Regarding the June 16 article, “City Council OKs Paseo Nuevo Redevelopment That Will Forever Change Downtown State Street,” Yardi Systems and DSP will contribute a combined $5.7 million to the City of Santa Barbara’s local housing trust fund and $1.7 million for downtown improvements as part of their plan to convert the long-vacant Macy’s and Nordstrom buildings.

Additionally, city staff estimate the project will generate roughly $700,000 in additional annual city revenue and about $320,000 in annual parking revenue.

This comes at a time when Santa Barbara desperately needs downtown revitalization. These two projects represent roughly $100 million in private investment and good-paying Santa Barbara jobs.

And yet City Councilwoman Kristen Sneddon said she doesn’t “understand conceptually at all” why Yardi employees would receive discounted parking permits.

It’s concerning that a council member can’t understand why a company taking on a massive, multidecade financial commitment to invest in downtown Santa Barbara might negotiate a parking discount at the office it’s building.

This project stands to benefit the entire city — and the response is hesitation over incremental parking revenue?

The lack of bigger-picture thinking from some of our leaders is stunning.

This kind of myopic focus is why Santa Barbara has struggled to revitalize its downtown for the better part of a decade.

As we head toward a mayoral election later this year, voters should pay close attention to who actually understands what it takes to get a deal like this done.

Mark Philibosian
Santa Barbara

•        •        •

Regarding the June 11 article, “Public Comment Opens For Santa Barbara Ordinance on Rent Limits, Housing Registry,” the rent registry fee for Santa Barbara’s proposed “rent stabilization” has stipulations that show how insincere the regulations are.

The proposal is extreme enough to challenge the constitutionality that these regulations will not impede the owners’ right to a fair gain on their investments.

There are examples of “rules for thee, but not for me.”

The rent registry fees and any subsequent fines from the registry board, or other penalties, are treated as such:

• 90.110 C Any required but unpaid rental registry fee and any penalty imposed by the provisions of this section shall be deemed a debt to the city.
• 26.90.120 B The city attorney shall seek recovery of costs, expenses and attorneys fees as allowed by law.

Within the Proposal is the provision that 50% of the registry costs can be passed on to the tenant. But note the terms for the landowner:

• 26.90.100 D (T)he amount must be separately itemized and shall not be considered part of the rent in calculating any rent increase. Any pass-through unpaid by a tenant upon termination of a tenancy shall be absorbed by the landlord and not assessed to the tenant.

The added cost is not considered rent, cannot cause an unlawful detainer if not paid or be collected legally after the tenant moves away.

These provisions show the true intent of the stabilization board and the unfair and unconstitutional approach intended for the property investors.

David Sullins
Santa Barbara

•        •        •

Thank you to Noozhawk publisher Bill Macfadyen for his June 19 comments about the tragic deaths of the five teenagers in the South Broadway crash.

I, too, find it odd that there has been no further action or information for more than a week. Thank you for not ignoring it, too.

Donna Esquivel
Santa Maria

•        •        •

Regarding the June 18 article, “Santa Barbara County Voters Picked Tom Steyer, Xavier Becerra for Governor’s Race,” it’s become very obvious that our elections are fraudulent.

The process needs to be thoroughly examined. Without honest elections, we don’t have a Republic. Another reason to leave California. Upsetting.

Sally Young
Santa Barbara

•        •        •

How could election fraud happen?

Well, government is good at collecting “data,” but it is not so good maintaining the databases.

In Santa Barbara County, UC Santa Barbara students from several states register to vote, when they leave the county, they can still get a mail-in ballot if they aren’t deleted from the database.

And it’s been widely reported that ballots are sent to people who died several years ago but haven’t been deleted from the database.

For example, Joe Madden wrote in the Santa Barbara Current that in 2024 he observed that in “Precinct 50-5140, 51 votes were counted with only one person pre-registered; and in Precinct 23-2071, 159 votes were counted with only 62 people pre-registered.”

The Epoch Times recently reported that “Ahead of the 2026 midterms, investigations into suspected election fraud in California are underway, said Bill Essayli, first assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District of California.” And in Los Angeles County, a “signature gatherer” pleaded guilty to paying homeless people to register to vote with a false address.

So, how could fraud happen? Someone is filling out all those ballots that shouldn’t have been sent out.

Ron Fink
Lompoc

•        •        •

I find Santa Barbara County Supervisor Joan Hartmann’s overwrought June 19 commentary, “Juneteenth, and the Truth That Could Not Be Chained,” to be a clear sign of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Most of her talking points were of actions or statements that were completely devoid of context; not a surprise.

Her “explanation” of the U.S. Supreme Court voting rights ruling was particularly simplistic if not outright inaccurate. I could go on, but why bother to do more actual research than she did?

In her rush to condemn the Republican Party, it’s too bad she skimmed over the fact that it was Democrats who fought so hard and so long against the Emancipation Proclamation. She should have started there.

T. Harris
Santa Maria

•        •        •

I’d like to give a big high-five to the crew that worked on Santa Barbara’s western Shoreline Park parking lot. They came from Santa Paula every day, worked hard for two weeks, and finished the project on time.

While it was noisy living across from it, and I surely miss the big pine tree, the finished product looks great. I hope the Parks & Recreation Department will plant some more shrubs where that tree used to be.

Before it was Shoreline Park, there was a plan to build condos on the bluff. Many people worked hard to get it put on a ballot for the city to buy the land and make the park. Thankfully, it was voted in.

The park was developed in 1967, and now it is one of the most used parks in Santa Barbara.

Again, I say thank you.

Michele Neilson
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.