Bonnie, my career and livelihood is real estate investment. I started attending City Council meetings many years ago when agenda items were being discussed regarding our downtown. Along the way, I was invited to sit on many a ‘stakeholder’ committee for State Street because I really love and care for this beautiful community. In my naivety, I thought that care, common sense and a genuine vision towards improving Santa Barbara was truly what was wanted. I learned very quickly that not only were thoughtful ideas not wanted, but indeed if you dared speak up or pose questions that went against what was being proposed, future invitations would no longer be extended. I was so confused by the direction that was being taken. Surely they weren’t INTENTIONALLY destroying downtown?! What was the point of all of the hired consultants with no action towards improvement?!“How could anyone want to destroy something so beautiful” slowly began to change to “How could a group of leaders be so recklessly stupid”? After a solid decade of watching the nonsensical degradation of one of the most beautiful cities in America you know that it can only be by design. Let that sink in. What kind of person(s) destroys something so beautiful?? Once you make that hard found realization, you understand that from the very top of the California political chain all the way down to the bottom is an infiltration of literal Communists/Marxists/Destroyers/Useful Idiots…and every single one follows the marching orders of our madly powerful shadowy leaders at the DCC. The ‘Build Back Better’ slogan is simply a way to destroy our Cities and States to rebuild in their twisted vision of 15 Minute Cities and You’ll Own Nothing and Be Happy motto. All of this is enabled by our local media which is as captured as the other political positions. (SB Currents excluded)
Good, decent citizens must wake up in mass and quickly, if we have any hope of salvaging this downward spiraling at the hands of the destroyers.
Feb 15·edited Feb 15Liked by Santa Barbara Current
More than once, consultants have already assessed Santa Barbara has twice the staffing numbers as other equivalent cities. (90K, coastal, tourism oriented).
Maintaining a city budget to support this exceptional staffing load, did start driving many new city decisions a few decades back - since it now requires increasing annual tax revenue growth, even if staffing numbers stayed the same. The slow growth -tight design control movement of the 1970's that gave Santa Barbara its signature appeal has undergone radical change of late.
Higher home prices do provide local city revenue growth, though the city is a bit shy admitting this fact of life. While the public message is all about "affordable housing". the city budget depends on those who can afford to live in this higher price premium area. Are we keeping the right balance between the two? That is really the key question. It has been a very long time since anyone got elected to city council running on a balanced fiscal conservatism platform. (Fransisco, Hotchkiss, Self)
One can explore the website "Transparent California" and learn what are city staffing levels for similarly situated and population number cities throughout this state. Only Santa Monica and Berkeley exceeded City of Santa Barbara staffing numbers, when I took a look a number of years ago. Things may well have changed since then.
SB is already a 15 minute city, it is a perfect size and shape, why in the world would we want to destroy what was always working here before and go to a different kind of 15 minute city: we don't. It is already small enough that you can bike or walk if necessary or drive. But what I have noticed after the covid nonsense is that State Street was never re-opened for car traffic and now they're eyeing other streets to go the same direction as State Street. Solvang had closed off their main drag for Covid, but re-opened it for car traffic, but Santa Barbara never did. Sorry state of affairs here in SB.
Intriguing , frightening and sobering ! Thank you Bonnie for your crafted written voice that cuts like a knife with a warning to wake up our sleepy community . Our city is in deep trouble .
"A wave of corruption scandals has washed over California’s local governments in recent years, particularly in Southern California.
Bribery and self-dealing is so common among small cities in Los Angeles County that the speaker of the state Assembly, Anthony Rendon, has described the area he represents as a “corridor of corruption.”
Last month, Jose Huizar, a member of the Los Angeles City Council for 15 years, pleaded guilty to federal charges of racketeering and tax evasion for extorting at least $1.5 million in bribes from developers of real estate projects.
This week, another former Los Angeles councilman, Mark Ridley-Thomas, went on trial in federal court for allegedly, as a county supervisor, routing contracts to the University of Southern California in return for benefits for his son, former assemblyman Sebastian Ridley-Thomas, including a $100,000 grant to the son’s nonprofit corporation."
Just back from an overnight sojourn to Solvang, which was equally afflicted with "covid" street closures and tatty parklets. It had become a depressing wreck, also in a town that took great pride in cohesive design controls. Solvang streets are back open, parklets removed, and empty store fronts now again filing up. Even more evident, no threats to personal safety from panhandlers or rogue bicyclists.
The article quoted the wrong date i certainly hope to see you all there 15th February 2024 this evening in Santa Barbara Thank you Bonnie Donovan for your article I will be in attendance for New California State with declarations of Truths, collecting signatures. The fact that all of this nonsense is a direct result of breached election security. Please watch the latest Board of Supervisors meeting. Queue it to the 33 min mark to hear all 10 speakers.https://www.youtube.com/live/Z02GMSnXjZg?si=EGqdvyq7InjAE_gG
Stand Tall Bonnie Donovan…15-Minute Cities are a WEF plan to subjugate citizens…
The 15 minute City Programme is progressing quickly In UK, Oxford is being divided up into 11 Districts right now with permissions required to leave your District…now its America’s turn…
Always put your money on organic, grass roots civic engagement. Not micro-managed, astro-turf theoretical mandates by "experts. Long lives on planet earth teaches us this. Politics follows culture. When the culture is ready, organically, change will happen.
Bob Nelson and the comedian Steve Lavagnino should be tarred and feathered, not evangelized on this website. The so called Republicans on the county board of supervisors are always capitulating to the Democrats on the board, this is the reason SB county is such a disaster.
I genuinely feel sorry for the author. Their inability to imagine SB as anything other than car-centric implies they've never had the benefit of experiencing an alternative, which has apparently led them to feel empowered to remove everyone else's ability to choose to bike, walk, or merely exist outside of a car. For their own sake - and so they better understand the purportedly evil global movement they're against - I kindly recommend the author take fifteen minutes of their day to watch a Not Just Bikes video on YouTube, or read literally any peer reviewed study about 15 minutes cities. I hope either of those exercises gives them the insight they need to realize that by railing against street improvements which enable active transportation users to be safe, "neighbors for liberty" are in fact seeking to remove the liberty of their fellow SB residents by denying them the opportunity to choose a car-free lifestyle.
I do not know how old you are, but you certainly do not understand the meaning of the word LIBERTY. Let me define the word liberty for you: It is to live and let live without hurting the rights of another person. Both cars, public transport, bikes and walking should be allowed in a FREE society. Excluding one or another is a recipe for tyranny. Liberty also engenders truly listening to the other side and making things work, not bulldozing your ideas over another. Both cars, bikes and public transport should be allowed in SB, not one or the other. The technocratic elite at the WEF are trying to curtail and destroy humanity by taking away our basic freedoms. 15 minute cities are not the way to go. How are you going to travel to other cities without cars?
I think you need to look up the definition of 15 minute city. Not sure where you're getting the idea that a 15 minute city takes away your basic freedoms, but I suspect your info source may be skewing the facts.
A walkable city and a drivable city are not mutually exclusive, nor should they be, as you've pointed out. But often times, when cities are designed for cars, they inherently take away the freedoms of those who aren't car-dependent; numerous studies and even SB's local statistical data have repeatedly proven that slower streets are safer for all streets users, and that pedestrians and cyclists are less likely to fall victim to car collisions when safety measures (eg. bollards, separated bike lanes, narrower streets, etc.) are installed. Highways are exclusively for cars. Streets are designed for high car throughput. Considerations for pedestrians and cyclists are often left out of the planning process. The occasional car-free street is not taking away your freedoms; it's giving people the ability to choose to exist comfortably and safely outside of a vehicle - it's creating the freedom of choice.
Also, why does age matter? If the commenter is young, does that disqualify or invalidate their opinion? We all live here - we should all have a say (per your definition of "liberty").
I completely agree that open discussion and listening are essential if we're going to design our city in such a way that everyone benefits - but I gotta say, it really feels like you're the one bulldozing alternative opinions. Have you tried doing either of the things the original commenter recommended? Have you attempted to practice what you preach?
Yes, I practice what I preach and I was advocating for both cars and bikes, the way it is now. Making it bike only or walk only hampers others who cannot use bikes or walk say due to injuries or old age.
That's just it - the way it is now isn't safe for cyclists and pedestrians. There have been like 5 cyclists/pedestrians hit by cars in SB this year alone and it's only February.
I do agree that mobility challenged people should be accommodated and their ability to access public spaces not impaired - state st should def have a handicapped-accessible trolley or microshuttle service.
“There have been like 5 cyclists/ pedestrians hit by cars this year alone” reveals your immaturity. Nothing wrong with youth except the arrogance that so often comes with it. If you are going to make statements about bicycle and pedestrian safety and call yourself Factually Accurate, use facts. Have there been 5 accidents or “like” 5? Where did they occur? Did anyone die? What were the circumstances? How can it be improved?
State St. has huge sidewalks. Pedestrians have never been in danger on State St. like for real. There will be problems anywhere bicycles and cars share the road. In a collision the car will always win. Nothing wrong with a separated bike lane on State, there is room. Turning the main thoroughfare of our city into a Disney like plaza/ promenade is absurd. Even more absurd is downtown scattered with eyesore parklets and vacant shops while all these entities argue about fanciful future designs. Such a waste of time & taxpayer money. Open it back up until a decision is made and funds are there to create the final plan. Leaving it in this tacky limbo is government bureaucracy at it best.
As for how the situation can be improved, I encourage you to read up on Santa Barbara's Vision Zero program, as well as their various active transportation project. Some examples of things that could be done: Slow cars, promote bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in addition to public transit, create corner bulb-outs so crosswalks are shorter and more visible to drivers, narrow lanes, install better street lighting, install bollards separating cars from bike lanes ... etc.
SB Resident - can you please name these locations? Do not presume some of us have not lived in other alternative settings. I lived without a car for well over a year in Switzerland. I know the pros and cons and what can translate here and what cannot. Where are the examples that you tout with specifics, please.
In total I lived four years in Europe and since traveled extensively to over 150 countries. I am always keen to observe how people live on the land throughout the world, and how they get around.
Excellent piece. Today’s “affordable housing”/sustainable/15-minute-city crowd are a re-branded version of old-style top-down social-engineering totalitarians, dressed up Green, eco-appealing clothing. They use the language of genuine good guys (like Jane Jacobs and James Kunstler) but they’re just today’s version of bad guy Robert Moses.
It’s all a little bewildering, though, at least for an old-timer. Not so long ago, nice well-meaning people wanted to protect what’s nice from typical American-style maniacal exploitation and development. These days progressives are all about “build build build!” (and branding anyone who expresses any reservations as a Nazi). They’re as idiotically dogmatic about supply and demand as a college freshman puzzling out Econ 101, and they’re oblivious to the obvious human factors involved. Yeah, let’s line the beaches with glassy skyscrapers! Let’s turn Santa Barbara into a dreary re-tread of every other upscale California beach town! Let’s wreck everything that’s special and nice about the place! Awesome!
Strange and bewildering. But maybe not so strange when you see who the big donors to people like the execrable Scott Wiener are: the real estate and development businesses.
Live in a city 24/7 full of high-rises versus being annoyed by "traffic" 15 minutes or so a day? Let's talk about realistic tradeoffs; not threats and false dichotomies.
When I moved here in the 1970's, I joked nothing was more than five minutes away. With easy parking. Now you demand everything be 15 minutes away? How is that progress.
Ha! Talk about false dichotomies; it's not "suburbs" vs "high rises." There's such a thing as multi-use zoning, duplexes, three-story buildings. None of us are advocating that we become a concrete hellscape - I think it's safe to say that most of us live here because we enjoy the benefits of living in a beautiful location with ample outdoor activities year-round. We're on the same team when it comes to preserving green spaces, but I think where we differ is on the fact that infill, multi-use zoning, and a focus on safe, efficient public transit can help promote equity throughout our city.
I saw your other comment asking for locations. I presume you want some in North America (since you're SO well traveled and worldly and already know EVERYTHING about Europe). Try Jersey City (zero pedestrian fatalities over the past few years), Montreal (excellent bike and ped infra but still drivable and not full of high rises), SF (think painted ladies; clearly not high-rises), Boston, etc.
Sadly we cannot turn back the clock and completely halt the spread of single family homes. I wish we weren't stuck with the sprawl-based, car-centric infrastructure that we have now and that is not only financially unsustainable but also unsustainable for the climate, but it's not too late to do better, and to gain back some "freedom" (as everyone likes to keep saying in these comments) by enabling people to choose their preferred mode of transportation by treating them all equally, instead of prioritizing cars, as has historically been the case.
They don't have much info on their site, but in general I'm much more strongly in favor of infill and multi-use housing; it's more efficient/sustainable, and I don't personally think we can justify developing green spaces/farmland for housing.
I'm more on board with something like the Culdesac development in Arizona:
Jersey City, Boston, SF, Montreal ...okay, thank you for the specific examples of these urban biker's paradise.
Davis, California is the only city I can think of out west that has traditionally accommodated bikers. But they had an early start accommodating this activity, well before this town sprawled out into the surrounding farm land, well past the UC Campus area which was a very flat campus and highly bikeable.
I believe the new UC Merced campus area is also putting in a biking infrastructure first, before it will probably sprawl past the campus too. Nothing wrong with building these biking networks from the ground up first; a lot harder trying to shoehorn them into the built environment. I do like safe bikeways.
Though pedestrian safety does not come to the top of my mind when I try to travese the UCSB campus - another setting where bikes do rule and were planned to dominate the campus, from its very early beginnings.
You're totally right that starting with bike/ped-friendly foundations makes it way easier to accommodate that kind of activity; making streets less-deadly is very much an uphill battle in that sense and is a large part of why America lags so far behind Europe. But, as I'm sure you're aware, the Netherlands was similarly car-dependent until the 80s/90s when the dutch population decided to prioritize bikes and peds instead, and they've quickly become one of the top biking nations in the world. So, it can certainly be done, so long as people keep an open mind when it comes to change. Paris for instance, is going through growing pains right now to re-think their car-centric infrastructure in favor of the health and safety of slow streets. There are right and wrong ways to implement such changes, and the whole enterprise has a learning curve, but, I think, incremental changes are better than normalizing needless pedestrian deaths, and intentional infrastructure can make all the difference.
However, now that what's done is done, we can at least learn from past mistakes and existing case studies. Bike/ped-friendly infra repeatedly proves to be a better economic investment than car infrastructure; it sees less-heavy loads, requires less maintenance, enables more people to access businesses (7 bikes fit in a parking space which would otherwise only fit one car), thereby supporting the local economy (state street for example has seen 40,000 additional visitors annually since the state street closure according to phone geolocation data). Not to mention there are tons of health and close-knit community benefits.
Sorry for the long message, but all this is to say, just because we've favored car-based development for the past 50 years doesn't mean we can't seek to improve now and in the future.
And to your point about UCSB - I agree that sometimes sleep-deprived students can pose a bit of a hazard to pedestrians who don't look both ways before crossing (we're having similar problems on state street where there's definite need for cyclist-calming infrastructure), but you know how many students have been hit by a car on that campus? Zero. I'd prefer to bike at UCSB than on chapala or anacapa.
These alternatives you present are not utopias. They are alternatives. And they arose organically. Not by fiat. Since you can't find places to even park cars in most old European cities, it is easy to not be "car centric".
Their infrastructure was already fixed well before the introduction of cars, so their historic cores were required to adapt to other transit options. Yet the appeal of the newer suburban sprawls do require cars and driving to hyper-markets in Europe. So their modern evolution belies romanticization of European "town square" of centralized living.
We on the West coast made other choices. Not sure why you insist on taking those choices away. Talk about Paris all you want, but don't ignore the miles and miles of sheer ugliness and inhabitability of the outer urban areas of Paris too. Those are the places to 24/7 high-rise living.
I do agree, fixed rail transit in older European cities are key to accepting dependency on public transit. But public transit in far too many other cities is not safe, clean or reliable. No better example of a highly efficient public transit system exists than Switzerland. Yet this is a very compact country with strict limits on growth and shared-value public safety, far more than we could ever find in the US.
Like it or not, these systems do work best in countries that still maintain solid Protestant work ethics and values. Northern European examples may not, nor even cannot be transferred to our own more diverse urban settings, due to increased crime and lack of community shared values. So it is more than just plopping an infrastructure down and demanding everyone share the values required to make public transportation alternatives safe and workable.
Which is why I make the case, changes will evolve organically when the values are shared and personal economics require them. But we won't be scolded into them, by narrowly focused idealists.
When you tot up numbers or biker accidents, be sure to also tot up the numbers of bike thefts - try Nextdoor which is riddled with reports of stolen bicycles. This too is part of the equation. It will also be interesting to see how successful the new electric shared bike program works out after a few years.
Once again, making space for bikes and peds is not taking away choices. it's giving people more choices. Just like SB Resident said in their comment above.
There are also plenty of examples in the US where "european" infrastructure has, and continues, to work. I never referred to them as utopias - that was all you. And you talk of the ugliness ouside paris ... which is where it's less walkable/bikable ... so I'm confused by your point there. Likewise, much of america is horrifically ugly because it's filled with highways and strip malls.
Yes, public transit can often be unreliable, but only because it's severely underfunded in america. Santa Barbara can and should be better. It has certainly has the means.
And regarding your point about shared values: I think things ARE changing organically now - I think many people DO value safer bike and ped infrastructure, which is why changes ARE happening; you simply seem to be among the group that is increasingly the minority.
I'm signing off for now, but I hope you consider my comments. I agree that american culture has long been the root of the problem, but I am heartened that places like SB are beginning to turn a new page. You might argue that the culture doesn't need to change, but wouldn't it be nice if people felt safe taking the bus? Wouldn't it be good for the community at large if buses were regular and on time?
Bonnie, my career and livelihood is real estate investment. I started attending City Council meetings many years ago when agenda items were being discussed regarding our downtown. Along the way, I was invited to sit on many a ‘stakeholder’ committee for State Street because I really love and care for this beautiful community. In my naivety, I thought that care, common sense and a genuine vision towards improving Santa Barbara was truly what was wanted. I learned very quickly that not only were thoughtful ideas not wanted, but indeed if you dared speak up or pose questions that went against what was being proposed, future invitations would no longer be extended. I was so confused by the direction that was being taken. Surely they weren’t INTENTIONALLY destroying downtown?! What was the point of all of the hired consultants with no action towards improvement?!“How could anyone want to destroy something so beautiful” slowly began to change to “How could a group of leaders be so recklessly stupid”? After a solid decade of watching the nonsensical degradation of one of the most beautiful cities in America you know that it can only be by design. Let that sink in. What kind of person(s) destroys something so beautiful?? Once you make that hard found realization, you understand that from the very top of the California political chain all the way down to the bottom is an infiltration of literal Communists/Marxists/Destroyers/Useful Idiots…and every single one follows the marching orders of our madly powerful shadowy leaders at the DCC. The ‘Build Back Better’ slogan is simply a way to destroy our Cities and States to rebuild in their twisted vision of 15 Minute Cities and You’ll Own Nothing and Be Happy motto. All of this is enabled by our local media which is as captured as the other political positions. (SB Currents excluded)
Good, decent citizens must wake up in mass and quickly, if we have any hope of salvaging this downward spiraling at the hands of the destroyers.
More than once, consultants have already assessed Santa Barbara has twice the staffing numbers as other equivalent cities. (90K, coastal, tourism oriented).
Maintaining a city budget to support this exceptional staffing load, did start driving many new city decisions a few decades back - since it now requires increasing annual tax revenue growth, even if staffing numbers stayed the same. The slow growth -tight design control movement of the 1970's that gave Santa Barbara its signature appeal has undergone radical change of late.
Higher home prices do provide local city revenue growth, though the city is a bit shy admitting this fact of life. While the public message is all about "affordable housing". the city budget depends on those who can afford to live in this higher price premium area. Are we keeping the right balance between the two? That is really the key question. It has been a very long time since anyone got elected to city council running on a balanced fiscal conservatism platform. (Fransisco, Hotchkiss, Self)
One can explore the website "Transparent California" and learn what are city staffing levels for similarly situated and population number cities throughout this state. Only Santa Monica and Berkeley exceeded City of Santa Barbara staffing numbers, when I took a look a number of years ago. Things may well have changed since then.
SB is already a 15 minute city, it is a perfect size and shape, why in the world would we want to destroy what was always working here before and go to a different kind of 15 minute city: we don't. It is already small enough that you can bike or walk if necessary or drive. But what I have noticed after the covid nonsense is that State Street was never re-opened for car traffic and now they're eyeing other streets to go the same direction as State Street. Solvang had closed off their main drag for Covid, but re-opened it for car traffic, but Santa Barbara never did. Sorry state of affairs here in SB.
Intriguing , frightening and sobering ! Thank you Bonnie for your crafted written voice that cuts like a knife with a warning to wake up our sleepy community . Our city is in deep trouble .
Hello Ann,
Santa Barbara is more than in "Deep Trouple"
It is a ship that has sunk, on the bottom of the sea
and rotting like all of the so-called-leaders here.
See this link https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/03/pay-to-play-law-california/
"A wave of corruption scandals has washed over California’s local governments in recent years, particularly in Southern California.
Bribery and self-dealing is so common among small cities in Los Angeles County that the speaker of the state Assembly, Anthony Rendon, has described the area he represents as a “corridor of corruption.”
Last month, Jose Huizar, a member of the Los Angeles City Council for 15 years, pleaded guilty to federal charges of racketeering and tax evasion for extorting at least $1.5 million in bribes from developers of real estate projects.
This week, another former Los Angeles councilman, Mark Ridley-Thomas, went on trial in federal court for allegedly, as a county supervisor, routing contracts to the University of Southern California in return for benefits for his son, former assemblyman Sebastian Ridley-Thomas, including a $100,000 grant to the son’s nonprofit corporation."
Howard Walther member of a Military Family
Just back from an overnight sojourn to Solvang, which was equally afflicted with "covid" street closures and tatty parklets. It had become a depressing wreck, also in a town that took great pride in cohesive design controls. Solvang streets are back open, parklets removed, and empty store fronts now again filing up. Even more evident, no threats to personal safety from panhandlers or rogue bicyclists.
The article quoted the wrong date i certainly hope to see you all there 15th February 2024 this evening in Santa Barbara Thank you Bonnie Donovan for your article I will be in attendance for New California State with declarations of Truths, collecting signatures. The fact that all of this nonsense is a direct result of breached election security. Please watch the latest Board of Supervisors meeting. Queue it to the 33 min mark to hear all 10 speakers.https://www.youtube.com/live/Z02GMSnXjZg?si=EGqdvyq7InjAE_gG
Sherry, you are correct! Everyone it is tonight February 15!!!
Stand Tall Bonnie Donovan…15-Minute Cities are a WEF plan to subjugate citizens…
The 15 minute City Programme is progressing quickly In UK, Oxford is being divided up into 11 Districts right now with permissions required to leave your District…now its America’s turn…
Always put your money on organic, grass roots civic engagement. Not micro-managed, astro-turf theoretical mandates by "experts. Long lives on planet earth teaches us this. Politics follows culture. When the culture is ready, organically, change will happen.
Bob Nelson and the comedian Steve Lavagnino should be tarred and feathered, not evangelized on this website. The so called Republicans on the county board of supervisors are always capitulating to the Democrats on the board, this is the reason SB county is such a disaster.
Steve Lavagnino is American Independent if you watched the Santa Barbara Talks with Josh Molina interview which chair lavagnino over a week ago.
I genuinely feel sorry for the author. Their inability to imagine SB as anything other than car-centric implies they've never had the benefit of experiencing an alternative, which has apparently led them to feel empowered to remove everyone else's ability to choose to bike, walk, or merely exist outside of a car. For their own sake - and so they better understand the purportedly evil global movement they're against - I kindly recommend the author take fifteen minutes of their day to watch a Not Just Bikes video on YouTube, or read literally any peer reviewed study about 15 minutes cities. I hope either of those exercises gives them the insight they need to realize that by railing against street improvements which enable active transportation users to be safe, "neighbors for liberty" are in fact seeking to remove the liberty of their fellow SB residents by denying them the opportunity to choose a car-free lifestyle.
I do not know how old you are, but you certainly do not understand the meaning of the word LIBERTY. Let me define the word liberty for you: It is to live and let live without hurting the rights of another person. Both cars, public transport, bikes and walking should be allowed in a FREE society. Excluding one or another is a recipe for tyranny. Liberty also engenders truly listening to the other side and making things work, not bulldozing your ideas over another. Both cars, bikes and public transport should be allowed in SB, not one or the other. The technocratic elite at the WEF are trying to curtail and destroy humanity by taking away our basic freedoms. 15 minute cities are not the way to go. How are you going to travel to other cities without cars?
I think you need to look up the definition of 15 minute city. Not sure where you're getting the idea that a 15 minute city takes away your basic freedoms, but I suspect your info source may be skewing the facts.
A walkable city and a drivable city are not mutually exclusive, nor should they be, as you've pointed out. But often times, when cities are designed for cars, they inherently take away the freedoms of those who aren't car-dependent; numerous studies and even SB's local statistical data have repeatedly proven that slower streets are safer for all streets users, and that pedestrians and cyclists are less likely to fall victim to car collisions when safety measures (eg. bollards, separated bike lanes, narrower streets, etc.) are installed. Highways are exclusively for cars. Streets are designed for high car throughput. Considerations for pedestrians and cyclists are often left out of the planning process. The occasional car-free street is not taking away your freedoms; it's giving people the ability to choose to exist comfortably and safely outside of a vehicle - it's creating the freedom of choice.
Also, why does age matter? If the commenter is young, does that disqualify or invalidate their opinion? We all live here - we should all have a say (per your definition of "liberty").
I completely agree that open discussion and listening are essential if we're going to design our city in such a way that everyone benefits - but I gotta say, it really feels like you're the one bulldozing alternative opinions. Have you tried doing either of the things the original commenter recommended? Have you attempted to practice what you preach?
Yes, I practice what I preach and I was advocating for both cars and bikes, the way it is now. Making it bike only or walk only hampers others who cannot use bikes or walk say due to injuries or old age.
That's just it - the way it is now isn't safe for cyclists and pedestrians. There have been like 5 cyclists/pedestrians hit by cars in SB this year alone and it's only February.
I do agree that mobility challenged people should be accommodated and their ability to access public spaces not impaired - state st should def have a handicapped-accessible trolley or microshuttle service.
This statement ,
“There have been like 5 cyclists/ pedestrians hit by cars this year alone” reveals your immaturity. Nothing wrong with youth except the arrogance that so often comes with it. If you are going to make statements about bicycle and pedestrian safety and call yourself Factually Accurate, use facts. Have there been 5 accidents or “like” 5? Where did they occur? Did anyone die? What were the circumstances? How can it be improved?
State St. has huge sidewalks. Pedestrians have never been in danger on State St. like for real. There will be problems anywhere bicycles and cars share the road. In a collision the car will always win. Nothing wrong with a separated bike lane on State, there is room. Turning the main thoroughfare of our city into a Disney like plaza/ promenade is absurd. Even more absurd is downtown scattered with eyesore parklets and vacant shops while all these entities argue about fanciful future designs. Such a waste of time & taxpayer money. Open it back up until a decision is made and funds are there to create the final plan. Leaving it in this tacky limbo is government bureaucracy at it best.
And while I'm at it, here's more data showing your claim that pedestrians have never been in danger on state st is false:
https://www.independent.com/2023/01/23/cyclists-and-pedestrians-are-safer-on-the-promenade/
You might consider being more factually accurate in the future <3
https://www.edhat.com/news/roadway-reopened-after-fatal-bicycle-and-vehicle-collision-in-carpinteria/
https://www.edhat.com/news/suv-vs-e-bike-collision-at-cliff-dr-and-mesa-ln/
https://www.independent.com/2024/01/02/santa-barbara-grandfather-dies-after-being-hit-by-truck-in-crosswalk/
https://www.edhat.com/news/fundraiser-created-for-son-of-goleta-woman-killed-in-traffic-collision/
https://www.noozhawk.com/woman-facing-multiple-charges-after-hit-run-collision-in-santa-barbara/
One of the five I recalled was in December, so ... congrats???
Here's a great article on the increase in pedestrian deaths in the US:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/04/podcasts/the-daily/pedestrian-deaths.html
As for how the situation can be improved, I encourage you to read up on Santa Barbara's Vision Zero program, as well as their various active transportation project. Some examples of things that could be done: Slow cars, promote bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in addition to public transit, create corner bulb-outs so crosswalks are shorter and more visible to drivers, narrow lanes, install better street lighting, install bollards separating cars from bike lanes ... etc.
SB Resident - can you please name these locations? Do not presume some of us have not lived in other alternative settings. I lived without a car for well over a year in Switzerland. I know the pros and cons and what can translate here and what cannot. Where are the examples that you tout with specifics, please.
In total I lived four years in Europe and since traveled extensively to over 150 countries. I am always keen to observe how people live on the land throughout the world, and how they get around.
Excellent piece. Today’s “affordable housing”/sustainable/15-minute-city crowd are a re-branded version of old-style top-down social-engineering totalitarians, dressed up Green, eco-appealing clothing. They use the language of genuine good guys (like Jane Jacobs and James Kunstler) but they’re just today’s version of bad guy Robert Moses.
It’s all a little bewildering, though, at least for an old-timer. Not so long ago, nice well-meaning people wanted to protect what’s nice from typical American-style maniacal exploitation and development. These days progressives are all about “build build build!” (and branding anyone who expresses any reservations as a Nazi). They’re as idiotically dogmatic about supply and demand as a college freshman puzzling out Econ 101, and they’re oblivious to the obvious human factors involved. Yeah, let’s line the beaches with glassy skyscrapers! Let’s turn Santa Barbara into a dreary re-tread of every other upscale California beach town! Let’s wreck everything that’s special and nice about the place! Awesome!
Strange and bewildering. But maybe not so strange when you see who the big donors to people like the execrable Scott Wiener are: the real estate and development businesses.
1. Build a city where you have to drive everywhere.
2. Everyone drives everywhere.
3. "Why should we build bike lanes / invest in transit / close streets for pedestrians? Everyone drives anyway."
Does the author realize that if more people bike/walk to work, then they get to benefit from lower car traffic?
Live in a city 24/7 full of high-rises versus being annoyed by "traffic" 15 minutes or so a day? Let's talk about realistic tradeoffs; not threats and false dichotomies.
When I moved here in the 1970's, I joked nothing was more than five minutes away. With easy parking. Now you demand everything be 15 minutes away? How is that progress.
Ha! Talk about false dichotomies; it's not "suburbs" vs "high rises." There's such a thing as multi-use zoning, duplexes, three-story buildings. None of us are advocating that we become a concrete hellscape - I think it's safe to say that most of us live here because we enjoy the benefits of living in a beautiful location with ample outdoor activities year-round. We're on the same team when it comes to preserving green spaces, but I think where we differ is on the fact that infill, multi-use zoning, and a focus on safe, efficient public transit can help promote equity throughout our city.
I saw your other comment asking for locations. I presume you want some in North America (since you're SO well traveled and worldly and already know EVERYTHING about Europe). Try Jersey City (zero pedestrian fatalities over the past few years), Montreal (excellent bike and ped infra but still drivable and not full of high rises), SF (think painted ladies; clearly not high-rises), Boston, etc.
Sadly we cannot turn back the clock and completely halt the spread of single family homes. I wish we weren't stuck with the sprawl-based, car-centric infrastructure that we have now and that is not only financially unsustainable but also unsustainable for the climate, but it's not too late to do better, and to gain back some "freedom" (as everyone likes to keep saying in these comments) by enabling people to choose their preferred mode of transportation by treating them all equally, instead of prioritizing cars, as has historically been the case.
Take a look at Harvest Limoneira in Santa Paula, new build from former farm land. What do you think? https://harvestatlimoneira.com
They don't have much info on their site, but in general I'm much more strongly in favor of infill and multi-use housing; it's more efficient/sustainable, and I don't personally think we can justify developing green spaces/farmland for housing.
I'm more on board with something like the Culdesac development in Arizona:
https://culdesac.com/
Would be interested to hear your thoughts on it!
Jersey City, Boston, SF, Montreal ...okay, thank you for the specific examples of these urban biker's paradise.
Davis, California is the only city I can think of out west that has traditionally accommodated bikers. But they had an early start accommodating this activity, well before this town sprawled out into the surrounding farm land, well past the UC Campus area which was a very flat campus and highly bikeable.
I believe the new UC Merced campus area is also putting in a biking infrastructure first, before it will probably sprawl past the campus too. Nothing wrong with building these biking networks from the ground up first; a lot harder trying to shoehorn them into the built environment. I do like safe bikeways.
Though pedestrian safety does not come to the top of my mind when I try to travese the UCSB campus - another setting where bikes do rule and were planned to dominate the campus, from its very early beginnings.
Davis is another good example!
You're totally right that starting with bike/ped-friendly foundations makes it way easier to accommodate that kind of activity; making streets less-deadly is very much an uphill battle in that sense and is a large part of why America lags so far behind Europe. But, as I'm sure you're aware, the Netherlands was similarly car-dependent until the 80s/90s when the dutch population decided to prioritize bikes and peds instead, and they've quickly become one of the top biking nations in the world. So, it can certainly be done, so long as people keep an open mind when it comes to change. Paris for instance, is going through growing pains right now to re-think their car-centric infrastructure in favor of the health and safety of slow streets. There are right and wrong ways to implement such changes, and the whole enterprise has a learning curve, but, I think, incremental changes are better than normalizing needless pedestrian deaths, and intentional infrastructure can make all the difference.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/02/world/europe/paris-bicyles-france.html
It's interesting to look historically at the trolley and tram lines that used to exist on the west coast (and indeed across America), only to have been torn down to usher in car-favoring streets and highways (https://www.pbssocal.org/shows/lost-la/from-rail-to-roads-and-back-again-the-rebirth-of-l-a-s-public-transit). SB is just one of many city communities that were cut in half by the 101 when it was first built.
However, now that what's done is done, we can at least learn from past mistakes and existing case studies. Bike/ped-friendly infra repeatedly proves to be a better economic investment than car infrastructure; it sees less-heavy loads, requires less maintenance, enables more people to access businesses (7 bikes fit in a parking space which would otherwise only fit one car), thereby supporting the local economy (state street for example has seen 40,000 additional visitors annually since the state street closure according to phone geolocation data). Not to mention there are tons of health and close-knit community benefits.
Sorry for the long message, but all this is to say, just because we've favored car-based development for the past 50 years doesn't mean we can't seek to improve now and in the future.
And to your point about UCSB - I agree that sometimes sleep-deprived students can pose a bit of a hazard to pedestrians who don't look both ways before crossing (we're having similar problems on state street where there's definite need for cyclist-calming infrastructure), but you know how many students have been hit by a car on that campus? Zero. I'd prefer to bike at UCSB than on chapala or anacapa.
These alternatives you present are not utopias. They are alternatives. And they arose organically. Not by fiat. Since you can't find places to even park cars in most old European cities, it is easy to not be "car centric".
Their infrastructure was already fixed well before the introduction of cars, so their historic cores were required to adapt to other transit options. Yet the appeal of the newer suburban sprawls do require cars and driving to hyper-markets in Europe. So their modern evolution belies romanticization of European "town square" of centralized living.
We on the West coast made other choices. Not sure why you insist on taking those choices away. Talk about Paris all you want, but don't ignore the miles and miles of sheer ugliness and inhabitability of the outer urban areas of Paris too. Those are the places to 24/7 high-rise living.
I do agree, fixed rail transit in older European cities are key to accepting dependency on public transit. But public transit in far too many other cities is not safe, clean or reliable. No better example of a highly efficient public transit system exists than Switzerland. Yet this is a very compact country with strict limits on growth and shared-value public safety, far more than we could ever find in the US.
Like it or not, these systems do work best in countries that still maintain solid Protestant work ethics and values. Northern European examples may not, nor even cannot be transferred to our own more diverse urban settings, due to increased crime and lack of community shared values. So it is more than just plopping an infrastructure down and demanding everyone share the values required to make public transportation alternatives safe and workable.
Which is why I make the case, changes will evolve organically when the values are shared and personal economics require them. But we won't be scolded into them, by narrowly focused idealists.
When you tot up numbers or biker accidents, be sure to also tot up the numbers of bike thefts - try Nextdoor which is riddled with reports of stolen bicycles. This too is part of the equation. It will also be interesting to see how successful the new electric shared bike program works out after a few years.
Once again, making space for bikes and peds is not taking away choices. it's giving people more choices. Just like SB Resident said in their comment above.
There are also plenty of examples in the US where "european" infrastructure has, and continues, to work. I never referred to them as utopias - that was all you. And you talk of the ugliness ouside paris ... which is where it's less walkable/bikable ... so I'm confused by your point there. Likewise, much of america is horrifically ugly because it's filled with highways and strip malls.
Yes, public transit can often be unreliable, but only because it's severely underfunded in america. Santa Barbara can and should be better. It has certainly has the means.
And regarding your point about shared values: I think things ARE changing organically now - I think many people DO value safer bike and ped infrastructure, which is why changes ARE happening; you simply seem to be among the group that is increasingly the minority.
I'm signing off for now, but I hope you consider my comments. I agree that american culture has long been the root of the problem, but I am heartened that places like SB are beginning to turn a new page. You might argue that the culture doesn't need to change, but wouldn't it be nice if people felt safe taking the bus? Wouldn't it be good for the community at large if buses were regular and on time?