Santa Barbara’s Best Architect award, a controversial Mission development, and why knowing the facts matters before Election Day.

On November 3, Santa Barbara voters will choose a mayor and three City Council members. Those decisions will influence what our city looks like, how our tax dollars are spent, and what kind of community we leave future generations.

But how much homework do we do before voting?

We read endorsements, recognize familiar names, listen to campaign promises and sometimes assume that an award or recommendation means someone has earned our confidence.

Consider what happened in this year’s Santa Barbara Independent Best Of Santa Barbara contest.

The Best Architect in Santa Barbara?

The Independent named Bildsten Architecture and Planning its 2026 Best Architect, with Jeff Shelton as runner-up.

But readers who followed the Independent’s own reporting might remember something else.

Bildsten Architecture and Planning had been identified in the City’s permitting records in connection with the controversial proposed development at 505 East Los Olivos Street, immediately behind our Historic Santa Barbara Mission.

The proposal calls for approximately 270 apartments and parking in eight stories of residential on the West side and seven stories of housing plus three stories of parking on the East Los Olivos Street side.

Its size, location, and potential effects on historic resources have generated substantial concern and opposition.

And that brings us to a question.

How many people voting for Best Architect knew about the firm’s documented connection to this application—or understood what that connection actually meant?

What the City Has Now Confirmed

After inquiries, I received a written response from Santa Barbara’s Community Development Department on October 29.

The City confirmed:

“The original 2024.07.22 plan set lists Bildsten Architecture as Responsible Agent on Sheet C-1 (Title/Notes Sheet), which was prepared by Obando & Associates Civil Engineers. Responsible Agent changes to The Mission LLC on subsequent submittals.”

In other words, Bildsten Architecture’s name appeared on the original July 22, 2024 plans as Responsible Agent. Later, that designation changed to The Mission LLC.

Think about that.

A proposed eight-story development directly next to one of Santa Barbara’s most treasured historic landmarks – the “Queen of the California Missions” – yet the City says it cannot confirm who the architect is beyond the first application.

The designation “Responsible Agent” does not prove Bildsten designed the building. Nor does the change establish wrong doing.

The city has confirmed that Bildsten Architecture and Planning is clearly listed on the initial proposed documents.

Who prepared the architectural drawings? What services, if any, did Bildsten Architecture provide, and why is Bildsten listed in the original application? Why was its designation changed? And who is professionally responsible for the design?

The questions are important and legitimate.

I emailed Ellen Bildsten two times requesting clarification and received no response.

And What About Grand Avenue?

The Mission proposal is not the only large development raising concerns.

At 1609–1615 Grand Avenue, another Builder’s Remedy proposal calls for a building of approximately 53 units on the Lower Riviera: six stories of residential at the Grand Ave side and two stories of parking partially submerged going down the slope.

The two projects share a development connection through Ben Eilenberg, according to published reporting.

Is Bildsten Architecture and Planning involved in the Grand Avenue project as well?

In July of 2025, more than 65 local architects, designers, and planners, publicly opposed both proposals, raising concerns about neighborhood scale and compatibility.

All these questions remain open and are my new homework assignment.

And that is precisely why checking original documents matters.

Who Really Chooses the Best?

On October 28, I received a letter emailed out questioning its Best Architect selection and the relationships between local architects and advocacy organizations.

The newspaper has explained that readers nominate and vote for the winners.

Fair enough. That is how a readers’ choice contest works.

But a popular vote is not the same as a professional review of qualifications, project history, or community impact.

So how many and who voted? We do not know. Was it the very effective advocates we know as “Strong Towns?”

The award may accurately reflect the preferences of those who participated and who are unknown as to their associations or expertise in the matter.

But it cannot answer the questions raised by the City’s development records.

Voting tells us who received the votes. It does not tell us how thoroughly each voter investigated the choices.

Now Consider Our City Election

Santa Barbara faces major decisions about State Street, housing, historic preservation, infrastructure, and its financial future.

The next mayor and Council will help determine how those decisions are made.

State Street alone involves a Master Plan with an estimated cost approaching $100 million. Major housing proposals are testing the relationship between state housing requirements and local planning standards. Residents are organizing referendum efforts over State Street and rent stabilization.

These are not small issues or decisions.

Before voting, residents can examine Council minutes, candidates’ public statements, campaign-finance disclosures, actual voting records and the costs of proposed policies.

When a candidate claims credit for an accomplishment, who actually proposed it? Who made the motion? Who voted for it? And what was the result?

When an organization endorses a candidate, what policies does that organization support? Does the candidate agree?

When someone promises to protect Santa Barbara’s character, what does that mean when developments such as those adjacent to the Mission and up on Grand Avenue overlooking the city are enabled?

And when someone promises fiscal responsibility, how would that person pay for the projects being proposed? Such as the State Street Master Plan that seems far from a place of being clear of actual scope or cost?

November 3 Is Almost Here

The Independent’s Best Architect award offers a useful reminder about the limits of voting based on reputation.

Bildsten Architecture was named Best Architect by participating readers. But are these readers fully informed about the accomplishments and focus of this architect?

The City’s records separately confirm the firm’s original Responsible Agent designation for the Mission application, while leaving its precise professional role unresolved.

Both facts can be true.

What matters is understanding what each one actually establishes.

The same principle applies to elections. A candidate’s endorsements, popularity or campaign promises are only part of the information available.

Our elected representatives will make decisions affecting Santa Barbara long after the campaign signs disappear.

Did You Know?

An award is not an investigation. An endorsement is not an accomplishment. And a campaign promise is not a voting record.

Before November 3, do your homework. Know the record behind the name. Your vote helps shape Santa Barbara’s future.

After Doing My Homework…

Throughout this election season, Did You Know? has examined candidates’ backgrounds, public records, policy positions, and qualifications. Every voter should conduct their own research and reach their own conclusions.

The columnist’s previously stated endorsements for the November 3 election are:

• Mayor: Eric Friedman

• City Council, District 4: Monte Wilson

• City Council, District 5: Cevin Cathell

• City Council, District 6: Anyone but Gabe

• U.S. Congress, District 24: Bob Smith

These are my personal choices, based on my research. I encourage readers to investigate the candidates and make their own informed decisions.

Leave a comment

Share Santa Barbara Current

Subscribe now

******

Ballots are out. Only a few day remain until the Nov 3 election.

If you plan to vote early, start with California Current’s proposition guide and Statewide Candidate recommendations—written from the only point of view that actually pays the bill: the overworked, under-appreciated California taxpayer.

We don’t hand you a cheat sheet and walk away. Every recommendation is backed by clear-headed research. Click the link, read the case, then mark your ballot with your eyes open.

NO on 1. The Con Job

NO on 2. Supersizing California’s Slush Fund

NO on 3. The Forever Tax

NO on 4. Your Money, Their Campaigns

NO on 5. Recall Revenge

NO on 37. Robin Hood in Reverse

NO on 38. Pork Barrel Science

YES on 39. Trust, but Verify

NO on 40. Tax Billionaires Today, Tax Everybody Tomorrow

YES on 41. Sergey’s Silver Bullets

YES on 42. Sergey’s Silver Bullets

YES on 43. Stop Getting Steamrolled by Special Taxes

NO on 44. Bleeding Health Clinics Dry

YES on 45. Pondering Prop 45

Note: Props 41 and 42 share one article.

Governor: Steve Hilton

Lieutenant Governor: Gloria Romero

Secretary of State: Donald P. (Don) Wagner

Controller: Herb Morgan

Treasurer: Jennifer Hawks

Attorney General: Michael Gates

Insurance Commissioner: no good choice, no endorsement

State Superintendent of Public Instruction: Sonja Shaw

*******

Need a little help with the 20 judicial retention choices for the Second Appellate District (Los Angeles, Ventura, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara Counties)? Click here.

With reserves below target and costly commitments ahead, what do Santa Barbara’s political endorsements—and the candidates’ answers—tell us about the next City Council?

On November 3, Santa Barbara voters will elect a mayor and three council members. They will inherit difficult decisions about public safety, infrastructure, housing, downtown redevelopment, and the City’s finances.

The Santa Barbara County Democratic Central Committee (DCC) and Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) have endorsed precisely the same four candidates: Kristen Sneddon for mayor, Devon Wardlow in District 4, Ian Baucke in District 5 and Gabe Escobedo in District 6.

Does this mean DSA controls the Democrat Party? No evidence establishes that. But their matching endorsements raise questions about shared priorities and what candidates agree to when seeking political support.

Most importantly, what did these candidates tell the Democrat Party officials before receiving its endorsement?

Where Do the Two Philosophies Differ?

The Democrat Party and DSA are separate organizations.

The national Democratic Party platform supports private enterprise, competition, worker protections and public investment.

National DSA advocates replacing capitalism with democratic socialism, including collective ownership of major economic resources and greater democratic control over economic decisions.

Both support certain labor, housing, and social policies, but their long-term economic objectives differ.

That distinction matters locally. Which DSA principles do the four endorsed candidates support, and where do they draw the line?

An endorsement does not establish DSA membership or agreement with its entire national platform.

What DSA Said

In its September 22 statewide election report, California DSA described its Santa Barbara chapter’s goal of preserving the City Council’s 4–3 progressive majority.

It credited that majority with advancing rent stabilization and ending the City’s Flock surveillance contract.

DSA praised Sneddon’s renter protections and alignment with its principles. It said Wardlow, Baucke and Escobedo had demonstrated willingness, even eagerness, to work with the chapter.

The local endorsement page identifies Wardlow’s willingness to work with DSA, Baucke’s tenants-union background and Escobedo’s housing, policing, and immigration-enforcement positions.

These are DSA’s published explanations, not accusations.

The statewide report also identifies Santa Barbara alongside other California DSA chapters participating in the 2026 elections.

What Were Candidates Asked?

This may be the most important unanswered question of the election.

The Santa Barbara County Democratic Central Committee (DCC) requires candidates seeking its endorsement to complete a written questionnaire and participate in an interview. Their answers help determine who receives party support, including campaign publicity and organizational assistance.

Yet the complete 2026 City Council questionnaires and candidates’ responses have not been located in publicly accessible materials we examined.

At the September 3 mayoral debate at the New Vic Theatre, moderator Jerry Roberts asked Kristen Sneddon whether she disagreed with any portion of the Democratic Party’s approximately 7,000-word platform—or whether voters should expect her to govern as a functionary of the party.

Sneddon answered: “I have read the entire platform and proudly I stand by all of it.”

She added that nothing in the platform gave her pause or hesitation, explaining, “We just happen to be aligned.”

That is a public declaration of agreement with the entire County Democratic Party platform.

The party’s platform calls for renter protections, public investment, cooperation with public-employee unions and fiscal responsibility through progressive revenue measures and increased efficiency.

The same platform declares the party’s commitment to transparency and openness, and states that candidates seeking endorsement are asked to pledge to put its shared values into practice.

Yet the completed 2026 Democratic Party endorsement questionnaires remain undisclosed to voters. Even the blank questionnaire requires an access request.

What additional questions were candidates asked? What answers did they provide in writing? Were further assurances given during their interviews?

If candidates publicly declare agreement with an entire political platform, shouldn’t voters also have access to the written answers they supplied to secure that party’s endorsement?

And what about Wardlow, Baucke and Escobedo?

Were candidates questioned about taxes, reserves, public-employee compensation, rent regulation or State Street? Did they make continuing policy commitments?

We cannot assume agreements exist without seeing the documents.

National DSA also has endorsement requirements, but we have not verified what written commitments, if any, its Santa Barbara chapter requested.

If questionnaire answers help determine who receives an endorsement, shouldn’t voters be able to read them?

Are All Democrats in Agreement?

Not entirely.

Democratic Women of Santa Barbara County withheld endorsements for mayor and Districts 4 and 5 because no candidate received its required 60% board support. It endorsed Escobedo in District 6.

Congressman Salud Carbajal endorsed Eric Friedman for mayor rather than the DCC’s choice, Sneddon.

These differences demonstrate that the DCC’s slate does not represent unanimous agreement among Democrats.

A Balanced Budget Is Not a Restored Safety Net

The Council unanimously adopted a balanced fiscal-year 2027 General Fund budget: approximately $257.2 million in revenues against $256.8 million in expenditures.

Yet staff reported reserves approximately $29.7 million below the City’s policy target.

That shortfall is not bankruptcy. It means less financial protection against unexpected expenses.

Meanwhile, Council approved $500,000 from Measure I housing-related funds to begin implementing rent stabilization and the rental registry.

Supporters cite tenant stability; opponents question administrative expenses and effects on rental housing. Final ongoing program costs and fees remain under study.

How would the endorsed candidates balance those obligations with restoring reserves?

Measure C: Infrastructure or State Street?

Measure C, approved in 2017, was promoted for streets, sidewalks, storm drains, fire stations, and other infrastructure.

Measure I, approved in 2024, was promoted for essential services and community needs.

Both are legally general-purpose taxes, allowing Council to determine expenditures.

On April 15, 2025, Sneddon moved to reallocate Measure C capital appropriations from the Amtrak Building Column Repair and Revenue Control System projects to the State Street Action Plan. The motion passed unanimously among those present; Friedman was absent.

Sneddon then moved to authorize $528,170 for prefabricated State Street sidewalk extensions. Rowse opposed the expenditure; Friedman remained absent.

These were two separate votes, not two separate $528,170 expenditures.

In June 2026, Council voted 4–3 to reduce the Measure C capital budget by $1 million to allow a transfer to the Local Housing Trust Fund. Rowse, Friedman and Jordan opposed the decision.

In September, Council approved the State Street Master Plan, estimated at approximately $96 million.

That approved a plan, not an immediate $96 million appropriation. Some costs involve utilities and stormwater improvements that may be needed regardless of the street’s design.

But other infrastructure also requires attention.

How should Council prioritize State Street against aging storm drains, roads, sidewalks ,and unfinished fire-station projects?

Were candidates asked to explain those priorities before receiving endorsements?

Haven’t We Hired for Economic Development Before

At a District 4 forum, Wardlow proposed hiring an economic development manager.

Santa Barbara previously hired Jason Harris in 2020 at an annual salary of $182,193. His position was later proposed for elimination amid budget pressures.

The City subsequently assigned economic-vitality responsibilities to a Deputy City Administrator and explored outside consulting services.

Before creating another position, shouldn’t Council establish its full cost, responsibilities, and measurable financial benefits?

The Question That Should Unite Voters

The DCC, DSA, labor organizations and other groups have every right to endorse candidates.

But endorsements do not replace financial accountability.

The next Council must decide what to fund, cut, postpone, or finance through additional revenue—and how to restore reserves.

What will your proposals cost? What will you cut? Who pays? And when will the City’s financial reserves be rebuilt?

DSA/DCC Slate

Four candidates have received both DCC and DSA endorsements. DSA publicly explains its reasons, while the completed Democratic Party questionnaires have not been verified as publicly available.

Where does Democratic Party policy end and democratic socialism begin for these individual candidates?

Perhaps their written answers would tell us.

An endorsement tells voters who supports a candidate. The candidate’s own answers could tell us why.

•••

Did You Know Endorsements

United States Representative, District 24- Bob Smith

City of Santa Barbara, Mayor- Eric Friedman

Santa Barbara City Council District 4- Monte Wilson

Santa Barbara City Council District 5- Cevin Cathell

Santa Barbara City Council District 6- Anyone BUT Gabe Escobedo

Leave a comment

Share Santa Barbara Current

Subscribe now

******

Ballots are out.

If you plan to vote early, start with California Current’s proposition guide and Statewide Candidate recommendations—written from the only point of view that actually pays the bill: the overworked, under-appreciated California taxpayer.

We don’t hand you a cheat sheet and walk away. Every recommendation is backed by clear-headed research. Click the link, read the case, then mark your ballot with your eyes open.

NO on 1. The Con Job

NO on 2. Supersizing California’s Slush Fund

NO on 3. The Forever Tax

NO on 4. Your Money, Their Campaigns

NO on 5. Recall Revenge

NO on 37. Robin Hood in Reverse

NO on 38. Pork Barrel Science

YES on 39. Trust, but Verify

NO on 40. Tax Billionaires Today, Tax Everybody Tomorrow

YES on 41. Sergey’s Silver Bullets

YES on 42. Sergey’s Silver Bullets

YES on 43. Stop Getting Steamrolled by Special Taxes

NO on 44. Bleeding Health Clinics Dry

YES on 45. Pondering Prop 45

Note: Props 41 and 42 share one article.

Governor: Steve Hilton

Lieutenant Governor: Gloria Romero

Secretary of State: Donald P. (Don) Wagner

Controller: Herb Morgan

Treasurer: Jennifer Hawks

Attorney General: Michael Gates

Insurance Commissioner: no good choice, no endorsement

State Superintendent of Public Instruction: Sonja Shaw

*******

Need a little help with the 20 judicial retention choices for the Second Appellate District (Los Angeles, Ventura, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara Counties)? Click here.

Political endorsements are nothing new. Newspapers have every right to endorse candidates, just as voters have every right to disagree.

But when an endorsement relies on a candidate’s accomplishments, shouldn’t those accomplishments be checked against the public record?

The Montecito Journal credits Kristen Sneddon with leading several major City initiatives.

But what do the original Council records reveal about who proposed them, who supported them, and what taxpayers ultimately paid?

The Montecito Journal, in its enthusiastic endorsement of Kristen Sneddon for mayor, portrays her as a driving force behind several major Santa Barbara initiatives: the Local Housing Trust Fund, short-term rental regulations, the Sustainability and Resilience Department, the State Street Master Plan and the Coast Village Community Benefit Improvement District.

Some of those descriptions reflect genuine contributions. Others leave out important people, dates, and Council actions.

Fortunately, Santa Barbara keeps minutes of its Council meetings.

And sometimes those minutes tell a more complete story.

Who Started the Housing Trust Fund?

The Journal credits Sneddon with helping establish and fund Santa Barbara’s Local Housing Trust Fund.

But let’s return to October 4, 2022.

According to the official City Council minutes, Item 10, Councilmembers Eric Friedman and Meagan Harmon made the motion to redirect $250,000 from a proposed Human Services allocation toward a new affordable housing trust fund.

Their motion also directed City staff to return with a proposal formally establishing the fund.

It passed unanimously, including Sneddon’s vote.

That is an important distinction. Sneddon supported the proposal, but the proposal and recorded motion was made by Friedman and Harmon.

Then, on December 6, 2022, Council considered how to distribute approximately $14.6 million in surplus revenue.

Sneddon and Harmon proposed putting less money into reserves and dividing more of the surplus between housing and employee compensation. Their motion failed, 3–3.

A subsequent motion by Oscar Gutierrez and Friedman passed 5–1, distributing approximately half the surplus to reserves, one-quarter to housing, and the remainder to pension funding and employee compensation, with specified deductions.

Ultimately, $2,883,548 was dedicated specifically to the Local Housing Trust Fund.

In January 2024, Council formally established the fund, with Sneddon participating in that process.

So why does the endorsement emphasize her leadership without explaining Friedman’s and Harmon’s earlier proposal?

Supporting a program is an accomplishment. Originating it is a different one.

And Who Increased the Spending?

Fast-Forward to May 2025.

Sneddon advocated increasing annual funding for the Local Housing Trust Fund to $5 million.

On June 10, Council ultimately approved a combined $5 million annual housing package, including $3.5 million for the trust fund and $1.5 million for the Flexible Housing and Homelessness Fund.

The package included an additional $2 million annual transfer from contingency reserves.

The FY2026 allocation passed 6–1. The proposed FY2027 commitment passed 4–3, with Mayor Randy Rowse and Councilmembers Friedman and Mike Jordan opposing.

Sneddon supported both transfers, provided the City developed a reserve-replenishment plan.

But by 2026, the City was confronting depleted contingency reserves and a substantial shortfall against its reserve-policy target, along with an operating deficit of nearly $10M.

Sneddon subsequently expressed surprise and frustration over reserve depletion and the failure to replenish the funds.

The housing transfers did not cause the entire reserve shortfall. Nevertheless, these were commitments approved during a period of projected deficits.

Shouldn’t the financial consequences of an accomplishment be examined alongside the political credit?

Who Brought Short-Term Rentals to Council?

The Journal also credits Sneddon with leading restrictions on short-term rentals, including those in high-fire-risk areas and the coastal zone.

Here’s what the official record says.

On April 16, 2024, Item 10 specifically identified Mike Jordan and Eric Friedman as the council members requesting that short-term vacation rental regulations be placed on a future Council agenda.

That is not an interpretation. It is how the item was identified in the City’s records.

Sneddon and Oscar Gutierrez subsequently moved to approve scheduling the discussion, and Council voted unanimously.

The City’s June 11, 2024, staff report again identifies Jordan and Friedman as having initiated that discussion.

Sneddon has participated in developing the restrictions, and her contributions should be acknowledged.

But the original 2024 agenda request belongs to Jordan and Friedman.

Furthermore, the coastal-zone ordinance advanced in October 2026 still requires California Coastal Commission review. Describing the entire coastal ban as a completed achievement overlooks that remaining approval process.

Who Started the Sustainability Department?

The Montecito Journal credits Sneddon with helping launch Santa Barbara’s Department of Sustainability and Resilience.

Her own campaign website goes further, stating that she called for the creation of the department.

But according to the City’s history, Santa Barbara established a sustainability program in 2006, twelve years before Sneddon took office.

The Department of Sustainability and Resilience was established in 2020 by bringing together existing environmental and energy functions.

Those programs, and the City employees administering them, existed long before the department received its present organizational structure.

Sneddon served on Council during the department’s creation and chaired the Sustainability Committee. In December 2022, she made the successful motion, seconded by Friedman, to appoint Alelia Parenteau as the department’s director.

Her participation is documented.

However, the original motion or staff recommendation identifying who first proposed creating the department has not been established in the records examined.

There is a difference between supporting a department, helping create it and originating the idea.

Shouldn’t the City employees and earlier Council members who developed Santa Barbara’s environmental programs also receive recognition?

What About State Street?

The Journal says Sneddon made the motion initiating the State Street Master Plan before the pandemic.

She unquestionably participated in the planning process and supported the eventual plan.

However, the City’s documented process for the current master plan took shape following the pandemic-era closure of State Street.

A Council subcommittee that included Sneddon and Harmon recommended moving forward with a comprehensive master plan in March 2021.

Harmon chaired that subcommittee.

In July 2022, Sneddon and Harmon moved to approve the consulting contract with MIG, Inc., authorizing $709,156 plus a contingency allowance.

That motion passed unanimously.

I have not located the specific pre-pandemic Council motion described in the Journal endorsement. If one exists, its date and agenda item would clarify the claim.

Meanwhile, Council approved the final State Street Master Plan on September 1, 2026, by a 6–1 vote.

The plan’s estimated implementation cost was approximately $96 million, with substantial funding still to be identified.

Sneddon supported moving forward despite that uncertainty.

Again, the distinction is between participating in a project, initiating it, approving its expenditures and demonstrating that the City can afford it.

Those are four different accomplishments.

Even Montecito Journal’s Earlier Reporting Tells Another Story

The endorsement credits Sneddon with bringing the Coast Village Community Benefit Improvement District to Council.

Yet on April 12, 2022, the Montecito Journal itself reported that the proposal originated with the Coast Village Association, which had been working on the idea for nearly two years.

Its June 14, 2022, report again credited the association’s organizing efforts and property-owner support.

Sneddon helped advance the district through Council, including co-sponsoring its final formation motion.

That contribution is documented.

But the association and participating property owners deserve recognition for developing and pursuing the proposal.

Why shouldn’t their work be acknowledged when political credit is assigned?

What About Campaign Contributions?

The Journal also criticizes Friedman’s contributions from developers and corporate landlords, suggesting California’s Levine Act will force him to recuse himself from numerous future decisions.

The law is more specific.

Under Government Code Section 84308, contributions exceeding $500 from certain parties or participants can trigger disclosure and disqualification requirements in covered proceedings involving permits, licenses, contracts or other entitlements.

But a contribution from someone who owns or develops property does not automatically disqualify a council member from every future development decision.

Whether the law applies depends on the particular contributor, proceeding, timing and other statutory requirements.

Specific potential conflicts deserve examination. So do contributions from unions and other organizations supporting candidates.

No campaign should receive a different standard of scrutiny simply because its contributors have different interests.

Leadership, Credit and Accountability

The Journal describes Sneddon as a courageous leader and cites her environmental work, community involvement and numerous endorsements.

Those are legitimate considerations. Her work on sustainability, sea-level adaptation and other City initiatives is part of her public record.

But so are the original motions, the votes, the spending decisions and the financial results.

Friedman, Harmon, Jordan, other Council members, City staff, community organizations and participating residents have also contributed to the programs highlighted in the endorsement.

Giving Sneddon credit for her participation does not require overlooking theirs.

A mayor serves with six other Council members. Accomplishments generally require collective decisions, public funding and the work of many people.

And the same Council members who take credit for popular programs must also answer for spending decisions, deficits and financial obligations.

Did You Know?

City Council minutes identify who made each motion, who seconded it, how everyone voted and what was approved.

Perhaps the most meaningful measure of leadership is not who receives the most credit.

It’s whether the public receives the complete record of what was accomplished, who accomplished it—and what it cost.

Leave a comment

Share Santa Barbara Current

Subscribe now

******

Ballots are out.

If you plan to vote early, start with California Current’s proposition guide and Statewide Candidate recommendations—written from the only point of view that actually pays the bill: the overworked, under-appreciated California taxpayer.

We don’t hand you a cheat sheet and walk away. Every recommendation is backed by clear-headed research. Click the link, read the case, then mark your ballot with your eyes open.

NO on 1. The Con Job

NO on 2. Supersizing California’s Slush Fund

NO on 3. The Forever Tax

NO on 4. Your Money, Their Campaigns

NO on 5. Recall Revenge

NO on 37. Robin Hood in Reverse

NO on 38. Pork Barrel Science

YES on 39. Trust, but Verify

NO on 40. Tax Billionaires Today, Tax Everybody Tomorrow

YES on 41. Sergey’s Silver Bullets

YES on 42. Sergey’s Silver Bullets

YES on 43. Stop Getting Steamrolled by Special Taxes

NO on 44. Bleeding Health Clinics Dry

YES on 45. Pondering Prop 45

Note: Props 41 and 42 share one article.

Governor: Steve Hilton

Lieutenant Governor: Gloria Romero

Secretary of State: Donald P. (Don) Wagner

Controller: Herb Morgan

Treasurer: Jennifer Hawks

Attorney General: Michael Gates

Insurance Commissioner: no good choice, no endorsement

State Superintendent of Public Instruction: Sonja Shaw

*******

Need a little help with the 20 judicial retention choices for the Second Appellate District (Los Angeles, Ventura, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara Counties)? Click here.

Santa Barbara’s November 3 election will determine who represents District 6 on the City Council. With depleted reserves, rising costs and major projects under consideration, taxpayers have good reason to examine the financial decisions and proposals of those seeking public office.

I wanted to discuss these matters directly with candidate Gabe Escobedo. I sent three emails requesting an in-person meeting—two to his campaign email address and one to his personal email address. As of October 14, I have received no reply. I do not know whether he read the messages or why he has not responded.

My invitation remains open.

What the Bankruptcy Records Reveal

In September 2018, Escobedo filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California. His schedules reported approximately $192,323 in liabilities and $26,233 in assets, including two financed vehicles: a 2016 Jeep Cherokee and a 2011 Volkswagen GTI.

The Volkswagen was designated for surrender, and CoastHills Credit Union subsequently obtained court authorization to recover it. The trustee’s records eventually listed a $12,416 unsecured claim from CoastHills. The file does not establish the date the vehicle was physically repossessed or sold.

The bankruptcy also involved substantial student-loan debt. The Department of Education held an allowed claim of $133,009.85 and received $7,661.37 through the repayment plan.

Escobedo completed his five-year Chapter 13 repayment plan in September 2023 and received a discharge on April 25, 2024. According to the trustee’s final accounting, $9,068.18 was distributed to creditors. Although substantial balances remained unpaid through the plan, the documents do not establish that all were legally forgiven. Most federal student loans ordinarily survive an ordinary bankruptcy discharge.

Another document warrants clarification. In October 2022, the trustee sought dismissal, alleging that required tax returns and financial information had not been supplied to the trustee. The motion was withdrawn, and Escobedo subsequently completed the plan. That allegation did not establish that he had failed to file his tax returns with tax authorities.

Bankruptcy is a lawful process, and filing does not establish wrongdoing. These are nevertheless public records. I wanted to give Escobedo an opportunity to explain in his own words.

From Personal Finances to Public Decisions

Escobedo has also made public financial decisions as a Santa Barbara Unified School Board member. In July 2024, the board unanimously approved a teachers’ agreement providing a 10 percent raise for 2024–25 and another 5 percent for 2025–26, averting a potential strike.

In March 2025, Escobedo voted with the 3–2 majority to send preliminary layoff notices to 85 teachers. Many notices were subsequently rescinded after the district identified alternatives. The district’s September 2026 unaudited figures reported a $5.45 million General Fund deficit for 2025–26—far smaller than previously projected, but a deficit, nonetheless.

Declining enrollment, expiring one-time funding and other pressures affected district finances. Responsibility for its decisions rests with the board as a whole, not one member. Still, examining the forecasts and long-term costs considered when the board voted is reasonable.

Santa Barbara’s Own Financial Challenges

The City adopted a balanced FY2027 General Fund budget while acknowledging that depleted reserves need replenishing. Its State Street Master Plan carries an estimated implementation cost exceeding $96 million, including about $68 million in construction. Adopting the plan did not authorize spending the full amount.

Escobedo has publicly supported a car-free State Street and phased implementation. In published candidate responses, he has said he wants each phase’s costs, funding, and maintenance needs identified before committing tens of millions. At a forum, he also discussed grants, infrastructure financing districts, retirement incentives, reviewing vacant positions and first-year fee relief for Downtown businesses.

When Everything Is a Priority, Who Decides?

Santa Barbara cannot spend the same dollar twice. Aging streets and sidewalks, stormwater systems, fire facilities and dwindling reserves compete for attention. While some of State Street’s underground infrastructure work would be necessary even without the redesign—estimates include more than $17.5 million for utility relocation and $14.5 million for stormwater construction—how much discretionary reconstruction can the City afford?

If Escobedo supports implementing the plan, what would he postpone, reduce, or eliminate to pay for it? Would he commit future property-tax growth through an infrastructure financing district, and what would that mean for other City priorities? These decisions could create obligations lasting years.

Shouldn’t residents know what takes priority before new commitments are made?

The Subjects I Wanted to Discuss

My proposed interview covered the circumstances of Escobedo’s bankruptcy, why two financed vehicles appeared in his schedules, what happened to the surrendered Volkswagen, which debts survived discharge, and whether his student loans were later repaid or forgiven. I also wanted to discuss the withdrawn trustee motion and lessons from completing the repayment plan.

Turning to public finances, I wanted to review his School Board compensation and budget votes, subsequent staffing reductions and the district’s financial outlook. Finally, I wanted to examine the State Street price tag, possible grants and future tax revenues, long-term maintenance, Downtown-only business relief, rent-stabilization administration, housing subsidies, City-owned land, arts initiatives and retirement incentives.

For each proposal, the central question is the same: What will it cost, how will it be funded, and what other services or improvements might be delayed?

An Opportunity to Respond

I hoped to discuss these subjects with Escobedo face to face, allowing him to clarify the records and explain the financial safeguards he would support at City Hall.

Three emails requesting a meeting have received no reply as of this writing. That is not a refusal, and I am not suggesting otherwise. I remain willing to receive his responses, supporting documents or corrections. Or is this the same response we should expect from him if he is elected?

The upcoming election will determine who participates in decisions affecting hundreds of millions of public dollars, essential City services and Santa Barbara’s financial future. Santa Barbara taxpayers have already seen the consequences when spending pressures outpace recurring revenues and reserves are depleted. Before another City Councilmember takes office, the public should know what that candidate is prepared to spend, what can wait, and where the money will come from.

The decision for voters is their own. But the financial questions before Santa Barbara will not disappear after November 3. For every proposal involving public money, the starting questions should be:

What will it cost?

Where will the funds come from?

And, what else must wait?

•••

DYK endorsements coming…

Leave a comment

Share Santa Barbara Current

Subscribe now

******

Ballots are out.

If you plan to vote early, start with California Current’s proposition guide—written from the only point of view that actually pays the bill: the overworked, under-appreciated California taxpayer.

We don’t hand you a cheat sheet and walk away. Every recommendation is backed by clear headed research. Click the link, read the case, then mark your ballot with your eyes open.

Please consider sharing this easy-to-use guide with your neighbors.

NO on 1. The Con Job

NO on 2. Supersizing California’s Slush Fund

NO on 3. The Forever Tax

NO on 4. Your Money, Their Campaigns

NO on 5. Recall Revenge

NO on 37. Robin Hood in Reverse

NO on 38. Pork Barrel Science

YES on 39. Trust, but Verify

NO on 40. Tax Billionaires Today, Tax Everybody Tomorrow

YES on 41. Sergey’s Silver Bullets

YES on 42. Sergey’s Silver Bullets

YES on 43. Stop Getting Steamrolled by Special Taxes

NO on 44. Unions to Draw More Blood

YES on 45. Pondering Prop 45

Note: Props 41 and 42 share one article.

Community Events:

When voters choose a member of Congress, what kind of experience should matter?

Is it the number of years someone has held elected office? Or should voters also consider leadership, management, military service, technical knowledge and experience working inside the federal government?

That question is especially relevant in California’s 24th Congressional District.

Salud Carbajal has been an elected official since 2004.

Bob Smith has never held elected office.

But Smith is hardly inexperienced.

Two Very Different Paths

Carbajal served eight years in the Marine Corps Reserve while attending UC Santa Barbara, where he earned his bachelor’s degree. Trained as a mortarman, he was mobilized during the Gulf War to Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, but never deployed overseas. He left the Reserve as a sergeant in 1992 and later earned a master’s degree in organizational management from Fielding Graduate University.

Carbajal then worked in Santa Barbara County government, including for First District Supervisor Naomi Schwartz. In 2004, he was elected to the County Board of Supervisors, where he served 12 years before winning election to Congress in 2016.

That gives Carbajal roughly 22 years in elected office.

Smith followed a very different path.

He spent more than 26 years on active duty in the United States Navy, beginning as an enlisted AEGIS technician and eventually becoming a commissioned officer and Navy Commander. He served more than 900 days deployed and is a combat veteran.

Smith’s military career gave him unusually broad experience inside the federal executive branch. Over 26 years, he served at bases across the United States and operated in nearly 40 countries, including strategically important regions of the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Africa. His service included Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, counter-piracy operations and overseas humanitarian disaster relief.

Smith also earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees in engineering-related disciplines and built a career working on some of the Navy’s most sophisticated defense systems.

These Were Not Small Programs

Smith worked in four major Navy acquisition areas: the AEGIS Combat System, AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense, Air and Missile Defense Radar program — now known as SPY-6 — and the DDG destroyer shipbuilding program.

These are major defense programs involving enormous taxpayer investment, national security, sophisticated engineering, contractors, procurement, schedules, and congressional oversight.

That experience is relevant to Congress.

Congress doesn’t simply debate and pass legislation. It authorizes programs, appropriates taxpayer dollars, and is responsible for overseeing how federal agencies spend that money.

Military and executive-branch experience like this was once a common path into federal office; today, it is increasingly overshadowed by the career-political track.
And this is where an important part of Smith’s résumé has largely gone unnoticed.

Smith Already Knows the Congressional Process

I asked Smith directly about his experience working with Congress.

His answer was detailed — and carefully qualified.

For roughly a decade during his Navy acquisition and program work, Smith worked on programs subject to continuous congressional authorization, appropriations and oversight, particularly involving the House Armed Services Committee and House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.

His responsibilities included preparing and supporting responses to congressional Requests for Information, developing and delivering program and budget briefings, supporting authorization and appropriations actions requiring congressional notification and approval.

Smith was also formally trained through Defense Acquisition University in the Pentagon’s Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution process and legislative affairs.

But here’s something else I found noteworthy.

Smith specifically cautioned me not to say he spent ten years continuously working with Congress.

He didn’t.

Most of his day-to-day work occurred within the Navy and Pentagon as those major programs moved through the federal budget process. Direct congressional interaction occurred periodically when program, authorization, appropriation or budget issues required it.

That distinction matters.

It would have been very easy for a congressional candidate to turn “roughly a decade working on programs involving congressional oversight” into “I worked with Congress for ten years.”

Smith wouldn’t let me do it.

His Washington experience also continued after leaving the Navy. Smith says that in his post-Navy defense work, he periodically works with his company’s political team developing issues and briefing congressional staffers or congressional offices.

So yes, Smith would arrive in Congress as a freshman legislator.

But he wouldn’t arrive as a freshman to Washington, the Pentagon, federal budgeting, or congressional oversight.

And Then There Are the Awards

Smith’s record has also earned significant recognition.

In 2023, he was named U.S. Navy Engineer of the Year.

That recognition shouldn’t be reduced to another line on a campaign résumé.

It reflects a career involving engineering, acquisition, weapons systems, leadership, and responsibility within one of the largest and most complicated organizations in the federal government.

Smith’s experience with AEGIS, missile defense, SPY-6 and DDG shipbuilding raises the larger question voters should be asking:

What exactly qualifies someone to serve in Congress?

So, Why Not Debate?

There is a remarkably simple way for voters to compare these two candidates.

Put them on the same stage.

Smith formally invited Carbajal to participate in a two-hour, in-person televised debate in Santa Barbara before ballots were mailed.

The proposed rules were straightforward: both candidates remain on stage for the entire debate, a mutually acceptable moderator, no teleprompters, no electronic devices and no prewritten notes. Smith offered flexibility over the moderator, venue, format, and speaking times.

Carbajal has publicly expressed reluctance, saying:

“I’m not going to give Mr. Smith a forum where he can spew lies.”

He has said he would consider debating Smith but expressed concern that a debate would provide Smith a platform for claims Carbajal considers false.

But isn’t that exactly what a debate is supposed to resolve?

If Smith makes a false statement, Carbajal can challenge him — immediately and in front of the voters.

If Carbajal believes his nearly ten years in Congress and 12 years as a County Supervisor make him better qualified, he can make that case.

If Smith believes 26 years of active-duty Navy service, command experience, engineering, defense acquisition, and firsthand experience with the federal budget and congressional oversight process better prepare him, he can make his case.

Then voters can decide.

Twenty-Two Years Versus Zero

If we measure experience only by elected office, the comparison is easy:

Carbajal: roughly 22 years.

Smith: zero.

But those numbers don’t tell the whole story.

One candidate built his career through local government, elected office and ultimately Congress.

The other built his through 26 years of active-duty military service, leadership, engineering, defense acquisition, the Pentagon and work involving the congressional authorization and appropriations process before ever asking voters to elect him to anything.

Carbajal’s elected experience is real.

So is Smith’s real-world experience.

Carbajal has now spent nearly a decade representing this district in Congress. He has a voting record and a record of accomplishments he can defend.

Smith has a lifetime of leadership and professional experience outside elected politics that voters can examine.

So put those records side by side.

Let Carbajal defend his.

Let Smith defend his.

And let voters ask both men the questions they deserve to have answered.

After nearly ten years with the same congressman, voters shouldn’t have to rely on campaign mailers, television commercials, carefully prepared statements, or political parties, to decide who is best qualified to represent them.

They should be able to see the candidates standing next to each other, answering the same questions, defending their records and explaining what they intend to do for the 24th Congressional District.

LET THEM DEBATE!

Then let the voters decide.

Leave a comment

Share Santa Barbara Current

Subscribe now

******

Ballots are out. This is the first weekend you can vote them.

If you plan to vote early, start with California Current’s proposition guide—written from the only point of view that actually pays the bill: the overworked, under-appreciated California taxpayer.

We don’t hand you a cheat sheet and walk away. Every recommendation is backed by clear headed research. Click the link, read the case, then mark your ballot with your eyes open.

Please consider sharing this easy-to-use guide with your neighbors.

NO on 1. The Con Job

NO on 2. Supersizing California’s Slush Fund

NO on 3. The Forever Tax

NO on 4. Your Money, Their Campaigns

NO on 5. Recall Revenge

NO on 37. Robin Hood in Reverse

NO on 38. Pork Barrel Science

YES on 39. Trust, but Verify

NO on 40. Tax Billionaires Today, Tax Everybody Tomorrow

YES on 41. Sergey’s Silver Bullets

YES on 42. Sergey’s Silver Bullets

YES on 43. Stop Getting Steamrolled by Special Taxes

NO on 44. Unions to Draw More Blood

YES on 45. Pondering Prop 45

Note: Props 41 and 42 share one article. The Prop 44 article publication pending.

Community Calendar:

A paid political advertisement for Gabe Escobedo tells voters, “Vote on or before June 2!” But Escobedo is running for Santa Barbara City Council in the November 3 election. Is it simply a printing mistake—or does it raise a larger question about paying attention to details before decisions are made?

Sometimes one little detail raises a lot of questions.

Take a look at a paid political advertisement for Gabe Escobedo appearing on the Santa Barbara Independent.

It reads:

“Vote Gabe Escobedo for City Council.”

Then:

“Representing YOU.”

And immediately underneath:

“Vote on or before June 2!”

At the bottom it says:

“Paid For By: Gabe Escobedo for City Council 2026.”

There is an obvious problem.

Today is October 5. Ballots are being mailed, and the Santa Barbara City Council District 6 election in which Escobedo is running is November 3, 2026.

So why does a paid City Council campaign advertisement tell voters to vote on or before June 2?

Was June 2 Left Over From Another Campaign?

Escobedo previously ran for California State Assembly District 37. He announced that campaign in January 2022, before then-Santa Barbara County Supervisor Gregg Hart entered the race. Escobedo suspended his Assembly campaign in March 2022.

But that doesn’t explain this advertisement.

California’s 2022 primary election was June 7, not June 2.

June 2 was California’s primary election date in 2026. But Escobedo wasn’t running for Assembly this year.

And his current advertisement doesn’t say Assembly.

It says:

“Gabe Escobedo for City Council 2026.”

So where did June 2 come from?

Was it simply a typographical error?

Was an old template used?

Who designed the advertisement?

Who proofread it?

Who approved the final copy?

Did anyone notice the election date before the advertisement was published?

There may be a perfectly innocent explanation.

But shouldn’t voters be able to ask?

Details Matter at City Hall

Maybe getting an election date wrong on an advertisement seems insignificant.

But isn’t attention to detail exactly what we should expect from people asking to serve on the Santa Barbara City Council?

Councilmembers are responsible for reviewing budgets, staff reports, contracts, labor agreements, development projects, fee increases, and multimillion-dollar expenditures.

A date matters.

A decimal point matters.

A funding source matters.

And a sentence buried on page 100 of a staff report can matter just as much as the headline on page one.

Santa Barbara’s recent budget problems demonstrate why.

During June’s difficult budget deliberations, Councilmember Kristen Sneddon said she was surprised by how contingency reserves had been used in previous years to help balance the budget. Councilmember Eric Friedman responded that he, Mayor Randy Rowse and Councilmember Mike Jordan had voted against the previous year’s budget because they were concerned about exactly that problem. Santa Barbara News-Press

Sneddon subsequently clarified that she knew reserves were declining and said her surprise concerned the failure to follow previous Council direction to replenish $2 million in reserves. Noozhawk

Either way, isn’t there an important lesson here?

Shouldn’t council members know exactly what they are voting for before they vote?

No More “Surprises”

Santa Barbara ultimately adopted an approximately $730 million FY2027 all-funds budget on June 30.

City Administrator Kelly McAdoo acknowledged that reserves had been depleted over the years and said continued fiscal discipline would be necessary both to balance future budgets and replenish those reserves. City of Santa Barbara

So shouldn’t we be asking every candidate:

When you vote for a budget, will you know whether ongoing expenditures exceed ongoing revenues?

When you approve employee contracts, will you calculate their costs beyond the first year?

When you approve a new program, will you ask what it will cost five years from now?

When staff recommends spending money from reserves, will you know what will be left afterward?

And when something doesn’t add up, will you ask questions before casting your vote?

Those questions are particularly relevant because Escobedo isn’t running as someone new to public decision-making.

He currently serves on the Santa Barbara Unified School District Board. He previously served on Santa Barbara’s Planning Commission and Community Formation Commission. Santa Barbara News-Press

His campaign says Santa Barbara residents deserve a City Hall that is responsible with their tax dollars. Gabe Escobedo for City Council

Good.

Then shouldn’t voters examine the record?

What About the City’s Deficit?

At a recent District 6 forum, candidates were specifically asked about Santa Barbara’s depleted reserves.

Escobedo proposed offering retirement incentives and determining whether some vacant City positions actually need to be filled.

He also proposed forgiving or suspending first-year license fees for Downtown businesses. Santa Barbara News-Press

That creates another set of questions.

Why Downtown businesses only?

If eliminating a City fee helps a new business on State Street survive, why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a small business opening on Milpas Street, De la Vina or Upper State?

How much revenue would the City lose?

Which fees would be waived?

For how long?

And with Santa Barbara trying to replenish depleted reserves, where would that lost revenue be replaced?

Again, those aren’t accusations.

They’re budget questions.

And shouldn’t we want councilmembers who ask budget questions before voting?

What About His School Board Record?

There is another record worth examining.

Escobedo currently serves on a school board that has faced significant deficits, reductions and layoffs.

At that same September forum, reporting noted that Escobedo previously voted to issue preliminary layoff notices to 85 teachers. Santa Barbara News-Press

That doesn’t mean one board member caused the school district’s financial problems. Declining enrollment, expiring one-time funding, compensation increases, and other expenses all contributed.

But Escobedo has cast votes involving public money.

So what budgets did he approve?

What employee compensation increases did he approve?

What were the district’s reserves when he joined the board?

What are they now?

And when did the board first know reductions would become necessary?

Those are questions we will continue examining from the actual board records.

Back to June 2

Which brings us back to that little advertisement.

Perhaps “June 2” is nothing more than a mistake.

Mistakes happen.

But City Council decisions can involve tens of millions of taxpayer dollars, and correcting those mistakes isn’t as easy as correcting an advertisement.

So before November 3, perhaps voters should ask something larger than why the wrong election date appeared:

Who checks the details?

Who asks questions when the numbers don’t add up?

Who reads beyond the executive summary?

Who asks where the money will come from before voting to spend it?

And most importantly:

Can Santa Barbara afford another councilmember who is surprised after the decision has already been made?

Maybe the June 2 date has a simple explanation.

Let’s hear it.

Because whether we’re talking about an election date, a City budget, or millions of dollars in public spending, shouldn’t Santa Barbara expect its elected representatives to get the important details right before they act?

That seems like a question worth asking before November 3.

•••

DYK extras:

#1- Barry Liker, since no gifts were allowed at your party—and you’ve been asking me for months to start writing again—I can’t think of a better 90th birthday gift than to dedicate my return to “Did You Know?...”, to you. Happy 90th Birthday, my friend!

#2- Did you buy your tickets for SPOTLIGHT tonight at the Lobero? Find your discount code below:

As Greg Lukianoff, the CEO of FIRE—who will be speaking at the Lobero this Thursday, October 8—noted when the rankings were released: “The overall state of free speech on campus is grim.” This is an understatement. Despite giving rise to the free-speech movement in the 1960s, UC Berkeley now gets an “F” from FIRE

for its lack of commitment to free expression. Sadly, it is hardly alone. Of the 27 California colleges ranked by FIRE, only two received passing grades.

18 other schools, in addition to UC Berkley, received Fs

Santa Barbara is lucky—for the very first time—to have FIRE CEO Greg Lukianoff

at the Lobero (Yes, it is air-conditioned!) tonight at 7pm—Free Speech Under Fire: Greg Lukianoff on the New Age of Censorship: Greg Lukianoff - Spotlight SB - Lobero Theatre. Greg’s topics will be ripped from today’s headlines because, as we are all aware, there is no shortage of free-speech issues to discuss.

This will be interactive with much audience participation so, YES, we want our supporters to come which is why I want to remind you of the discount promo code we provided very early on: SPEECH. Tickets start at just $34, but we really do want our Spotlight Supporters to add to the discussion so please take advantage of the discount and attend.

Greg Lukianoff - Spotlight SB - Lobero Theatre

Leave a comment

Share Santa Barbara Current

Subscribe now

Community Calendar:

Santa Barbara’s budget deficit continues to grow despite revenue sources Measure C (2017) and Measure I (2024), which were sold to voters as ways to close the budget gap, and which between them bring in over $45 million annually. This extra revenue was supposed to fund critical infrastructure, public safety, and essential city services. But despite thes…

Read more

Santa Barbara, like much of California, is in a self inflicted budget crisis — and the response by our leaders has been to look for more ways to take money from taxpayers rather than address the real causes of the deficits in our city, county, and state budgets.

Our City’s own Finance Director, Keith DeMartini and his team, have been straight with the Co…

Read more

Have you read the California/NY Post article on the manifesto being pushed by Democratic Socialists in Los Angeles? It describes a sweeping set of proposals — everything from seizing private property to taking over utilities, banning markets for essential businesses, and fundamentally transforming urban governance. Inside Dem Socialists’ extreme plan fo…

Read more

Don’t you think it’s time to elect a City Council member who knows how to get things done, not just hire “consultants?”

If so, then I have someone who may be just the ticket.

I was invited to lunch by a friend last week to meet Monte Wilson for City Council 2026 — a candidate to represent District 4 — and …

Read more

I received the following email from a reader, and the math she did really put things into perspective:

Bonnie,

Maybe SB Current could start a monthly “Do the Math” column!

35.98 million registered vehicles.
Low mileage estimate of average annual mileage according to Google AI: 11,409 miles per year.
Proposed mileage tax: $0.06 to $0.09 per mile.

Total anticip…

Read more

At a time when voters across the Central Coast increasingly question whether Washington understands their lives, a new candidate is stepping forward with a résumé built not in politics—but in service, discipline, and hard work.

Robert “Bob” Smith, a retired U.S. Navy Commander and Carpinteria resident, is running …

Read more

In the debate over rent regulation, Santa Barbara officials often focus on landlords as the driver of rising housing costs. What receives far less attention is the City’s own role in steadily increasing the fixed, unavoidable costs, of operating rental housing.

The data cited here is not anecdotal. It comes directly from a Public Records Act Request (PRA…

Read more

The Franceschi House, Public Trust, and Santa Barbara’s Double Standard City Hall has barely reopened.

After shutting down for the Christmas and New Year’s break — with operations limited largely to what the City classifies as “essential workers” — Santa Barbara immediately returned to its every-other-Friday closure schedule. Add in the Martin Luther Kin…

Read more

Rents didn’t surge by chance. Elected officials shaped the incentives, constrained supply, and targeted older housing while exempting newer developments — then blamed the market for the results.

Santa Barbara’s January 13th, City Council meeting on rental policy was long, crowded, and emotionally charged. By the end of the night, the Council voted 4–3 to…

Read more

As Santa Barbara City Council prepares to vote tonight on a rent freeze, rent stabilization, and a mandatory rent registry, the public discussion has focused almost entirely on rents. What has received far less attention is the City’s own long-standing policy on cost recovery — and how sharply it conflicts with the framework now being proposed for housi…

Read more

When Cost Recovery Applies to City Hall but Not to Housing Providers

As Santa Barbara considers new rental regulations, the City’s own budget documents highlight a central issue of fairness: When the city faces rising costs, those cost increases justify increasing taxes and fees by the same amount. But when people in the rental housing business face incr…

Read more

A Pause at City Hall—and a Spotlight on What Makes Us, Us

With the City closed since Thursday, December 18, and not reopening until January 5, 2026, the pace around town slows just enough to notice the things that often get overlooked. It’s a perfect moment to celebrate what makes our community special—new ideas taking the stage and longtime favorites ta…

Read more

Everywhere Santa Barbara residents turn, the message is the same: pay more.

At the grocery store, it’s bag fees and bottle deposits. At home, it’s water, sewer, trash, parking, and permit fees. Each increase is described as “modest.” “Necessary.” “Unavoidable.”

But taken together, they form something else entirely — a parallel tax system built on fees ins…

Read more

Santa Barbara’s rent stabilization push raises hard questions about cost, mobility, and long-term outcomes.

Tuesday night’s Santa Barbara City Council vote was framed as compassion. But compassion without outcomes is not a solution—it is a sentiment. By a 4–3 vote, the Council chose to move forward with a rent stabilization framework that expands regulat…

Read more