Our city government has it in for private ownership of rental properties because they want to be in control. And they don't want to be landlords. They want to be the lords of this land. Are they communists or feudal overlords? I don't care, I just want Santa Barbarans to wake the hell up and vote them the hell out.
Thank you ,Polly, for the above article. Although we all know of political corruption, this piece magnifies the shortcomings of both political parties; their corruption and their weaknesses. As things spiral further and further down into the sewer I can only hope that eventually even the dullest brain will finally see that we need a complete, non partisan overhaul of our government.
Doesn’t the city get a slice of marborg fees, cox fees, cell phone fees? These indirect income streams add to revenue and help keep down the appearance of increased spending
Great article, Bonnie. In a recent meeting with Kelly McAdoo, she expressed significant concern over both the cost of implementing an RSO—particularly one requiring a rent registry and rent board, which the City cannot currently afford—and the litigation risks involved.
Additionally, on December 16, staff will be asking Council for direction on several items, including whether to impose a rent freeze or moratorium during the RSO development period, which Kelly anticipates will take 6–12 months.
If the Council does vote on a rent freeze, would Councilmembers Harmon, Santamaria, and Gutierrez need to recuse themselves since they are tenants who would directly benefit from the moratorium, especially given its narrow scope?
Loy McAdoo is correct—those three should recuse themselves. Randy did so when the Harbor raised slip rents, and Eric does so when votes involve grocery stores.
Great item. I have complained bitterly to city employees and the vast number have agreed 100% with my complaints. A number have told me they have moved to other districts or cities.
Want a prejudiced Councilwoman. M. Harmon is at the top of the list. She has a serious zoning violation with hedge height that have created an increase in my insurance. I dropped it on her desk the first month she was in office. There was an initial flurry of activity inspectors and order to remedy. Then quiet. Minor changes and then nothing. The damage and property value problems are significant. It turns out all 3 property owners that are making my life miserable are Democrats, and have donated to her political efforts.
I use this as an example. The article makes the point Housing Authority directly competes with the private sector, and doesn't pay taxes that means the private property owner pays more.
File a Public Records Act? Good Luck. I filed one asking for transportation related safety numbers. The City Administrator's response, "I don't have to answer this and I am not going to." Want to find if this is a direct quote ask Mayor Rowse. (uh, it is a State Law)
I rent below market rate. Had a tenant who made promises and then refused to pay. After 6 months of living free what was her response? "Money money that is all he thinks of." She then threatened me with Legal Aid. What would you do, every Council member, if your Council monthly was reduced to $500/month, and all not just some of your benefit package was eliminated? Would you scream? You betcha.
Yet you expect the private sector to "suck it up." Your comments in a variety of words are right out of the Das Kapital; after all you are the Capitalist Class and you have been robbing the workers for decades.
We are tired of you. We are tired of being degraded because we have been the Capitalist Class.
The next time you try to get a job outside of politics list your accomplishments. I raised taxes, I raised fees, I took property off the tax rolls and then told the rest to pay, I refused to listen to anyone but my ego. Then see how employable you are.
At an early meeting with Ms Harmon after she was elected (appointed?) she looked at me straight in the face and claimed of course the city needed to subsidize downtown housing, so subsidized residents could use the extra money to patronize downtown businesses.
Essentially I am supposed to pay her, so she can enjoy doing things on my dime? This was her reasoning, that drives her one city council vote.
We do not need more "affordable housing", we need a whole lot more affluent resident, market rate housing. Who can afford to both live here and patronize local businesses at the same time. No more dead enders like Ms Harmon, who exist here only due to mandated hand-outs from others?
A prior city attorney bragged the intent of the SB Housing Authority building ever more units was in fact to be in direct competition with private landlords. A true socialist state. Why are we doing this to ourselves? When so few vote, and the city forces never put their real agenda on the table. Yet they admit to it in private, with a smirk.
What is so galling is the supposed elite backing this attitude for decades are now seeing the city crumble. There is a supposed "we are so swell" organization that has their nose in the air attitude until recently. Now quietly they are sweating. They backed them, they ignored reality because they are so swell. Must be tough to know your long term arrogance is costing the city and south county dearly.
Obscene utility, parking, tax and other fee revenue is required to pay the obscene compensation packages of city employees. Yesterday we read that the city administrator is compensated $430,000 yet still needed to hire a deputy to accomplish a diaphanous set of performance goals. I discovered that the previous owner of my home built a wall 10 feet beyond the property line onto an adjacent parcel which he also owned. He subsequently sold the adjoining parcel leaving me with the task of adjusting the property line maps. The current owner of the adjoining parcel and I both want to do this and have agreed on a fair price. The city will require hearings, reviews and other nonsense which I am told will take over a year and over 100k in fees. Got to pay for those salaries somehow I suppose.
Bonnie, you always write such informative articles on the running of Santa Barbara. What a vicious cycle the city has made for it constituents who are trying to earn a fair living in this town. Thank you for your tireless work.
Painful to read, but right on Bonnie. Those of us involved with rental property completely understand. It is an adversarial relationship with the city of Santa Barbara from breaking ground to renting units. Removing a tenant who is irresponsible, disruptive and/or doesn't pay rent either on time or at all is an egregiously, painful and costly experience. When the rates drop a bit our rental properties go on the market and the money gets shuffled to America…such as Utah or Idaho where owing investment property is not considered a sin. I am not alone as I'm sure a number of people reading this are aware.
The water situation in SB is beyond immoral...not just the cost...the policies. God forbid if you have an undetected leak...usually irrigation. The water charge per cubic foot exponentially raises. They may give you forgiveness one time. But that's it. We had a situation where we had two events...ironically a St Jude statute fell over and broke a supply. They forgave one....not St. Jude. Ended up with a $5000 water bill for 90 days. 100% true.
If a customer was able to dramatically cut back their water consumption to offset the inordinate consumption for they will not give you credit for the offset. They want your money for that temporary event. It's a "got ya" event. Even if your annual water consumption actually does not increase or potentially decreases, they don't care....you're going to pay for that single event.
.
Again, it's an adversarial relationship with the City of Santa Barbara. Agree w/ Polly 'vote them the hell out"! Need to put together a slate of candidates for that purpose and we need to financially support the effort.
Some service stations will list on the pump the amount of money that's collected by government for every gallon of gas. Obviously the government makes more selling gas than the gas station does.. I'd like to see landlords do the same. Every month the tenant should get a note from the landlord telling him what percentage of their rent goes to what agency or insurance. Mortgage interest, etc.... perhaps they would see the villain is not the landlord, but it's the powers that be.
Some landlords are absolutely the villain, they charge ridiculous amounts for even small apartments while also having ridiculous policies, why are you trying to absolve them and blaming only the government?
Do you have any experience with owning or managing rental properties? What qualifies as "ridiculous amounts" or "ridiculous policies"? Examples, real, or imagined.?
Real; Not allowing a renter to have potted plants outside in the back of a studio apartment. That's genuinely asinine considering they don't even affect the property value.
As for experience- I don't need any to know how dumb it is to think someone putting potted plants outside, specifically with acces to the sun is absurd and petty. We're already paying, let us put our plants down.
Credit to you Bonnie, for digging deep and going granular on data affecting our local rental market, and economy in general. Doing this amount of analysis simply does not exist with any other local “news source.” While you are doing actual reporting and journalism, uncovering causation, too often local sites like The Independent, Edhat and Newsfakers are busy spreading misinformation and lefty talking points, while foaming at the mouth over the “Orange Dragon!”
Speaking of Dale Francisco, kudos to him for debating Hanna Beth “Taxin” Jackson over local energy policy on KEYT last night. Mr. Francisco, calmly presenting his facts based on economic realities, while “Jacko” babbles predictable talking points from the EDC.
Another great article Bonnie. A lot of very good responses. But let's face it. At every level of government, the Democratic Party has an unbreakable majority and they are more extreme in their socialism today. Until the California Republican party becomes competitive, nothing will change. Individuals are left to try to fight their battles against city council dictatorship. In the end, only protests in the streets over the the damage to the majority of voters will the there be a sea change.
The city refuses to admit it, but CalPERS city employee promised pension obligations gobble up more and more city tax revenues every year. Come clean, City of Santa Barbara. You did this to us.
If being a landlord becomes unaffordable, then the owners sell. The government benefits from: 1. The capital gains tax paid on the "profit", 2. The income tax received when the R.E. Agents pay their taxes, 3. The increase in property taxes on the re-assessed/market value of the property. They may SAY that they want rent stabilization, but I don't think they perceive it as benefitting their budget, or salaries/pensions. And so it will continue...until people truly get fed up and begin defying demands or step up. Why do we need The City to negotiate with Marborg for us? Why can't we just cut The City out as a middle man? Why can't we do this with most of the public works projects that WE pay for? We do not need to by PAYING these officials. We just need some ethically minded community members to fill the roll. Imagine that some people might run for CC and say, "I am here to help. I do not need to receive a salary"! There are plenty who volunteer in our community. Will anyone step up and into these rolls to VOLUNTEER to get us back on course? Are there any TRUE leaders among us?
Good question Leslie: “Why do we need The City to negotiate with Marborg for us?” City, County interference is essential to ensuring control of markets and “cross subsiding” whereby you pay more for the same exact service than I do or vice versa. For example Marborg: What is free in the City, is a charge in Montecito as per local government mandate. The ‘cost to serve law’ apparently does not apply to private contracts.
Insofar as water, City inept staff negotiated a bad deal for all SBWD Customers with Montecito Water District (MWD). City customers pay more than MWD Customers for water provided by SBWD despite SBWD customers paying twice for desal facilities, annual permit fees, maintenance, etc. Justification for MWD customers paying less than City water customers was: ‘good neighbor policy’.
How SBWD monthly bills are loaded is a topic NOT addressed in this excellent article. Only top tier SBWD customers pay for staff, office space, facilities, and administrative costs; whereas, MWD fairly and transparently spreads these costs to all customers. City rationale: tier 2 and 3 users must subsidize tier 1 to ensure everyone can “afford”water. Reminds me of City Council’s rental affordability policy: I must pay a higher rent for my unit to subsidize the occupant of the affordable unit.
It’s all Democrat Divisiveness at play. We’re totally controlled by our rulers.
In the County, (Noleta) I pay Marborg for trash service directly. I pay Goleta Sanitary on my property tax bill, and Goleta Water for water directly, same with gas and electricity. Also my sewer rate is not linked to water consumption.
Leslie, on their new list of suggested ways to increase revenue, they want a slice from when you sell your property... They suggested any property over 2.5 million.
Denice, the $2.5 million figure applies to any property selling at $2.5 million or above. It’s just one item on the city’s list of roughly 200 proposed revenue ideas. I’ll get the list and write about it—winter break should give me the time.
Wait, what? Gen Z city staffers want to impose capital gain taxes on real estate? How is this even constitutional? Talk about a kick in the ass as you’re walking out the door!
Meanwhile, the City of Santa Barbara can be real SOB’s when THEY are the landlords! This, after the owners of the historic Harbor Restaurant spent millions on renovations and upgrades, removing rotten, moldy and hazardous materials. How many meals must the owners serve in order to break even on the $60k monthly rent? The alternative? Another restaurant goes under and the City gets nothing, while dozens lose their jobs!
I came down with a last-minute flu/cold bug, forcing me to renege on my invitation to join in the "Santa Barbara Current" Christmas and anniversary festivities at "Moby Dick's" at the end of Stearn's Wharf. Inasmuch as I don't drive, I "missed out" also on the unexpected new parking tariff of $8.00 just to patronize one of Santa Barbara's longtime iconic restaurants. Ugh! Just another tone-deaf means of sticking it to taxpayers and customers trying to keep Santa Barbara afloat as a prime destination for both locals and tourists. It was stressful running a business back East in my day - but we felt the local government was sympathetic and acted as our partners. I can't imagine the stress today to making a profit in the toxic, anti-business environment of California and Santa Barbara City and County. Governments out here are antagonistic, to say the least, toward the very enterprises who produce the taxes that pay the bloated salaries and pensions of bureaucrats who for all intents and purposes produce nothing (but get paid much).
Excellent well written article. I agree with author 100%. I thought/hoped when we elected a "business person" for Mayor some of these unfair practices would change.
The switch ten years ago to district elections made sure the mayor, the one person who is required to elected at large, is little more than a ceremonial position with no clout over 6 squabbling, separate districts, often elected with only a few hundred total votes. In our city of 80,000 persons.
The switch to district elections was intentionally designed to marginalize and eliminate the voices from the former "Golden Triangle" who always had a more concentrated voter turn out which in turn gave them sway for years by their larger voter participation ... who in fact did demonstrate a lick of business sense and wider community purpose.
Voter participation no longer guides this city; only narrow special interests bearing no linkage to the majority voter turn-out any longer. This shows now in the city's steady decline and current fiscal recklessness.
(NB: Golden Triangle voters: Eucalyptus Hill, Riviera, Upper East, San Roque - high voter participation who did hold sway in the past, but are now reduced to only a single district representative. This now sole district unfortunately elected one of the more destructive voices on our current city council, and often in direct opposition to our sole at-large mayor.)
The Golden triangle helped elect Kristin Sneddon. Sneddon reps D4 from Olive Mill Rd along City’s Coast Village Road and the Montecito Club, across Eucalyptus Hill (Alston Road), continuing along the Riviera (APS) onward to San Rogue. This D4 Golden area has high home ownership comprised of many government, taxpayer dependent jobholders.
Sneddon will be running for Mayor. Mayor Randy Rowse has not been able to influence or message effectively which is required to successfully govern. Rowse will be running for reelection along with others yet to announce.
Will there be new faces running? There are 3 open seats in D4,5,6; plus the Mayor.
While District elections have adversely impacted Santa Barbara, strong financially literate prepared informed candidates can save us. Support them!
I worked on the new district line drawing study groups ten years go and it was admitted out loud, they wanted to cram all of the former informal "Golden Triangle" voters into one single district to intentionally dilute their vote on city council to only one vote among the total of seven - including the at large mayor.
While handing at least two districts to the still notoriously low-voter participation "racially- protected" city neighborhoods (Eastside and Westside), where it only takes a few hundred votes total to win a full seat and vote on city council.
Do the new city election math:
High voter turn-out district, now gets only one city council vote.
Two very low voter turn-out districts, now get two city council votes.
In case anyone still wonders what happened to our small city?
Our city government has it in for private ownership of rental properties because they want to be in control. And they don't want to be landlords. They want to be the lords of this land. Are they communists or feudal overlords? I don't care, I just want Santa Barbarans to wake the hell up and vote them the hell out.
Carl DeMaio (chairman of Reform California) wrote a piece about CA govt corruption on both party sides for New York Post https://nypost.com/2025/12/11/opinion/california-corruption-crisis-infests-newsoms-sacramento/
Thank you ,Polly, for the above article. Although we all know of political corruption, this piece magnifies the shortcomings of both political parties; their corruption and their weaknesses. As things spiral further and further down into the sewer I can only hope that eventually even the dullest brain will finally see that we need a complete, non partisan overhaul of our government.
Agree. Carl DeMaio should give a talk in Santa Barbara. I heard he gave a talk recently in Ventura.
And why can't CA have a DeSantis? https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/speed-bumps-friday-december-12-2025
Doesn’t the city get a slice of marborg fees, cox fees, cell phone fees? These indirect income streams add to revenue and help keep down the appearance of increased spending
Great article, Bonnie. In a recent meeting with Kelly McAdoo, she expressed significant concern over both the cost of implementing an RSO—particularly one requiring a rent registry and rent board, which the City cannot currently afford—and the litigation risks involved.
Additionally, on December 16, staff will be asking Council for direction on several items, including whether to impose a rent freeze or moratorium during the RSO development period, which Kelly anticipates will take 6–12 months.
If the Council does vote on a rent freeze, would Councilmembers Harmon, Santamaria, and Gutierrez need to recuse themselves since they are tenants who would directly benefit from the moratorium, especially given its narrow scope?
Loy McAdoo is correct—those three should recuse themselves. Randy did so when the Harbor raised slip rents, and Eric does so when votes involve grocery stores.
Yes! The 3 tenant Council Reps directly benefitting will need to recuse themselves.
Great item. I have complained bitterly to city employees and the vast number have agreed 100% with my complaints. A number have told me they have moved to other districts or cities.
Want a prejudiced Councilwoman. M. Harmon is at the top of the list. She has a serious zoning violation with hedge height that have created an increase in my insurance. I dropped it on her desk the first month she was in office. There was an initial flurry of activity inspectors and order to remedy. Then quiet. Minor changes and then nothing. The damage and property value problems are significant. It turns out all 3 property owners that are making my life miserable are Democrats, and have donated to her political efforts.
I use this as an example. The article makes the point Housing Authority directly competes with the private sector, and doesn't pay taxes that means the private property owner pays more.
File a Public Records Act? Good Luck. I filed one asking for transportation related safety numbers. The City Administrator's response, "I don't have to answer this and I am not going to." Want to find if this is a direct quote ask Mayor Rowse. (uh, it is a State Law)
I rent below market rate. Had a tenant who made promises and then refused to pay. After 6 months of living free what was her response? "Money money that is all he thinks of." She then threatened me with Legal Aid. What would you do, every Council member, if your Council monthly was reduced to $500/month, and all not just some of your benefit package was eliminated? Would you scream? You betcha.
Yet you expect the private sector to "suck it up." Your comments in a variety of words are right out of the Das Kapital; after all you are the Capitalist Class and you have been robbing the workers for decades.
We are tired of you. We are tired of being degraded because we have been the Capitalist Class.
The next time you try to get a job outside of politics list your accomplishments. I raised taxes, I raised fees, I took property off the tax rolls and then told the rest to pay, I refused to listen to anyone but my ego. Then see how employable you are.
Good article.
At an early meeting with Ms Harmon after she was elected (appointed?) she looked at me straight in the face and claimed of course the city needed to subsidize downtown housing, so subsidized residents could use the extra money to patronize downtown businesses.
Essentially I am supposed to pay her, so she can enjoy doing things on my dime? This was her reasoning, that drives her one city council vote.
We do not need more "affordable housing", we need a whole lot more affluent resident, market rate housing. Who can afford to both live here and patronize local businesses at the same time. No more dead enders like Ms Harmon, who exist here only due to mandated hand-outs from others?
A prior city attorney bragged the intent of the SB Housing Authority building ever more units was in fact to be in direct competition with private landlords. A true socialist state. Why are we doing this to ourselves? When so few vote, and the city forces never put their real agenda on the table. Yet they admit to it in private, with a smirk.
What is so galling is the supposed elite backing this attitude for decades are now seeing the city crumble. There is a supposed "we are so swell" organization that has their nose in the air attitude until recently. Now quietly they are sweating. They backed them, they ignored reality because they are so swell. Must be tough to know your long term arrogance is costing the city and south county dearly.
Obscene utility, parking, tax and other fee revenue is required to pay the obscene compensation packages of city employees. Yesterday we read that the city administrator is compensated $430,000 yet still needed to hire a deputy to accomplish a diaphanous set of performance goals. I discovered that the previous owner of my home built a wall 10 feet beyond the property line onto an adjacent parcel which he also owned. He subsequently sold the adjoining parcel leaving me with the task of adjusting the property line maps. The current owner of the adjoining parcel and I both want to do this and have agreed on a fair price. The city will require hearings, reviews and other nonsense which I am told will take over a year and over 100k in fees. Got to pay for those salaries somehow I suppose.
Bonnie, you always write such informative articles on the running of Santa Barbara. What a vicious cycle the city has made for it constituents who are trying to earn a fair living in this town. Thank you for your tireless work.
Painful to read, but right on Bonnie. Those of us involved with rental property completely understand. It is an adversarial relationship with the city of Santa Barbara from breaking ground to renting units. Removing a tenant who is irresponsible, disruptive and/or doesn't pay rent either on time or at all is an egregiously, painful and costly experience. When the rates drop a bit our rental properties go on the market and the money gets shuffled to America…such as Utah or Idaho where owing investment property is not considered a sin. I am not alone as I'm sure a number of people reading this are aware.
The water situation in SB is beyond immoral...not just the cost...the policies. God forbid if you have an undetected leak...usually irrigation. The water charge per cubic foot exponentially raises. They may give you forgiveness one time. But that's it. We had a situation where we had two events...ironically a St Jude statute fell over and broke a supply. They forgave one....not St. Jude. Ended up with a $5000 water bill for 90 days. 100% true.
If a customer was able to dramatically cut back their water consumption to offset the inordinate consumption for they will not give you credit for the offset. They want your money for that temporary event. It's a "got ya" event. Even if your annual water consumption actually does not increase or potentially decreases, they don't care....you're going to pay for that single event.
.
Again, it's an adversarial relationship with the City of Santa Barbara. Agree w/ Polly 'vote them the hell out"! Need to put together a slate of candidates for that purpose and we need to financially support the effort.
Is Christmas about Christ or cars, TVW?
Theo, stay focused on today's column
Not interested.
Both.
Nope. It's about Christ. Not worldly idols or dual masters.
yawn.
You're not making yourself look any better.
That's the good news... It's hard to improve perfection..
Amen.
Insurance on our rental was $1,600.00 last year and $7,100.00 this year.
Then add in all the increases the city and state have demanded.
Too bad we’ve elected ideological bureaucrats instead of people who understand the real world and truly care about everyone in this town.
Some service stations will list on the pump the amount of money that's collected by government for every gallon of gas. Obviously the government makes more selling gas than the gas station does.. I'd like to see landlords do the same. Every month the tenant should get a note from the landlord telling him what percentage of their rent goes to what agency or insurance. Mortgage interest, etc.... perhaps they would see the villain is not the landlord, but it's the powers that be.
Some landlords are absolutely the villain, they charge ridiculous amounts for even small apartments while also having ridiculous policies, why are you trying to absolve them and blaming only the government?
Do you have any experience with owning or managing rental properties? What qualifies as "ridiculous amounts" or "ridiculous policies"? Examples, real, or imagined.?
Real; Not allowing a renter to have potted plants outside in the back of a studio apartment. That's genuinely asinine considering they don't even affect the property value.
As for experience- I don't need any to know how dumb it is to think someone putting potted plants outside, specifically with acces to the sun is absurd and petty. We're already paying, let us put our plants down.
Got it.
Credit to you Bonnie, for digging deep and going granular on data affecting our local rental market, and economy in general. Doing this amount of analysis simply does not exist with any other local “news source.” While you are doing actual reporting and journalism, uncovering causation, too often local sites like The Independent, Edhat and Newsfakers are busy spreading misinformation and lefty talking points, while foaming at the mouth over the “Orange Dragon!”
Speaking of Dale Francisco, kudos to him for debating Hanna Beth “Taxin” Jackson over local energy policy on KEYT last night. Mr. Francisco, calmly presenting his facts based on economic realities, while “Jacko” babbles predictable talking points from the EDC.
Thank goodness for term limits.
Another great article Bonnie. A lot of very good responses. But let's face it. At every level of government, the Democratic Party has an unbreakable majority and they are more extreme in their socialism today. Until the California Republican party becomes competitive, nothing will change. Individuals are left to try to fight their battles against city council dictatorship. In the end, only protests in the streets over the the damage to the majority of voters will the there be a sea change.
The city refuses to admit it, but CalPERS city employee promised pension obligations gobble up more and more city tax revenues every year. Come clean, City of Santa Barbara. You did this to us.
If being a landlord becomes unaffordable, then the owners sell. The government benefits from: 1. The capital gains tax paid on the "profit", 2. The income tax received when the R.E. Agents pay their taxes, 3. The increase in property taxes on the re-assessed/market value of the property. They may SAY that they want rent stabilization, but I don't think they perceive it as benefitting their budget, or salaries/pensions. And so it will continue...until people truly get fed up and begin defying demands or step up. Why do we need The City to negotiate with Marborg for us? Why can't we just cut The City out as a middle man? Why can't we do this with most of the public works projects that WE pay for? We do not need to by PAYING these officials. We just need some ethically minded community members to fill the roll. Imagine that some people might run for CC and say, "I am here to help. I do not need to receive a salary"! There are plenty who volunteer in our community. Will anyone step up and into these rolls to VOLUNTEER to get us back on course? Are there any TRUE leaders among us?
Good question Leslie: “Why do we need The City to negotiate with Marborg for us?” City, County interference is essential to ensuring control of markets and “cross subsiding” whereby you pay more for the same exact service than I do or vice versa. For example Marborg: What is free in the City, is a charge in Montecito as per local government mandate. The ‘cost to serve law’ apparently does not apply to private contracts.
Insofar as water, City inept staff negotiated a bad deal for all SBWD Customers with Montecito Water District (MWD). City customers pay more than MWD Customers for water provided by SBWD despite SBWD customers paying twice for desal facilities, annual permit fees, maintenance, etc. Justification for MWD customers paying less than City water customers was: ‘good neighbor policy’.
How SBWD monthly bills are loaded is a topic NOT addressed in this excellent article. Only top tier SBWD customers pay for staff, office space, facilities, and administrative costs; whereas, MWD fairly and transparently spreads these costs to all customers. City rationale: tier 2 and 3 users must subsidize tier 1 to ensure everyone can “afford”water. Reminds me of City Council’s rental affordability policy: I must pay a higher rent for my unit to subsidize the occupant of the affordable unit.
It’s all Democrat Divisiveness at play. We’re totally controlled by our rulers.
In the County, (Noleta) I pay Marborg for trash service directly. I pay Goleta Sanitary on my property tax bill, and Goleta Water for water directly, same with gas and electricity. Also my sewer rate is not linked to water consumption.
Definitely a middle man in SB.
Leslie, on their new list of suggested ways to increase revenue, they want a slice from when you sell your property... They suggested any property over 2.5 million.
Two guaranteed campaign winners in this state:
1. Tax the rich
2. Teachers* .......support XYZ (*unions)
Guard against this duplicity every time you see it.
Denice, the $2.5 million figure applies to any property selling at $2.5 million or above. It’s just one item on the city’s list of roughly 200 proposed revenue ideas. I’ll get the list and write about it—winter break should give me the time.
Wait, what? Gen Z city staffers want to impose capital gain taxes on real estate? How is this even constitutional? Talk about a kick in the ass as you’re walking out the door!
The county gets 1% of every real estate sale so I guess the city could tax them too.
They, unlike us, never review how to pare down expenses.
Meanwhile, the City of Santa Barbara can be real SOB’s when THEY are the landlords! This, after the owners of the historic Harbor Restaurant spent millions on renovations and upgrades, removing rotten, moldy and hazardous materials. How many meals must the owners serve in order to break even on the $60k monthly rent? The alternative? Another restaurant goes under and the City gets nothing, while dozens lose their jobs!
https://www.noozhawk.com/harbor-restaurant-owners-sue-city-of-santa-barbara-claiming-unconscionable-lease-terms/
LT, Anchor Rose at the Harbor is now closed. One has to ask: was the rent too high?
Ventura just raised the water and sewer rates! Voters had no say. No accountability!
Very good article.
I came down with a last-minute flu/cold bug, forcing me to renege on my invitation to join in the "Santa Barbara Current" Christmas and anniversary festivities at "Moby Dick's" at the end of Stearn's Wharf. Inasmuch as I don't drive, I "missed out" also on the unexpected new parking tariff of $8.00 just to patronize one of Santa Barbara's longtime iconic restaurants. Ugh! Just another tone-deaf means of sticking it to taxpayers and customers trying to keep Santa Barbara afloat as a prime destination for both locals and tourists. It was stressful running a business back East in my day - but we felt the local government was sympathetic and acted as our partners. I can't imagine the stress today to making a profit in the toxic, anti-business environment of California and Santa Barbara City and County. Governments out here are antagonistic, to say the least, toward the very enterprises who produce the taxes that pay the bloated salaries and pensions of bureaucrats who for all intents and purposes produce nothing (but get paid much).
Excellent well written article. I agree with author 100%. I thought/hoped when we elected a "business person" for Mayor some of these unfair practices would change.
Daniel, it can't change with one vote...
Sadly, Randy is out numbered.
WE need to do better and organize to oust these grifters.
The switch ten years ago to district elections made sure the mayor, the one person who is required to elected at large, is little more than a ceremonial position with no clout over 6 squabbling, separate districts, often elected with only a few hundred total votes. In our city of 80,000 persons.
The switch to district elections was intentionally designed to marginalize and eliminate the voices from the former "Golden Triangle" who always had a more concentrated voter turn out which in turn gave them sway for years by their larger voter participation ... who in fact did demonstrate a lick of business sense and wider community purpose.
Voter participation no longer guides this city; only narrow special interests bearing no linkage to the majority voter turn-out any longer. This shows now in the city's steady decline and current fiscal recklessness.
(NB: Golden Triangle voters: Eucalyptus Hill, Riviera, Upper East, San Roque - high voter participation who did hold sway in the past, but are now reduced to only a single district representative. This now sole district unfortunately elected one of the more destructive voices on our current city council, and often in direct opposition to our sole at-large mayor.)
The Golden triangle helped elect Kristin Sneddon. Sneddon reps D4 from Olive Mill Rd along City’s Coast Village Road and the Montecito Club, across Eucalyptus Hill (Alston Road), continuing along the Riviera (APS) onward to San Rogue. This D4 Golden area has high home ownership comprised of many government, taxpayer dependent jobholders.
Sneddon will be running for Mayor. Mayor Randy Rowse has not been able to influence or message effectively which is required to successfully govern. Rowse will be running for reelection along with others yet to announce.
Will there be new faces running? There are 3 open seats in D4,5,6; plus the Mayor.
While District elections have adversely impacted Santa Barbara, strong financially literate prepared informed candidates can save us. Support them!
I worked on the new district line drawing study groups ten years go and it was admitted out loud, they wanted to cram all of the former informal "Golden Triangle" voters into one single district to intentionally dilute their vote on city council to only one vote among the total of seven - including the at large mayor.
While handing at least two districts to the still notoriously low-voter participation "racially- protected" city neighborhoods (Eastside and Westside), where it only takes a few hundred votes total to win a full seat and vote on city council.
Do the new city election math:
High voter turn-out district, now gets only one city council vote.
Two very low voter turn-out districts, now get two city council votes.
In case anyone still wonders what happened to our small city?