Regarding the Jan. 27 article, “Santa Barbara Council Approves Temporary Rent Freeze in Split Vote,” I’d like to propose we freeze time itself at Dec. 16, 2025.
The City Council has frozen rents at that date. But landlords’ 2026 tax bills don’t know about Dec. 16. Their 2026 insurance premiums haven’t gotten the memo. The 2026 plumber who fixes the broken pipe charges 2026 rates.
So we’ve created a temporal paradox. Landlords exist simultaneously in December 2025 (for revenue) and January 2026 forward (for expenses). They’re living in two time periods at once.
The City Council should make Dec. 16, 2025, permanent. It can be our own Groundhog Day. We never pay the January bills. We never age. We never die. We just keep living the same day over and over, with the same frozen rents — forever.
The council has discovered something physicists have sought for centuries: selective time travel. You can freeze one variable while letting all others move forward.
There’s a Nobel Prize waiting.
Peter Sadowski
Santa Barbara
• • •
The Jan. 28 article, “Federal ICE Agent Pepper Sprays Person in Face in Santa Barbara Eastside Incident,” describes a lady who “appeared to be filming the man (ICE agent) at the time with a phone” when she was pepper-sprayed.
She was actively blocking agents from accessing the person of interest, had been told to “get back,” then was shoved out of the way before she again inserted herself into the middle of an attempted arrest.
The next step was “less than lethal” use of force by officers to move her out of the way.
It would have added context to the story if Noozhawk’s reporters found out why ICE was looking for a person in this area.
San Luis Obispo County District Attorney Dan Dow said recently that “We hear the word ‘resist,’ and that’s dangerous rhetoric for anybody to encourage someone to do. Because if you’re resisting a law enforcement officer, that is per se a crime, as long as they’re performing their duties.”
In our county, politicians are encouraging their constituents to follow, harass, impede and obstruct federal immigration enforcement efforts.
This incident could have been avoided if political leaders would stop stimulating easily influenced people to break the law.
Ron Fink
Lompoc
• • •
I read with dismay the one-sided Jan. 26 article, “Santa Barbara Community Gathers for Vigil After Death of Alex Pretti by Federal Agent,” that pits Americans against the laws of our country.
The story portrayed that most Americans agree with the 1,000 protesters and others who lined the streets in Santa Barbara. That is wishful thinking from a minority of people who do not want established federal immigration law enforced and do not want to wait for the actual facts to come out about any encounter with ICE!
Roy Belluz
Lompoc
• • •
Regarding the Jan. 23 article, “Residents Urge Santa Maria Council to Speak Up for Immigrant Community,” local undocumented community members are again pleading to a city council (this time in Santa Maria) that they wish the city would do something about U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers enforcing federal immigration law.
As these ICE actions are legal, I am questioning how our local police and sheriff, let alone our city council members, could do anything to “help” these people.
When the same groups met with Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown last year, he said there was nothing they could do to hinder the operations of ICE. Local city councils are already funneling money — our tax dollars — to local “nonprofit” organizations such as 805 UndocuFund.
Are our local governments considering defying national immigration laws or are they merely entertaining these questions to placate their constituency of “undocumented immigrants” to maintain their current and future voters?
Brian MacIsaac
Santa Barbara
• • •
Regarding the Jan. 27 article, “Carpinteria City Council Throws Support Behind E-Bike Regulations,” I am pleased to see that the City of Carpinteria is finally getting around to looking into the e-bike issue.
I live near Carpinteria Middle School and often walk in the area. I see so much risky behaviors by the riders. I wonder if it will take a serious injury or fatal accident to get these kids’ parents to pay attention to their children’s behavior on these bikes.
I’d love to see safety education and certification for riders under 17 or 18.
Also, parents need to realize that they are liable for their under-age children’s behavior. If one of these riders knocks someone down and they are injured, the parent is financially liable and can be sued.
Also their own child can be seriously injured or killed in an accident.
One crash on Via Real several months ago involved an adult (with no helmet), who slid on gravel and face-planted on the road after going over the handlebars.
He was hurt terribly, with a head injury and fractures of both jaws. He needed extended hospital care and rehabilitation that still continues.
The City Council has not gone far enough with this plan in my opinion.
Cynthia Linebarger
Carpinteria
• • •
I just read the Jan. 24 article, “A Killer Quest to Find Orcas in Santa Barbara Channel,” about the 30-foot Zodiac traveling more than 230 miles chasing down a view of some orcas moving along the coast.
A good photographer was apparently on board, even though there are thousands of orca photos already available.
Seems to me it would be a responsible move on Noozhawk’s part to not only mention the miles traveled but also accompany that with the fossil fuel needed to do this adventure.
Depending on the motors on the Zodiac, one can estimate it took around 78 gallons of gasoline, which weighs close to 500 pounds. ChatGTP says, “Burning 78 gallons of gasoline produces roughly 3,460 pounds (about 1.57 metric tons) of CO2.”
Isn’t that a fact that should accompany the other logistical information in this story? I propose that, not only in this story but sharing this in all stories relating to nonessential expeditions.
How else will people be able to comprehend how vast and casual our entitled use of fossil fuels has become?
People must recognize these things, imagine all of the blissful motor boat owners bashing through thousands of gallons of fossil fuel as they bounce around on the ocean chasing and bothering ever more rare wild ocean mammals or fishing out depleted fish stocks.
There is nothing glorious about this; ultimately it is a shameful waste of resources. The money spent on the fuel could have better been used to help restore wild ocean habitat or support an NGO focusing on ocean plastic removal, etc.
Why is a 230-mile ride in a boat to get a whale photo something to praise?
William Dentzel
Solvang
• • •
I had to smile when I read Monte Wilson’s Jan. 25 commentary, “If Santa Barbara Wants More Housing, Incentives Beat Mandates.”
I smiled because he proposes exactly what I tried to convince the Santa Barbara city planner to do years ago when I was on the Planning Commission: use incentives rather than just mandates and penalties to achieve more rental housing in the city.
In other words, use a carrot instead of a stick.
The late Bruce Bartlett and I even proposed several ideas for policy changes, most of which fell on deaf ears. The only one of consequence that saw the light of day, although much changed from what we originally proposed, is the average unit-size density (AUD) program.
I urge the current staff to give more consideration to Wilson’s idea than what we saw here years ago.
Addison Thompson
Santa Barbara
• • •
Monte Wilson hits a home run.
I am a retired builder/developer from Los Angeles. I started building small, moderate-rent apartments in the early 1960s.
Both the City of Los Angeles and the U.S. tax code used incentives to promote continuous new housing where there was unfilled demand. Local city approval systems allowed my first project to go from finished plans to move-in date in just over nine months.
The approval process took two weeks, after I walked the plans through zoning and other local control offices.
There was a strong tax incentive from both local, state and federal tax systems — all designed to encourage new construction. It worked. I built and rented and managed hundreds of housing units within a decade.
The incentive programs were abandoned, and housing once again became scarce. Demand continued, but the political system reverted to NIMBY.
Mike Nissenson
Santa Barbara
• • •
I enjoyed Judy Foreman’s Jan. 26 column, “Late to the Table, But Going the Extra Tile to Learn Mahjong,” and share many of her memories, too.
I grew up in the Chicago ’burbs, Wilmette, and remember my mom’s weekly mahjong games … 2 Crack, 4 Bam … We used to laugh at all the funny words, but the sound of the tiles clacking was somehow comforting.
I ended up moving my mom to Santa Barbara in 2009 when she started showing signs of dementia. Amazingly, she was able to play decent mahjong even with memory loss, according to her friends.
I’m not a player yet but who knows?
Debbi Brown
Santa Barbara
• • •
Regarding the Jan. 20 article, “Carpinteria Approves Construction Contracts for Advanced Recycled Water Project,” the Carpinteria Advanced Purification Project (CAPP) is designed to replenish the groundwater basin with recycled water purified in a new Carpinteria Sanitary District facility.
At the Sept. 2, 2025, Carpinteria Planning Commission meeting, the commission rubber-stamped the project. At that time the project’s costs were estimated at $68 million, with $28 million in grants and the remainder from low-interest loans.
CAPP will now cost about $90.7 million — $73.3 million for construction and $17.4 million for planning and permitting.
The project is to be funded by $34.5 million in state and federal grants and a 30-year, $50 million state loan at 1.7% interest ($1.9 million annually).
The article omitted that, last summer, the Carpinteria Valley Water District voted to add extra property tax fees for district property owners to help fund the project.
At present, the district sources approximately 75% of its water supply from Lake Cachuma and the California Water Project, while the remaining 25% is extracted from the aquifer via wells.
The stated objective of CAPP is not to reduce reliance on other local water sources, but rather to recharge the local groundwater basin as a strategic measure against potential future droughts.
This hedge against future droughts may be of limited value but at what cost? At $90 million and rising the water district board’s decision to approve construction is reckless and fiscally irresponsible.
When all the final costs are tallied, including inevitable delays and cost overruns, it may well have been more cost effective to bring in tanker trucks full of Perrier to satisfy our water needs.
Scott Grieve
Carpinteria
• • •
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.