I find it interesting that the City of Santa Barbara is projecting a $7 million to $10 million budget shortfall for the next fiscal year, as reported in the April 27 article, “Facing Financial Peril, Santa Barbara Looks to Charge ‘Pay-by-Plate’ Downtown Parking Fees.”
And what do city officials propose to close that funding gap? Do they focus on what most businesses would and look for ways to cut expenses? No, cuts to expenditures would mean reductions in staff or reducing overhead costs and benefits.
Instead they only look at increasing revenue by proposing to raise parking fees downtown, which is bound to further limit any return to vitality and prosperity for local downtown business owners. Not to mention making the area less attractive to tourists, which is why the revenue that depends on tourist spending has already been declining.
Why can’t the city be run more business-like?
I also note that, although the city seems to be ignoring this, in recent years the city spent $2.8 million on 40 Rose Garden Inn rooms for five months ($70,000 per room) for a handful of homeless people who are now back on the streets.
And the city is also lending $6 million to the Housing Authority for the $13 million purchase and renovation of the Quality Inn for 32 studio apartments ($406,250 per studio).
These are feel-good expenditures, but is it appropriate use of taxpayer funds when we’re facing a budget deficit?
And a few years ago, taxpayers authorized an additional sales tax that was to cover the budget shortfall for infrastructure but really covered the required payments to CalPERS. (Remember, money is fungible, and a shortage in staff expenses is paid and then the new funds pay for what should have been paid by the existing fund sources.)
Given the budget situations at the state and federal levels I suppose that the city staff is just following their examples — really bad examples though they may be.
Someone really needs to provide some serious fiscal leadership here.
Art Thomas
Santa Barbara
• • •
Every person in this county is pitching in to the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments through the Measure A 1% sales tax.
What are we getting for our money? Some good things, such as improvements on Highway 101, but others are questionable if not a downright tragic expenditure of our tax dollars.
Consider the Goleta train station. Recently, the SBCAG board supported an application for a Caltrans Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program grant for another $5 million for this boutique project. This is beyond the $13 million previously given.
Does Goleta really need a train station with showers, a restaurant and a price tag of more than $25 million? Given the low volume of passenger traffic, the restaurant will be a bust and the station a homeless drop-in center.
Each day, 2 million people in greater New York commute from platforms similar to what Goleta has and that is during ice and snow in the winter. This is a waste of our tax dollars by SBCAG and the City of Goleta.
Now there is a move to renew Metrolink service as reported in the May 7 article, “Officials on Track to Bring Metrolink Train Service from Ventura County to Santa Barbara, Goleta.”
When train service from Moorpark was tried for two years a decade ago, ridership was 200 passengers per day. Due to the trains being late too often, ridership dwindled to 100 before the two-year trial was up.
Now SBCAG wants to approve $4.4 million for another one-year trial. If it achieves 200 riders per day, that equals 400 passenger trips. Give them five days per week, for 5o weeks per year, and that is a total of 100,000 trips per year, or $44 per passenger trip or a daily cost of $88 per passenger round trip.
Getting a maximum of 200 cars off the roadways is hardly worthy of the money. Carpools would be cheaper and more versatile.
Richard Foster
Goleta
• • •
Los Olivos residents formed the Los Olivos Community Services District in 2018 to develop and build a wastewater treatment facility for the district.
The first 30% basis of design was provided in 2022 by Stantec with a price tag between $46.2 million and $47.8 million. It was for a gravity sewer wastewater collection and reclamation system and treatment plant to serve the district’s 391 properties.
This was a gross underestimate of the actual cost. Why? Each property owner would have to pay $15,000 for a sewer lateral and the plan didn’t account for any contingencies, the cost of financing, or the ongoing operation and maintenance of the facility.
To say that property owners and residents were outraged at the massive scale of the treatment facility and the costs would have been an understatement.
Thus began a two-year odyssey to come up with a different solution that would cost property owners less and be less obtrusive.
On May 15, the district will receive a new 30% basis of design estimate from REGEN. This time the plan will focus on a combination of a gravity sewer, effluent sewer, and advanced onsite systems that, again, the 391 property owners will end up paying for.
If you are a property owner in Los Olivos, you should consider attending this consequential meeting in person or by Zoom. The meeting will begin at 6 p.m. May 15 at Valley Community Theatre, 2374 Alamo Pintado Ave.
Anna Marie Gott
Santa Barbara
• • •
I have repeatedly expressed my concerns through letters to the editor regarding the Legacy Estate Development in Los Alamos.
During Santa Barbara County Fourth District Supervisor Bob Nelson’s community meeting in Los Alamos last August, he explicitly stated that he would not discuss the Legacy Development, despite its significance to the community.
He also said if you have concerns or issues, his best advice would be to “Be a squeaky wheel.” So here I am.
I have documented several significant issues with the development, including construction site stormwater runoff, excessive dust and persistent noise, and have communicated these infractions to the county.
Unfortunately, the responses I have received have been less than satisfactory, even with Nelson CC’d on the correspondence.
As the local remedies have proven ineffective, I have escalated my concerns to the state level, engaging with the California Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board.
I urge the citizens of Santa Barbara County to proactively engage with the county and state regarding new housing developments.
With extensive construction anticipated in the near future due to the Housing Element, it’s clear that ensuring safety standards and environmental protection is not a priority for our county departments or our county departments are not adequately staffed at present.
This does not bode well for the future. It’s crucial for us to remain vigilant and informed.
Christine Adams
Los Alamos
• • •
This is in response to Glenn Dorfman’s insightful May 3 letter to the editor about Frank Sanitate’s May 1 commentary, “Forbes’ Billionaires Should Ask Me for Help.”
As Dorfman states, “the big problems in (Third World) countries cannot be solved by a flood of money because those fundamental problems are the result of uncontrolled corruption, poor governance …” and so on.
Amen.
This is especially true in Africa. I once visited Uganda on a mission of help, right after the Tutsi/Hutu massacre in Rwanda. I struck up a close friendship there with a church minister and his family. I even invited them to my home in Santa Barbara, where he lectured at several Episcopal churches in the area.
He was very charismatic. Together, we formulated a plan to start a simple business that he and his church colleagues could manage and use to further their community. I would fund it, which was easy as little funds would be needed at the start.
Fortunately, I was cautious in my approach as the first bundle of transferred funds was soon grabbed and used for this minister’s personal desires. When confronted, he denied everything. I then had my checking account hacked and had to close it down.
Blatant embezzlement by the clergy is a poor example for his congregation, church and Sanitate’s hopes.
J.W. Burk
Santa Barbara
• • •
In his April 5 letter to the editor, Justin Ruhge clearly writes about the reliability of in-person voting (ID verification, signature verification, etc.) versus mail-in ballots’ inability to observe processing.
On April 12, Rob Shapiro spewed that Santa Barbara County has elections covered with highly competent government employees processing envelopes.
On April 19, Ruhge responds and again provides data to prove his point about legal votes and ballot counting and reliability.
On April 26, Ross Lloyd fixes it with the statement that Republicans want fewer ineligible voters and Democrats want any vote they can get.
On May 3, Rob Egenolf tries to explain that illegal voting is rare so don’t pay attention to the man behind the curtain. We are not in Oz, though it feels like it sometimes listening to President Joe Biden’s stories when he was skipping down the yellow brick road.
Look, I say this tongue and cheek because my point is not the hate that consumes our country now but to, hopefully, be heard by some on the other side.
I am a lifelong Democrat, like my father, but changed my voting when the Democrats’ “hate speech” encompassed the party and their path.
My point is that our in-person voting system has more reliability — by far — than mail-in ballots.
Common sense tells you that ballots that remain in sight are harder to falsify than unseen ballots, as far as who can vote and who can’t. There are laws for that also.
I’m just saying that voting should be by the letter of the law and reliable.
Don’t be fooled by the talking point that mail-in ballots are as reliable as in-person ballots.
Bart Bader
Goleta
• • •
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.