30 plus years ago June Pujo was hired to write the traffic circulation element for the City of Santa Barbara. This was at a time retail was seeing the long term outcomes of narrowing State St. from 4 lanes to 2 and removing parking.
The Pujo's (husband and wife) were dedicated anti car advocates.
The glowing terms of narrowing State St. were distilled by the following: Businesses that depend on traffic (autos) will leave State Street or go out of Business. This is an official document by the City of Santa Barbara.
Any one see what is called Death Valley (aka State St.) It took Dave Davis and the rest of the idiots that could not see the truth. Now this council wants to create more destruction that is spreading out to other districts in the city.
You elected them. You can recall them. If you do not see the outcomes of reality are you going to dig into your personal finances to pay the owners of failed business for your stupidity?
I was born and raised in SB when State St was a 4 lane st. when they made it into 2 lanes I'm sure it wasn't a local. When they closed off downtown St I was surely pissed off, we all used to have so much fun driving State St looking at the shoppers and stores that were on State st Now you have NO IDEA what stores are on State st. I personally will NEVER go downtown shopping on State St again. A lot of locals feel the same way as I do. Oh and there used to be parades and car shows on State St that used to bring thousands of people there for the events, I'm sure the restaurants and shopping stores aren't happy about that either .
We've consistently participated in every feedback opportunity the city has provided, diligently reviewing others' responses as well. However, the city's response has been completely contrary to our feedback each time. It's frustrating that the city seems set on doing whatever they want regardless of our input. It begs the question: why even ask for our opinions in the first place?
These are valid points. I especially agree with the issues of UCSB students taking up all our housing. What would be the most effective way to fight against this?
I miss the one-stop nature of the old downtown Santa Barbara.
Shop visit professionals offices, go the bank, investment offices, pay utility bills in person, visit city and the county court house offices, attend city and county public hearings, sit in on courthouse trials, have a bite to eat, enjoy wandering the connecting paseos, celebrate special occasions, indulge in the rich evening cultural offerings, visit the adequately staffed and clean library, people watch, go to a movie, find convenient parking, and feel very much part of the community.
Cars on State Street were never a negative, just the opposite their movement and hum added to the sense of vitality. There is a deadness to this current configuration, that I too now choose to avoid.
Aggressive pan-handlers who targeted senior citizens and blight was the first turn off. Then the 2008 real estate downfall hit, rise of online shopping, confusing street closures, "covid" and now the bike terrorists again targeting senior citizens .
Which came first - the degradation of the downtown experience by aggressive pan handlers and blight, or the changes brought about by online alternatives leading to the decline? I vote the former. The downtown infrastructure is already in place for a lively one-stop destination commercial center. Make it a special enterprise zone, if this allows more clean up and control over its streets and sidewalks.
I agree with you. Did you watch the HLC yesterday? Nine members with nine opinions on the State Street Advisory Committee's work. There's another 15 members on the SSAC. Seven city council members. . . Everybody has an opinion. I see Mayor Rowse just posted an opinion piece on The Independent. He get's it.
Does anyone really believe the City of SB can envision State street in the future? I don't.
"envision," means creating guidelines for everything, financing it, building it on time and under budget. . . (eye roll).
The Mayor Randy Rowse opinion piece found on the SB Independent is well worth reading Thanks for the tip. . He well deserves hearing our support. (City Hall website contact link.)
Serious charge, Terry. What are the "made up issues" that you see here? I see none and I also appreciate those who do their homework and keep us informed about these critical local issues. This city has a long history of active engagement by local residents.
"Slow growth" has been on the table since I arrived back in the 1970's. And deservedly so, since the massive development pressures never cease. Particularly the growth of the UCSB conveyor belt of approximately 5000 new graduates every single year .......who may not want to leave this area, yet do not have the skills package that allows them to stay. We need to learn more about this unique UCSB-generated pressure on our low-turnover housing stock. Two very counter-productive pressures.
All you need to do is re-read the title of this article “And the Screwing Continues” to understand that this is designed to put the reader in a negative emotional state of mind- before reading the message it's designed to deliver.
As for the article itself, the author denounces the barriers put in place that could cause a delay in response times for emergency responders, by observing a bicyclist riding down the street. Did the author seek information from the Fire Department as to how they will deal with this? This is not mentioned in the article and as a retired Firefighter of 34 years (LACOFD), 10 years as a Paramedic, I would venture to guess that SB Fire Department has a plan in place to take care of it.
The assertion that UCSB students take up more than their “allotted” housing space every year is stupid to the point that it's not worth my time addressing, except to say that you can’t force people to live, or not live where you want them too.
This article is designed to piss off its readership, as are many of the articles posted to this site that I’ve read over the past few months.
I can only add, please re-read the articles for content next time; not confirmation for your own prior misperceptions. You certainly took my own follow-up questions out of context. Glad you are following these local concerns and participating in the dialogue they are intended to generate. With your unique background, you will be able offer valuable insights and contributions.
Hi Terry, regarding the barriers and contacting the Fire Department.... You must have missed the meetings where they said they needed the 20-foot clearance and another one when they are having a circulation issue.
Regarding UCSB student housing... they have had a contract regarding this that they haven't been following which led to the lawsuit.
And Before the first barrier was set on the street, there was a plan in place to provide for this 20’ requirement. I know this because this is how Professional fire and police departments conduct business and, it would be required by the underwriters of the fire protection and for law enforcement for the City of Santa Barbara. What this plan is may, or may not be public information due to security reasons but, it would not surprise me if this involved “moveable barricades” that are known to first responders and city officials.
Rest assured that the SB Fire and Police Departments had a plan in place before day 1 of the street closures.
The author and editor of this article are either ignorant of the process to allow for this or, they purposely omitted it to gain a predetermined emotional result from their readership, which is a prevalent construct on this site.
"since I arrived back in the 1970's" WTF? How about arriving in 1780's (not counting my indigenous ancestors)? Get a life, GRINGO. It California is so BAD, go back to where you came from. (Again, my husband has my permission to post this)
Historic land tenure is as "settled" as climate science. A tricky topic to dive into, if one chooses to argue outside the current recorded land tenure system - primarily an imported Anglo jurisprudence construct.
"[land tenure is] primarily an imported Anglo jurisprudence construct." My point, exactly, it is NOT "Native," it is "foreign" (aka "outsiders"). So what is the author's concern about "outsiders" participating in an art project, since almost all of the artists will be "outsiders"? State Street is supposed to be a "promenade [paved public zone for WALKING]", perhaps cyclists and skateboards should be banned? White people who still live in Europe have had "promenades" for years. What, exactly, has taken Euro-Americans so long to wake up? (Thanks again to my husband for letting me use the keyboard!)
I agree with you; when our local governments issue an RFP for any job it should first and foremost be offered exclusively to qualified local people and businesses before opening it up to outside interests. Those people live here and pay taxes here to fund our local government. Tax money that they receive under a contract is likely to be spent here and generate new tax income here. That cannot be said of vendors who do not live here. Issuing contracts that allow local tax money to walk away to another jurisdiction is irresponsible unless there is no alternative or offering it outside of the jurisdiction is required by law.
I'm retired from S.B. County and managed a significant budget for one unit in my department. I made major purchases for my unit and always sought out S.B. County vendors to fill the contracts. It didn't always work out for one reason or another but the locals always had the first opportunity to fill the contract. I never played favorites and always made sure that if there was a potential conflict of interest that I let the boss know about it. But I never made an offer outside of S.B. County unless there was no other choice.
"The city's decision to continue with its request for OUTSIDERS to participate in State Street is concerning. Despite our previous complaints about hiring OUTSIDERS to create State, they seem to be disregarding our feedback."
WTF? "Ventura County" used to be part of "Santa Barbara County". As a Native (pre-1848), anyone arriving after that year is an "OUTSIDER". If you remove the two center "K-rails" and replace them with signage on either side reading "DO NOT ENTER - EMERGENCY VEHICLES ONLY" you could eliminate one of your concerns. I propose artwork depicting Native Californians in silhouette carrying signs that read "Illegal immigration began in 1492" and "Spanish (crossed out), Mexicans (crossed out), Yankees GO HOME!" (I gave my husband permission to post this for me)
I often see Whites attacking other Whites in their virtue-signal mode saying "You're living on stolen land" (As if we all don't already know that) but I wonder what would happen if Native Americans/Indians were to collectively say "We don't like you, and we want you to leave".
If these self-loathing/virtue-signaling Whites really feel so bad about what was done to the Pre-Columbian people living here why don't they self-deport, as opposed to attacking other Whites?
I don't know your ethnicity, but if by chance, you are White, what would you say to a Native American/American Indian who told you "You shouldn't live on my land"?
The Native Americans I know would never say to me "you shouldn't LIVE on my land." They are more apt to say "you shouldn't TAKE my land from me and then treat it as a commodity that can be bought and sold."
30 plus years ago June Pujo was hired to write the traffic circulation element for the City of Santa Barbara. This was at a time retail was seeing the long term outcomes of narrowing State St. from 4 lanes to 2 and removing parking.
The Pujo's (husband and wife) were dedicated anti car advocates.
The glowing terms of narrowing State St. were distilled by the following: Businesses that depend on traffic (autos) will leave State Street or go out of Business. This is an official document by the City of Santa Barbara.
Any one see what is called Death Valley (aka State St.) It took Dave Davis and the rest of the idiots that could not see the truth. Now this council wants to create more destruction that is spreading out to other districts in the city.
You elected them. You can recall them. If you do not see the outcomes of reality are you going to dig into your personal finances to pay the owners of failed business for your stupidity?
I was born and raised in SB when State St was a 4 lane st. when they made it into 2 lanes I'm sure it wasn't a local. When they closed off downtown St I was surely pissed off, we all used to have so much fun driving State St looking at the shoppers and stores that were on State st Now you have NO IDEA what stores are on State st. I personally will NEVER go downtown shopping on State St again. A lot of locals feel the same way as I do. Oh and there used to be parades and car shows on State St that used to bring thousands of people there for the events, I'm sure the restaurants and shopping stores aren't happy about that either .
We've consistently participated in every feedback opportunity the city has provided, diligently reviewing others' responses as well. However, the city's response has been completely contrary to our feedback each time. It's frustrating that the city seems set on doing whatever they want regardless of our input. It begs the question: why even ask for our opinions in the first place?
These are valid points. I especially agree with the issues of UCSB students taking up all our housing. What would be the most effective way to fight against this?
Solution?
SIMPLE!!
Put Kamala Harris and Nancy Freeman in charge!!
Solution, bring down their enrollment until they build the housing.
I miss the one-stop nature of the old downtown Santa Barbara.
Shop visit professionals offices, go the bank, investment offices, pay utility bills in person, visit city and the county court house offices, attend city and county public hearings, sit in on courthouse trials, have a bite to eat, enjoy wandering the connecting paseos, celebrate special occasions, indulge in the rich evening cultural offerings, visit the adequately staffed and clean library, people watch, go to a movie, find convenient parking, and feel very much part of the community.
Cars on State Street were never a negative, just the opposite their movement and hum added to the sense of vitality. There is a deadness to this current configuration, that I too now choose to avoid.
Aggressive pan-handlers who targeted senior citizens and blight was the first turn off. Then the 2008 real estate downfall hit, rise of online shopping, confusing street closures, "covid" and now the bike terrorists again targeting senior citizens .
Which came first - the degradation of the downtown experience by aggressive pan handlers and blight, or the changes brought about by online alternatives leading to the decline? I vote the former. The downtown infrastructure is already in place for a lively one-stop destination commercial center. Make it a special enterprise zone, if this allows more clean up and control over its streets and sidewalks.
I agree with you. Did you watch the HLC yesterday? Nine members with nine opinions on the State Street Advisory Committee's work. There's another 15 members on the SSAC. Seven city council members. . . Everybody has an opinion. I see Mayor Rowse just posted an opinion piece on The Independent. He get's it.
Does anyone really believe the City of SB can envision State street in the future? I don't.
"envision," means creating guidelines for everything, financing it, building it on time and under budget. . . (eye roll).
The Mayor Randy Rowse opinion piece found on the SB Independent is well worth reading Thanks for the tip. . He well deserves hearing our support. (City Hall website contact link.)
It gives me a smile knowing how many of you readers of Current are continually pissed off and angry from the articles posted.
If the editors can't find a subject to piss you off, they simply make one up.
Enjoy your day!
Serious charge, Terry. What are the "made up issues" that you see here? I see none and I also appreciate those who do their homework and keep us informed about these critical local issues. This city has a long history of active engagement by local residents.
"Slow growth" has been on the table since I arrived back in the 1970's. And deservedly so, since the massive development pressures never cease. Particularly the growth of the UCSB conveyor belt of approximately 5000 new graduates every single year .......who may not want to leave this area, yet do not have the skills package that allows them to stay. We need to learn more about this unique UCSB-generated pressure on our low-turnover housing stock. Two very counter-productive pressures.
All you need to do is re-read the title of this article “And the Screwing Continues” to understand that this is designed to put the reader in a negative emotional state of mind- before reading the message it's designed to deliver.
As for the article itself, the author denounces the barriers put in place that could cause a delay in response times for emergency responders, by observing a bicyclist riding down the street. Did the author seek information from the Fire Department as to how they will deal with this? This is not mentioned in the article and as a retired Firefighter of 34 years (LACOFD), 10 years as a Paramedic, I would venture to guess that SB Fire Department has a plan in place to take care of it.
The assertion that UCSB students take up more than their “allotted” housing space every year is stupid to the point that it's not worth my time addressing, except to say that you can’t force people to live, or not live where you want them too.
This article is designed to piss off its readership, as are many of the articles posted to this site that I’ve read over the past few months.
I can only add, please re-read the articles for content next time; not confirmation for your own prior misperceptions. You certainly took my own follow-up questions out of context. Glad you are following these local concerns and participating in the dialogue they are intended to generate. With your unique background, you will be able offer valuable insights and contributions.
Hi Terry, regarding the barriers and contacting the Fire Department.... You must have missed the meetings where they said they needed the 20-foot clearance and another one when they are having a circulation issue.
Regarding UCSB student housing... they have had a contract regarding this that they haven't been following which led to the lawsuit.
But on another note, Welcome to Santa Barbara.
Have a great weekend!.
And Before the first barrier was set on the street, there was a plan in place to provide for this 20’ requirement. I know this because this is how Professional fire and police departments conduct business and, it would be required by the underwriters of the fire protection and for law enforcement for the City of Santa Barbara. What this plan is may, or may not be public information due to security reasons but, it would not surprise me if this involved “moveable barricades” that are known to first responders and city officials.
This wasn't a plan that went through normal plan checks which yes would have had the input of our Professional Fire and Police Departments.
COVID hit and our restaurants were in trouble being that they couldn't serve customers inside their establishments, so parklets arrived.
The restaurants again didn't have to go through plan check and built their parklets into the 20 ft area....
When the city closed State Street 4 years ago nothing happened as normal, and we aren't there yet. We will get there...
Rest assured that the SB Fire and Police Departments had a plan in place before day 1 of the street closures.
The author and editor of this article are either ignorant of the process to allow for this or, they purposely omitted it to gain a predetermined emotional result from their readership, which is a prevalent construct on this site.
"since I arrived back in the 1970's" WTF? How about arriving in 1780's (not counting my indigenous ancestors)? Get a life, GRINGO. It California is so BAD, go back to where you came from. (Again, my husband has my permission to post this)
Historic land tenure is as "settled" as climate science. A tricky topic to dive into, if one chooses to argue outside the current recorded land tenure system - primarily an imported Anglo jurisprudence construct.
"[land tenure is] primarily an imported Anglo jurisprudence construct." My point, exactly, it is NOT "Native," it is "foreign" (aka "outsiders"). So what is the author's concern about "outsiders" participating in an art project, since almost all of the artists will be "outsiders"? State Street is supposed to be a "promenade [paved public zone for WALKING]", perhaps cyclists and skateboards should be banned? White people who still live in Europe have had "promenades" for years. What, exactly, has taken Euro-Americans so long to wake up? (Thanks again to my husband for letting me use the keyboard!)
Don't take the bait, don't feed the troll.
Got it.
I agree with you; when our local governments issue an RFP for any job it should first and foremost be offered exclusively to qualified local people and businesses before opening it up to outside interests. Those people live here and pay taxes here to fund our local government. Tax money that they receive under a contract is likely to be spent here and generate new tax income here. That cannot be said of vendors who do not live here. Issuing contracts that allow local tax money to walk away to another jurisdiction is irresponsible unless there is no alternative or offering it outside of the jurisdiction is required by law.
I'm retired from S.B. County and managed a significant budget for one unit in my department. I made major purchases for my unit and always sought out S.B. County vendors to fill the contracts. It didn't always work out for one reason or another but the locals always had the first opportunity to fill the contract. I never played favorites and always made sure that if there was a potential conflict of interest that I let the boss know about it. But I never made an offer outside of S.B. County unless there was no other choice.
"The city's decision to continue with its request for OUTSIDERS to participate in State Street is concerning. Despite our previous complaints about hiring OUTSIDERS to create State, they seem to be disregarding our feedback."
WTF? "Ventura County" used to be part of "Santa Barbara County". As a Native (pre-1848), anyone arriving after that year is an "OUTSIDER". If you remove the two center "K-rails" and replace them with signage on either side reading "DO NOT ENTER - EMERGENCY VEHICLES ONLY" you could eliminate one of your concerns. I propose artwork depicting Native Californians in silhouette carrying signs that read "Illegal immigration began in 1492" and "Spanish (crossed out), Mexicans (crossed out), Yankees GO HOME!" (I gave my husband permission to post this for me)
I often see Whites attacking other Whites in their virtue-signal mode saying "You're living on stolen land" (As if we all don't already know that) but I wonder what would happen if Native Americans/Indians were to collectively say "We don't like you, and we want you to leave".
If these self-loathing/virtue-signaling Whites really feel so bad about what was done to the Pre-Columbian people living here why don't they self-deport, as opposed to attacking other Whites?
"...what would happen if Native Americans/Indians were to collectively say 'We don't like you, and we want you to leave'."
Well, actually they did. That is referred to as "the Indian Wars" in U.S. History, and we all know how that turned out.
I don't know your ethnicity, but if by chance, you are White, what would you say to a Native American/American Indian who told you "You shouldn't live on my land"?
The Native Americans I know would never say to me "you shouldn't LIVE on my land." They are more apt to say "you shouldn't TAKE my land from me and then treat it as a commodity that can be bought and sold."