Regarding the Jan. 16 article, “UC Santa Barbara Buying Downtown Apartment Complex, Commercial Space,” it is not clear to me how UCSB’s purchase of this property will help the City of Santa Barbara and the downtown area.
Since the state pays no property taxes, this property will now be off of the tax rolls. And by the way, the city and county pay no property taxes on their properties either.
It was stated elsewhere that when the UC Board of Regents approved the debt-financed acquisition during its November meeting, that the property will be self-supporting, with rents covering the mortgage.
If it is true that UCSB plans for rents to cover the mortgage, it will not help lower rents downtown.
Although the purchase price and loan details have not been made public, we must assume that the mortgage payment will be large. Currently one commercial building is empty and the apartment complex is about a third empty so those rents will have to be raised in the leasing process, perhaps significantly, if UCSB wants to cover all mortgage costs.
And apparently UCSB does not yet have plans for the vacant commercial property. So is this another solution in search of a problem?
Time will tell as to the impact to the city. But from a top-level initial view, it isn’t clear to me that this will be beneficial.
Art Thomas
Santa Barbara
• • •
Regarding the Jan. 11 article, “9 People Hurt in Head-On Crash on Highway 154 Near Santa Barbara,” Highway 154 is an inherently dangerous road.
Many improvements have been made over the years, but the road remains hazardous, especially for unfamiliar drivers.
My observation is that traffic and crashes have increased beyond just community growth with the advent of “smart” phones that people rely on for navigation. While 154 may technically be a “shortcut” for Highway 101 traffic it, is a dangerous alternative to save a few minutes.
I wonder if state or local governments have any control or influence over phone apps to help them give “smarter” and safer, not just faster, routes.
Tom Gorton
Santa Barbara
• • •
Regarding the Jan. 13 article, “3 Meetings This Week to Comment on Environmental Study of SpaceX Boost in Vandenberg Space Force Base Launches,” we are fortunate to live in a time where space exploration is thriving, accelerated by public-private partnerships and novel technology.
As we venture forward in this new era of American orbital rocket reality, it is imperative that we proceed with the health and safety of American citizens at the forefront.
While environmental impact studies are underway to assess the launches at Vandenberg Space Force Base, the major issue for most Central Coast citizens is the noise pollution from the sonic booms.
It seems there are two different ways to measure noise pollution — sporadic extreme noise and constant noise.
While motorcycles and supersonic jets are measured based on how loud the noise is at one moment, SpaceX launches at VSFB are measured by how loud the bang is when averaged over 24 hours.
There is plenty of evidence demonstrating the physiologic harm of loud noise to human health, including hearing loss, sleep disruption, stress, cardiovascular disease and cognitive impairment.
That is why the EPA has set maximum permissible sound level readings for motorcycles at 80 decibels and also why supersonic jets were banned in 1973, after the Navy received 40,000 complaints about the negative impact of the loud sonic booms.
Yet when looking for a noise-level standard for rockets, the U.S. Space Force didn’t look to EPA rules. Instead, it relied on OSHA rules.
Unlike the EPA, whose regulations were built around peak decibel levels, OSHA rules were built around average decibel levels. That makes sense for OSHA, which oversees workplace safety, with standards designed for sound exposure over an eight-hour work day.
As a Santa Barbara resident, mother and physician, I know this is the wrong standard for regulating rocket noise.
OSHA’s rules are designed for the protection of consenting adults working in an industrial setting and exposed to chronic noise pollution over time. It has nothing to do with the appropriate standard for children who have chosen nothing more than to go to sleep at night.
We must demand that the standard for measuring rocket noise be amended to the EPA’s real-world standard for Maximum Permissible Sound Level and do more to protect our community from the harmful effects of noise pollution.
Maria Barrell DO
Family physician and CARN (Communities Against Rocket Noise) member
Santa Barbara
• • •
Great coverage of the launch as reported in the Jan. 14 article, “Falcon Rocket Takes Transporter-12 Mission to Space from Vandenberg Space Force Base.”
I was amazed by the number of countries that used this launch platform. It got me to wondering: These countries must pay for the ride into orbit, so where does the payment go? How much to SpaceX, how much to Vandenberg Space Force Base, how much to the U.S. military or government that build the launch facilities?
Does any money go back into the U.S. government’s bank account? Taxpayers spent billions of dollars building this launch facility, upgrading, remodeling, testing.
Where does the money go? How much does SpaceX pay to launch from a government facility?
Robert Phelps
Sisters, Oregon, and formerly of Santa Barbara
• • •
Regarding the Jan. 11 article, “New Santa Barbara County Supervisor Roy Lee Brings Hope, But Big Expectations Surround Him,” First District Supervisor Roy Lee’s first act in office was to disregard the work of the LAFCO Advisory Committee and Fourth District Supervisor Bob Nelson (while he was out of town on county business) and stab the North County in the back.
He also successfully fulfilled a political vendetta for Supervisor Joan Hartmann (because how dare someone run against her)
Bravo, Supervisor Lee! Now we exactly what to expect from you.
Stefanie Hassett
Orcutt
• • •
Regarding the Jan. 14 article, “Santa Barbara to Keep Italian Stone Pine Trees Along East Anapamu Street,” the Santa Barbara City Council on Jan. 14 overturned a decision of the City Parks & Recreation Commission that would have guaranteed the eventual elimination of the landmarked Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street.
As Councilwomen Meagan Harmon and Wendy Santamaria noted, it was a more complex case than first met the eye.
The final outcome was important: the council granted our appeal and directed staff to return with a resolution to maintain the existing (landmark) designation and canopy of the Italian Stone Pines.
We are heartened by both the council action and the public support we received throughout this process. Thank you for both, but the work is not over. There are many unspoken details in the council’s decision.
In one respect, the landmark status of the trees and canopy over the six blocks is reaffirmed and protected. How that develops and looks in the end — Councilman Mike Jordan’s “fabric of the look and feel of the community” — is yet to be determined.
Those are the devilish details. We encourage community members to help the city and us design that fabric.
Rick Closson
Santa Barbara
• • •
An overgrown liquid amber tree used to be in my parkway in front of my house. The sidewalk and the curb were pushed out of shape by the tree roots and were unsafe.
On two separate occasions, long branches, each approximately five to six inches in diameter, broke off and fell. There was no property damage or personal injuries from these two instances.
Twice, the Santa Barbara city arborist examined the tree, deemed it to be “fine” and did not have it removed.
A couple of years later, another branch of similar size broke off and fell, damaging the camper shell of a pickup truck that was parked on the street. The cost to repair the damage was the responsibility of the city. Amazingly, since it cost the city money, the tree was immediately removed.
If a similar event happens on East Anapamu Street, all city residents will be on the hook to pay for the damage, not just the people clamoring for the trees to be saved.
So, since the trees are still there, how about assessing those people to pay for any future claims?
By the way, a new live oak tree has been planted where the liquid amber was removed. While obviously not as large, it is growing quite nicely.
Robert Riggs
Santa Barbara
• • •
in 2023, when three of us began our front porch discussions about the condition of the landmarked Italian Stone Pines on East Anapamu Street, we never imagined that our concerns about the historic trees would end up in an appeal before the City Council.
We combined our respective talents as a botanist, a preservationist and a historian, and did extensive research about the distinctive stand of trees and created a 78-page report on our findings.
The report was distributed to city officials, and we spoke before the Historic Landmarks Commission, expressing our concerns about the condition, care and future of the City Historic Landmark.
That’s when the journey began, with our attendance and speaking out at an unexpectedly high number of city meetings, including the HLC, the Street Tree Advisory Committee, the Parks & Recreation Commission.
And finally, on Jan. 14, as our co-appellant, Richard Closson, made the presentation to the City Council.
Our commitment to the trees was inspired by respect for forebears, including Dr. Doremus, who planted them in 1908; Pearl Chase, who harangued city officials to take care of them in the 1860s; and Kellam de Forest, who expressed his concerns about their future more than 10 years ago.
We are most thankful for the thoughtful consideration by the City Council, which supported the appeal, and the many members of the community who made public comments and sent letters in support of the trees.
And we were pleased with the letter submitted by Assemblyman Gregg Hart, D-Santa Barbara, who provided insights about the City Council’s intentions when the trees on the 300-800 blocks of East Anapamu Street were designated as a City Historic Landmark in 1997, since he served on that council.
We look forward to working with the city to develop a visionary plan for improving the conditions on East Anapamu Street, implementing modern-day practices to their care and maintenance, and the planting of young Italian Stone Pines to ensure that the magical forest in the city continues for future generations.
Emma Brinkman and Cheri Rae
Santa Barbara
• • •
California houses are built of kindling. As Randy Newman wrote, “burn baby burn,” and it did.
Eric Woodbury
Santa Barbara
• • •
So, everything is caused by climate change.
The climate has certainly changed since Jesus walked the planet, but if you are serious about doing the best to prevent wildfires in an arid California climate (FOREVER) then you need to shut down all the active volcanoes in the world, said to be about 200.
Then do forest management and, when the Lord gives you water, maybe build the storage for it.
In 2014, voters approved $7.5 billion for more water storage but no projects have been completed. What happened to the money? Oh, maybe for a bullet train going nowhere and $20 billion on homeless being paid back with a new payroll tax.
You all want to get rid of oil, but only about 35% of oil is used for fuel. There are about 6,000 products from oil.
Also, you don’t get rid of a fuel source until you have a complete replacement. (WE DON’T HAVE ONE.)
Climate change is for control of all the non-elite folks in the world. Good luck with your climate change.
John Sween
Santa Barbara
• • •
We live in the “Pyrocene” era — the age of fire. Supercharged santa ana winds, record high temperatures and drought have fueled the current wildfire crisis.
There is death in Los Angeles County, tens of thousands have been displaced and countless homes are reduced to ashes.
In far Northern California, massive fires have torn through rainforests where climate change burned off the region’s protective layer of fog and mist.
As with increasing hurricane devastation in Florida, and massive flooding in many other states, insurance losses mount. Our insurance premiums continue to rise, if coverage is even available.
We are in the midst of natural disasters caused by climate change. The burning of fossil fuels is the main culprit. Profits for ExxonMobil officers and shareholders continue to grow, while we pay the price.
ExxonMobil seeks to restart oil production off the Santa Barbara County coast and, via its creation called Sable Offshore, ship it in the same pipeline that caused a catastrophic spill 10 years ago.
The United States is already the world’s biggest producer of oil and gas. No new production is needed.
Unless we actively favor a clean energy economy over the short-sighted mercantile interests of Big Oil, wildly destructive weather events will only escalate in frequency and ferocity.
Our county Planning & Development Department folks must do more thorough, creditable and rigorous reviews of proposals pushed by Big Oil.
And if county Supervisors Bob Nelson and Steve Lavagnino would truly work in the best interest of constituents, we could all navigate climate change with less calamitous damage and with less onerous insurance premiums for us all.
Seth Steiner
Los Alamos
• • •
California houses are built of kindling. As Randy Newman wrote, “burn baby burn,” and it did.
Eric Woodbury
Santa Barbara
• • •
Los Angeles isn’t just a city; it’s a character in a film, gritty and glamorous, where the sun sets over palm trees and danger lurks just beneath the surface.
But what happens when the danger isn’t Vincent Vega and Jules or Mr. Blonde, but an inferno swallowing entire neighborhoods?
Cue the culprits: Mayor Karen Bass and Gov. Gavin Newsom, the progressive stewards who let the city’s golden dream go up in smoke. It’s real, it’s tragic and it’s preventable.
Bass and Newsom have cast themselves as innocent bystanders in this disaster. According to them, the fires were unforeseeable.
Unforeseeable? State Farm and other insurance companies canceled thousands of policies a year or more ago in these very neighborhoods because they saw the writing on the wall — or, more accurately, the flames on the horizon. Why are insurance executives better at predicting fires than state and local leaders?
But sure, let’s pretend this was an act of God and not a slow-motion train wreck that everyone except the people in charge could see coming.
Then there’s the wind. Bass and Newsom would have you believe it swept in like Danny Ocean pulling a midnight heist, impossible to predict.
Unpredictable? Santa ana winds have been sweeping through Southern California for forever, complete with their own name and their own Wikipedia page.
But to Bass and Newsom this was a shocking revelation. Their feigned ignorance is as impressive as their inaction. It’s laughable if you don’t think about the lives they destroyed.
Next, they are pointing fingers at climate change. If the fire was started due to climate change, climate change must have existed back in 1889 when the Santiago Canyon Fire burned around 300,000 acres in parts of Orange, Riverside and San Diego counties.
The script they’re following is clear: deflect blame, spin the narrative, and hope the audience buys a ticket to their next movie. But this isn’t a Tarantino flick where the antiheroes should walk away unscathed.
Let’s talk about the missed cues. Where were the investments in fire prevention? Where were the firebreaks? Where was the water in the reservoirs and fire hydrants? When was the underbrush removed? Where was the mayor?
Bass and Newsom’s leadership was as empty as the fire hydrants and as ineffective as the neglected firebreaks that could have saved lives. These fires weren’t just stoked by winds — they were fueled by apathy, gross negligence, and the kind of hubris that only woke politicians can muster.
The fires will burn out, but the scars will remain, etched into the city’s soul. And Bass and Governor Newsom will find themselves in the pantheon of failed leaders who, like Nero, delivered ashes.
Unfortunately, this isn’t a Hollywood blockbuster with a happy end. It’s a real-life drama of failed leadership that turned preventable disaster into thousands of tragedies.
Leadership isn’t about grandstanding or spinning a narrative; it’s about action, foresight and accountability.
California deserves leaders who don’t wait for fires to burn down communities before doing their job, and don’t treat their responsibilities like optional side plots in a political drama.
California deserves better than smoldering ruins. It deserves a future in which its leaders are as unshakable as its spirit and as relentless as the flames they belatedly vow to fight.
Peter Sadowski
Santa Barbara
• • •
In his Jan. 13 commentary, “As Southern California Burns, Climate Change Deniers Threaten Future Disaster Aid,” Robert Sulnick states: “Indeed, in December it reached 180 degrees in southern Iran; an unlivable temperature.
According to the National Weather Service’s heat index calculator, temperatures reached 102 degrees at 85% humidity = heat index 178.5 degrees.
Carl Schueler
Santa Barbara
• • •
I think Robert Sulnick is typical of climate change activists in that some of his content is factual while some is not.
I think one thing is certain: Sulnick wants to scare people into accepting his belief that the world will end in 10 or 20 years unless we make massive societal changes to reverse climate change.
Sometimes he does this by posting disinformation to bolster his case for getting readers to buy into climate change alarmism. For example, his statement: “… in December it reached 180 degrees in southern Iran; an unlivable temperature.”
I read that and thought: WTF?! Even in south Iran, how could it be 180 degrees — in winter?!
Then, I researched, something Sulnick is either incapable of or unwilling to do.
On Aug. 29, 2024, at Dayrestan International Airport on Qeshm Island off the coast of southern Iran, it was 102 degrees, not 180. The dew point was 97 degrees. That and the temperature made for a heat index of 180 degrees.
Yes, climate change is global, however, 102 degrees and humid in that part of the Middle East is not unusual. The region has experienced hot/humid summers for eons.
Various media indicate that American meteorologists were skeptical of that report.
For example, an excerpt of a story in The Economic Times: “This data was recorded by a weather station near Dayrestan Airport and shared by U.S.-based meteorologist Colin McCarthy on X. However, McCarthy added that an ‘… official investigation will need to be completed to determine if these readings are accurate. However, I am a bit skeptical of the readings, as many other weather stations in the region reported much lower dew points at the time of the reading …,’ he added.”
Climate change is just one factor in the apocalyptic Palisades and Eaton fires, as well as, smaller blazes, such as the Hurst, Kenneth or Lida fires, and even the Auto fire the night of Jan. 13 in Ventura.
Aggravating circumstances? How about arcing high-voltage power lines, accidental fire starts, arsonists, poor forest management, population growth in the last 50-75 years and urban encroachment into foothill areas, previous fire embers that rekindle, fire services in Los Angeles County capable of fighting two simultaneous wildfires but not four, high winds preventing use of air assets, and, with the Palisades fire, lack of water early on the morning of Jan. 8 after three, 1 million-gallon water tanks above that area ran dry and could not be refilled.
We need to mitigate climate change. We also must address other problems that contributed to scores of deaths and parts of cities ending up as incinerated, dystopian wastelands.
I welcome Sulnick’s views on climate change, but not inaccurate content intended to scare Noozhawk readers.
Hib Halverson
Goleta
• • •
Thank you to Noozhawk for the laughs by including T. Carter Ph.D.’s Jan. 10 letter to the editor. And “Dr.” Carter, I’m laughing at you, not with you.
Dan Miller
Santa Barbara
• • •
In his Jan. 10 letter, Gordon Hodge praises Michael Rattray for submitting “alternate facts” about global warming.
A fact is verifiable; anything else is opinion or conjecture.
The late senator and Harvard professor, Pat Moynihan, once said something like “everyone is entitled to their opinion, but there is only one set of facts.”
Today, when facts or scientific, medical or economic research does not fit with a conservative’s belief system, it seems they make up their own and call them alternative facts.
Keep up the good work.
Rod Hersberger
Santa Barbara
• • •
“How dare” Noozhawk provide a platform for the honest expression of an opinion ? Good grief, isn’t that what news outlets like Noozhawk are for?
Keep up the good work.
Stephen Weiss
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.