The June 30 commentary, “We Support Housing, But Not This,” by dozens of Santa Barbara architects and planners, was very good, but I take issue with the very last paragraph.
The group calls on “concerned citizens” to express their views to elected officials, but our elected officials know full well how this dud is playing out in Santa Barbara.
I want to know what state Sen. Monique Limón and Assemblyman Gregg Hart are doing to help the community they were elected to represent. Both are leaders of the Democrats’ super majority. Where are they?!
Don’t just express your views. Tell Limón and Hart to do their jobs and fix this.
T. Oliveira
Santa Barbara
• • •
Thank you for the commentary detailing the principled stand taken by many of our local architects, designers and planners who recognize their responsibility to maintain the beauty and historic legacy of Santa Barbara.
They are carrying on the vision of those leaders a century ago who understood the importance of rebuilding our city in its original Spanish Colonial style, for which Santa Barbara has become famous, the crown jewel being the Santa Barbara Mission.
They freely offered their time, treasure and expertise to aid in the effort, setting high standards for our community as the first in the nation to establish architectural review, the kind of architectural review now considered unnecessary and cumbersome by out-of-town decision-makers.
As the Pearl Chase Society, the organization that bears her name and acts to carry on her good work in preservation and education, we are frequently asked, “What would Pearl Chase do?” A look at the historical record says it all.
For decades, Chase promoted small house designs and led Santa Barbara’s national award-winning Better Homes in America campaign from 1925 to 1941.
She noted, “During that period Santa Barbara gained the national reputation for interest in housing, in good design for small houses.”
She emphasized the amount of detailed work that went into the projects and continued, “Remember these civic architectural awards were sponsored by the American Institute of Architects, and not just state and local groups, which put it in an entirely different class.”
When she was asked about the controversy that erupted over the imposition of architectural standards that some believed — even then — were too onerous, she exploded, “Are you going to let people do exactly what they want with their property whether it is good for their neighbors, for their community or not?”
She added, “There is no complete freedom … .you are not being as good a citizen as you ought to be if you deliberately seek the personal exception for your own selfish benefit, whether economic or social.”
Chase was a leader in the grassroots movement of community members who sued the City of Santa Barbara over its approval of the El Mirasol project — two nine-story condominiums that would have been built on the site of present-day Alice Keck Park Memorial Garden.
The judge who denied the project ruled in favor of the people and against the city, stating, “the variance granted does complete violence to the comprehensive General Plan.”
Chase said that the supporters of El Mirasol, which was so out-of-character with Santa Barbara, “… Were people of brains, experience, legal knowledge, real estate experience and wealth who were sold the idea that they would live more comfortably — that is all — if they could break a law without trying to change a law first. They were just selfish people who were sold a bill of goods by two very clever real estate promoters.”
Presently, our community faces a shockingly incompatible project on East Los Olivos Street proposed by those who have yet to even explain it to the community.
They have shown a complete lack of respect for the Santa Barbara Mission, its historical setting or the 1972 amendment to the City Charter that passed overwhelmingly, codifying the principle that “high buildings are inimical to the basic residential and historical character of the city.”
We have no doubt Pearl Chase would have been as enraged by this project as she was with El Mirasol.
We not only object, but we are also disgusted that individuals have exploited a loophole to advance their own interests without concern for the massively negative consequences for our community, including health and safety, aesthetic and cultural issues.
At least the El Mirasol proponents had the decency to stand up, put their names to the project and show their drawings. Those who propose to destroy Santa Barbara’s century-old reputation as a carefully designed architectural gem have anonymously hidden themselves.
The preservation of our historical legacy, the protection of our iconic Mission and its neighborhood deserve so much better than this.
Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.
Christine Neuhauser
Emma Brinkman
Nate Cultice
Patti Ottoboni
Barbara Boyd
Steve Dowty
Tina Foss
Maureen Masson
Brian Miller
Robert Ooley
Kitty Peri
Cheri Rae
Pearl Chase Society Board of Directors
• • •
Really enjoyed Noozhawk publisher Bill Macfadyen’s barbs about downtown Santa Barbara in his June 27 column.
I couldn’t agree more about State Street and am very disappointed about the Summer Solstice and Fiesta parades being banished to a “side street” (Santa Barbara Street) and Cabrillo Boulevard.
The parades end up being lifeless. What a shame.
Samuel Huerta
Santa Barbara
• • •
Bill Macfadyen wrote: “Because State Street … has been intentionally drained of all life and community spirit — as well as parades and people.”
Bingo! Well said. State Street has become a mediocrity.
Greg Jones
Formerly of Santa Barbara
• • •
Regarding the June 24 article, “Carpinteria Vice Mayor Abstains from Pledge of Allegiance for Second Meeting,” I disagree with Vice Mayor Mónica Solórzano’s decision to abstain from the pledge, though I respect her right to do so.
First, her action put the focus on her, not her motive. Identity politics is a tool of both the right and left not to solve problems but to draw lines and make political distinctions. It’s inaction and stagnation masked as self-righteousness.
Second, what changed? Was it the meaning of the pledge or Solórzano’s sudden realization that America has a long way to go to fulfill the pledge’s dream of liberty and justice for all?
Did this enduring gap between what we want our country to be and what it actually is so dishearten Solórzano that abstaining from a pledge to fulfill that ideal got too burdensome? And how many politicians say it robotically?
We need politicians to give the pledge now more than ever as a commitment to America’s ideals of liberty and justice for all.
Like Solórzano, I’m horrified by President Donald Trump’s widespread dehumanization, political retribution and bullying, but my horror only motivates me to stand up tall, and shout out the words of the pledge that we are one nation, indivisible, with LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL, not just for some.
Do the hard thing Solórzano, stand up and shout these words, as every politician in this country should do, as a confirmation of what standing up for principle and the Constitution actually means.
I want proud selfless representatives, not ashamed submissive ones.
Maggie Light
Carpinteria
• • •
Wayne Mellinger’s June 30 commentary, “Santa Barbara County Homelessness Crisis Reveals Who We’re Willing to Leave Behind,” relies on flawed reasoning. Under his logic, anyone could claim a right to live anywhere, regardless of contribution or cost.
True human rights protect against persecution, violence and coercion — not the disappointment of being priced out of premium real estate.
Across America, working people make hard but rational choices based on affordability. Nurses commute from Ventura to Santa Barbara; teachers drive from Vallejo to San Francisco.
It isn’t a violation of their rights. It’s economic reality.
Mellinger’s philosophy turns aspiration into entitlement. If living in desirable places is a right, why stop there? Why not ocean views? Historic neighborhoods? Luxury amenities?
His framework has no limiting principle — it blurs the line between needs and wants.
Worse, permanent affordable housing programs often lock people into subsidized dependency. Meanwhile, resources that could fund schools, public safety or infrastructure are drained by an ever-expanding housing bureaucracy.
The trend to identify every want as a human right cheapens the meaning of true rights, erodes personal responsibility, and burdens society with promises it cannot realistically fulfill.
Peter Sadowski
Santa Barbara
• • •
Wayne Mellinger’s June 22 commentary, “What One Man and His Cats Taught Me About Compassion,” demonstrates a beautiful situation of respect and compassion for animals in need.
The man provides daily care and comfort as he feeds the homeless cats. A deep bond has been established as the cats depend on the man and, equally, the cats are important to him.
After contacting Mellinger, I learned that someone has cared to get these cats fixed. It is vital that cats are not left to reproduce. Kittens suffer, and the homeless population will multiply quickly.
Spay, Neuter, Rescue, Love.
Suze Ende
Santa Barbara
• • •
June 22 marked the 26th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic decision in Olmstead v. LC, a 1999 case that gave power to the Americans with Disabilities Act by ruling that disabled Americans have the right to live in the most community integrated setting possible.
The landmark ruling was handed down after more than a century of institutionalizing people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) in large, state-run facilities, even when living in the community was both possible and more appropriate.
Today, Californians with I/DD are watching nervously for the possibility that years of progress could be lost, thanks to ongoing efforts in Congress to slash funding for Medicaid.
In California, Medicaid funds essential services that make community inclusion and support possible for more than 500,000 people with I/DD to live, work and thrive in their communities.
At my organization, PathPoint, we’ve already seen the challenges that come with a failure to invest in I/DD services.
Cuts undermine service providers’ ability to offer fair, competitive wages and thus hire and retain the quality staff who offer these essential supports.
Inability to retain staff leads to long wait lists and often forces people back into institution-like settings or other restrictive options where they face lack of choice.
It doesn’t have to be this way: our federal lawmakers can reject congressional proposals to cut federal Medicaid funding.
On behalf of the thousands of Californians with I/DD and their families, we urge our lawmakers to turn the tide on underinvestment in Medicaid-funded disability services to ensure the promise of Olmstead can be upheld for future generations.
Tasha Addison
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.