The Yes on Measure P campaign is running a misleading campaign, and has doubled down on the lie that the $198 million Santa Barbara City College bond will not raise taxes.
Even after Lanny Ebenstein of the Santa Barbara Taxpayers Association corrected the record, the campaign sent out a mailer touting his endorsement with an emphasis on the bond helping fund SBCC “without raising taxes.”
This statement is false as it increases the tax burden on housing in Santa Barbara County by hundreds of millions of dollars.
Proponents also claim that bonds have strict accountability, but that has not stopped them in the past from instantly reallocating funds.
Political donations are tracked on several public portals and can paint a picture of who stands to benefit if what they supported wins.
SBCC’s Measure P has raised $191,200 according to its first financial report. The campaign has 10 donors of $1,000 or more, with six coming from construction/architectural companies.
The largest donor is the SBCC Foundation, with $150,000. Foundation members have been very active in local media, with many of them writing opinion pieces in support of the bond.
I challenge you to find a letter in support of the bond from someone not connected to them.
The second biggest donor is an Irvine design firm, LPA Inc., with $20,000. LPA’s website conveys its passion for carbon-neutral and net-zero buildings and showcases its large portfolio.
With $5,287.14, Deane & Co. of Sacramento is the third biggest donor. The campaign finance company shares the same telephone number for the two Measure P treasurers.
Is it normal for campaign treasurer companies to donate to campaigns they are managing? Will they charge for their services later?
Griffith & Thornburgh LLP, the legal counsel for SBCC and the Santa Barbara Unified School District, donated $5,000 and was the only other large donor from Santa Barbara besides Kruger Bensen Ziemer Architects, which also donated $5,000.
Tied for the fourth biggest donor with the entities mentioned above, Kitchell is a Phoenix-based construction management company that contributed $5,000.
Fonder-Solari, a Santa Clarita bond program construction management company, donated $2,500. Garrick Oliver, founding principal of obrARCHITECTURE in San Diego, donated $1,500.
Cambridge West Partnership LLC, a Tustin human resource and technology resource for California community colleges, donated $1,000 as did John A. Martin & Associates, a Los Angeles structural engineering company.
These same portals also show what the campaign spends money on.
At the time of the first filing, the Measure P campaign had only spent $10,401.77, with $5,000 going to TeamCivX LLC, an Orinda campaign powerhouse.
TeamCivX has only been in business since 2023 but it has been very successful in helping pass bonds and measures. The team is made up of campaign alumni for President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., and other experienced political activists.
With the amount of mailers and signs we have seen, the next campaign finance filing should have more expenses.
Measure P is part of a statewide push to increase budgets of schools that have been generally fiscally mismanaged.
They seem to have a model for increasing budgets: stop spending on infrastructure until it crumbles, and then use the voters’ empathy for safety and education against them.
Who opposes Measure P? Two current SBCC trustees, the most fiscally minded, have come out against the bond. They know how it will be used and have taken a stand.
Trustee Marsha Croninger’s strong Oct. 19 commentary for the No on P stance should be required reading before voting.
Some of SBCC’s long-standing community advocates are also against the measure and lament the way the campaign is being run.
Spending priorities have been backward, and anyone who has consistently gone to board meetings over the last 10 years knows why.
The grassroots campaign of local community members who have printed out signs and fliers, created a website with their own money, and spent time spreading their message is a David and Goliath story.
It will be a miracle if they defeat the bond, as polling shows it should pass. Voters care about education, and the misleading campaign will persuade the average voter.
In 2022, every tax measure on the Santa Barbara County ballot — other than in Guadalupe — was approved by voters, many with 60%-70% yes votes.
According to Croninger’s commentary, beginning in 2017, SBCC reacted to declining revenues and deficits by reducing its budget for building maintenance from $2 million to $500,000, covering emergency repairs only.
“Instead of right-sizing to address reduced enrollment and revenue, SBCC chose not to maintain its facilities in an effort to curb structural deficit spending in its budget,” she states.
Is this a self-inflicted wound? Did the SBCC Foundation sit and watch the campus deteriorate without jumping into action? Why is this an emergency now?
Why doesn’t the foundation fundraise for individual projects so we can ensure the money goes to what was intended?
Has the foundation spent billionaire Mackenzie Scott’s $25 million donation for the campus yet? Why not?
Enrollments throughout California are dropping, and administrative costs continue to increase, creating a need for some colleges to downsize and even move to smaller locations.
Why not use SBCC’s land for something else that can bring value to the community if the space is not needed anymore?
SBCC has a prime location and prestigious alumni. Fundraising should be a top priority if the college is in a deficit and cannot afford basic repairs.
Engage the community and get it involved with the vision for the future of the campus. Invite the community to the beautiful setting, provide some entertainment and ask for donations.
Anyone who has experience with high-level donations knows transparency is the most important thing. If philanthropic people know where their money is going and trust what is promised, they will be very generous.
Progressive liberals make up a majority of the SBCC Board of Trustees, and they have spent millions of dollars on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).
No-bid contracts spending thousands per hour on anti-bias training for teachers who mostly agree with them is excessive.
When asked about a huge DEI contract he just voted on, board president Jonathan Abboud, a Democratic Party activist, stated, “There is no amount of money that is too much to spend on anti-racism.”
If progressives really cared about diversity, they would help find a solution to the Santa Barbara Unified School District’s failure to teach our Hispanic children how to read English.
They would focus on providing impactful education and training for the workforce communities in Santa Barbara and less on a boutique Physical Education building.
We all want SBCC to thrive, and we need to send a message to this Board of Trustees and future boards that fiscal responsibility matters; spending should be focused on infrastructure and direct educational outcomes.
Fundraising will show what the community wants to prioritize if individual projects are put up for us to donate or fundraise for.
