Absence is not leadership.
I was stunned watching Santa Barbara County Clerk-Recorder-Assessor Joe Holland’s budget presentation before the Board of Supervisors this week.
What should have been a routine update on his department’s budget and operations instead raised serious concerns about leadership and accountability.
Holland was unprepared, confused and not present in the room. When pressed, he acknowledged that he has not been to a county facility in 18 months.
Asked how he manages his department, Holland emphasized that he is available by phone. This is not, by any stretch of imagination, active in-person leadership or acceptable engagement with his division chiefs and staff.
Being reachable is not the same as being present — an absence that sets a troubling example of absentee leadership.
The Clerk-Recorder-Assessor’s Office oversees vital records, property assessments and elections. While staff continue to carry out this important work, they deserve a department head who is present, paying attention and accountable.
And the public deserves to know that he is there and on top of things.
Equally concerning is that Holland is collecting his full public pension while also receiving a full government salary. While this “double-dipping” may be legal, it raises ethical questions about stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
The voters choose the clerk-recorder-assessor. With an election approaching, we deserve more from someone entrusted with essential public responsibilities.
Holland’s deputy, Melinda Greene, has been there for decades, doing her job (and sometimes his). When you see both names on the ballot, pick the person who has been showing up and doing the work, not the one staying home and collecting two salaries.
Lee Heller
Santa Barbara
• • •
Regarding the April 14 article, “Residents Raise Concerns with Santa Barbara’s Proposed Short-Term Rental Ordinance,” I am not sure the Noozhawk reporter was at the same meeting I attended.
The surprise at the meeting was that Santa Barbara Planning Commission chairwoman Lucille Boss, who voted for the short-term rental ordinances on March 5, reversed her position and withdrew her support for the current proposals.
Had she voted NO on March 5, the measures would have been rejected by the commission with a 3-3 vote, with her vote as the tiebreaker as chairwoman.
Why did she change her mind? Apparently, her YES had been conditional on staff answering some important questions and concerns before going to the City Council’s Ordinance Committee. Which didn’t happen.
Boss (and the public) wanted staff to document how the ordinances would impact the city’s budget in the likely event that transient-occupancy tax receipts were to decline.
How would the city cover the budget gap — spending cuts or higher taxes? What would the impact beon the local economy? Would lower -and middle-income families be able to afford wedding and anniversaries if cheaper Airbnb options were cut?
Specifically, Boss wanted to know why staff was proposing a total ban on entire house short-term rentals outside the commercial zones, instead of a “cap” on the number and density of STRs like other localities.
The fact that hearing was continued, not cut short, and the body language of the Ordinance Committee chair indicated that, based on the public comments, the ordinances face some very serious challenges ahead.
Paul Sterne
Santa Barbara
• • •
I am lucky. I own a home and do not have to worry about renting. Nonetheless, Santa Barbara Mayor Randy Rowse’s April 14 commentary, “Put Rent Control on the Ballot Before It Reshapes Santa,” interested me very much.
He makes several cogent points relating to the current divisiveness of opinions on the City Council. One example is the fact that the council members each now represent a specific segment of the city and not the general population.
Second, he speaks of “political flagplanting,” a brilliant evocation of the idea that council members nearly always have in mind the next election.
Given the apparent impossibility of the city council reaching a collective agreement about rent control, Rowse’s suggestion that this issue be presented to the public on the ballot makes perfect sense. This would indicate the consensus of the community, both renters and landlords, who would, one could imagine, be eager to cast a vote.
Susan Shields
Santa Barbara
• • •
The argument that an issue should be “put to voters” while the author remains actively engaged in the political fight raises a clear question about consistency and principle.
If the position is that governance decisions are best resolved at the ballot box rather than through council deliberation, then stepping away from that very ballot process while continuing to influence the outcome appears contradictory.
At a minimum, it invites scrutiny about whether the stated commitment to voter-driven decision-making is being applied evenly, or selectively when convenient.
More broadly, Rowse’s commentary does not meaningfully grapple with the real tradeoffs involved in rent stabilization policy.
Instead of presenting a balanced assessment, it leans heavily on worst-case scenarios, cherry-picked examples, and rhetorical framing designed to persuade rather than inform.
Complex economic policies like rent stabilization come with both potential benefits and drawbacks, including impacts on housing supply, tenant stability and long-term market incentives. Ignoring this complexity in favor of one-sided arguments weakens the overall credibility of the position.
A more compelling and intellectually honest approach would acknowledge these competing considerations and engage with a wider body of empirical evidence.
By doing so, the discussion could move beyond advocacy toward a more substantive evaluation of policy outcomes, allowing readers and voters to better understand the real implications rather than being guided primarily by selective reasoning.
Gina Rodarte Quiroz
Santa Barbara
• • •
I was thrilled to read the April 11 article, “Santa Maria Council Agrees to Test Red-Light Runner Program.”
As a frequent driver, I’m tired of watching two to four cars run the red light at Betteravia and Bradley roads almost every time I’m there.
I’m confident the fines generated will quickly pay for the program and, more important, make our streets safer.
Frank Ashby
Orcutt
• • •
Regarding the April 14 article, “Salud Carbajal Secures $850,000 for Upgrades to Santa Barbara’s Eastside Library,” it’s nice when government-sponsored things go really smoothly and serve the public efficiently.
Rep. Salud Carbajal’s recent passport-renewal event at the Eastside Public Library was run very well. I was in and out in less than 30 minutes and my new passport arrived in one week.
Just wanted to throw some positive news out there, as we desperately need it nowadays.
Blake Dorfman
Santa Barbara
• • •
During the last Lompoc City Council meeting, Mayor James Mosby requested that an agenda item be added to the next agenda “ASAP” to conduct a conservation rebate program analysis, claiming that there was a “40% error rate” with the applications submitted.
Coincidentally, Councilman Steve Bridge is in court facing multiple felonies and some misdemeanors concerning what the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office charges was a “fraudulent application” for conservation rebates.
This agenda request has a pungent odor; to the casual observer Mosby’s request for an analysis and the desire to discuss it “ASAP” may be an attempt to create a defense strategy for defendant Bridge.
As a minimum, Bridge should not be allowed to participate in any hearings, public or in closed session, concerning this issue since he is the subject of a criminal complaint involving the same subject.
I agree that analysis of current practices may be needed to either improve the review process of applications and/or establish a policy to reject incomplete submittals.
There should also be a means to return them to the people submitting them, so they have an opportunity to correct the information and resubmit them later.
The sudden urgency concerning this analysis raises serious questions.
Ron Fink
Lompoc
• • •
Regarding the April 16 article, “Governor Candidate Tom Steyer Holds Town Hall Event in Santa Barbara,” now that Eric Swalwell’s campaign has imploded, it appears that Tom Steyer has been selected as the replacement.
Democrats obviously view Steyer as a good billionaire in that he has his own millions of dollars to spend on his campaign for governor.
As for the question to Steyer about what he would do to stop Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers from arresting community members and accusing Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown of “colluding” with ICE:
Definition of collude: Cooperate in a secret or unlawful way in order to deceive or gain an advantage over others.
Definition of illegal immigrant: Unauthorized/undocumented foreign-born person entering and residing in a country without legal documentation that results in potential removal proceedings and deportation.
Brown and federal ICE officers are not secretly being unlawful or deceiving anyone but rather enforcing the laws of our country, which is their job description.
Patty Darr
Lompoc
• • •
I think the “unbiased” Noozhawk’s bias is showing.
Democrat Tom Steyer gets a long feature story during his one visit to Santa Barbara. Republicans Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco have been campaigning in Santa Barbara County all year and have received exactly zero notice from Noozhawk.
If you can’t do better, at least be fair.
Maria Fernandez
Santa Barbara
• • •
Attorney Luis Esparza is running for Santa Barbara County Superior Court judge.
Over the years, I have interacted with Esparza in my role as a boating safety and compliance consultant. Of all the attorneys I work with, I consider him to be the most grounded and committed to the needs of the people.
Esparza’s concepts of what make for a good judge ring true with me, and I think they will with you. He genuinely wants to make our courts available to the people, and schedule trials and hearings to facilitate the needs of the people without interminable waiting periods.
He adheres to the common maxim, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” Being one who testifies in court as part of my work, this saying convinces me that he is running for judge for the right reasons.
The wait time for court action is difficult for people who are faced with housing disputes, small business litigation, family law challenges and other legal matters. A hard-working and firm but fair judge can help with our needs.
To accomplish his goal of reducing wait times in the court system, Esparza must be something I already know him to be: a hard worker. He will put the time in to do our work according to our needs, and be fair in his opinions and findings.
I also know Esparza to be a devoted family man with spiritual values. It impresses me, too, that he has served his community and his profession with countless hours of volunteer work.
Capt. David Bacon
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.