Why are some people so determined to prevent Santa Barbara residents from voting on one of the most controversial decisions affecting our downtown?

It took just over three weeks to gather more than 8,000 signatures on the referendum petition, which was submitted to the city clerk last week.

Now it’s time to step away from accusations and personal attacks and recall how the community got to this point.

Earlier this year, the State Street Business Alliance was formed to bring together business owners and residents who felt their concerns were being ignored as the City Council considered the future of our main downtown corridor.

We brought the voices of small business owners directly to City Hall, presenting approximately 1,000 petition signatures and hundreds of comments calling for a reasonable compromise that would support the survival and long-term vitality of downtown businesses.

Despite repeated appeals for cooperative give-and-take on State Street, the council moved forward with its uncompromising plan. That is why we are where we are today.

The council’s 6-1 vote approving a master plan to completely alter our historic main street is accompanied by an estimated price tag approaching $100 million.

It is an enormous decision, with long-term financial and economic consequences that affect the entire community — one that deserves more rigorous, prudent and conscientious consideration, at a time when so many residents and businesses remain opposed.

The thousands of signatures collected in such a short time, to put the council’s decision before the city’s voters, is a significant demonstration of public interest in weighing in on this momentous policy question — whether you agree with reopening State Street to traffic or not.

Instead of recognizing that thousands of people want their voices heard, opponents are intent on attacking the petition process itself.

These criticisms are misinformed and misguided.

Examining the Process

The right of referendum, by which citizens can challenge the actions of their elected representatives, has been enshrined in the California Constitution since 1911.

Professional signature gathering has long been a legitimate part of California’s democratic process — and people are routinely compensated for this work.

It makes no difference where petition gatherers live: They are hired to collect signatures from eligible Santa Barbara voters, and their own place of residence does not invalidate the opinions of the people signing.

As for the petition itself, the referendum language was available for people to read before signing.

Everyone should understand what they are signing, and petition gatherers have an obligation to represent it accurately.

If anyone deliberately misled voters, processes exist to deal with it; anecdotal, individual allegations should not be used to discredit an entire movement or thousands of legitimate signatures.

It is crucial to understand that there currently are two separate referendum efforts involving City Council decisions.

One concerns the State Street Master Plan. The other concerns the city’s recently adopted rent “stabilization” ordinance.

These are separate petitions involving entirely different issues. The rent stabilization referendum is backed by the Santa Barbara Rental Property Association, not the State Street Business Alliance.

Although signature gathering for these two separate issues may have overlapped — including at locations outside grocery stores — they remain entirely separate petitions involving entirely different issues.

The public deserves accurate reporting that distinguishes between them, and news media outlets weighing in on these controversies have a responsibility to make that distinction clear.

Heart of the Matter

What is far more troubling than spurious criticisms of the petition gathering process is the more substantive effort to portray residents who want a public vote as somehow doing something wrong.

The referendum campaign traces directly to the City Council’s refusal to listen to business owners who pleaded to be heard — as we described declining sales, vacancies and the difficulty of surviving downtown.

Where was the council when residents asked for a practical solution that could restore controlled vehicle access while allowing outdoor dining, pedestrians, bicycles and community events to coexist?

We did not begin this effort because we wanted a political battle. We began it because we care about Santa Barbara, our downtown and the businesses that have invested their livelihoods here.

If our City Council had genuinely worked toward a compromise that considered the concerns of everyone, rather than repeatedly dismissing those who disagreed, perhaps a referendum would never have been necessary.

Backers of the Master Plan constantly cite an opinion survey of self-selected respondents. Let’s be clear: A survey is not an election. A City Council vote is not a citywide vote.

People who support keeping State Street closed have every right to that opinion. But those of us who believe it should reopen deserve exactly the same consideration.

Bottom Line

The purpose of a referendum is to give voters a lawful opportunity to reconsider a decision made by their elected representatives.

It is not an attack on democracy. It is democracy in action.

I have worked from the beginning to unite people whose opinions were not being adequately represented in this debate.

I believe our downtown deserves a thoughtful, economically responsible solution that works for businesses, residents and visitors alike.

So, I have one question for those who are fighting so hard against this referendum: What is so wrong with letting the people of Santa Barbara decide?

If the overwhelming majority truly supports the current plan, as opponents repeatedly claim, then why should anyone be afraid of putting the question on the ballot?

Let the voters decide. That is the fairest way to settle this debate.