Regarding the Sept. 4 article, “Strong Towns SB Makes Case to Permanently Close State Street to Cars,” where will shoppers see the store names? How will they know what block has what stores?
Bicyclists are not the ones spending the amount of money that car drivers do. The merchants have enough problems getting customers. Our rents are high. They need all the well-paying customers they can get.
But as usual, it will take 20 years to complete any project. Don’t compare us to European quaint towns and their street cafés.
ALL our tourists complain about the homeless on State Street. Tackle the elephant in the room. That’s the main problem on State Street.
Terry Olson
Santa Barbara
• • •
We’re still talking about what to do about State Street, the Groundhog Day of Santa Barbara?
Just think: If we’d have just implemented architect Cass Ensberg’s simple, economical plan 1½ years ago, State Street would be thriving and we could move on to talking other things to death.
Laura Robinson
Santa Barbara
• • •
Thank you for Noozhawk’s continuing coverage of the housing plan for the Tri-County Produce site, as reported in the Sept. 3 article, “Housing Plan for Tri-County Produce Site Gets Positive Review From Architectural Board.”
The Pearl Chase Society board welcomes the preservation of the existing Tri-County Produce building, which has become a familiar feature of the local streetscape.
And we also appreciate a scaling back of the project to make it more compatible with the neighborhood.
Pearl Chase long promoted what she called the 3-Cs: Communicate, Cooperate, Coordinate. When we take the time to listen, plan together and work together, our whole community wins now and into the future.
Christine Neuhauser
Pearl Chase Society president
• • •
Regarding the Sept. 3 article, “SBCC Asking Voters to Support $198 Million Bond Extension,” Santa Barbara City College President/Superintendent Erika Endrijonas must have trouble keeping a straight face when she advocates for Measure P, as she did with Noozhawk.
Measure P is not a new bond? It certainly seems like it, and if it is not new why is it on the ballot?
When voters approved Measure V, they set the terms. This effort ignores that agreement and ignores that the promises of Measure V were not met, promising to do so if we give them another 21 years to 2061!
Measure P would allow “upgrades and renovations” to “aging infrastructure,” “lead pipes,” “asbestos,” and so on. Please check and note that these were exactly the things that we were promised when Measure V was passed.
If the SBCC administration could not accomplish this in the years since, why would we expect them to do so in the future? Certainly they could do so with the money Measure V will provide between now and 2040.
One suspects that these defects will always be unremedied as they are compelling to voters.
Measure V was used in large part to build other stuff, especially nonacademic-related facilities like a press box at the football stadium.
They wanted to use Measure S to build an Olympic-size pool to support a water polo team. When voters said no to that, they went out and secured money for a “sports pavilion” from the state for the same project.
They clearly wanted Measure S to accomplish this priority, not safe class rooms. Returning $32 million to the state rather than chase it with tens of millions more dollars for sports is a good idea for both locals and Californians statewide.
Please note that the implied promises made by the SBCC administration are not binding as witnessed by their historical record.
Please note that the “citizen oversight committee” has no power to direct the expenditure of bond revenue nor to challenge the expenditure of these moneys for things not mentioned in the bond advocacy program. That committee can only verify that the money was spent as directed by the SBCC administration.
SBCC is our local community college and we should keep it for that purpose. With declining enrollment, there is no reason to spend such a fortune on expansion when the existing campus is safe and adequate for the task.
Glen Mowrer
Santa Barbara
• • •
I haven’t been here for too long, only 24 years, so I don’t know the complete history of Santa Barbara City College. But I do know the concept of community colleges.
What started out as a wonderful idea to help fill the gap between high school and industry; retrain the workforce as vocation changes; provide an important local avenue to better one’s self …
But today’s SBCC is now a sinkhole for money and controversy.
Remember when the SBCC president was the same for more than a year or two? Remember when there were no racial issues? Remember when the trustees were trustworthy?
Remember when the college had high rankings? Remember when students paid (very low $/unit) for their education? Remember when locals made up the student body? What happened?!
Political ambition focused on a well-run institution and decided to take over? A revolving door of presidents, manufactured racial protests, trustee fights (even about the Pledge of Allegiance) and many more out-of-town students enrolled that reduces the Santa Barabara housing market.
There needs to be some BIG changes before I vote for another multimillion-dollar bond.
Vote NO on P!
Michael Schaumburg
Santa Barbara
• • •
The two highest level SBCC authorities quoted in the SBCC bond measure article appear to have given false statements.
The created manipulations by SBCC board president Jonathan Abboud and President/Superintendent Erika Endrijonas are shameful.
Trustees Marsha Croninger and Veronica Gallardo, along with respected former trustees and faculty, need taxpaying district voters to become informed of facts as presented at Board of Trustees meetings.
There are big problems at SBCC that more money will not solve. District property taxpayers are responsible.
Measure P is a shell game to bail out five trustees refusing to cut deficit spending from the annual $224.3 million from taxpayers. These five are overly confident that voters will keep supplying them unlimited dollars to waste.
SBCC is already discussing its NEXT 2026 bond proposal. The fiscal crisis team has been and gone. The trustee majority can only be disciplined by voters!
If you don’t have money to spare, or don’t want your tax dollars wasted to 2061, Vote No on P!
Denice Spangler Adams
Montecito
• • •
Regarding the Sept. 2 article, “County Democrats Get Fired Up About Election at Labor Day Barbecue,” does Noozhawk only report on Democratic Party gatherings?
Because on the same day, at the same time, in the same park, more than 100 Santa Barbara County Republicans gathered for a Labor Day barbecue — and there was no mention by Noozhawk.
C. Cota
Santa Barbara
• • •
In her Aug. 30 letter to the editor, Lisa Del Amo compares the City of Santa Barbara’s budget to those of other cities, deploring how much more the Santa Barbara budget is.
She asks readers to “Do your homework.” I decided to do so and choose Redondo Beach, one of the cities she mentioned.
In less than 15 minutes I discovered that Redondo has nine city parks, totaling 75 acres, while Santa Barbara has 60 parks, totaling 1,810 acres. Does Del Amo suggest we get rid of 51 of them?
Santa Barbara has nine fire stations while Redondo has only three. Should Santa Barbara put six on the auction block? Interestingly, Redondo has no airport (sorry, LAX does not count!) while Santa Barbara does.
The list goes on but I shall not. Homework done, think I will bike to some parks.
Bernard Gaffney
Goleta
• • •
Lisa Del Amo is absolutely correct about the bloat in Santa Barbara city staff. I have been saying the same thing for many years but nothing has changed for the better.
Perhaps if more people like Del Amo would do their homework, we could begin to bring fiscal responsibility back to Santa Barbara.
City Council members absolutely should do the same as she has and look at public records of other California cities to realize that the city staff has been allowed to grow and grow to where it has now become almost unaffordable.
Remember, the City Council controls the budget given to the city administrator, who then manages the staff.
With the salaries, benefits and defined benefit retirement costs currently paid to an over-staffed organization, there isn’t enough left for operations and maintenance.
Just look at how expensive city water and sewer fees have become, for example. Thus the continual requests for increased taxes and fees.
To the City Council: Enough is enough. Do a better job of managing the funds you already take from us and stop asking for more.
Art Thomas
Santa Barbara
• • •
Me thinks Lisa Del Amo doth protest too much. If the sales tax increase passes, it would put our city tax rate at 9.25%.
According to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, there are more than 170 cities currently with a tax rate of 9.25% or higher, some up to 10.75%. The proposed 9.25% is not an outrageous rate.
Del Amo cites figures for Redondo Beach (population 68,239) as a comparison city with half our number of city employees. She leaves out that Redondo Beach pays each employee (salary and benefits) MORE than Santa Barbara (population 85,679) pays.
And Redondo Beach’s tax rate is 9.5%, higher than ours would be after a proposed increase.
A couple more examples:
Santa Monica (population 92,912) has 646 MORE city employees, and pays each average worker $41,000 MORE annually than we pay ours. Santa Monica’s tax rate is 10.25%.
Mountain View (population 86,535) has 745 fewer city employees than Santa Barbara, but pays each average worker $36,000 MORE annually than we pay. Mountain View’s tax rate is 9.125%.
The real point is that no city is truly an exact match to any other and their expenses will rarely allow an apples-to-apples comparison.
It is an outlandish exaggeration to say — as Del Amo does — “Santa Barbara is mismanaged and bloated.” That statement is just not borne out by the numbers.
Santa Barbara is a “full-service city,” which means we provide our own police and fire services, wastewater management, drinking water (including a desalination plant), public libraries, a commercial harbor, and the busiest coastal airport between Burbank and San José.
Del Amo is correct in her recommendation for voters to “do your homework.” I believe they will find the proposed tax increase is both reasonable and needed to support the valued city services all Santa Barbarans enjoy.
Richard Closson
Santa Barbara
• • •
On Sept. 3, I received both a California FAIR Plan premium due notice and an email from my insurance agent. The premium is due on Sept. 9 — less than a week after receipt!
The email from my insurance agent advised me that the FAIR Plan DOES NOT ALLOW ANY GRACE PERIOD for receipt of premium payments! A policy WILL BE CANCELED if the premium payment is not received ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE!
He further said that a mailed check was unlikely to be received in time.
As the result of California’s devastating wildfires, the California FAIR Plan is overextended. With this extremely tight period between the premium due notice and the premium due date, they are setting up policyholders for a high volume of policy cancellations.
In addition, the FAIR Plan website is extremely difficult to use when making a payment by credit card (3.5% fee) or debit to a bank account.
As many Santa Barbarans depend on a “FAIR Wrap” policy for their homeowner’s insurance, Noozhawk readers should be aware of the “NO GRACE” rules from CFP. No one wants to be without wildfire coverage on their home!
Donald Vogt
Santa Barbara
• • •
Our 5-month-old puppy recently passed away after chewing on a sago palm frond. Prior to this incident, we were unaware of how toxic these plants can be to pets, despite having owned pets for a lifetime.
We learned about this the hard way, and I want to raise awareness about the potential dangers of having this plant around curious pets that may try to chew on it.
I’ve shared this information on various social media platforms and was surprised to find that many pet owners were also unaware of the risks associated with this beautiful yet dangerous plant.
There are many toxic plants out there, but this one seems to be one of the worst (veterinarians compare it to Amanita mushrooms).
Let’s work together to spread the word and prevent similar incidents from happening to other pets.
Amy Love
Santa Barbara
• • •
Kudos to last week’s letter writers. I’ve never seen such an array of insightful, realistic and logical arguments. Look at last week’s Noozhawk for the stories.
Bart Bader talks truth of taxes and real money, Lisa Del Amo gets real with inefficiency, Carrie Terzian finds a real use for the money saved from the budget if left for Jeff Campbell to administer.
And Art Thomas nails it on climate change. Don’t forget the mini-Ice Age of the 18th and 19th centuries, OK, Art?
Now all you reading this, test your research skills and make like a Waldo seeker!
Brian Massey
Sonoita, Arizona, and formerly of 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.