When attending meetings to give public comment I am always struck by the fact that the vast majority of the time is spent in self-congratulatory drek and drivel. And even though the "representatives" are well aware of the presence of citizens waiting in the cheap seats to state their opinions, those people are made to endure the sausage-making for literally hours before being given their tiny moment at the microphone. You mention a father having to wrangle his kids for hours, and I question why the protocol can't be changed to have public comments moved up to the beginning of the proceedings. Allowing the humans to get back to their jobs and lives once they have made their gesture at participatory democracy.
"Public comment" has two dimensions: (1) free for all public comment on any topic; and (2) public comment addressing specific agenda items.
This was tinkered with in the past, because there is dedicated time for free for all public comments on any topic the public wishes to offer - which often has become an hour or so at the very beginning of the meeting. This time often rambled, even incoherently, into personal excesses and topics not even under city council purview.
This even exhausted the city council itself, before the real business meeting began. Yet the general public was given their due to "address their grievances".
Due to the rambling nature of this first round of "public comment", it was hard to set time-certain for the actual business topics which in turn required members of the public to wait patiently for their turn until the specific agenda items actually came up.
Bottomline, with all these competing loose ends, it is hard to picture how this can be streamlined .I believe the past they delayed the general non-specific public comments to the very end of the meeting, which again created a de facto veto since those persons had endless waits to until the very close of the business meeting.
The only upside of the public being forced to "wait one's turn" when they have specific concerns, is to view ..... the making of sausages ..... first hand and leave somewhat in awe of the demands these elected position require.
However, brain-numbing is not a good climate when dealing with the public's business for either the public who wants to be responsive, or the council members who do or should want to listen.
And no, the city council chambers are not appropriate baby sitting venues for either council members nor the public.
Possible solution: Bi-furcate the two functions. Hold the general public comment section at one time. Then continue this first session and re-open the business meeting with agenda items to start at a later time certain.
This first portion can even be done entirely by video feed, since council members are not allowed to respond to non-agenda items. This is a chance to also listen to our fellow neighbors comments and grievances - like NextDoor, but in real time. Time allowed and frequency of appearance will require some limits, but as with all "free speech, not the content with in bounds of established appropriate conduct found in city ordinances
We pay our city council persons to be engaged **full time** in their elected duties. This will extend their one public meeting time (Tuesday) by creating two sessions, but this could also make it less burdensome for those coming only for specific agenda items since they would know at least know when the agenda business portion of the council meeting actually begins.
Who knows - maybe they do this already. But I hear the fatigue reported waiting for the main agenda events by those who do want to specifically "fight city hall".
That is how public comment works right now. Open Public Comment for any items not on the agenda, and then you must wait until the item you would like to speak on is called to give your public comment. Since nobody knows how long each item will last, you must get the early ones.
Decades ago as a member of neighborhood advocacy group, I asked council members what were the upper limits for percentages of subsidized/price fixed housing in our city - 10%, 15%, 25%? They all looked at me incredulously and council member Iya Falcone asked why I would even want that information.
I believe we were at 14% at that time, but that may have included only city housing units and did not include the numbers of charitable "affordable" units we also have in this town). Today I suspect the numbers are closer to 25% of all housing is "affordable" (aka subsidized and/or inclusionary). Now with the current draconian rent control ,even more numbers of housing units are price-fixed..
I also stated at that time it was important that we know how many illegal rental units were already allowed to exist in this town, since we were not only responsible for services for these additional numbers of persons, but we also need to report these under-market units in our state require Housing Element which asked for numbers of various housing affordability levels we already in our local housing inventory.
Same reaction - why would you even want to know this? I got my lessons early in my own dealings with the city council too. I finally gave up, but I did put up a good fight for a number of years when a city council answering these public comment questions could have made a difference in future housing accountability.
(When was Iya Falcone on city council? These "housing" struggle sessions certainly go back at least that far. It cannot still be a "crisis" when it was always presented as a crisis. Michael, did you not replace Iya?)
Fact: even if we were at 100% of price-fixed "affordable" housing, there would still be unlimited numbers of persons demanding to provide even more. The city needs to set an upper limit, call it done and then move on to solving their pension and benefits underfunding and bloated administrative structure.
By another name, face and title, it looks like the city just created yet another Downtown Guru. Who yet agains offers another "collaborative" approach. Just stop. Put both housing and business back into the private sector and top any more of this failed top down micromanaging of market forces. And putting one more person on the list of city mouths taxpayers are required to feed.
Bonnie, I don't think I'm the only Santa Barbaran who's grateful for the hours you put into this. We are a distant second to our local government's major concern - ass licking their way to state and national power. You treat us the way our elected officials should, like our voices matter. Btw, I filed a complaint both by phone and by email.
Once again you’ve delivered an exceptional column—thoughtful, sharp, and rooted in the everyday reality of Santa Barbara’s residents. You capture the voices of neighbors who feel overlooked, while also holding City Hall accountable with facts, not fluff. The launch of your Fiscal Accountability Scorecard is a powerful step toward transparency and exactly what our community needs heading into the 2026 elections.
Public Comment:
As a Santa Barbara resident, I want to thank Bonnie Donovan for shining a bright light on the imbalance we see at City Hall. Ordinary families on the Eastside sit through hours of hearings without privilege or perks, while certain councilmembers blur the line between public duty and personal accommodation. Meanwhile, the Council continues to spend recklessly—handing out millions while staring at an $8 million deficit. That isn’t fiscal responsibility, it’s political theater at the expense of taxpayers.
Mayor Randy Rowse showed leadership by saying no to unnecessary spending, and that’s exactly the kind of accountability we need more of. Our community deserves a Council that values hard-working families, respects taxpayer dollars, and prioritizes core city services over pet projects. Enough is enough—it’s time for fiscal discipline and respect for the people footing the bill.
This is what real public engagement looks like. Thank you, Bonnie. Again, we are lucky to be on the receiving end of your very heavy data sifting.
Drilling down the issues, the votes, the names, the impacts, and the material administrative functions required by any local elected city official into this score card format will be critically helpful.
Now we finally get to know the players and their voting patterns. Who is doing what to the actual future of this city? Absent the fawning distractions certain council member's always insert in support of their own ideological, but fiscally unsound, preferences.
All council members must devote laser-focused attention to the long range fiscal integrity facing this budget-challenged city. And waste not another second giving misguided attention to their own self-serving utopian visions that have no place in a city on the brink of budget free fall.
We do not have a housing "crisis". We do not have an ICE enforcement "crisis". We do not have a climate "crisis". We never had a "covid crisis". We do have a city budget crisis. Fix it city council, because nothing else matters. Your votes created it. Your votes will fix it.
Bonnie I know you get this, yet I wonder if the voters (not illegals, green cards, or I am here for 2 months) understand the mentality of this Council, a very questionable staff, and the fact that SB is a Charter City that gives it much more leeway.
The Ruling Party in Sacramento touts job growth, but at the same time there is a loss in the private sector. That means the only "growth(?)" is in government jobs. The same jobs that do not create wealth, consumes wealth and is a greater burden on the taxpayers.
The Council majority and the BOS STATES we have to do something about these poor illegals. What is their answer???
INCREASE the City debt, obligate the property and business taxpayers when if they were that concerned where are emptying of personal bank accounts, and or obligation loans on businesses or property. They are more than willing to burden the wealth producers and puff up and say what concerned and wonderful people we are.
Where does this come from? Simple, Socialism/Communism.
Sure let's increase the height of buildings at a minimum of 4 stories. Has the any of the environmental committee types bothered to understand the impact on micro climates by blocking traditional air flow? How about 6-7 story buildings along State St.?
Ok another good article, pointing out that the combination of a questionable Council with kids running around council desks. A mounting deficit on top of lousy street planning that tells people don't come here.
Scott, I agree. Housing in California is sinkhole with no bottom. Here is a back of the envelope calculation. Assume the Biden-Newsom team permitted 3.6 million illegals to enter and the average housing unit holds 3 people. That means there will be a need for an additional 1.2 million units. If there is one new unit per day for the 250 business days of the year it will take 4,800 years. This does not include the 'other" homeless.
Thanks Bonnie for the details. Hmmm, $3.5 million spent in 90 minutes, or $39,000 a minute including time for public comments. Wiener maybe the culprit who initiates legislation so harmful to S.B. but he can only be successful if others vote for his stuff. Until the numbers that crossed the border are reduced there will always be a "crisis de jour."
Those "others" sitting in Sacramento" and working against us, are Monique Limon and Gregg Hart.
Even when they coyly vote "present" in order to avoid local accountability on these critical local issues. They disenfranchise us in exchange for their own political survival with their Democrat party bosses in Sacramento.
Thanks Bonnie, for bringing up the child of Meagan Harmon sitting on the Dais. It's not the first time and I've always thought it was inappropriate.
I watched both meetings of the council with disappointment. Regarding 418 N. Milpas, I figured the appeal would be denied on a 6-1 or 6-2 vote, with Wendy & Oscar being the losers. But Kristen surprised me with her many minutes of talking points against the project. For a moment I almost liked her. But later on I was talking with another City Watcher and this person told me Kristen was playing politics. She read the room( Dais) and knew she could take a stand against the project, knowing full well the votes were there to deny the appeal. I'll give her credit, that was politics in motion.
What I find really scary is Kristen is rumored to run for mayor, even though we have a perfectly qualified mayor who has already stated he is running for reelection. . . politics, or should I say, career politics? Kristen is not on the side of SB residents, she's on her side.
To my friends here on Santa Barbara Current, please put the word out to find business minded, fiscally conservative, and electable candidates for the three open seats next year. PLEASE!!!
Think about this, Kristen Sneddon as mayor and two, possible three new council members that are more liberal than Wendy Santamaria!!!!!
To Michael Self and Dale Francisco, any chance you want to pull a Gregg Hart and run again?
Spending money that does not exist should make an easy recall of all the current sitting council members; except the lone voice of reason - Mayor Randy Rowse.
Is that what the alleged mayor hopefuls will be running on in 2026? I want to spend even more money that we don't have. Vote for me.
I just waiting for the day that the council has to cancel the new police station.... again! They keep blowing our money on so many other things that are not in the budget!
When attending meetings to give public comment I am always struck by the fact that the vast majority of the time is spent in self-congratulatory drek and drivel. And even though the "representatives" are well aware of the presence of citizens waiting in the cheap seats to state their opinions, those people are made to endure the sausage-making for literally hours before being given their tiny moment at the microphone. You mention a father having to wrangle his kids for hours, and I question why the protocol can't be changed to have public comments moved up to the beginning of the proceedings. Allowing the humans to get back to their jobs and lives once they have made their gesture at participatory democracy.
“Public comments moved up to beginning…” excellent suggestion, Pat.
"Public comment" has two dimensions: (1) free for all public comment on any topic; and (2) public comment addressing specific agenda items.
This was tinkered with in the past, because there is dedicated time for free for all public comments on any topic the public wishes to offer - which often has become an hour or so at the very beginning of the meeting. This time often rambled, even incoherently, into personal excesses and topics not even under city council purview.
This even exhausted the city council itself, before the real business meeting began. Yet the general public was given their due to "address their grievances".
Due to the rambling nature of this first round of "public comment", it was hard to set time-certain for the actual business topics which in turn required members of the public to wait patiently for their turn until the specific agenda items actually came up.
Bottomline, with all these competing loose ends, it is hard to picture how this can be streamlined .I believe the past they delayed the general non-specific public comments to the very end of the meeting, which again created a de facto veto since those persons had endless waits to until the very close of the business meeting.
The only upside of the public being forced to "wait one's turn" when they have specific concerns, is to view ..... the making of sausages ..... first hand and leave somewhat in awe of the demands these elected position require.
However, brain-numbing is not a good climate when dealing with the public's business for either the public who wants to be responsive, or the council members who do or should want to listen.
And no, the city council chambers are not appropriate baby sitting venues for either council members nor the public.
Possible solution: Bi-furcate the two functions. Hold the general public comment section at one time. Then continue this first session and re-open the business meeting with agenda items to start at a later time certain.
This first portion can even be done entirely by video feed, since council members are not allowed to respond to non-agenda items. This is a chance to also listen to our fellow neighbors comments and grievances - like NextDoor, but in real time. Time allowed and frequency of appearance will require some limits, but as with all "free speech, not the content with in bounds of established appropriate conduct found in city ordinances
We pay our city council persons to be engaged **full time** in their elected duties. This will extend their one public meeting time (Tuesday) by creating two sessions, but this could also make it less burdensome for those coming only for specific agenda items since they would know at least know when the agenda business portion of the council meeting actually begins.
Who knows - maybe they do this already. But I hear the fatigue reported waiting for the main agenda events by those who do want to specifically "fight city hall".
That is how public comment works right now. Open Public Comment for any items not on the agenda, and then you must wait until the item you would like to speak on is called to give your public comment. Since nobody knows how long each item will last, you must get the early ones.
News flash
The meetings are designed to frustrate and get you and your opinions out of the way
In other words: They don’t care, you are a nuisance!
Decades ago as a member of neighborhood advocacy group, I asked council members what were the upper limits for percentages of subsidized/price fixed housing in our city - 10%, 15%, 25%? They all looked at me incredulously and council member Iya Falcone asked why I would even want that information.
I believe we were at 14% at that time, but that may have included only city housing units and did not include the numbers of charitable "affordable" units we also have in this town). Today I suspect the numbers are closer to 25% of all housing is "affordable" (aka subsidized and/or inclusionary). Now with the current draconian rent control ,even more numbers of housing units are price-fixed..
I also stated at that time it was important that we know how many illegal rental units were already allowed to exist in this town, since we were not only responsible for services for these additional numbers of persons, but we also need to report these under-market units in our state require Housing Element which asked for numbers of various housing affordability levels we already in our local housing inventory.
Same reaction - why would you even want to know this? I got my lessons early in my own dealings with the city council too. I finally gave up, but I did put up a good fight for a number of years when a city council answering these public comment questions could have made a difference in future housing accountability.
(When was Iya Falcone on city council? These "housing" struggle sessions certainly go back at least that far. It cannot still be a "crisis" when it was always presented as a crisis. Michael, did you not replace Iya?)
Fact: even if we were at 100% of price-fixed "affordable" housing, there would still be unlimited numbers of persons demanding to provide even more. The city needs to set an upper limit, call it done and then move on to solving their pension and benefits underfunding and bloated administrative structure.
By another name, face and title, it looks like the city just created yet another Downtown Guru. Who yet agains offers another "collaborative" approach. Just stop. Put both housing and business back into the private sector and top any more of this failed top down micromanaging of market forces. And putting one more person on the list of city mouths taxpayers are required to feed.
Bonnie, I don't think I'm the only Santa Barbaran who's grateful for the hours you put into this. We are a distant second to our local government's major concern - ass licking their way to state and national power. You treat us the way our elected officials should, like our voices matter. Btw, I filed a complaint both by phone and by email.
Good for you Pol.
Thank you, Mr. Brown. Enjoy the weekend.
people like Bonnie are who these communists fear the most!
she comes in well prepared and speaking the truth!
like showing Dracula the cross.
have a great weekend
You, too, have a great weekend.
Bonnie,
Once again you’ve delivered an exceptional column—thoughtful, sharp, and rooted in the everyday reality of Santa Barbara’s residents. You capture the voices of neighbors who feel overlooked, while also holding City Hall accountable with facts, not fluff. The launch of your Fiscal Accountability Scorecard is a powerful step toward transparency and exactly what our community needs heading into the 2026 elections.
Public Comment:
As a Santa Barbara resident, I want to thank Bonnie Donovan for shining a bright light on the imbalance we see at City Hall. Ordinary families on the Eastside sit through hours of hearings without privilege or perks, while certain councilmembers blur the line between public duty and personal accommodation. Meanwhile, the Council continues to spend recklessly—handing out millions while staring at an $8 million deficit. That isn’t fiscal responsibility, it’s political theater at the expense of taxpayers.
Mayor Randy Rowse showed leadership by saying no to unnecessary spending, and that’s exactly the kind of accountability we need more of. Our community deserves a Council that values hard-working families, respects taxpayer dollars, and prioritizes core city services over pet projects. Enough is enough—it’s time for fiscal discipline and respect for the people footing the bill.
This is what real public engagement looks like. Thank you, Bonnie. Again, we are lucky to be on the receiving end of your very heavy data sifting.
Drilling down the issues, the votes, the names, the impacts, and the material administrative functions required by any local elected city official into this score card format will be critically helpful.
Now we finally get to know the players and their voting patterns. Who is doing what to the actual future of this city? Absent the fawning distractions certain council member's always insert in support of their own ideological, but fiscally unsound, preferences.
All council members must devote laser-focused attention to the long range fiscal integrity facing this budget-challenged city. And waste not another second giving misguided attention to their own self-serving utopian visions that have no place in a city on the brink of budget free fall.
We do not have a housing "crisis". We do not have an ICE enforcement "crisis". We do not have a climate "crisis". We never had a "covid crisis". We do have a city budget crisis. Fix it city council, because nothing else matters. Your votes created it. Your votes will fix it.
Bonnie I know you get this, yet I wonder if the voters (not illegals, green cards, or I am here for 2 months) understand the mentality of this Council, a very questionable staff, and the fact that SB is a Charter City that gives it much more leeway.
The Ruling Party in Sacramento touts job growth, but at the same time there is a loss in the private sector. That means the only "growth(?)" is in government jobs. The same jobs that do not create wealth, consumes wealth and is a greater burden on the taxpayers.
The Council majority and the BOS STATES we have to do something about these poor illegals. What is their answer???
INCREASE the City debt, obligate the property and business taxpayers when if they were that concerned where are emptying of personal bank accounts, and or obligation loans on businesses or property. They are more than willing to burden the wealth producers and puff up and say what concerned and wonderful people we are.
Where does this come from? Simple, Socialism/Communism.
Sure let's increase the height of buildings at a minimum of 4 stories. Has the any of the environmental committee types bothered to understand the impact on micro climates by blocking traditional air flow? How about 6-7 story buildings along State St.?
Ok another good article, pointing out that the combination of a questionable Council with kids running around council desks. A mounting deficit on top of lousy street planning that tells people don't come here.
Scott, I agree. Housing in California is sinkhole with no bottom. Here is a back of the envelope calculation. Assume the Biden-Newsom team permitted 3.6 million illegals to enter and the average housing unit holds 3 people. That means there will be a need for an additional 1.2 million units. If there is one new unit per day for the 250 business days of the year it will take 4,800 years. This does not include the 'other" homeless.
( Also to include the .....I am here for a college semester and my parents pay property taxes elsewhere, but I can still vote in local elections. )
Thanks Bonnie for the details. Hmmm, $3.5 million spent in 90 minutes, or $39,000 a minute including time for public comments. Wiener maybe the culprit who initiates legislation so harmful to S.B. but he can only be successful if others vote for his stuff. Until the numbers that crossed the border are reduced there will always be a "crisis de jour."
Those "others" sitting in Sacramento" and working against us, are Monique Limon and Gregg Hart.
Even when they coyly vote "present" in order to avoid local accountability on these critical local issues. They disenfranchise us in exchange for their own political survival with their Democrat party bosses in Sacramento.
Thank you, Bonnie, again and again. And thanks to Randy for not just rubber-stamping 'yes' to all spending asks.
Thanks Bonnie, for bringing up the child of Meagan Harmon sitting on the Dais. It's not the first time and I've always thought it was inappropriate.
I watched both meetings of the council with disappointment. Regarding 418 N. Milpas, I figured the appeal would be denied on a 6-1 or 6-2 vote, with Wendy & Oscar being the losers. But Kristen surprised me with her many minutes of talking points against the project. For a moment I almost liked her. But later on I was talking with another City Watcher and this person told me Kristen was playing politics. She read the room( Dais) and knew she could take a stand against the project, knowing full well the votes were there to deny the appeal. I'll give her credit, that was politics in motion.
What I find really scary is Kristen is rumored to run for mayor, even though we have a perfectly qualified mayor who has already stated he is running for reelection. . . politics, or should I say, career politics? Kristen is not on the side of SB residents, she's on her side.
To my friends here on Santa Barbara Current, please put the word out to find business minded, fiscally conservative, and electable candidates for the three open seats next year. PLEASE!!!
Think about this, Kristen Sneddon as mayor and two, possible three new council members that are more liberal than Wendy Santamaria!!!!!
To Michael Self and Dale Francisco, any chance you want to pull a Gregg Hart and run again?
well done, props, kudos to Bonnie, again! Thank You
Spending money that does not exist should make an easy recall of all the current sitting council members; except the lone voice of reason - Mayor Randy Rowse.
Is that what the alleged mayor hopefuls will be running on in 2026? I want to spend even more money that we don't have. Vote for me.
I just waiting for the day that the council has to cancel the new police station.... again! They keep blowing our money on so many other things that are not in the budget!
https://youtu.be/lMFKhSO7TXQ?si=1ruEREY9YqAqNFUt
https://www.youtube.com/live/vopmL0PvUlY?si=Bo3ueWZSxtlc05iS