Noozhawk invited Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors candidates to answer questions about important local issues.
The June 2 primary election includes the Fifth District, representing northern Santa Maria, Guadalupe and Tanglewood; and the Second District, representing the Eastern Goleta Valley, Isla Vista, UC Santa Barbara, and portions of Goleta and Santa Barbara.
Two candidates are running for the Second District seat, including incumbent Laura Capps and Elijah Mack.
Both candidates submitted responses to Noozhawk’s Q&A.
Read Elijah Mack’s responses below.
Read Laura Capps’ responses here.
Elijah Mack
Question: What do you think are the three most pressing issues the county faces over the next five years? How would you address these issues?
Mack: I believe our three most immediate issues in Santa Barbara County are: 1. Our county’s failure to secure sufficient housing for the working and middle class; 2. Our county’s failure to ease the extensive strain it places on local businesses; and 3. The performative, image-focused, and costly policies of local politicians like my opponent. These are all (while indeed, very broad issues) just the tip of the iceberg, though.
My campaign is about more than speaking to these particular issues. I’m running this campaign on a platform that is neither left, nor right, but just local; I believe in encouraging small businesses and the development of a more localized and sustainable economy, preserving our natural heritage and our traditional festivities, minimizing how deeply the county digs into your wallet, maintaining housing that allows locals to afford to remain locals, and striving to focus on local issues for what they are without being distracted by party labels or rigid ideological visions.
Question: The current board is developing an oil and gas phaseout plan. Do you support this phaseout; why or why not?
Mack: Even as an enthusiastic environmentalist, I must still stand upon my firm conviction that a phaseout plan is performative and hazardous. One hundred million-plus dollars are in the balance as (Laura) Capps has walked our county towards taxpayer-funded legal battles with oil companies; legal battles involving, in part, attempts to regulate oil extraction on federal waters. These are battles we, in all likelihood, are not going to win, and we must pull out of this situation as soon as possible. Capps is putting taxpayer dollars at risk that could have been invested in real conservation projects, environmental hazard preparedness, etc.
Our county has some of the most highly regulated and secured oil infrastructure in the country, and with demand for oil remaining consistent, a phaseout just means offshoring oil production to other counties, states, or nations with poorer safety, labor, and environmental standards, at the same time also demanding that offshore oil extracted in federal waters is barged out to its final destination, which bears great environmental risk, a loss of state or county income, and a waste of our existing transport infrastructure.
Question: What do you think is the county’s role facilitating and building new housing for local residents?
Mack: My opponent positions herself as a champion of affordable housing; but what she talks about producing is almost entirely subsidized low-income housing that’s unavailable for our working and middle classes. I urge voters to research this matter themselves; real working and middle class housing development is practically stalled in our area. We’re simply not constructing or infilling anywhere near enough housing for nurses, doctors, teachers, entrepreneurs or anyone else above the maximum income for Section 8 applicability. The county needs to incentivize sufficient, elegant, demand-based developments for everyday locals.
Why are we in this situation? Because Capps and figures like her are chasing after flashy “affordable housing” numbers, fail to offer incentives for other forms of housing, and refuse to seriously confront the burdensome regulatory state, fees, and subjective criteria for construction and development that incentivize or indirectly force developers to only consider low income housing or luxury developments.
What will South County become in years to come? Imagine the wealth disparity, and lack of upward mobility for our worst-off neighbors, when those “in the middle” (as well as the roles they fill and the jobs they create) are pushed out. I’ve already witnessed this process beginning; I’m one of maybe two or three people in my friend group growing up that have still been blessed with the ability to remain here in Santa Barbara.
Question: What are the biggest infrastructure spending needs in your district over the next five years?
Mack: I’ll tell you one thing; our county can handle any infrastructural expenses that come its way when we stop getting taxpayer dollars tied up in legal battles, stop crushing local enterprise, and encourage economic growth that we can tactfully and respectfully secure income from.
As for what our current and expected expenses are, we’ve got to cover everything from bike lanes and coastal infrastructure in Isla Vista, to water and power improvements to support planned developments, to creek and flood control in Montecito, to updates to all manner of roads, bridges, and Highway 101 connections. For some minor expenses and projects (bike lanes, walking paths, aesthetic updates, etc.) the county should be reaching out to local beautification groups, relevant volunteer organizations, etc. to see about them potentially pitching in funds, time, or labor. We should be running down every opportunity for lowering expenses while holding our county infrastructure to high standards.
Question: How should the county respond to federal immigration enforcement operations affecting local communities?
Mack: I’m a Localist; as tacky as this sounds, Santa Barbara is my country, and anyone who lives as a respectful, upright, productive, peaceful neighbor is a citizen of my country as far as I’m aware — regardless of whether or not they have had the opportunity to pursue, or made the unfortunate decision to refuse to pursue, American citizenship. Yet — there are still going to be people, documented or undocumented, who don’t fit the description I’ve made above. I would like to see an opportunity to come to the table here, and negotiate an end to neighborhood U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids, while also allowing federal authorities to take hold of legitimate violent offenders who are without documentation residing in county facilities. Let’s bring peace of mind to our neighbors at risk, but be realistic about the nature of the issue as a whole.
These answers have been lightly edited for style and formatting.
More Election Coverage
Noozhawk’s Q&As with Fifth District Supervisor candidates were published Tuesday and can be read here.
Read more about local candidates and issues in Noozhawk’s Elections section.
