Regarding the June 1 article, “Santa Barbara Proposes Wildfire Suppression Fee in High-Hazard Areas,” a fire suppression service is certainly a desirable and beneficial initiative, especially in this era of year-round fire season.
And any such service must of course be paid for, preferably by those whom it would benefit most. But I do take issue with the proposed assessment structure, which places an outsized burden on single-family homes in the assessment area.
My home would be assessed $122.95 per year, a fee that would increase every year and never go away. But the many nearby duplexes, a vast proportion of which are rental income properties, would only pay $79.06 a year per property ($39.53 per unit). Condos, $39.53 a unit.
If I interpret the table correctly, churches and private schools would only pay $45.55 each, although they would stand to lose much more in a catastrophic fire than a single-family home would.
Other income-generating property types also seem to be favored in the fee structure, when considered in terms of dollars assessed per acre.
And whether the whole city benefits and should be assessed, or even the greater Santa Barbara metro area, rather than only the defined assessment area, is another issue.
As desirable as the proposed fire suppression measures are, I was compelled to vote against the proposal because of the inequity of the fee structure.
Ken Balmy
Santa Barbara
• • •
The City of Santa Barbara’s proposed assessment in wildfire risk areas is not actual fire fighting. This is an assessment to authorize “free” inspections by fire personnel of properties in the zones the city created a few years ago without need.
The residents in these areas are, I assume, not able to refuse these inspections.
These inspections will probably necessitate intrusion into the properties by the inspectors and create conflict.
This proposal ignores that all residential properties in these districts have already been “inspected” by their homeowners insurance company and found to be compliant.
These “inspections” are not “free” as they are paid by the assessment on the homeowners.
The money seems to be going mainly to creation and support of fire department personnel doing these “inspections” and referring any work they find necessary out to private contractors with incentive to overreact and overcharge residents for the work that they may do.
I am a strong supporter of government services and the support of those services when they provide common benefits, but this seems more of a featherbedding effort.
We are residents of one of these districts and have voted no, and recommend others do the same.
Glen Mowrer
Santa Barbara
• • •
Earlier this week, as I took my weekly climb up the hill at Santa Barbara’s Franceschi Park, I saw a small notice stating that between June 3 and June 9, Roundup, the highly toxic herbicide, will be applied to an area of the park.
Roundup, which contains glyphosate, is not only toxic to humans, but it is also toxic to the abundant wildlife that currently thrives in the park.
The City of Santa Barbara should not be using such a dangerous, toxic substance in a public park.
Here is the conclusion from a report available from the National Library of Medicine: “… it is unequivocal that exposure to glyphosate, alone or in commercial formulations, can produce important alterations in the structure and function of the nervous system of humans, rodents, fish and invertebrate animals.”
Please contact the city Parks & Recreation Department and the City Council to oppose this environmental travesty.
Bob Keats
Santa Barbara
• • •
In his May 29 letter to the editor, Peter Sadowski takes exception to Wayne Mellinger’s May 25 commentary, “The City Stepped Around Him,” about an unfortunate man who died near a bus bench without help from passersby.
Sadowski sounds like many who blame Democrats for caring about people that may cost money to help.
Many people of Sadowski’s opinions have relocated to Utah, Idaho and Arizona, where they won’t be annoyed by Democrats like me who care about the poor and tired, as inscribed on the Statue of Liberty and in Matthew 25.
Hills Sutton
Ventura
• • •
Public trust in the judiciary depends on one principle: no judge is above accountability.
Allegations and findings involving Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Thomas Adams, reported by the Commission on Judicial Performance, raise concerns about ethics, professionalism and the treatment of a young female attorney within an unequal power dynamic.
Judges hold immense authority over lives, careers and rights. That power requires integrity and professionalism. When misconduct allegations reach formal scrutiny, the public must ask questions.
Where are the voices that routinely condemn abuses of power and mistreatment in professional settings? If fairness and workplace dignity matter, those standards must apply consistently, regardless of politics or influence.
Where are the women’s organizations, legal advocacy groups and professional associations that so often speak out on issues of harassment, intimidation and unequal treatment in the workplace? Their silence in cases involving judicial power sends a troubling message about selective accountability.
This issue is larger than one individual. Public trust erodes when judges appear held to different standards. Attorneys deserve professionalism in the courtroom, and citizens deserve a judiciary worthy of trust.
Voters now face a choice: accept six more years of tolerated misconduct or demand accountability and integrity in our courts. Silence protects power. Accountability protects justice.
Hadley Hughes
Santa Barbara
• • •
I am a private investigator in Santa Barbara, a retired Santa Barbara police detective and Santa Barbara County sheriff’s deputy. I served in law enforcement for 28 years.
My wife was a prosecuting attorney for 30 years and retired from the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s Office.
We have known Judge Thomas Adams for many years and strongly encourage the community to re-elect him.
We both appeared in front of Adams countless times over the years in different capacities.
My wife prosecuted serious and violent cases in his courtroom and consistently found him to be knowledgeable, prepared, organized, impartial, objective and even-handed in his rulings.
I testified in his courtroom on more than one occasion as a law enforcement investigator and found him to be fair and impartial.
My knowledge of Adams’ judicial work grew after I was assigned as his bailiff. I became extremely familiar with his work ethic and his professional and judicial temperament.
He was always pleasant, objective and fair-minded, worked long hours and was ALWAYS prepared for his court hearings. He was respectful to defendants and juveniles in his rulings and made every effort to get them back on the right path.
Adams has always run his courtroom with the idea that court procedures and decorum should be followed and allowed attorneys to make their arguments if they were professional and respectful to the court and each other.
We support his continued service on the bench.
Gary and Kimberly Siegel
Santa Barbara
• • •
As a Santa Barbara city councilman, I understand the importance of public trust in our institutions. Few positions carry greater responsibility than that of a Superior Court judge, where fairness, integrity and independence must guide every decision.
That is why I am proud to support Luis Esparza for Superior Court judge.
Esparza has built a respected career as an attorney and public servant dedicated to the principles of justice and equal treatment under the law. He possesses the experience, temperament and ethical judgment necessary to serve our community from the bench.
What particularly stands out to me is his commitment to maintaining the independence of our judiciary. He has chosen not to seek endorsements from attorneys who may later appear before him in court, demonstrating his belief that judges should remain above even the appearance of favoritism or conflicts of interest.
At a time when public confidence in our institutions is more important than ever, we need judges who will uphold the highest standards of professionalism and integrity. Esparza has shown that he is prepared to meet that responsibility.
I am confident that Luis Esparza will serve our community with fairness, impartiality and a deep commitment to justice for all.
Oscar Gutierrez
Santa Barbara City Council
• • •
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.