Regarding the Nov. 10 article, “443-Unit Sears Housing Project Gets Pushback from Santa Barbara Review Board,” clearly the “Orange County developers” (why does that phrase keep showing up in Santa Barbara) showing off their renderings of the projects for La Cumbre Plaza, have fallen in love with East Berlin architecture — just when we thought Soviet-era blockhouses might have faded away.
Brutalist is too gentle a word to describe these soulless hunks of concrete.
Frank DiMarco
Goleta
• • •
Regarding the Nov. 13 article, “$7.8 Million Home Purchased for New UCSB Chancellor,” … “No Kings!”
Ron West
Santa Barbara
• • •
Regarding the Nov. 5 article, “Santa Barbara County Voters Approve Prop. 50 Redrawing District Maps,” I voted no on Proposition 50, not because I oppose redistricting, but because I find deliberate law breaking, no less intentionally violating the state and federal Constitutions, deplorable.
Is this how we teach our future voters? Is this how government is expected to act?
We have courts for a purpose. If Texas or any other state is purposefully gerrymandering for partisan political purposes, there is a remedy. It is not Prop. 50.
That strategy is the way to lose our Republic. Sad. Just sad.
Stephen Weiss
Montecito
• • •
Regarding Santa Barbara Mayor Randy Rowse’s Nov. 1 commentary, “Rent Control Punishes the Tenants It Claims to Help,” a voucher program may sound like a silver bullet, but without sufficient affordable units to spend those vouchers on, it risks being a promise without a place to live.
Renters in Santa Barbara aren’t just struggling with cost — they’re facing scarcity.
Even a well-funded voucher system can’t overcome the basic math: when landlords can charge whatever the market will bear, vouchers only chase rising prices, inflating rents rather than stabilizing them.
Rent control isn’t about freezing the market; it’s about creating breathing room. It keeps existing tenants in their homes while the City of Santa Barbara works to expand supply.
For many families, stability is the foundation that allows them to stay employed, keep kids in school, and remain part of the community.
Santa Barbara’s unique character and workforce depend on exactly those residents who are most vulnerable to being priced out.
The argument that rent control burdens city staff ignores the long-term administrative efficiency of a stable tenant base.
Evictions, homelessness and constant displacement carry their own social and fiscal costs — far higher than the price of regulation.
And while “becoming Santa Monica” is used as a warning, Santa Barbara should aspire to protect its people as fiercely as it protects its views.
Vouchers can complement rent stabilization, but they can’t replace it. Without limits on runaway rent increases, public dollars flow straight into landlords’ pockets, leaving tenants no better off.
Real housing policy must balance immediate protection with future supply, not sacrifice one for the illusion of the other.
I am working two jobs and I have been housed for almost three years after surviving more than six years living unhoused in Santa Barbara. I cannot afford one cent more in rent.
I am doing my part or what society says I need to do so that I don’t become houseless once again.
We need everyone in our community to do their part if we don’t want to see vulnerable people roaming the streets in our city. Come on Santa Barbara, stop putting profit over people.
If we want our communities to be healthy and safe, we must provide affordable housing for the unhoused. It is costing us more to manage homelessness then it would be to providing housing.
Stop with the delays in keeping those who are renting and stabilize the rents already.
Gina Rodarte Quiroz
Santa Barbara
• • •
Seven ladies and I, all graduates of Bishop Diego High School in the 1960s, had a good laugh on the inaccurate statement made by Aron Ashland in the Nov. 3 article, “Santa Barbara Talks: Outspoken Cruisery Owner Aron Ashland Raises Concerns About Bicycles.”
Putting aside arguments for or against opening up State Street to cars and just rereading his article where he states with uninformed knowledge not once, not twice, but THREE times: “No one ever parked on State Street.”
This brought peals of laughter as we reminisced the numerous times when we had parked in front of Trenwith’s, Lou Rose, Ott’s, Andera’s, Campus Shop, Sears and on and on.
So, to that end let us enlighten Ashland that not only was there parking on both sides of State Street, we had two lanes down and two lanes up — the better to cruise up and down or park and watch the cruising.
Mollie Mann
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.