocrite. I would say Santamaria has a lot more to answer for about whose priorities she really represents.
Don’t be fooled. Santamaria won’t represent the working class on Santa Barbara’s Eastside, but Gutierrez sure does.
Re-elect Alejandra Gutierrez!
David Rosales
Santa Barbara
• • •
Qualified and prepared to serve, I earned a BS in biochemistry from Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo in 1985 and worked 37 years at the Santa Barbara County Health Department, where I helped to write and manage my program budget.
I retired in 2020 as a senior environmental health specialist to help run a family small business and do volunteer work, including managing three political campaigns and directing an after-school club.
I’m running for Santa Barbara City College Trustee, Area 2, to give voters a choice.
Owing to my love of country and common-sense views, friends have asked me to run for office several times. I declined them all until now. I could not see a radical progressive candidate endorsed by the incumbent run unopposed for the trustee seat representing my district in Goleta.
Our SBCC Board of Trustees needs a voice for local district students! It must return to its mission to prioritize our district students.
The majority of the current board has skimped on providing highly needed vocational training programs, and essential remedial math and English classes.
The board has allowed our gem of a college to fall from its once No. 1 ranking! Now SBCC doesn’t even make the list of the top 77 colleges California. It’s only ranked No. 1 for location, and No. 3 for online coding.
Student enrollment is down to 13,000 from 19,000, with 4,000 students online, off-campus learners. Classrooms sit empty with the campus underutilized, and 90% of SBCC’s $224 million budget is spent on faculty, staff and benefits.
Meanwhile, trustees have moved forward to build a country-club-style Physical Education comlex for $80 million to $90 million. They assume that voters will foot the bill by approving Measure P, which will cost property owners more than $400 million. Santa Barbara County needs responsible leaders to stop spending beyond our means.
If elected, I will work to restore SBCC to No. 1 in quality education and to prioritize in-demand classes and vocational training for local students.
I will evaluate staffing levels in accordance with enrollment projections, conduct a salary study, and assess current facility usage and maintenance.
We must keep within our budget. That is why I’m running for SBCC Trustee District 2, and I would be honored with your vote.
Lisa Sloan
Goleta
• • •
If voters approve Proposition 5, it will lower the voting requirement needed to approve local bond measures from two-thirds to 55%. If passed Nov. 5, it also will increase taxes only on “taxable properties,” which is most housing, to pay off bond debt on bond funding for “affordable housing or public infrastructure projects.”
What’s not been disclosed to voters is that bond financing for affordable housing can now be sneaked into voter-approved school bond financing at 55% rather than 66.6%. The Santa Barbara Unified School District is moving forward with its planned housing, by the way.
A recent Santa Barbara City College consultant report suggests 400 units of 1,500 needed units be pursued by SBCC trustees. In response, a trustee-organized housing group is meeting.
Only trustee Marsha Croninger asked if these 400-1,500 housing units are needed by in-district students or needed by the majority of out-of-district enrolled students in our “community” college funded only by local taxpayers — you and me.
In 2000, California voters approved a similar ballot measure, Prop. 39, lowering voter approval on school bonds to 55% from 66.6%.
Under voter-approved Prop. 98, 50% of paid property taxes go to K-14 public schools with a discretionary reserve fund!
I voted No then, and again now: No on Prop. 5!
Denice Spangler Adams
Montecito
• • •
Ron Fink is right on target again with his Oct. 29 commentary, “Ever Increasing Property Taxes Because of Bond Issues.” I hope this educational piece makes its way into the minds of voters who think bonds are the answer.
I have not voted for a bond issue in decades. Why should only some of us pay these bond taxes? If you want money/taxes from the public, raise sales tax and make everyone pay, not just property owners.
Like Fink points out, bonds are a scam to get funds for those who can’t manage their budgets by telling you our kids’ schools are deteriorating.
Don’t cry me a river. Row your own boat by doing your homework.
Bart Bader
Goleta
• • •
The City of Santa Barbara faces an operating deficit of $7 million in 2025. This is not a result of mismanagement of funds, but a result of increasing costs of doing business and paying salaries.
The money collected under Measure I can only be used locally for the benefit of the city, its residents and businesses.
Not funding the budget now will mean vital services could be cut in order to balance the budget.
Most people wouldn’t choose to pay more in taxes, but nobody wants to give up services we count one to make Santa Barbara the safe and beautiful city we live in.
We welcome 7.2 million visitors each year who help support our economy precisely because we are a well-maintained city. The increased ½ cent sales tax will help fund the following:
Maintaining 9-1-1 emergency fire, paramedic and police response; making contributions to the city’s Local Housing Trust Fund; improving housing affordability and addressing homelessness; keeping local fire stations open; maintaining library services; keeping public areas and parks safe and clean; stormwater protection; improving natural disaster preparedness; and retaining local businesses and jobs.
A half-cent sales tax is a small price to pay to keep Santa Barbara moving forward.
Barbara Cronin Hershberg
Santa Barbara
• • •
I didn’t immediately support Measure I, and as I write this, still begrudge the idea of a sales tax increase.
For those of us still learning what’s on our lengthy ballot, Measure I implements a half-cent sales tax (e.g., 50 cents on $100) increase and will raise about $15.6 million annually.
My initial reaction was similar to others in the community: “everything is expensive and this will make our essentials harder to afford” and “it’ll impact the lowest income earners among us.”
These concerns are valid. I wrestled with the last one a lot.
I came around slightly after learning it doesn’t apply to groceries, medicine, diapers, utilities and feminine hygiene products.
Also, tourists and nonresidents are expected to generate roughly half of the revenue, which means visitors rather than local residents will pay to provide a significant portion of city services.
Then I looked into the programs this sales tax increase will fund, many of which actually do and will help those of us considered low and moderate income.
However, in my opinion, one of the most important things it has the ability to do is help address Santa Barbara’s housing crisis by contributing to the newly established Local Housing Trust Fund. This fund is dedicated to creating more deed-restricted affordable housing for low- and moderate-income residents.
The desperate need for this fund might be obvious, but just in case, let me share a personal story. I grew up here. I was educated in our local schools, rode my bike through the San Roque neighborhood, and roamed State Street.
After living in Denver for more than a decade, my husband and I returned to be near family. We found the city the same in many ways, yet very different in others.
The worst of inflation was hitting and rent, already among the most expensive in the nation, became astronomical. Additionally, the cost of a single-family home had ballooned to the all-time high of $2,150,000.
For three years, our rent grew an average of about 8% per year, prompting a move home to save money.
I was fortunate to have this option, but I share all this to say, I get it. I love living here, but Santa Barbara can also be a heartbreaker.
Now take a second to think about what having a permanent, affordable home truly means to people. With this sales tax, we have the opportunity to potentially grow Santa Barbara’s funding to provide housing for all, especially our most vulnerable populations who are currently experiencing or most at risk of experiencing homelessness.
This is why I decided to support it, no matter how begrudgingly.
Santa Barbara will always be desirable, but that doesn’t also mean it should be exclusive. There’s no reason we shouldn’t do everything in our power to ensure that living here is accessible, especially to the local workforce — the economic backbone of our community.
This starts with a long-term, sustainable source of affordable, attainable housing.
Ali Brieske
Santa Barbara
• • •
As I look at who is endorsing Santa Barbara City College’s Measure P and their contributors, I am more convinced than ever to question the legitimacy of this new bond (property tax).
What’s in it for them? Probably the most benefit financially are the architects and contractors.
But what bothers me more will be the subtle hidden benefit this new tax proposal provides excusing the misallocation of the previous bond (still owed) repairs by the SBCC administration and trustees.
The least benefit ironically are the students. The mission of the college has been downgraded to one of political power.
Are sports keeping the college alive? How many local players? Is the college serving the community?
Probably a better bond would have been to develop on-campus housing utilizing the unused classrooms, freeing up local housing demands. The exorbitant campaign money spent on Measure P would be better spent on repairs.
There is a built-in budget for maintenance; where did that money go? Please peel back the blinding layers of celebrity support and the contributors’ intentions to understand what is really going on with our once beautiful school on the hill.
The “no tax” ad is untrue. What else is untrue with the Measure P bond? Stop, let’s review this “over-amped” bond measure more carefully.
Vote NO on Measure P.
Michael Schaumburg
Santa Barbara
• • •
I am a first-generation college student who knows firsthand the value of our community colleges in general and SBCC in particular.
My journey to a rewarding career as an educator began at a community college. I became a university professor because my community college gave me a sense of belonging and possibility.
So, for me supporting SBCC’s Measure P is a no-brainer. When I voted to place Measure P on the ballot as an SBCC trustee, my decision was well-informed, well-considered and not taken lightly.
In my capacity as board vice president for two terms, it is my business and responsibility to know in-depth the facts about our college facilities across its three campuses: Cliff, Schott and Wake.
I support Measure P because I know the relevant issues confronting our college due to my years of service on the budget and facilities committees that, for the sake of transparency and accountability, are also open to the public.
When I was elected in 2020, it was during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, which required our meetings to be remote and conducted over Zoom for nearly two full years.
When we returned to in-person meetings, I got the opportunity to see the state of SBCC facilities up close and in person.
I was unprepared to see many key buildings in a state of deterioration, since I had visited the campus years earlier for community events. My visions of this idyllic community resource, which I enjoyed in the past, were shattered.
I could see with my own eyes and know from pertinent committee and expert reports that too many buildings have long surpassed their normal life expectancy.
In these past four years, I have come to embrace SBCC beyond its essential role educating and training our remarkable workforce; as a former community college student myself, I appreciate its powerful role in establishing pathways to upward mobility for first-generation and other college-going students from all demographic groups.
Measure P should not be controversial for those of us who believe in the necessity for strong public education as a societal good. The problem is that for decades funding for schools has not kept pace with the financial needs of school districts in California.
Higher education is becoming out of reach for many poor and working-class people. As an educator and a taxpaying homeowner with no children of my own, I am happy for my tax dollars to go toward keeping SBCC resilient for our students today, tomorrow and beyond.
As I appeal to you, my fellow SBCC champions, we must agree to be honest about whether we value public education. As with anything we value, we need to be willing to invest in it.
I love SBCC, and I proudly put my money where my mouth is here. I hope you will too! Vote Yes on Measure P.
Anna Everett Ph.D.
SBCC Board of Trustees vice president and UC Santa Barbara professor emeritus
• • •
No matter what propaganda you have read from the very expensive publicity campaign put out by the SBCC superintendent and five of the seven trustees, the real reasons behind the $450 million bond cost to taxpayers in Measure P are unstated.
The most pressing reason for Measure P is the preservation of all SBCC’s highly paid jobs, salaries and benefits, as listed by Transparent California.
Student enrollment has fallen by 35% over the last 10 years and enrollments will continue to fall. This is a nationwide pattern that has already caused both the downsizing and closure of a significant number of other community colleges.
At SBCC, this decline has been from a peak of 19,331 a decade ago to 12,575 in the fall of 2023.
In addition to the permanent loss of students, the use of campus facilities is even further reduced by thousands of the remaining 12,575 students who study 100% online and another group studying part time online and part time in classrooms.
It is estimated that the equivalent number of students who attend class 100% of the time is down to approximately 9,000 — less than half the peak number of 19,331.
Despite this huge loss of students and campus usage, SBCC management has refused to downsize its facilities and its under-employed faculty and administrative staff.
It has been existing on deficit spending of reserves funds, diverting budgeted maintenance funds to other uses, and recruiting students from overseas and other areas in the United States.
SBCC no longer fulfills its founding mission of dedication to serving the educational needs of Santa Barbara. It has become a general-purpose college.
Santa Barbara County taxpayers should not be responsible for covering up the past, poor management of SBCC by the Board of Trustees and the revolving door of previous superintendents.
Vote No on the $450 million costs of Measure P.
Derek Hanley
Santa Barbara
• • •
I would like to express my deep concern and frustration regarding the treatment of our unhoused neighbors in Santa Barbara County.
It is disheartening to witness the lack of empathy and dignity shown by those who should be pillars of our community, particularly our elected officials.
The rhetoric surrounding homelessness in Santa Barbara has become increasingly troubling.
Our leaders frequently make remarks about the amount of money spent on the issue, and this approach fails to address the root causes of homelessness and instead perpetuates harmful stereotypes and stigmas.
Systemic racism plays a significant role in this crisis, and it is exacerbated by city ordinances that effectively criminalize homelessness. These policies do nothing to solve the problem and only serve to further marginalize our most vulnerable residents.
The recent executive order to clear encampments is a prime example of misguided policy. This action is not driven by a desire to help those experiencing homelessness, but rather by the discomfort of community members who simply do not want to see evidence of homelessness in their neighborhoods.
This “out of sight, out of mind” approach is not only ineffective but also inhumane.
Furthermore, the city’s strategies of moving unhoused individuals from one neighborhood to another is a wasteful use of taxpayer dollars.
I am tired of hearing our elected officials throw out the amount of money that has been spent while they have yet to disclose how much they have wasted on following that executive order that merely shuffles people around rather than getting them into shelter.
This constant displacement only exacerbates the challenges faced by those experiencing homelessness, causing additional trauma to an already vulnerable population.
It also cuts off the connection with the service providers who have been working hard to get them document-ready for housing opportunities, and also from public health and Behavioral Wellness for higher levels of care.
It is time for our city leaders to stop hiding behind the cost associated in addressing this issue, while they waste our taxpayer dollars and start addressing the real issues.
Let me also say, while I can appreciate the efforts of what so many are trying to do to end homelessness in our county, they’ve never experienced homelessness.
Gina Rodarte Quiroz
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.