Regarding the Feb. 13 article, “Santa Barbara County Supervisors to Consider Giving Themselves $56,000 Annual Raise,” I can think of several places where that money could be used better:
- Pay down the debt on the underfunded county pension responsibilities.
- Repave rural roads that have had no maintenance for more than 10 years. For example, Cold Springs Road near Red Rock, parts of Foxen Canyon Road, Drum Canyon Road between Los Alamos and Betteravia, parts of Noleta, etc.
- Redo the water infrastructure that is at least 40 years old. Yes, I know there are water districts, but the county has the ultimate responsibility.
- Do a better job reducing the brush to reduce the wildfire hazard levels throughout the county.
- Redesign the Board of Supervisors website so that ordinary people can find how to write comments. There is no direct place to comment to the supervisors.
I understand that staff made the pay raise recommendation. However, staff is thinking about feathering their own nest, as once you vote for a pay increase, they will all clammer for a pay raise as well.
I have seen this behavior go forward in the past. Fool me twice …
On behalf of all of the voters in the county, please vote NO.
Gretchen Murray Ph.D.
Noleta
• • •
As an employee of Santa Barbara County for more than 32 years, I believe being a competent county supervisor is a full-time job. I also believe, as such, the supervisors should get the salary increase they are now seeking.
If we don’t pay supervisors a living wage, they will need to seek additional employment or additional funds. I believe either alternative can lead to them being distracted at best or engaging in bias/unethical behavior at worst.
In offering incoming supervisors a full-time salary, I believe we will also be able to interest the best and the brightest to seek the high honor of becoming a public servant.
Joyce Dudley
Former Santa Barbara County district attorney
• • •
On Feb. 25, the Board of Supervisors will conduct a public hearing on a pay raise they earlier “approved” for themselves.
The proposed salary increase was determined by comparing the proposed rate to 70% of what a Superior Court judge earns. This is like comparing apples to oranges since the job of a judge is substantially different than that of a county supervisor.
The only qualification for a seat on the Board of Supervisors is to be a registered voter and convince enough people to vote for you and you’re in — no experience required.
On the other hand, a judge must complete an extensive education in the law, obtain a license to practice, and have substantial experience to compete for the position.
The ordinance the Board of Supervisors will discuss and cast a vote on raises their salary by $56,000 per year. No one in the entire county has ever seen an increase like that unless they own a very successful business. Many of the supervisors’ own constituents don’t earn that much in a year.
I urge the Board of Supervisors to vote NO on this outrageous proposal. It is an affront to the constituents who work hard, sometimes at two jobs, every year to pay the taxes that pay their salary.
Ron Fink
Lompoc
• • •
I can already hear the howls of outrage about the proposed pay hike for our Board of Supervisors. What I don’t hear is an understanding of how hard they work, and how grossly underpaid they have been for far too long.
Consider this:
According to a recent survey of comparable counties, Santa Barbara County supervisors are paid 32.8% less than the median pay of their counterparts. In fact, they are paid 27.8% less than their own chiefs of staff.
“Their current salary is equal to what an entry- or journey-level professional might earn in the county organization,” according to the staff report accompanying the recommendation.
Yet these are the people who are responsible for ALL county programs and departments. They are expected to know about all of them, and to make decisions that affect everything the county does.
If you haven’t interacted much with the supervisors, you may not know that they work seven days a week, early and late. They read volumes of material; take endless meetings with constituents and staff; sit on dozens of committees; visit site after site … and more.
To be paid 32% less for the same work than supervisors elsewhere, while living in a county with incredibly high housing costs, is simply unacceptable.
Just because elected officials are public servants doesn’t mean they deserve poor pay. Even with the proposed increase, they will make far less than department heads or executives in the private sector.
If we want talented committed people leading our county, we should pay them a wage that reflects the importance of what they do, and how hard they work doing it.
Lee Heller
Santa Barbara
• • •
Regarding the Feb. 16 article, “Public Gets First Look at 443-Unit Apartment Project to Replace Sears Building, Parking Lot,” I reside in the Upper State Street area where 1,119 new apartments are proposed to be built.
My questions are where is the parking and what are the proposed traffic impacts? Also, where’s the water?
And since there is a proposal for all new construction to be ELECTRIC, where’s the power coming from?
The fact that must be realized is not everyone who wants or chooses to reside in Santa Barbara maybe just can’t.
I can’t afford to live in Hawai‘i although it would be great, but I know it’s not affordable and they won’t build affordable housing for me.
John Sween
Santa Barbara
• • •
Regarding the Feb. 19 article, “Passengers Clear About Unhappiness Over Fog Diversions at Santa Barbara Airport,” thank you for bringing up another issue with the airport other than noise.
I can count on both hands personally, friends or residents who have experienced this type of delay while flying into Santa Barbara.
It seems that safety, customer satisfaction and convenience would be at the top of Santa Barbara Airport management’s agenda for future operations.
I read about plans to add more terminal and parking space in future investments, costing more millions of taxpayer dollars, but why would that be more important than investing in an upgraded Instrument Landing System so pilots can safely land in inclement weather?
I believe that prioritizing this before any new brick-and-mortar projects would be paramount to serving our community better.
Gary Smythe
Santa Barbara
• • •
I enjoyed reading Mark Patton’s Feb. 16 column, “UCSB’s Basketball Family Loses Legacy Coach with Death of Ralph Barkey.”
I lived down the street from the Barkeys when my family first moved to Goleta in the early 1960s and was friends with Leslye Barkey until we moved to a different part of town. I haven’t thought about her in ages.
At that young age I only knew that Mr. Barkey was a basketball coach. It was very interesting learning about the scope of his career.
Thanks for all you do for the sports scene in our community.
Heidi Bratt
Goleta
• • •
Art Thomas’ Feb. 14 letter to the editor about the Santa Barbara Housing Authority’s Bella Vista Apartments at 220 N. La Cumbre Road did a great job of pointing out some of the problems and concerns related to this project.
While the addition of 48 Section 8-voucher apartments dedicated exclusively to low- and very low-income families is laudable and a major step forward in creating additional affordable housing, it demonstrates that this kind of project is neither sustainable nor scalable.
With a total cost of $51.2 million, these 48 one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments have an average unit cost of $1.1 million. These apartments range in size from 627 square feet (one bedroom) to 1,050 square feet (three bedroom).
These apartments are comparable in size to most auxiliary dwelling units, which cost between $150 to $300 per square foot to build (a luxury ADU might cost up to $500 per square foot).
This means that, on average, ADUs cost much less than 50% of these 48 apartments.
Even after eliminating the $5.9 million for land cost, the average cost of these apartments is nearly $950,000 per unit. The math underscores that building this kind of affordable low income and very low income housing in Santa Barbara is simply unaffordable.
The Santa Barbara Housing Authority needs to look for a different model, a different approach, a different standard if it wants to continue to add affordable housing for a rational and reasonable price.
Kelly Rose
Los Olivos
• • •
At 5 p.m. Feb. 21, I saw a KEYT News report by John Palminteri with the original video of his encounter with an “E-bike” rider on State Street.
I saw his original post three days ago and have engaged with others, including former Santa Barbara City Councilman Jason Dominguez, about my feeling that Palminteri had a good point.
Yes, Palminteri was in a painted bike lane on the street. He could have moved a few feet away, but he didn’t, and now, a thousand comments later on social media, I believe he was just doing his job — while an out-of-his-mind e-biker/criminal popped a wheelie and messed with him. And this is the state of State Street!
I think it’s time for City Administrator Kelly McAdoo to support the plan offered by Councilman Eric Friedman to, as a trial, close the 500 block and maybe the 600 block, and open up all the rest of State Street to cars, buses, trucks, bikes, e-bikes, etc.
Dan Seibert
Santa Barbara
• • •
I had the opportunity to sit in on the Feb. 4 Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors meeting (“County OKs Changes to Cell Towers Ordinance Despite Public Concerns”) and listen to more than an hour of high-level bureaucratic discussion about a 5G company that will be putting up cell towers throughout the county in the coming years.
The committee — chaired by Supervisor Laura Capps — listened to the county’s deputy director of planning and development discuss installing and maintaining these towers over time.
It was quite daunting to hear the scope of the many components needed to plan for installation of what may be thousands of towers.
Had I had the opportunity to get to the microphone, I would have taken a different tact than most of the opponents. I would have asked the board the following questions:
- Will the manufacturers and the county declare eminent domain on any piece of land owned by a corporation or a private residence as it prepares to install these towers?
- The county (or any governmental agency) has the right to refuse a contract based on public health and safety issues. So, has the 5G manufacturing company ever had any fire problems, sparking or energy pulses throughout any of its systems that already are installed that may fall into this safety category?
- Has the 5G manufacturer ever been involved in any previous litigation with any other municipality with which it has contracted to install towers?
The supervisors did a masterful job of deflecting concerns based on previous codes, mandates and contracts. What they did not do was discuss any element of concern for public health regarding radio frequency emissions from 5G towers, which are known to impact biological health and may increase the risk of health issues over time (Scientific Reports, July 2012; Oncology Letters, July 2020).
Of course, it seemed that the supervisors would vote for the proposal from the onset, which they did.
One of the community members stated that if anything does go wrong, it would be more than 30 years before any contractual changes could be made, based on previous agreements with communities such as Malibu.
One of the other community comments was on legal liability. If anything does go south (and it probably will), lawsuits will certainly ensue.
The resident stated correctly that while there may not be any direct liability to the county, each member bears personal liability, and of course a savvy law firm would certainly exploit the personal Notice of Liability here.
Just food for thought.
Eric Durak
Santa Barbara
• • •
Imagine waking up tomorrow with a powerful wireless facility antenna array 20 feet from your bedroom window.
On Feb. 4, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 for the worst of a series of county telecom ordinances since 2019. The board ignored, dismissed and discredited SafeTechSBC’s fire and legal expert and public comments.
This flawed telecom ordinance exempted all environmental protection laws and coastal permit hearings from so-called small cell antennas. There are no reasonable setbacks, notification, opportunity to oppose and appeal, inspections by professional electrical engineers, nor monitoring of radiation.
These facilities will be rubber stamped despite predictable false information on applications. Decreased property values and increased wildfires will be the result of this continued deregulation of the multitrillion-dollar industry.
The behavior of Supervisors Laura Capps and Steve Lavagnino during the meeting showed a disregard and lack of respect for the 40-50 people live and on Zoom who were there to oppose this ordinance. The majority of people in the room did not get a chance to make their public comments.
The supervisors made an unsound, UNBALANCED and unacceptable decision that needs to be changed. A continued effort is needed to improve this ordinance.
Lesley Weinstock
Santa Barbara
• • •
In Capt. David Bacon’s Feb. 20 column, “Fire Debris Are Real Stressors to Nearshore Ocean Life,” he states that “Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) should in my opinion strive to protect against inflow of this deadly stuff.”
But in the previous paragraph, he writes that “National Marine Sanctuaries are limited in what protections they can implement and enforce. The reality is they cannot prevent it or clean it up either …”
Which is it? We’re screwed or maybe not?
Either we can’t do anything about all the crud the Los Angeles wildfires produced washing into the ocean, being brought here by the current and then circling indefinitely like a log in an eddy until it sinks, if that’s possible. A lot of it is probably small particles or water soluble and will hang in the water.
Or is there something we can do to at least keep it out of the Santa Barbara Channel or rush it through?
If the second, then what? Anything at all?
I’m no expert, but it seems like there’s enough poisonous crud from LA’s fires to poison our marine life, water, the ocean bottom for at least a foot, and for decades.
That’s if nothing else happens on their overbuilt, home-with-a-view hillsides. We already get LA smog periodically.
I’m not unsympathetic to those who lost everything they owned, but if there’s some way to keep a lot of it from migrating here, how?
Linda Melsher
Santa Barbara
• • •
Regarding the Feb. 17 article, “Hundreds of Marchers in Santa Barbara Join National Protest Against Donald Trump, Elon Musk,” about President Donald Trump’s administration’s ongoing and relentless exposure of the federal government’s financial fraud perpetrated on the American people, I say THREE CHEERS.
Finally. This slicing and dicing was bound to occur sooner or later. And it didn’t look like the left was interested in having any part of it.
And, make no mistake, both parties will be caught up in it. Yes, both. And, I say this as a registered conservative Republican formally residing in Santa Barbara.
Sunlight is an equal-opportunity sanitizer. And, under Trump, we’re finally getting to it, ready or not. Let the chips fall where they may.
In the interest of impartial journalism, I certainly hope Noozhawk entertains eventually providing conservative narratives alongside the usual liberal ones.
There must be more than a few conservative types in the neighborhood who have cogent thoughts relating to the political spectrum to offer to readers as food for thought. Everyone gains from multiple points of view.
I look forward to Noozhawk posting such local voices in future editions.
Otherwise, perhaps the masthead above might be reworded as “The Freshest Left-Leaning News in Santa Barbara County.”
Stephen Slomski
Mesa, Arizona
• • •
Regarding the Feb. 14 letters to the editor from Roy Belluz, R. Miller and Ron Fink, Rep. Salud Carbajal, D-Santa Barbara, did not “hold” this event, I did — along with my Steering Committee for Indivisible Santa Barbara. We invited Carbajal to participate because he works for all of the Central Coast.
Regarding the immigration claim, President Donald Trump, a twice-impeached and 34 times-convicted felon is using his mandate to simply kick everyone out.
You should remember the proposed comprehensive and conservative bipartisan immigration bill on the table last fall, which was trashed by Trump fearing negative impact on his election chances.
Regarding Miller’s wish to reduce the size of government, in an effort to do just that, this nation has witnessed the hollowing out of the Justice and Veterans Affairs departments, the Federal Aviation Administration, the United States Agency for International Development, the Food & Drug Administration, the FBI, the CIA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Environmental Protection Agency (I hope your house doesn’t burn down in a wildfire resulting from climate change as you live in California).
Employees of these agencies have lost their jobs and their livelihoods, and the ripple effect may even include suicide. Hence, their lives.
Perhaps we should talk about the $18 billion in federal funds that Elon Musk has received in the past 10 years. Think about $400 million to make armored Tesla trucks.
Regarding Fink, we don’t get it? Did you get it when Trump lost in 2020, claimed the election was stolen, led an insurrection at the capitol where people died?
Did you think that was a lovefest or fake news? We all saw that on TV.
You don’t think our democracy is being threatened? You don’t think a Nazi-loving, former South African who delights in spreading his sperm around isn’t threatening our democracy? He spent $290 million on Trump’s election and $44 billion on Twitter that he used for Trump propaganda.
Let’s have a meaningful conversation about Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s effort to destroy western democracy and who found a willing narcissist in Trump to succumb to his desires.
We should be “reminded” about how many deportations took place under Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton?
President Joe Biden carried out the highest level of deportations since 2014. Trump? The lowest.
Don’t tell me to buckle up. I cherish this country, and I resent the implication that my principles don’t solve anything.
The one thing that ties you three together is immigration. We are a nation of immigrants, ethnically, religiously and racially. You are ignoring significant threats to our country at your peril.
You demeaned those who attended our town hall, but attendees were there because they believe in our Constitution and not your, Trump’s and Musk’s radical efforts to shred it.
Myra Paige
Indivisible Santa Barbara
• • •
After reading all the praise of Peter Sadowski’s Feb. 7 letter to the editor in the Feb. 14 letters to the editor, I must point out a few things.
I’ve looked at all the different types of visas our country has. I’ve looked at our immigration laws. They’re both a mess.
There was a bipartisan, let me repeat that, bipartisan bill to update our immigration laws, and it was scuttled because President Donald Trump wanted to use it as a campaign issue.
Illegal immigration plummeted during President Joe Biden’s administration. People criticized Vice President Kamala Harris for not visiting the border. What they fail to say is that she went to more than 10 countries in Central and South America to stem the tide of immigrants, and it worked.
People say Trump was given a clear mandate. He won by the slimmest victory since President Richard Nixon. That doesn’t sound like a landslide to me.
And all the talk about safety from immigrants? Immigrants come to our country to escape crime and to prosper, and they want to blend in. The last thing they want to do is stand out by committing crimes.
Immigrants aren’t bringing drugs into our country either. They’re carrying little children and the few possessions they can.
Drugs enter our country through legal crossings, especially the San Ysidro Port of Entry in San Diego. Tens of thousands of vehicles go through that border crossing every day without being searched.
What really needs to happen is for the United States to crack down on all the guns being smuggled into Mexico by U.S. citizens.
I suggest people educate themselves before talking about subjects like this one, and you certainly won’t do that by watching TV news.
Brian Epstein
Santa Barbara
• • •
Open borders is like permanently removing the front door of your house. Come one, come all.
John Johnson
Santa Barbara
• • •
Emboldened by President Donald Trump’s racist diatribes, many Noozhawk letter writers find it easy to throw stones at people of color for trying to eke out survival-level sustenance.
Having just returned from a stay in Guatemala and researching the circumstances there and in other South American countries, the NIMBYs conveniently leave out certain facts that lead one to consider this country’s culpability in creating the immigrant crisis they yearn to do away with.
In the 1920s and ’30s, the United Fruit Co., an American corporation, owned more than 40% of Guatemala land, and undervalued the property to minimize taxes.
A progressive president then started buying back the land at the undervalued prices and this led to the CIA coming in with leaflets and accusations of Communism. The president was voted out and replaced by a UFC-friendly puppet.
The havoc created by U.S. imposition in a foreign country has led to many Guatemalans and those of other countries having no choice but to come up to the United States in the hope of sending home a few dollars to keep their families alive.
Before pointing fingers, those who tout the law might best first look in the mirror.
Barry Marks
Lompoc
• • •
Jim Langley’s Feb. 15 commentary, “God Has Not Been Trumped,” is disgusting. President Donald Trump is a disgrace to the United States. I will cancel my subscription to Noozhawk.
Bev Staples
Solvang
• • •
Jim Langley’s love letter to Donald Trump gave me a headache once I realized he was serious.
His sermon offering his praise for Trump’s heart and his criminal path purportedly being guided by the Almighty have no place in Noozhawk, and is simply ludicrous given the grim reality that the great American experiment, almost 250 years old, is in dire straits due to Trump’s efforts in barely a month.
Jan Greben
Santa Barbara
• • •
Noozhawk frequently posts religious views but never secularist. Why is that?
Vincent Walker
Santa Barbara
• • •
Jim Langley asserts that “God placed” Donald Trump in the presidency. Trump may indeed have been “placed” in the presidency, but most assuredly he was not put there by God.
On the contrary, with Ukraine betrayed and Lutheran charities senselessly attacked (just to start a list), it’s time for Langley and his blasphemous co-cultists to wake up and smell the brimstone.
Martin Scharlemann
Santa Barbara
• • •
As a Jew, I won’t claim to know much about how traditional Christian values are applied to contemporary situations. But I do know that many devout Christians try to do and say things Jesus would have done and said.
In this spirit, I have some questions about Jim Langley’s recent commentary about President Donald Trump.
Would Jesus have called his campaign and administration a “retribution”? Didn’t He encourage turning the other cheek?
Would Jesus have shut down the United States Agency for International Development, which provides food and medical care to thousands of God’s children who are suffering and dying without it?
Would Jesus have loaded his cabinet with billionaires? Didn’t He say “it’s easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”?
Would Jesus have accused migrants of polluting the bloodlines of America and eating dogs and cats? His own parents were migrants passing through Bethlehem when they found a stable where He was born?
Jesus’ message is a message of love. What does Trump love other than power, money and himself?
Langley writes: “God also raised up an army of faithful followers from all facets of life to bring America out of the depths of our own self-inflicted depravity.”
I do know what Jesus would have said to that army: “Forgive them, Father. They know not what they do.”
Ira Youdovin
Montecito
• • •
The Feb. 6 “Female Gaze” panel at the Santa Barbara International Film Festival highlighted the experiences of women filmmakers in a traditionally male-dominated industry.
Moderated by Claudia Puig, the panel featured directors, producers and actors like Nino Benashvili, Jacqueline Christy, Jillian Corsi and Ondi Timoner.
The discussion centered around the concept of the “Female Gaze,” which the panelists described as focusing on inner beauty and kindness, often portraying diverse characters and stories of overcoming adversity.
By contrast, the “Male Gaze” refers to the way male filmmakers objectify women and focus on youth and beauty.
Panelists shared their challenges navigating stereotypes and the pressures to conform to expectations of what women are capable of, with many expressing the importance of being assertive. Women in film, they said, must often fight to have their voices heard and make their presence felt.
The panelists touched on the unique opportunities in documentary filmmaking, in which lower budgets and technological advances allow women to explore powerful, underrepresented stories and, often, these are stories about women’s lives that would not otherwise be told.
The filmmakers emphasized the value of building collaborative relationships with their film crews, creating a team of equals versus the conventional hierarchy on a film set in which the directors control the process.
Of course, as producers and directors, the panelists gave examples of moments in which they had to overrule the team to make tough decisions people didn’t necessarily want.
Despite encountering skepticism and pushback, many of the panelists found success by trusting their instincts and persevering, ignoring the critical feedback and naysayers. They encouraged women filmmakers to do the same.
I hope that this dynamic panel is given a larger venue next year as the modest screening room was filled with women and men in the film industry and others who hope to be.
Lois Phillips
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.