Regarding the March 23 Noozhawk article, “Santa Barbara Considers Pilot Project to Crack Down on Illegal Short-Term Vacation Rentals,” the city’s three-member ordinance committee needs a refresher in math.
The committee is proposing that the City Council spend $1.4 million to collect on $150,000 to $320,000 in unpaid transient occupancy taxes, business license taxes and other revenues for owners of Coastal Zone short-term rentals previously not registered with the city. And another $125,000 to hire outside legal counsel services to assist with criminal prosecutions.
I pray our council members are better at math!
Steve Thompson
Santa Barbara
• • •
If I understand the article correctly, the City of Santa Barbara wants to spend $1.4 million on a pilot program to catch illegal short-term rentals that will garner them $150,000 to $320,000 in taxes? That math doesn’t add up.
Stefanie Hassett
Orcutt
• • •
Nothing — I mean, NOTHING — sums up how out of touch the City of Santa Barbara’s leadership is than the apparently serious proposal to spend at least $1.4 million to recover potentially $150,000 to $320,000 in unpaid short-term rental taxes.
It’s no wonder they think we don’t have gang and homeless problems and that State Street is a booming success.
Lloyd Orr
Santa Barbara
• • •
In response to the ordinance committee, here is an “illegal” voice to add to the conversation on short-term rentals.
There are responsible short-term rental owners who personally meet their guests, share their love for Santa Barbara with them, and direct them toward quality local businesses.
There are responsible short-term rental owners who only have one short-term rental — their home — and live there full time, while hosting. They have solid relationships with their neighbors, and these neighbors are aware of their vacation rental.
There are short-term rental owners who rely on the income to pay their mortgage and high property taxes.
There are short-term rental owners who started saving for a home when they were 14, and in their 20s lived in a van while working full time and taking classes at Santa Barbara City College, to save every dollar so they could accomplish their dream of owning a home in Santa Barbara.
There are short-term rental owners who employ entrepreneurs who came to this country with a vision, and have created a successful cleaning company to provide for themselves and their family.
There are short-term rental owners who put their heart and soul into hosting and sharing the beauty of Santa Barbara with guests, because they feel like the luckiest person in the world to live here and work to afford a home here. Their guests, without fail, tell them how special it is to visit and connect with a real, working-hard-everyday-local who can immerse them into our lifestyle, our restaurants, our beaches and our mountains, and connect them intimately with Santa Barbara’s essence in a way that hotels and internet searches never can.
There are short-term rental owners who see through the comments made by Visit Santa Barbara’s Kathy Janega-Dykes, representing the leisure and hospitality industry, as she voiced her support for the pilot enforcement program.
What kind of revenue increase is the industry expecting to collect from shutting down short-term rentals? It sure is helpful to use government power to shut down innovation and competition in the hospitality industry, to ensure wealthy hotel owners don’t lose any dollars to homeowners paying their mortgage and property taxes.
There are short-term rental owners shocked by the comment made by Samantha Ireland as she voiced support for the pilot enforcement program: “(It is) going to weed out those people who are renting illegally, and hopefully they’ll come and rent my legal ones, that’s great.”
Ireland also mentioned, “… we have lots of properties …” How can the city wield its power in good faith to eradicate small, single property owner-hosts who also live on the property, and are trying to simply afford the fifth-most expensive city in the country, to behemoth landlords like Ireland who are wealthy enough to own the few “legal” short-term rentals?
Santa Barbara, we are capable of wielding the scalpel over the cudgel. Shut down short-term rentals that harm our city through trash, noise and partying.
But let be the short-term rentals that nourish our community, by giving people the opportunity to own their own Santa Barbara home, provide entrepreneurial opportunities to immigrants, and create grounded and personal experiences for visitors coming to one of the most beautiful places in the world.
Emir Fareem
Santa Barbara
• • •
At first glance one would think that no one would spend $1.4 million to only recover less than a quarter of that amount.
But then, this is the City of Santa Barbara, and with our city’s history of decisions like this, perhaps it isn’t so hard to believe. Remember the Rose Garden Inn, where we spent $2.8 million to house 40 people for seven months and then they were back on the street?
Apparently it is just more of the same city business as usual and more illogical expenditure of taxpayer dollars.
Art Thomas
Santa Barbara
• • •
Regarding the March 28 article, “Supervisors Approve Salary Resolution for County Elected Department Heads,” how about if Noozhawk followed up with where the cash is coming from?
Or highlighting how the citizens who are going to have to pay for this have been struggling with inflation and grocery, gasoline and heating bills that have quadrupled?
Perhaps the article can explain why, whenever the community is struggling, local governments decide that’s a good time to slip in a raise for their buddies because they think people won’t notice.
I thought the nation’s mantra was “Defund the Police.” So why are we giving Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown a raise? I thought defund meant decrease. Is this new math” everyone is talking about?
I’ll be glad to help Noozhawk write articles about government self-preservation and crisis management techniques like this, but I’m going to want more than the 5% these goofs just got. Just saying!
Bart Bader
Goleta
• • •
There seems to be more to the March 27 story, “Fire Chiefs, Civic Leaders Show Support for County Fire Department Ambulance Service Proposal,” that hasn’t yet found its way to the public.
First, there is something basically unusual for elected officials to be lobbying for a union that they oversee. I know that Santa Barbara County and the cities are different entities but that line in this is blurred.
And the fire departments’ union efforts in elections of some of the elected officials have been extensively reported in the news media with each election.
Second, while the public hasn’t been privy to the details of the competing contract proposals, it is reasonable for taxpayers to assume that the lifetime cost of a public agency, with their salaries, benefits and lucrative retirement plans, would cost us more than a private company since the benefits and retirement of private company employees would not be the responsibility of the taxpayers.
In addition, the county Fire Department would in most cases need to hire more employees, acquire more equipment and expand facilities to accommodate the new tasking.
Perhaps Noozhawk can do a deeper dive into the details of this, e.g. were the upfront costs and long-term expenses compared apples to apples, and help us taxpayers understand what is going on behind the scenes and why.
Addison Thompson
Santa Barbara
• • •
I just wanted to write to say how much I enjoy the headlines on Noozhawk publisher Bill Macfadyen’s weekly columns. The March 31 headline (“Goleta’s Lake Los Carneros Is Full of Itself Again”) was cute. Thank you.
Kate Jameson
Santa Barbara
• • •
I want to thank D.C. Collier for the beautiful commentaries he is sharing on Noozhawk (“The Fire of Pentecost Never Went Out,” “What a Friend We Have in Jesus”). I am enjoying them immensely!
Jayna Liford
Santa Maria
• • •
Mail Calls
Noozhawk welcomes and encourages expressions of all views on Santa Barbara County issues.
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 used, and repeat letters will be skipped. Letters may be edited for clarity, length and style.
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.