Saying “NO” to Measure P
By Derek Hanley
Back to First Principles on Measure P
In examining complex issues, it is always advisable and worthwhile to go back to first principles as a way of understanding the issue at hand.
Measure P asks local taxpayers to contribute approximately $440 Million ($200 million for the bond and $240 million in interest on the borrowed money) through 2060.
First Principle 1: What was the original purpose?
Community colleges in America were established to provide accessible, affordable, education and vocational training to local populations. Their aim was to enhance workforce skills, promote life-long learning, and serve as a bridge for students transitioning from high school to four-year universities. This approach was rooted in the idea of democratizing education, making it available to diverse groups in the community, and addressing the specific needs of local communities.
The first principle, therefore, is that the primary objective for all community colleges, including Santa Barbara City College (SBCC) is solely to satisfy the educational needs of the local community. That is why there are approximately 1,000 community colleges in America to focus on the needs of their local communities.
First Principle 2: What is the current state?
Along with other community colleges in America, SBCC has been in a state of decline over the last ten years. Student enrollment at SBCC has declined from 19,331 to 12,575. But 4,199 of these students study 100% on-line and have no use for campus buildings. Of the remaining 8,376 students 4,900 study part-time on-line and part-time in classrooms.
If we assume that an equivalent full-time on-line number is one-third of 4,900 part-time on-line students for calculating campus usage, then the number of full-time students not using campus facilities one hundred percent of the time increases by 1,600 to 5,799, leaving 6,776 students as full-time users of campus facilities.
It is no surprise that locals who walk the campus describe it as a ghost town.
We know that among the student population at SBCC there are a significant number of students who do not originate from Santa Barbara County and others who are from foreign countries. Not only do these students adversely affect the local housing shortages, but they violate the first principle noted above.
Why should Santa Barbara taxpayers vote for Measure P when many of the students are not from the local community?
You might also like to know that SBCC’s current annual budget is $224,347,416.
First Principle 3: Who knows the truth of the behind-the-scenes facts?
If you don't know enough about SBCC and Measure P to make an informed decision of whether to vote "No” or "Yes” to accept the tax burden of another $440 million donation to SBCC, seek the information you need from an expert in the pros and cons of this enormous amount in additional new taxes.
Fortunately, there is a knowledgeable source from whom to elicit that information that will help you decide. Marsha Croninger – the longest-serving trustee on the Board of Trustees – voted "No" on the proposal to advance Measure P to a public vote and she has published an Op-Ed in Newsmakers that details all the reasons for her "No" decision. It is a very informative disclosure of the facts. Please go to Newsmakers on-line; read it before you vote.
•••
Vote for Karen Jones
By Karen Jones
“Convicted” of Visiting the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021
I noticed that SBCurrent stayed away from endorsing Special District elections in your otherwise complete Voting Guide. I encourage anyone living in the Santa Ynez Community Services District to vote for me, Karen Jones, an incumbent Director. I am an excellent representative of the District, and I am the only stake holder on the board. The other Directors either rent or are on septic. I am also the only Director with perfect meeting attendance.
Finally, a vote for me is a vote against political persecution. I am currently serving a 90-day house arrest sentence after pleading guilty to a single misdemeanor of “entering and remaining in a restricted area.” I dared to go to the Capitol on January 6, 2021, to peacefully protest what I still believe was a rigged election. The judge specifically stated her intention to keep me from participating in as many election cycles as possible because I am a “danger to democracy.”
I hope voters will recognize the courage it takes to continue to “fight, fight, fight” for our freedom when the full weight of the government and its institutions identify one as the enemy. Donald Trump is my inspiration because he loves America as much as I love America.
(Editor’s note: We apologize for missing this Santa Ynez Community Services District election, as we would have heartily recommended and endorsed Karen Jones for this office. Which we now, of course, do exactly that. Ms. Jones’s travails and legal expenses over the past three years have been an uncalled-for and frightening strain on her time and her resources. Those would would like to contribute to Karen Jones’support fund can do so here. SBCurrent has been aware of her situation for a long time, but feared that running an interview with her, or supporting her publicly, would only have added to her legal misfortune. We are hoping that, should Donald Trump prevail in November, one of his first officials acts will be to pardon all those “convicted” of the offense of peacefully visiting the nation’s capital on January 6, 2021, and that Ms. Jones will be among the hundreds of those to be pardoned. – J.B.)
•••
What makes Special Districts so Special?
Special Districts, such as the one Karen Jones is running for as Santa Ynez Community Service District Director, are some of the least-known political offices in Santa Barbara County. Think of them as the hierarchic equivalent of dog catcher if that position were still an elected one (in Santa Barbara County it is not). The boards of these special districts deal with the mundane but critical issues of water, sewer, airport management, fire protection, and parks and recreation. Special Districts are the ground floor of local politics.
Unlike better-known elected offices such as school boards and city councils, few candidates running for Special Districts have websites or campaign literature. You might pass candidate road signs or receive an invite to a local forum, but other than that, quality information is sparse. To learn who is who and what is what, you must ask around… a lot. One of the reasons it took longer to build our Special District endorsement list is the time to reach out to the candidates themselves or those who know them well.
Nearly all the candidates we have spoken with have thrown their hats into the ring out of a deep sense of public service. Not the cynical “public service” of highly paid self-serving bureaucrats spending their short work weeks jockeying for larger pensions, but in the original meaning of the term: to serve the public. Several retired candidates, including Carol Redhead, describe running for a special district as a chance to give back. Others, like Peggy Golden, see serving on a special district as a way to get involved. Still others, such as self-proclaimed political neophyte James Brandeland called out specific issues, for example, how Goleta water rates “have risen hundreds of percent over the last few years.”
We hope he is elected and can help turn off the water price inflation spigot.
Within many Special Districts, voters are spoiled with solid candidates even if they are not yet household names. Steve Dietrich, Jorge Magana, Glen McLeod, and Robert Romero would each make excellent Mission Hills Community Service District Directors. Yet, there is only room to elect three. So, too, with the Montecito Fire Protection District, at least four competent and qualified candidates – Michael Lee, Sylvia Easton, Joe Pennino, and Jason Copus are on the ballot – yet there are only three seats available.
Call for Mr. Marx
In contrast to this cornucopia of talent vying for scarce seats, none of the six candidates running for the Isla Vista Recreation and Park District Directorship are worthy of your vote. Instead, if you have this selection on your ballot, we suggest writing in “Karl Marx” for each of these three seats.
At least Mr. Marx, should he win, would be less radical.
Santa Barbara Current’s Endorsement List (Nov 5, 2024 Election)
Prior to 2010, SBCC had exemplary leadership and long serving, non-partisan trustees who understood they were spending your tax dollars. That is the college that earned the yes votes for the 2008 SBCC bond issue. That was the college that also earned the, albeit dubious, Aspen Award. (Disclosure, I was privileged to be one part of that former SBCC team.)
After 2010, radical partisan Democrats took over the college and it slipped into slow chaos with a material leadership vacuum for the past decade. You are not passing the same bond issue today, that you passed in 2008, because you now have an entirely different board of trustees and college leadership history that will be spending it.
The current SBCC has not earned your renewed trust. It can in the future if/when both board and long term leadership earn back that former community trust.
Otherwise, you have no assurance this recent failed history of college leadership will not continue to mismanage a new source of funds, which currently papers over this past decade of SBCC partisan chaos.
We see this same partisan driven chaos playing out today at every level of our state operations. The past due bills are now demanding immediate payment at every level. SBCC is symptomatic of the whole, when this state became a one-party, free spending political tyranny several decades ago.
State is on fiscal fire. More bond issue demands will not put these fires out.
Measure “P” is the culmination of a typical confidence game played on the unsuspecting, tax paying public. That is to say, misuse of public funds, letting the physical plant become dilapidated and unusable due to incompetence and supporting a bloated staff that is unsustainable.
This is what the liberal agenda does. They oversee a massive bureaucracy, fail to operate it properly and expect the public to bailout it out.
Enough is enough, time to stop rewarding incompetence. Instead of a taxpayer bailout of nearly half a billion dollars, we should be advocating for our District Attorney to launch a Grand Jury investigation for misappropriation of public funds and fraud.