Take Santa Barbara Down
by Bonnie Donovan
They Continue to take Santa Barbara Down
Let’s go back before Covid…
We had an open State Street and the Charrette. When the Charrette was presented, they wanted State Street closed. They wanted UCSB, Westmont, et al to move downtown.
They wanted bicycles on State Street and throughout the city; they wanted free use of our sidewalks and streets as a trial project. They wouldn’t pay rent on city property and would not drive a powered vehicle around to change batteries; they would use a bike with a trailer.
UCSB, Westmont, and others are setting up downtown. All properties off property tax now.
Can you imagine owning nearly half a block on State Street? And that’s not all. Add the entire East Gutierrez Street from State to Anacapa Street – and half the block on Anacapa Street – and no one is paying property tax on any of it.
Hell, who needs Prop 13 when this kind of deal is being offered?
Table 1: RHNA Affordability Categories Very Low (0–50% AMI) Low (50–80% AMI) Moderate (80–120% AMI) Above Moderate (120+% AMI) Total 2,147 + 1,381 + 1,441 + 3,032 = 8,001 new units.
So, Peter Lewis built housing on Gutierrez street on what had been the Staples parking lot. There are now 78 units on that land that have reduced our “Regional Housing Needs Assessment” (RHNA) numbers.
Remember: the State of California demanded housing be provided, and the County ordered the city of Santa Barbara to provide 8,001 units and that they would be made available by 2035.
Let's see how this works out.
SB County sues UCSB for not building housing for its increased enrollments.
So, if UCSB does purchase the Staples building, the 78 apartments, and the Reed building, will these 78 units be taken off SB City RHNA numbers and be put on UCSB’s credit?
Do we not have anyone within the city, county or state representing us, protecting us?
Santa Barbara is going down the drain, and fast, so let's go to Peter Lewis’s 78 units on Gutierrez that has always been tied to the Staples building and Reeds Appliance building…
Is this still off the count of the 8,001 RHNA numbers the County is making us meet or does it go to the Count of UCSB?
Will all three parcels no longer pay property tax?
More From Our Readers
Question. How much property does UCSB own in California?
(Not just locally. They own property in Gaviota, Summerland, Carpinteria, Bishop, Mammoth, Sedgwick Ranch in Santa Ynez, Santa Cruz Island, etc.)
How large is UCSB’s Deferred Maintenance backlog?
How many buildings are slated to be demolished as a result of poor maintenance and buildings reaching end of life prematurely?
Is property that UCSB owns subject to County/State Property Tax?
What group at UCSB is overseeing the purchase and maintenance in perpetuity of the new property?
(Housing is one of the only groups on campus that makes money. Housing is twofold: student housing, and then there is another group that manages Staff and Faculty housing.)
Is UCSB using this property as a money-making venture and as an opportunity to meet housing mandates?
How much money did UCSB (not the late Charles Munger) spend on the planning and mock-ups, marketing, etc. for Munger Hall?
Why was that not used to address deferred maintenance, rather than being flushed down the toilet?
Answer. If I were Queen, I would dictate that the UC Regents would no longer be allowed to purchase or develop any property until all its deferred maintenance was dealt with. But I am an idealist that grew up with a conservative father. So, God help me. Ha ha.
SB1383
https://calrecycle.ca.gov/Organics/SLCP/collection/
https://mailchi.mp/santabarbaraca.gov/january-2025-sustainably-sb?e=99e351cab4
MarBorg
Question. Aside from the obvious standardization across municipalities of color coding, what does the new SB that requires the replacement of garbage cans, etc. actually accomplish?
How will the old cans be disposed of? If the answer is that they will be recycled, who will they be sold or shipped to, and what will they be recycled into? How do we know this?
Where are all the trash cans in California going that are not the correct colors according to SB 1383?
Answer: This is yet another huge f’ing example of waste.
Costs will get passed along to all of us and the cans will end up in a land fill. Unless someone can convince me that they will actually end up being recycled.
If someone does asserts that they will indeed end up being recycled, I would need to see a chain of title that shows where they go, who recycles them, and what they become.)
Another example of Sacramento losing the forest for the trees.
God help us all. And I say that in the sense of a true request for Him to do so!
Reply-To: City of Santa Barbara at Sustainability@SantaBarbaraCA.gov
AB2097 No Parking
Question: Two different people spoke at Open Public Comment at the last City Council meeting asking for help regarding AB2097. Two more projects going up this time on Chapala Street, again without any parking. The only reply they received was from Councilman Eric Friedman, who said they should contact their representatives from the state.
Answer: I contacted Steve Bennett’s office and the answer I received was “through your email, we see you are from SB; that is Gregg Hart’s district.”
So, I went to Gregg even though I know Steve Bennett was our representative at the time and Gregg Hart's response was that he “wasn’t in office at the time.” But I sent him an email wondering why he couldn’t write or present an addendum to AB2097, now that he is our representative.
I got no response.
After a few back-and-forth emails with Bennett's office, I finally received an email saying “they will forward my email to Sacramento” …
Still no answer.
Now on to Monique Limon, who either sat in the back and didn’t vote or didn’t show up for the vote at all.
No vote registered.
When will you start calling them out?
Why doesn't the City Council write our state representatives on our behalf?
Make California Great Again - throw out Gregg Hart and Monique Limon. Bring back political balance, fiscal sanity and common sense before this entire state is driven off the cliff.
The answer is staring us in the face. Throw out the Regional Housing Needs Assessments (RHNA). Reminder, the "state" who is telling us to do this is nothing more than the collective voices of those we elect to do this do us: Gregg Hart and Monique Limon.
RHNA is an artificial mandate in the first place, when the the state itself encourages both open borders and sanctuary cities. Which in turn manifested itself into very high birthrate illegal immigration. This current open borders status quo is subject to no laws, limits or accountability other than the demand now that local property owners are forced to accommodate these reckless increases in local population numbers that can no longer be absorbed under our previous and thoughtfully planned local development.
The current tight local housing marketplace is the only brake we have left, that counters this highly partisan Democrat agenda to keep growing more Democrat voters, and more easily harvested population-based, low voter registration "rotten borough" voting districts.
We need no other option than finally throwing out those who created and perpetuate this politically self-serving mandate - Assemblyman Gregg Hart and Senator Monque Limon. Guard against replacing them with more of the same. We are currently the victims of those elected to serve us; when they are required to be accountable only to us.