I am writing to point out some problems with your management of the recent Amendment of Title 31 and Adoption of the State Street Master Plan.
The new amended Title 31 has no sunset date. According to the City Attorney, Title 31 is the legal mechanism by which the City Council can continue to ban automobile traffic on State Street. By passing this version of Title 31 the City of Santa Barbara is asserting it can keep cars off State Street forever, with no limits, barring future Council action.
Since we have discussed this issue in person, and you have received copies of both my City Ethics Complaint from September 2023, and my Grand Jury Referral documents from that same month, I know you are aware of the ethical and procedural irregularities in the passage of the original Title 31 stemming from the actions of Councilmember Kristen Sneddon, State Street Master Planner Tess Harris, and City Staff member Sarah Clark.
Suffice it to say Sneddon and Harris both lied to and misled the HLC Commissioners and the public and City Council in 2023. The creation of Title 31 was based on lies and subterfuge.
By codifying a limitless new Title 31 you have enabled the City Council to keep our Main Street closed forever. It also, again, illegally changes and restricts the HLC’s City Charter powers with regard to the State Street Master Plan.
You have allowed the Council to do so without ever having to cast a clear and transparent vote on the closure of State Street to traffic. Why?
Our Main Street has been closed for six years. You have been here for just over two years. You have no sense of the history and traditions of our city. Your children and grandchildren have not grown up here participating in the Old Spanish Days Fiesta Parade, or the Christmas Parade.
You have no real ties to this place.
And it shows.
Those of us who have helped build and maintain this city and Downtown over decades and generations deserve to know how each current councilmember and mayoral candidate would vote on a simple transparent open/close vote before we implement the new, never-ending Title 31.
You have carefully engineered at least two, maybe more, informal “hands raised,” polls at Council to see where councilmembers stand on allowing automobile traffic back on State Street. Each time it looked like four hands were raised in favor of continuing the ban on cars. Each time you announced that it looked like there was a “consensus” and subsequently removed any discussion of cars at any time from the Master Plan discussion.
Kelly, it would seem you do not know the meaning of the word “consensus.” Generally, “consensus” is defined as “unanimous” or a “general agreement” with no serious opposition.
That was not case at all.
And, I think you know it.
You have protected them from such a public vote. This is a political act. Especially in an election year, when two current council members are running for mayor. How is this not an “in kind” campaign contribution? And how is it serving the Santa Barbara voters?
How is it possible that you and the City Council can commit the City to a project that will cost well over $100 million without a clear vote on the basic circulation function of the roadway?
About “Politics”
I have been in business in Santa Barbara since 1981. I have known and worked with numerous City Councils and at least five former City Administrators. Each of those previous City Administrators made a big effort to avoid “politics” in their professional dealings. While polite and professional, they would not have catered to agenda-driven special interest groups like Strong Towns SB or Friends of State Street.
You have put your thumb on the scale in other ways. During early Downtown Santa Barbara Business Improvement Association discussions, the Board passed a unanimous motion to formally ask the City Council to re-open State Street to traffic while the Master Plan was still being worked on. You intervened and told Executive Committee members that a full reopening would be too much to ask and would be rejected by the City Council.
For some reason, the Executive Committee followed your recommendation and changed the City Council request to a “one-way” re-opening.
Without a vote of the full Board.
Again, a clear conflict of interest. And a “political” act. You were telling a Private Property/Business Owners association what to do, and how to do it, in a way that you thought would be “politically” palatable.
Due respect, that is not your job.
Permanently closing State Street to traffic will be a long-term disaster. We have over 60 years of history in the U.S. detailing the failure of such efforts. Even the Master Plan Consultant Stefanos Polyzoides warns in his presentations that, “90% of all streets in the country that had transformed their main streets into pedestrian walkable environments ended up failing, and ended up opening back up to traffic.”
What kind of people would risk $100+million with those odds?
This failure will be on your watch.
Community Calendar:
This has gone on long enough. The spend 100 million of taxpayer money
to generate a dream that effects all the owners of State St, Property, , without regard for their history and their taxpayer input is a ludicrous insult. 6 years of experimentation is enough. Open our main street to its previous roll
as our main thoroughfare....Bob Rickard
I read this article titled "Open Letter to Kelly McAdoo By Kevin Boss, also see >
https://www.independent.com/2023/09/25/an-open-letter-to-our-mayor-and-councilmembers/
There are more fundamental problems in Santa Barbara than state street, traffic and the like.
Nothing will be cured unless these fundamental problems are first addressed which I had
identified here in the past as well as former FBI executive Tom Parker in his Independent Article>
"Perceptions of Political Corruption Too Often the Harbingers of Stark Reality"
Until these very serious problems are addressed nothing is going to change in SB or CALIFRAUDIA
Howard Walther, Member of a Military Family