Covering Up Policy Failures in Santa Barbara County
Operating under the camouflage of contrived civility and concocted existential crises, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors majority (Supervisors Lee, Capps, and Hartmann) has deflected media and public scrutiny away from on-going substantive problems and its failure to tackle real solutions.
Other than the Board majority regularly beating up the Sheriff for jailing criminals and incurring overtime pay, the Board meetings are love fests with the Supervisors fawning over their cozily deferential staff and the county’s coterie of ideologically left-oriented government-funded not for profits and foundations. It’s a team approach under the slogan: “One County – One Future.” As Linguist - Philosopher Noam Chomsky observed:
The point of public relations slogans like “Support our troops” is that they don’t mean anything… That’s the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody’s going to be against, and everybody’s going to be for. Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn’t mean anything. Its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something: Do you support our policy?
That’s the one you’re not allowed to talk about.
The patronage is thick. The South County Democrat Machine harvests the campaign contributions, ballots, and its own promotions to higher office. The average citizen pays for it all in higher County taxes, higher State taxes, and relentlessly rising fees along with poverty inducing foregone business and job growth, agricultural restrictions, severe barriers to housing development, and deferred maintenance of roads, parks, and buildings.
Meanwhile serious program scrutiny and oversight are ignored, banned as politically incorrect or bad for staff morale. It has been years since the Board reviewed the proposed budget in any detail. Instead, the Board spends millions of dollars by inflating the County staff, hiring consultants, promulgating and enforcing new regulations, adopting trendy bleeding edge “crises” driven projects, and banning whole industries.
Three Fake Existential Crises: “Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste”
1) Climate Alarmism
The Board has adopted three successive Climate Action Plans over the past two decades, all of which have failed to reduce CO2.
The world has been warming up over the last 15,000 years since the end of the last glacial epoch. This natural cycle is ignored, and its impacts are hidden from public disclosure. Recent short-term trends are attributed to human use of oil, gas, and coal, over the past century and a half. Climate alarmists and their Socialist cronies conveniently blame wildfires, disease, storms, annual heat waves, too much rain, too little rain, sea level rise, food insecurity, immigration problems, and mental disorders on the CO2 increase allegedly driven by fossil fuel use. CO2 is a small component of naturally occurring greenhouse gases.
In this regard, the Board has never held a public session or received staff analysis on the validity of the assumed “existential crisis” in the first place. Just what is the status of the dire warnings of the past four decades? Would the Board ever deign to hear a countervailing expert or two, prior to basing its overarching strategic policy on this controversial and politicized phantom?
Would it allow the staff to list the plusses and minuses for various sub-policies? What would be the State, national, and world impacts if Santa Barbara County eliminated every single metric-ton of CO2 generated from within the county?
2) Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI): Similarly, the Board has embarked on a major DEI crusade under which the entire staff is being “culturally transformed” to embrace the outdated and debunked doctrine. In fact, when implementing the dubious program in 2024, the only justification in the entire lengthy agenda item stated:
On December 1, 2020, following the murder of George Floyd and decades-long recognition of injustices towards members of our community, the Board held a special meeting and received a presentation on efforts to develop a systematic approach on advancing racial equity and inclusion in Santa Barbara County. On January 26, 2021, the Board approves a Statement of Commitment to equity and inclusion which commenced the County’s journey of self-evaluation and reflection and commitment to organizational values, policies, practices, and service delivery, which specifically and directly impacts countywide inequities and injustices.
How will management determine if employees are successfully completing their “journey of self-evaluation and reflection?” For decades, the County has run a mandated online course on preventing harassment in the workplace. Everyone is required to take it every two years.
Will the County’s DEI Manager, who is based in the HR Department, indoctrinate a cadre of DEI Commissars to test employees on the new more rigorous historical and cultural paradigm? What about the volunteer members of the County’s numerous Boards and Commissions? Will the policies be spread to purchasing contracts for consultants, not-for-profit service providers, or construction contractors? Are completion of a program test and a statement of confessed guilt part of job requirements used for performance evaluations and promotions?
Which classes of employees are to be subject to the process?
What are examples of the “decade’s long countywide inequities and injustices?” Since at least 1990, and except for the period 2005-09, the Board has been controlled by the left majority. Accordingly, they must share in responsibility for some of the more recent “injustices.”
In mentally calculating injustices, was the Board thinking of the Spanish conquest and feudalization (and near extinction) of the Chumash people in the late 18th and early 19th Centuries? Ironically, and throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s, the Board resisted every attempt by the Chumash Tribe to acquire land to build a resort hotel and homes. Only external Acts of Congress and the State broke the political and physical boundaries.
Note that there is also another DEI staff position in the County CEO’S office entitled “Inclusion Initiatives Manager.” What new initiatives have been promulgated?
Another flaring irony is that the same Board that professes to correct racist and discriminatory policies of the past and present adopts policies that contradict that aim. For example, the left Board majority just doubled down on perpetuating poverty by banning new oil wells and directing a multi-year study on the feasibility of buying out existing wells. It adopted the ordinance over pleas to reject the policy by the north County Supervisors, the employees of the oil companies, support companies, and farmers.
Many farmers and ranchers possess oil royalty rights that enhance the value of their land. The Board majority illegally took away this value without just compensation. Hypocritically, the Board majority ignored the fact that the oil jobs are especially important to Hispanic residents.
Perhaps the Board majority will recruit major AI data centers to replace the jobs. After all, the entire County is sitting next to the largest recyclable static source of data center cooling water on the planet.
A further irony is that Santa Barbara County has the second-highest poverty rate among California’s 58 counties. Reportedly 16% of the population (70,000) residents live below the poverty line. The Women’s Fund of Santa Barbara reports that the Hispanic population is disproportionatley affected by poverty in Santa Barbara County.
3) The Tajiguas Recycling Project: Another long-term fetish is overzealous refuse recycling. Over many decades Santa Barbara County has been a leader and has exceeded State requirements for source reduction and recycling, reaching a waste stream diversion of 80%. The success was determined to be insufficient. Accordingly, the Board resolved to shoot the moon by contracting with a turnkey company (Mustang – MSG Investors) to build and operate a $150 million (much more when interest on the debt service is included) trash separator and wet garbage digester (turning the garbage into mulch). The goals were to achieve 100% recycling, to avoid running out of landfill space, and to forestall expansion of the existing landfill.
The project has been constructed and constitutes a major industrial facility on the unique and environmentally fragile Gaviota Coast – sort of Youngstown, Ohio in paradise. The County subjects everyone else to stringent restrictions in Gaviota, including how many cattle can be grazed, banning most homes, and attempting to void any historical permits.
After a very rough start (the project did not work) the County fired Mustang, shipped trash out of County, and determined to expand the landfill. All of this is costing a yet un-summarized millions of dollars. Mustang has filed a $60 million dollar plus costs lawsuit against the County.
The Board should schedule a regular public hearing and disclose at least:
1. How much above the original design, construction, and equipment budget is the project costing?
2. How much above the original annual operating budget per year is the project costing?
3. How much is the landfill expansion costing?
4. Is the County still exporting trash out of the County? How much at what cost?
5. What recycling rate is the County experiencing above that which existed prior to the installation of the project? That is, what is the new increment contributed by the project? The County website is very out of date and muddled in this regard.
6. How does current revenue from sales of recyclables (separate from landfill gas that was previously being sold) compare with projections?
7. Will an independent outside expert engineering firm certify that the facility is performing as planned?
8. What happens when the landfill expansion is full?
9. What is the forecast for tip rates (for garbage trucks to dump at the facility) and the consequent monthly rates passed through to residents, businesses, industry, etc.?
10. How much has the County expended on defending the Mustang lawsuit to date?
Stay Tuned for Next Week Part II: The Deflected Policy Mistakes
1. How is the new separate Fire Communications Center performing?
2. Are 3CE rates now higher than PG&E?
3. How can the County work with Sable to generate revenue rather than spending millions on lawsuits?
4. If the County criminal justice policy is diversion, alternative sentencing, restorative justice, aspirational justice, etc., should it build more jail space? If those programs really work, how much more jail pace is required? Where is justice for the real victims in a therapeutic system that turns the perpetrators into victims?
5. The capital infrastructure deficit is still untouched. What does the Board plan?
6. What is the ROI on the KPMG management studies? They spent $5.2 million on the consultant reviews and recommendations.
7. What is the Board’s legislative program position on voter ID?
8. Is the Fire Union setting up to take another run at the ambulance contract? Where is the Board on that issue?
9. The County suffers a permanent structural financial deficit. The Board is banking on pension UAAL reductions in 2030’s to free up revenue. This should be modeled and proven out. How long would the benefit last? What does it mean that the County has a mature system with more retirees than working employees? What if the market has a couple of bad years?
10. The County is a player in the homeless industrial complex. It is subsidizing expensive housing and continued addiction.
11. How is the installation of Work Day (the new multi–million dollar financial and HR system) going? How much over the budget for the system and consultants have they spent thus far? What do the employees in the trenches think of its functionality? Is the production version actually up and running?
•••
Mike Brown is a retired 43 career city manager/county executive officer who served as Santa Barbara County CEO for 14 years (1996 –2010) and previously as City Manager in Berkeley and Tucson. He also held executive positions in Connecticut, including Chief Deputy Commissioner of the State Department of Housing and Deputy City Manager of Hartford. After retirement from the County, he served for 14 years as the Government Affairs Director for COLAB of San Luis Obispo County from which he retired in 2025.
******
Correction: In the October 9, 2026 Letters to the Editor (“Background Check, Anyone?”), a contributor incorrectly linked City Council candidate Gabe Escobedo to a DUI. The accompanying screenshot was of a different person with the same name. Mr. Escobedo has confirmed he has “never been arrested, charged, or convicted of a DUI.” (The bankruptcy filing referenced in the letter was his.) We have removed the false DUI statement and apologize to Mr. Escobedo and our readers for the error.
******
******
Ballots are out. This is the first weekend you can vote them.
If you plan to vote early, start with California Current’s proposition guide—written from the only point of view that actually pays the bill: the overworked, under-appreciated California taxpayer.
We don’t hand you a cheat sheet and walk away. Every recommendation is backed by clear headed research. Click the link, read the case, then mark your ballot with your eyes open.
Please consider sharing this easy-to-use guide with your neighbors.
NO on 1. The Con Job
NO on 2. Supersizing California’s Slush Fund
NO on 3. The Forever Tax
NO on 4. Your Money, Their Campaigns
NO on 5. Recall Revenge
NO on 37. Robin Hood in Reverse
NO on 38. Pork Barrel Science
YES on 39. Trust, but Verify
NO on 40. Tax Billionaires Today, Tax Everybody Tomorrow
YES on 41. Sergey’s Silver Bullets
YES on 42. Sergey’s Silver Bullets
YES on 43. Stop Getting Steamrolled by Special Taxes
NO on 44. Unions to Draw More Blood
YES on 45. Pondering Prop 45
Note: Props 41 and 42 share one article. The Prop 44 article publication pending.
Community Calendar:
Mr. Brown, wonderful to see you back in the game!!!
I'll start here.
The Tajiguas Recycling Project ---
A Joke of massive proportions. It was a left show and tell from the start. 3rd District Supervisor takes a trip to Germany on taxpayer money to see how they are doing their trash handling. In the mean time a Santa Barbara resident (Mission Canyon), a Democrat, a Ph.D., a close friend of mine, and one of the worlds Bio-Mass conversion experts sent repeated letters to the County stating he could fix the problem, and make money for the County in the process. The 3 Sisters ignored him and went on their merry way.
Imagine what the long term outcome would have been if they had listened to him!
You ask 10 questions this world expert had already answered in his proposal.
Climate Alarmism---
The group I belong to, Cars Are Basic, found a amazing peer reviewed study looking at global warming and the supposed average temperature of the earth over thousands of years. The outcome was and is the average temperature of the world was and is 4 degrees warmer then alarmist have stated. We referenced this study, sent copies of it to the County BOS, and the Santa Barbara City Council. Never once has either body referenced this study. We also referenced the Spanish Climate records that stated long term heat and drought caused the destruction of the Ranchero system, crippling the economic basis of the then Spanish Empire on the Pacific rim.
Your statement "This natural cycle is ignored" is right on.
The Budget ---
August 2025 reviewing the BOS Budget and proposed wage increases CAB stated the County was broke. Not one Supervisor addressed out statement. In November 2025 the County officially recognized it was and is bleeding red ink and they are in essence broke.
Mr. Brown, thank you for this and speaking out. Looking forward to your next post.
A brilliant analysis, I can't wait for part 2. Hope you will also mention the big pay increase they gave themselves recently.
We should think about how this article and part 2 can be used to the greatest effect to compel action. I have never before read such an explicit take down of the incompetence and political malfeasance of a public service body. Where is the Santa Barbara Grand Jury in this litany of incompetence and misuse of taxpayers' money?
Publishing in Santa Barbara Current is not enough to deal with the anger taxpayers must feel at the multitude of failures described here, with more to come.