As California’s public school population steadily declines, Santa Barbara Unified School District teachers welcomed their youthful scholars back this week with a concerted campaign to reduce the brain rot inflicted by tech devices.

Julianna Lozada covered back-to-school proceedings for the News-Press and joins the gang on a new episode of Newsmakers TV to reprise her reporting on the biggest challenges and initiatives facing the district — at a time when two of five school board seats are on the ballot, raising the stakes over education controversies and for the tenure of Superintendent Hilda Maldonado.

Nick Welsh, always a ray of sunshine on the local news beat, discusses his good-news story detailing how Santa Barbara is outpacing other counties around the state in providing crucial, publicly funded child care services, and also breaks down the fond farewell accorded the county’s outgoing Chief Executive Officer Mona Miyasato, who is departing amid a flood of other retirements by administrators representing decades of experience and institutional knowledge.

Josh Molina, who has been industriously interviewing the 876 candidates running for Santa Barbara mayor and city council, joins the Angry Poodle and the genial host for a spirited round of heavyweight punditry, just over two months before Election Day.

Plus: Nick’s mysterious disappearance from the Zoom shot; Josh’s unseemly bid to steal clicks from Newsmakers by using an actual professional podcast studio; Jerry’s unprecedented streak of not ranting about rent control or e-bikes reaches two.

All this and more, right here, right now, on Newsmakers TV.

Check out the latest episode via YouTube below or by clicking this link. Our podcast is available on Apple, Spotify, or on SoundCloud. TVSB, Channel 17, airs the show every weeknight at 5 p.m. and at 9 a.m. on weekends. KCSB, 91.9 FM, broadcasts the program at 5:30 p.m. on weekends.

Leave a comment

By Nora Wallace

On Monday, security police held five news reporters at gunpoint at Vandenberg Space Force Base, a violation of the spirit of the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of the press.

I am absolutely incensed by this shameful spectacle, and it should outrage every citizen of Santa Barbara County who cares or is concerned by, the erosion of our sacred rights.

For 25 years as a Santa Barbara County reporter, Vandenberg was one of my primary beats. I drove through those gates countless times to cover launches, missile tests, ceremonies, accidents, wildfires, personnel changes and stories of national significance. I worked with Vandenberg Public Affairs and alongside several of the reporters and news organizations involved in what happened today.

According to an account by veteran Noozhawk reporter Janene Scully, journalists who had been invited to Vandenberg to cover a ceremony were traveling in a convoy behind a government vehicle carrying uniformed Public Affairs personnel.

They had identification. They had an escort. They were there because the military had asked them to be there.

Yet they ended up being held at gunpoint by military Security Police. When Janene called later and filled me in on what happened, I had to ask if she was joking. She absolutely was not.

Journalists are not the enemy. I understand perhaps better than most civilians that Vandenberg is not just another workplace. It is a classified military installation with extraordinarily important national security responsibilities. And given the state of the world right now, I absolutely understand the need for heightened vigilance and security.

But heightened security cannot become an excuse for a breakdown this serious.

Local journalists are not the enemy. They are professionals doing an increasingly difficult job --often with fewer people and fewer resources than ever -- because communities still deserve to know what is happening in the places where they live. Their work matters.

Reporters writing stories about or at Vandenberg routinely follow strict procedures to gain access and cover events. In the decades that I covered Vandenberg, no reporter that I know of ever disobeyed the rules to gain unauthorized access onto the restricted base.

The fact that young reporters at the beginning of their careers, veteran journalists and even military personnel could find themselves facing firearms while participating in an invited, escorted media event should concern every one of us.

It is an insult to the important role local media plays in our community.

A need for accountability. I hope there is a serious internal examination of how this happened, accountability for the breakdowns that allowed it to happen and assurances from base leadership that the journalists involved receive more than a shrug and an explanation that security comes first.

They deserve more than that for doing their jobs and trying to tell the story of Vandenberg’s national security role and its personnel.

And I hope the local media doesn’t just let this one go.

Lompoc resident Nora Wallace worked for 25 years as a reporter for the Santa Barbara News-Press.

Image: The gate at Vandenberg (KSBY).

Leave a comment

Kristen Sneddon, rejecting the maxim that Santa Barbara’s mayor is just a ribbon-cutting council member, says she would be a vocal and visible champion for the city, completing delayed projects and pushing back against the Trump administration.

Santa Barbara needs “a strong mayor in a weak mayor system,” the two-term council member said in an interview Sunday, implicitly criticizing retiring incumbent Mayor Randy Rowse as she asserted that the office has substantial unlocked potential — as a public bully pulpit, a hub of City Hall legislative strategy and a consensus-building clearinghouse for clashing community interests.

Sneddon told Newsmakers that most people believe Santa Barbara is headed in the right direction, based on her conversations with voters across the city, but want a mayor who will move ahead on “stalled out” projects like the State Street Master Plan and the endlessly debated rent stabilization ordinance — jabbing at chief rival and council colleague Eric Friedman for consistently voting with Rowse and blaming them for a lack of progress on bogged down city policies.

“People in Santa Barbara for the most part are happy with how things are, but they want to see motion, forward motion — they’re frustrated with how things get stalled out,” Sneddon said in her first in-depth interview of the campaign.

“In a weak mayor system, as we have, you need a strong mayor — a strong mayor who can make more of the position,” she added. “And I will say that it has not been fully embodied in the way that it could be.”

“I really believe that I’m the person for the moment right now,” Sneddon told Newsmakers.

Under Santa Barbara’s system of local government, the mayor is the only one of the seven city council members elected at large, with the others chosen in six neighborhood districts. Under the city’s “weak mayor” charter, it is City Administrator Kelly McAdoo, not elected officials, who wields direct power and authority over the bureaucracy and day-to-day management of more than 1,000 public employees and a total budget of $730 million.

But Sneddon said that as mayor she would be more assertive in working with the administrator, more collaborative in working closely with council colleagues about their concerns and legislative agendas, and more active in building community consensus by forming “a mayor’s cabinet of community members from different perspectives, different areas.”

“The mayor has the purview to set the agenda,” she said. “That is not something that has been done.”

State of play. Eleven weeks before the Nov. 3 election, the liberal Sneddon is still considered the front-runner in the mayor’s race, in part because she has the Democratic Party endorsement in a city with a heavily Democratic electorate, in an even-year midterm election that nationally will be a referendum on Donald Trump, whose public support has plummeted.

Friedman, however, shook up the race recently when campaign finance reports disclosed that he is outraising Sneddon 3-to-1. Sneddon also could lose votes to former school board president Wendy Sims-Moten, a fellow progressive who confirmed last week that she is running. Matt Kilrain, a waterfront denizen who won 131 votes in the 2021 mayor’s race, also is on the ballot.*

Among other factors, the long-running and contentious debate at City Hall over rent control — in the form of a rent stabilization ordinance scheduled to be back before council on Sept. 22, days before ballots are sent to voters — also could prove pivotal.

As a political matter, rent control is for Sneddon both a benefit and a liability. Although renters represent a majority of the city’s population, homeowners constitute a sizable portion of the electorate. With landlords and real estate interests expected to line up behind Friedman, Sneddon’s closest ally on rent stabilization is council member Wendy Santamaria — herself a tenant activist — who takes the most hardline positions on the issue and has become the most polarizing figure at City Hall.

With the council divided 4-3 on the issue, several of Sneddon’s comments were notable about several key issues involving rent stabilization, a month away from members casting decisive votes.

On the question of which units should be exempted from the ordinance, Sneddon offered a categorical statement in support of a list of exemptions proposed by the Housing Authority. On the question of what calculation should be used to determine a cap on rent increases, Sneddon said she is firmly committed to a 3 percent ceiling, but less so to using 60 percent of the Consumer Price Index as an annual alternative, which tenant groups favor. “I agree, 60 percent of CPI is hard,” she said. “And I’m hearing that a certain percentage, really 3 percent — I’ve heard, even from staunch people who don’t want to see this pass at all — that that would make the difference and make it doable.”

SB vs. Trump. Throughout the interview, Sneddon sought to contrast her vision of the mayor’s office with how Rowse has wielded it; notably, she said she strongly disagrees with the incumbent’s oft-stated belief that national and state issues should play no part in the business of city council, which instead should focus on clearly local concerns.

Sneddon said it is critical for elected officials to stand up publicly to the Trump administration on behalf of local residents menaced by the government’s mass deportation campaign and the brutality of immigration raids — as well as major cuts in federal programs for housing and other services.

“They are front and center,” Sneddon said of national political controversies and conflicts. “And right now, with the Trump administration, these issues with immigration and the terrorizing of people in our community — we don’t get to choose when to take that up. It’s here, front and center.

“I wish these weren’t things that were impacting Santa Barbara, or that we still got federal funding,” she added. “There are so many supportive services … the Housing Authority and Section 8 funding … mixed (immigration) status households that are going to lose their funding — we’re on the verge of hundreds of people who are going to lose their housing because of these (Trump) policies. And there are a lot of support services that are at risk.”

In the interview, Sneddon also reflected on her decade-long journey from political novice to City Hall insider; discussed her shifting relationship with the Democratic Party, which tried to force her out of her first race and now strongly backs her bid for mayor; highlighted her deep interest in climate, resilience and sustainability issues, which she said don’t get enough media attention; and blamed the current heated political atmosphere at City Hall on “problematic” rhetoric and “people making caricatures of each other.”

“I will say that what you’re seeing at council, at the public comments, or in the letters, are the two sort of polar sides,” she said. “But when I go door to door … I’m hearing from people who aren’t on this side or that side.”

“On all sides of this, we’re making caricatures of each other,” she added. “And if you step beyond that, we’re all neighbors and we’re in this community and we care.”

On the issues. In the Nov. 3 election, the balance of power at City Hall is on the ballot, amid races to replace Rowse and three termed-out neighborhood district representatives on the seven-member council. Our conversation with Sneddon is the latest in a summer-long series Newsmakers is doing with candidates for council and mayor. In the interviews, we ask the candidates for their views on four key issues.

Here’s a glimpse at what Sneddon had to say about them, lightly edited for clarity.

Rent control. “In the last nine years, rents have gone up 60 to 80 percent … senior women, the fastest-growing group newly experiencing homelessness. Vehicular homelessness in the county has gone from 600 people to 900 people. We’re losing working families, people can’t age in place … So this is one part of a multi-part approach and I think it’s really important — for property owners as well as for tenants, but the risks are much, much higher for tenants right now.”

State Street. “Every time it comes up — and I keep a tally — every time it comes up you have 70 to 80 percent of businesses, or the public, people, families who want to see it move forward … They want to continue to see it closed to cars, but improve the experience, take care of the e-bikes … have a block that is pedestrian only, no bikes at all. And my perspective is: we need to make movement, we need to have these things happen and be able to move forward. And until we actually try it, I don’t feel comfortable going back to 1997.”

Budget. Sneddon defended her decisive vote and the council’s 4-to-3 decision that effectively transferred several million dollars temporarily from budget reserves into a special housing fund, saying it was faithful to what voters wanted when they approved the Measure I sales tax increase. “As far as the money towards the Local Housing Trust Fund, it was basically on the ballot. That was part of the promise of Measure I, and to housing advocates who supported it and campaigned for it. Part of the promise of Measure I was that a small portion of that tax would go to affordable housing.”

Ranked-choice voting. Sneddon says she “fully supports” ranked-choice voting, as well as a system of runoffs among the top finishers in a primary, and putting the question of restructuring elections before voters.

Check out our full interview with Kristen Sneddon via YouTube below or by clicking this link. Our podcast is available on Apple, Spotify, or on SoundCloud. TVSB, Channel 17, airs the show every weeknight at 5 p.m. and at 9 a.m. on weekends. KCSB, 91.9 FM, broadcasts the program at 5:30 p.m. on weekends.

P.S. Apologies for confusion about 28 minutes in. Newsmakers had technical difficulty with Zoom app. Thanks to Harry Sneddon for IT rescue help.

* Correction: An early version of this post mistakently stated the number of minor candidates for mayor. There is one, not three.

Newsmakers’ Candidate Conversations. To offer Santa Barbara voters early introductions to contenders for four City Council seats, including Mayor, in the Nov. 3 election, Newsmakers is publishing one-on-one interviews with the candidates over the summer. Upcoming interviews include council candidates Jason Carlton and Anabella Lehne. Here is who we’ve spoken with to date:

Mayor

• Eric Friedman, candidate for Mayor, June 28.

• Wendy Sims-Moten, candidate for Mayor, Aug. 13.

• Kristen Sneddon, candidate for Mayor, Aug. 17.

District 4

• Monte Wilson, candidate for District 4 council seat, June 23.

• Jason Dominguez, candidate for District 4, July 6

• Genevieve Taft-Vazquez, candidate for District 4, July 16.

• Devon Wardlow, candidate for District 4, July 21.

District 5

• Cevin Cathell, candidate for District 5, July 23.

• Ian Baucke, candidate for District 5, July 26.

• James Zurlinden, candidate for District 5, Aug. 3.

District 6

• Gabe Escobedo, candidate for District 6, July 13.

• Alexander Stoeber candidate for District 6, Aug. 3.

Leave a comment

By Cheri Rae

Reading is widely acknowledged as a basic human right, but like just about every right these days, it doesn’t come easy—and not without a fight.

Although reading proficiency scores are still stuck at an abysmal 50 percent, this crisis is too often met with a collective shrug.

Years ago, when my dyslexic son was a student at Santa Barbara High School, I received an email from a teacher who described me as “a persistent advocate.” From the tone and content of her message, it was obvious she didn’t mean it as a compliment.

Although he has long since graduated from college, I remain committed to dyslexia and literacy advocacy. It was all those years of fighting the education establishment that sustained his spirit and kept him on his pathway to success, allowing him to pursue a fulfilling personal life.

It shouldn’t have been so difficult then - and certainly not now - but I remain a persistent advocate for literacy, determined to keep working on these issues to make a meaningful difference in easing the way for others who face similar challenges.

When people ask me how I’ve kept advocating for so long, I’ve sometimes joked, “Oh, it’s in my blood.” Turns out it is.

The “Achieve Program.” My father’s cousin, Dr. Barbara Cordoni, was a pioneer in addressing the needs of dyslexic students and adults in a comprehensive way.

She was the author of the classic Living with a Learning Disability and countless scholarly articles in professional journals. In 1978, she founded the nation’s first university program to support students with dyslexia and other learning differences.

The “Achieve Program” at Southern Illinois University remains a permanent part of the institution and has inspired many similar programs across the nation. She testified as an expert witness multiple times before the House and Senate; served on many editorial and advisory boards; was instrumental in the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); and her expertise was frequently cited in the New York Times.

She inscribed a copy of her book to my father, “I hope you find this interesting—living it certainly was! Love, Cousin Barbara.” I have this family legacy to live up to and carry on.

Increasingly, I’m feeling a sense of urgency to pass along information to families who are still forced to beg the education establishment to teach their children to read.

A must-read is Emily Hanford’s groundbreaking work, “Sold a Story,” which revealed the cause of the literacy mess we’re in. Her powerful research touched a nerve. Empowered, educated, and increasingly outraged parents across the nation who are speaking out and candidly sharing their stories to assist others everywhere.

Here is a guide to some other, validating voices of experience. Be inspired by them, and implement their lessons as needed.

Free Resources You Can Use

Parent Power. In 2018, Brett Tingley produced the film, “Our Dyslexic Children,” documenting the efforts of a group of parents to gain a proper education for their children in Upper Arlington School District near Columbus, Ohio. The group’s successful advocacy at the state and local level led to institutional change—and a national movement to empower other parents

Today, Tingley is the disarmingly direct president of “Parents for Reading Justice,” the literacy nonprofit that grew out of the parent group. She appears often in videos to help parents of struggling children; they are widely circulated on social media. The mission statement saythe group “instructs and supports grassroots parent groups to hold the education system accountable for evidence-based literacy instruction.”

Parents for Reading Justice also produces a regular podcast, often featuring a panel of experts including Kareem Weaver and Todd Collins, both of whom have appeared in Santa Barbara to discuss literacy issues. Recent topics have included, “A Worried Mother Does Better Research Than the FBI,” Poverty, Race and Excellence in Schools,” and “When Do I Take Action When It Comes to My Child’s Right to Read.”

Listen to the Lawyer. While attorney Peter Wright has long provided legal information about advocacy and special education law on his site Wrightslaw, Diane Dragan, Esq. has taken it a step further.

On her podcast, Litigating Literacy, she doesn’t mince words as she provides deep knowledge and broad insights based on realworld experience, at the intersection of education and the law.

“My journey into literacy advocacy began as a federal public defender,” she said. “I saw firsthand how IEPs failed children, leading them to federal prison. Now, I’m working to help children before they fall through the cracks, facing pushback from the very educators who are currently failing 50 percent of students.”

The St. Louis-based attorney freely shares eye-opening insights about low literacy in our public schools and the treatment of parents by school district officials.

Far too many of us are familiar with her examples that ring so true. Titles of recent episodes include, “Unanswered Questions, Broken Trust,” “Private Equity’s Grip on Education,” and “The Dark Side of Illiteracy: How Reading Failure Destroys Lives.” She offers essential knowledge for parents of struggling readers not readily available anywhere else.

For Students in Grades K-2.

Screening for “Reading Difficulties.” In 2023, California became the 40^th state in the nation to require annual screening for reading difficulties, including dyslexia, in students grades K-2. The new legislation was part of a trailer bill that took effect last school year. The state provides a comprehensive FAQ page about “Screening for Risk of Reading Difficulties.”

What happens locally after students are screened? Santa Barbara Unified began its state-mandated screening for reading difficulties in K-2^nd grades in 2025-2026. The district’s website offers a video produced by Amplify, the company that produces the screener, but not much more than that.

Details about local post-screening interventions for those identified with “reading difficulties” or dyslexia are not clearly specified, nor is there information about parental notification or follow up after screening. Despite inquiries, I have never received a clear answer about what sort of comprehensive approach to dyslexia the district has developed—neither for K-2^nd graders identified by the screener, nor for older students who are not mandated to be screened.

I have repeatedly suggested to SBUSD school board members and district administrators that the district follow the example of Fairfax County Public Schools, in Fairfax, Virginia for its outstanding dyslexia content on its website. My efforts remain unsuccessful.

Perhaps SBUSD’s website could provide similar information—supplementing with geographically and jurisdictionally appropriate resources—but failing that, locals can refer to the expertise offered by the large district known for its approach to dyslexia.

Closer to home, the Capistrano Unified School District offers a helpful, California-oriented approach.

For the 1 in 5 with Dyslexia.

California Dyslexia Guidelines: Due to the determined efforts of the advocacy group “Decoding Dyslexia-CA,” countless advocates and enlightened legislators, a landmark bill, AB 1369, created the California Dyslexia Guidelines in 2015. It was hailed as a big step forward in legislative efforts to implement best practices in addressing dyslexia in California schools—and then-Assemblymember Das Williams was an early sponsor.

Due to the steadfast opposition of the California Teachers Association, however, the provisions for mandatory screening and teacher training were dropped early on during the political process. And in a major concession to the powerful union, these Guidelines are officially advisory, not mandatory.

The disclaimer in the front reads: “Notice: The guidance in California Dyslexia Guidelines is not binding on local educational agencies or other entities. Except for the statutes, regulations, and court decisions that are referenced herein, the document is exemplary, and compliance with it is not mandatory. (See Education Code Section 33308.5.)”

Paid for by your tax dollars, these “guidelines” were created by a team of experts and advisors and finally released in 2017. Nearly a decade later, they remain relatively unknown to parents, teachers and school administrators. Although the document still has great value, it is in need of updating, since there have been many changes since it was issued. Unlike the state of Texas, which issues regular updates to its state handbook, California does not.

Megan Potente, state director of Decoding Dyslexia-CA noted, “I wish the guidelines were more present, but I am happy to report I’ve seen my district, San Francisco Unified School District, reference them over the years.” She added, “When I work with families, sharing the guidelines is one of the first steps I take to help them support their children.”

More information about dyslexia is available on the state Department of Education website here.

Get Involved at the Local Level.

A Chance for Change: School Board Bridge is a recently formed nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that provides training and builds skills of individuals who have an interest in serving as school board trustees in the local area. Its mission: “To strengthen public K-12 education in our region by engaging, identifying, recruiting, training, and supporting community members so they acquire the knowledge skills, and confidence to govern with integrity, transparency, and impact.”

Have Your Say. As Superintendent Hilda Maldonado enters her seventh year at the helm of the Santa Barbara Unified School District, there are two contested seats on the school board this November. Gabe Escobedo, Trustee for Area 1 since 2022, is running for City Council, while Rose Munoz, first elected in 2018, is running in Area 1 for a third term. Both races will soon heat up; based on my conversations with several challengers, a key campaign issue will be development of strategies and leadership required for the successful implementation of the Science of Reading.

The Santa Barbara Reading Coalition. A grassroots group of local community members dedicated to community education about improving reading skills of children in the Santa Barbara area. Strong proponents of effective implementation of the Science of Reading through strong leadership and community support, they provide a comprehensive website, produce speaker events, and are planning to host a school board candidates’ forum this fall.

The Dyslexia Project. Providing information and resources, the nonprofit (of which I am director) is focused on supporting strengths and addressing challenges characteristic of this common learning difference, which affects one in five individuals. We provide direction to parents, assist adults in the workplace, and offer outreach to community organizations interested in our approach to advocacy. Programs include “Literacy Is For Life,” “in/visible: 1 in 5: The Face of Dyslexia” photographic project and “The Art of Advocacy” assemblage art project.

A personal note. In the dedication to her book, Dr. Cordoni, wrote that she once asked her daughter if she resented all the time she had spent on advocacy work. Her answer was spot-on: “No, Mama. They were all my sisters, they were all my brothers.”

Cheri Rae is the director of The Dyslexia Project and the author of DyslexiaLand: A Field Guide for Parents of Children with Dyslexia. You can reach her at TheDyslexiaProject@gmail.com

Image: The Dyslexia Project.

Leave a comment

The social media colossus Meta mysteriously canceled accounts recently for an organization that live-monitors ICE and a drag show club at UCSB — two groups that have little in common except being unpopular with the Trump administration.

SB Independent reporter Christina McDermott returns to Newsmakers TV to discuss her scoop detailing how the immigrant rights group SBResiste and BARBARA, organized around a monthly drag show at the university, both suddenly faced cancellation on Instagram, with virtually no explanation from Meta and no ability to appeal.

Nick Welsh reprises his comprehensive reporting on the full-scale assault the federal government has aimed at the power and authority of the California Coastal Commission, amid an onslaught of chilling new proposals for offshore oil drilling, fracking, expanded space launches and underwater nuclear plants in and around the state’s precious coastline.

And Josh Molina has the latest from the local campaign trail, where a four-way contest for Santa Barbara’s District 4 city council seat is teeming with political maneuver and intrigue, and two consequential but low-profile races for the Unified School District board of trustees sadly so far have drawn scant attention.

Plus: a new twist in the long-running saga about the proposed blockbuster project at the Mission; UCSB breaks ground on a huge project that could help ease the local housing crunch; and the genial host reveals state secrets about a certain controversial campaign conversation.

All this and more, right here, right now, on Newsmakers TV.

Check out the latest episode via YouTube below or by clicking this link. Our podcast is available on Apple, Spotify, or on SoundCloud. TVSB, Channel 17, airs the show every weeknight at 5 p.m. and at 9 a.m. on weekends. KCSB, 91.9 FM, broadcasts the program at 5:30 p.m. on weekends.

Image: media-diversity.org.

Leave a comment

As she runs for mayor of Santa Barbara, Wendy Sims-Moten acknowledges a lack of detailed command of some critical issues facing the city, resting her campaign message on professional experience, leadership skills and deeply held personal values.

The longtime executive director of the First 5 early childhood development program, Sims-Moten also served eight tumultuous years as a Santa Barbara Unified School District trustee. She left the school board at the end of 2024, amid tributes and acclaim, and gave herself a year away from politics to refresh and renew before returning to the arena this year with an outside chance bid for mayor, facing off against City Council veterans Eric Friedman and Kristen Sneddon.

“I just think it’s a wonderful opportunity to take that next step in leadership,” Sims-Moten told Newsmakers, in our latest interview with candidates for mayor and council.

“I’ve been a leader in this community and have always had a very deep-rooted interest in — can we make this a better world and a better space for the folks that we serve, that we live with, who we play with and those that we go to school with?” she said. “So I’m here … and I want to be a choice in the change and bring that voice to the council.”

“If you have those leadership skills and wants and desires, and continue to learn to be a leader, it doesn’t matter what jurisdiction or where it is — what are you bringing to that? How are you serving the will of the people?” Sims-Moten said. “So it’s not different in terms of it being the city versus being a school board versus whatever the case may be. It’s who you are as a leader and how you are incorporating the will of the people to be able to do that.”

Our story to date. The 64-year-old Sims-Moten arrived in Santa Barbara from Texas in the 1980s, earned a B.A. from Pacifica Graduate Institute and went to work for the county, catching on when the First 5 Santa Barbara was launched in 1998 and eventually working her way up to the top job, which she has held since 2018.

In 2020, Sims-Moten emerged in Santa Barbara as a high-profile and influential leader on issues of racial justice, as local communities struggled to deal with the fallout from the notorious murder of George Floyd, a Black man, at the hands of a white police officer in Minneapolis.

Then school board president, she led an extraordinary and emotional six-hour public hearing before the Board of Supervisors that featured a parade of community voices spotlighting local concerns and first-person stories about racial inequities.

“I, as a person of color, a woman of color, a leader of color, it has been my experience that racism is there — subtle and not so subtle,” she said in a Newsmakers interview during that time. “There are some racial systemic issues that we need to all face if we really are to say, ‘in order to form a more perfect union.’”

Today, Sims-Moten says she carries the same set of social justice values she gave voice to then — despite a ferocious, and sometimes brutal, white nationalist backlash to that brief era of racial reckoning.

“In this era right now, the humanity is lost,” Sims-Moten said this week. “I feel we are in … a crisis of humanity. But also this is an opportunity in a crisis … an opportunity of courage, to speak out, to call people in, in terms of understanding it from a human aspect.”

In our interview — the first since her campaign was informally launched on Instagram several months ago — Sims-Moten reflected on the gulf between the Floyd and Trump II eras, defended SBUSD Superintendent Hilda Maldonado, discussed some of the key controversies from her time on the school board, and offered some broad concepts of how she would handle the city’s big challenges — while laughing in a Texas drawl about how some friends have reacted to her running.

“People keep asking me — ‘Why, are y’all crazy?’” she said with a big smile. “No, we’re not crazy. We’re just here and ready to want to serve. And I haven’t taken leave of my senses yet, but there are times where I wonder.”

On the issues. In the Nov. 3 election, the balance of power at City Hall is on the ballot, amid races to replace retiring Mayor Randy Rowse and three termed-out neighborhood district representatives on the seven-member council. Our conversation with Sims-Moten is the latest in a summer-long series Newsmakers is doing with candidates for council and mayor. In the interviews, we ask the candidates for their views on four key issues.

Here’s what Sims-Moten had to say about them, lightly edited for clarity.

Rent control. “I had a friend who really put something in perspective, for some in Santa Barbara city or county — ‘It’s poverty with a view’ … I don’t know all the specifics in terms of the various measures, but one thing I do say is that we do have to, at some point, get some stabilization, just to get some footing … I think about how does this overcrowding, how does this lack of housing, how does it impact our children? So I look at it through that lens. I’m always looking at: how do we make sure they have good space to grow up and be in? So I don’t know all the specifics in terms of the various measures, but if rent stabilization is that pause … perhaps the rent stabilization is a pause that allows us to come together.”

State Street. “I don’t know about State Street … When you look at State Street, what has that got to do with affordability for housing? … And I’m not blaming anyone, but I really have been — what is that? It was forced closed — Covid, we had to do things differently. But let us take time to look at: was there a benefit, and what was the benefit for it being closed without cars? And then whatever went on, I don’t know the specifics, and the in and out, because I don’t want to be the armchair quarterback over here, but I just think we need to take a pause here and figure out what is it that we are trying to achieve? And when we’re trying to achieve it, who’s being impacted by what? Because oftentimes when something’s so vehemently being opposed … sometimes you feel like you’re losing something, like … perhaps losing people who are coming in to shop …”

Budget. “I think we just had one (sales tax increase) recently, so just hold on — I think people get taxed out … You keep going back to the same well, it will run dry.”

Ranked-choice voting. “I think it is so important that we don’t create systems that eliminate the voter’s choice … that you don’t fully understand … So (instead) have a primary …”

Check out our interview with Wendy Sims-Moten via YouTube below or by clicking this link. Our podcast is available on Apple, Spotify, or on SoundCloud. TVSB, Channel 17, airs the show every weeknight at 5 p.m. and at 9 a.m. on weekends. KCSB, 91.9 FM, broadcasts the program at 5:30 p.m. on weekends.

Newsmakers’ Candidate Conversations. To offer Santa Barbara voters early introductions to contenders for four City Council seats, including Mayor, in the Nov. 3 election, Newsmakers is publishing one-on-one interviews with the candidates over the summer. Upcoming interviews include mayoral candidates Kristen Sneddon, Jason Carlton and Anabella Lehne. Here is who we’ve spoken with to date:

Mayor

• Eric Friedman, candidate for Mayor, June 28.

• Wendy Sims-Moten, candidatae for Mayor, Aug. 13.

  District 4

• Monte Wilson, candidate for District 4 council seat, June 23.

• Jason Dominguez, candidate for District 4, July 6

• Genevieve Taft-Vazquez, candidate for District 4, July 16.

• Devon Wardlow, candidate for District 4, July 21.

District 5

• Cevin Cathell, candidate for District 5, July 23.

• Ian Baucke, candidate for District 5, July 26.

• James Zurlinden, candidate for District 5, Aug. 3.

District 6

• Gabe Escobedo, candidate for District 6, July 13.

• Alexander Stoeber candidate for District 6, Aug. 3.

Leave a comment

The great political scientist Harvey Mansfield once criticized revisionist historians of the Federalist Papers for failing to observe scholarly first principles.

“It is, I think, a mistake to look under the surface,” he admonished, “until you’ve examined the surface.”

Mansfield’s comment came to mind in recent days, as Newsmakers beheld a stream of downstream discourse that followed our pair of stories, on July 29 and 30, which condemned the display in City Hall of a protest sign festooned with a guillotine.

Our posts not only denounced the sign — which warned City Council of the political consequences of opposing rent control — but also surveyed the reactions of council members to it.

Our reported commentary made two simple points:

• When one side in a policy debate feels the need to brandish a picture of a guillotine — an instrument of death that French revolutionaries employed for the systematic execution of many thousands of class enemies - it’s an indication that Santa Barbara’s traditional values of public civility are at risk.

• A supermajority of council members believed, but had not stated until we asked them, that the sign was objectionable, offensive and unacceptable in a public hearing, at a time when public officials across the nation increasingly are the targets of intimidation, threats and, sometimes, violence.

Which seemed straightforward enough.

It’s a sign of the times, however, that even something as seemingly innocuous as criticism of a guillotine sparked an uproar, with partisans on both sides of the political divide wielding the Newsmakers posts as a cudgel on behalf of their team in the culture wars.

Two simple pieces of local accountability journalism got stripped for parts by writers and outlets with political priors, and spun off into self-interested narratives — without the bother to examine what Mansfield might call the “surface” of our actual reporting.

Three takeaways:

60 heads a day. Six days after our first piece, esteemed journalist and liberal political donor Eileen White Read took to Edhat with a truculent denunciation of Newsmakers’ denunciation of the sign.

At one point in her piece, she described the guillotine sign as “a metaphor for poor people’s desire for revolutionary change.”

That’s one way of putting it.

For those with fuzzy memories of high school world history, however, the guillotine also equates with the Reign of Terror — that period of the French Revolution between September 1793 and July 1794 when it was employed to behead about 17,000 people, roughly 60 a day.

“Let’s make terror the order of the day,” revolutionary leader Bertrand Barère famously declared to kick off the guillotine era, while Maximilien Robespierre cheered on the beheadings, declaring terror “less a principle in itself than a consequence of the general principle of democracy.”

Despite the facts of history, Read could not abide the suggestion that the rent control crowd might want to find a better “metaphor” for their views.

At 1,072 words, her attack on Newsmakers — “Journalists Shouldn’t Be Accusing Tenants Rights Advocates of Supporting Murder” — was one-third straw man argument, one-third insinuation of journalistic malpractice and one-third Thought Police rant, implicitly questioning our right to publish the piece at all.

In the process, she not only provided media cover for political proteges, but also erected a permission structure for the kind of public browbeating Newsmakers called out in the first place.

It’s noteworthy that Read is a financial and political patron of both Wendy Santamaria and Kristen Sneddon, the chief sponsors of rent control on council. (Campaign finance records show that her $5,900 donation to Sneddon is to date the single largest contribution to the council member’s mayoral campaign, and that Read also has given at least $11,000 to Santamaria, whose activist allies shaped the tone and tactics of the boisterous public hearing at which the offensive sign was wielded).

To her credit, Read slipped a parenthetical disclosure into her op-ed acknowledging that she backs Sneddon in the mayor’s race.

“I live in District 4 and I support my council member’s candidacy for mayor,” she wrote, with admirable understatement.

Like Read, we also live in District 4. Unlike her, we don’t donate to politicians, or glaze them with hagiography, like this.

Whitewashing Trump. High-end realtor Brian Campbell offered a different critique of Newsmakers’ guillotine commentary from the other side of the political spectrum, on Aug. 6, in the local pro-Trump organ SB Current.

Without crediting Newsmakers’ reporting, he inveighed against the guillotine sign, lamenting it as a symptom of “rhetoric (that) dehumanizes people and has become part of our national political vocabulary.”

Excuse us while we build a stadium large enough to hold our laughter.

Newsmakers is old enough to remember the pandemic, when serial failed political candidate Campbell joined the parade of disruptive public commenters at Santa Barbara Unified School District meetings, where they routinely targeted trustees, administrators and teachers with insults and disrespect over masks, school closures, vaccines and other public health precautions.

In his guillotine piece, Campbell took issue with an argument we had made, drawing a direct connection between public provocations at City Hall and Trump’s befouling of public discourse. “That struck me as remarkable,” he scolded. “Trump wasn’t at the meeting. He has no authority over Santa Barbara’s rent stabilization ordinance.”

To his Covid-era amnesia, Campbell thus adds a bout of willful blindness with regard to his Dear Leader’s decade of non-stop lies, personal insults, crude language, violent imagery, encouragement of violence by supporters, weaponization of conspiracies and inflammation of every racial, gender, and cultural fault line in American politics.

Elsewhere on the radical right, Rupert Murdoch’s California Post also seized on the guillotine sign controversy, in furtherance of its start-up editorial mission of building a Southern California audience via right-wing grievance-mongering.

The Post lifted our first piece from Edhat, which had republished (with permission) our posting on SB Newsmakers, our Substack newsletter platform. The Murdoch publication on Aug. 2 characteristically sensationalized it with a scare headline: “Santa Barbara erupts over terrifying guillotine sign displayed at City Hall.”

Predictably, the Post also failed to pick up the second-day story, which expanded and filled out our original reporting.

Bully pulpits. Amid polarized pushback, it’s tempting to lower ourselves into a warm bath of self-congratulation while softly murmuring that ancient journalistic trope, “We must be doing something right — both sides are mad at us.”

But this ain’t that.

It’s the job of the local press to hold elected officials accountable for their words and actions; that journalistic responsibility also extends to political actors across the spectrum, whether it’s anti-vaxxers on the right or rent control activists on the left.

What’s notable about the partisan reaction to Newsmakers’ columns is the knee-jerk move by both sides to retreat into self-serving argument — without so much as a nod to, let alone engagement with, the actual news in our reporting: the troubled reactions to the guillotine sign by a supermajority of city council members, when they were finally asked how they felt about it.

And it’s a damn shame that local public officials are now routinely bullied, menaced and subjected to performative intimidation at public hearings in nearly every government venue.

Somehow in Santa Barbara, those who disagree have come to be seen as bitter enemies — not neighbors with a differing view.

As council member Eric Friedman told us, in a comment that echoed similar sentiments from several colleagues, “In a time when elected officials have faced threats, violence and even been killed, everyone should take time to think about the potential ramifications of their actions.”

Image: Kim Warp cartoon for The New Yorker.

By Jonathan Cohn /The Bulwark

Somewhere in America, sometime soon, a parent is going to take their 1-year-old to the pediatrician for what should be a normal well-child visit including vaccinations.

They’re going to be nervous, like so many parents are—trying desperately to do all the right things for their child’s health, doing their very best to figure out what the medical science really says. And when the pediatrician recommends the standard measles vaccine doctors have been giving safely for half a century, the parent is going to say no, because they heard the shot’s current formulation might be lethal.

At that point, the doctor might ask where they got that information. The parent will say they heard it from the president of the United States.

Sadly, they will be telling the truth.

Science would like a word. On Monday, Donald Trump signed an executive order that seeks to make radical changes to the government’s official childhood vaccine schedule—first by reducing the number of vaccinations from seventeen to eleven and then by breaking up the current MMR shot, which combines measles, mumps, and rubella vaccinations, so that children get them as a series of three separate sets of injections.

The order also calls on the Justice Department to scrutinize states that don’t allow what the Trump administration considers adequate leeway for parents who want to ignore school vaccination mandates for reasons of religion or personal conscience.

Legally speaking, the order may not do much.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has spent decades crusading against vaccines, tried to implement the same schedule changes in January. A federal court blocked those changes, ruling that Kennedy had made the decision on his own authority without going through the proper procedures or consulting the kind of experts that the law requires.

Trump’s order would seem to fail the very same legal tests, which means the official government recommendations should, in theory, not change.

But as a practical matter, the order could influence states, which have the power to set school vaccination recommendations—especially if the Justice Department starts launching lawsuits against states like California with tighter requirements.

And that’s to say nothing of how actions and rhetoric by normally respected agencies and officials, including the president himself, can influence the behavior of parents.

Depressing vax rates. That’s especially true when it comes to recommending taking the MMR as three separate vaccines.

No American company manufactures the individual components or is even licensed to do so, according to University of California, San Francisco Professor Dorit Reiss, and the only foreign suppliers—in China, India, Indonesia, and Japan—haven’t gone through American certification.

That means it would take years just to generate a supply of the individual MMR component vaccines, Reiss told me in a phone interview. And in the interim, parents spooked by supposed dangers of the combined version would be more likely to skip it, further depressing vaccination rates at a moment when the consequences should be clearer than ever.

Last week the CDC recorded 94 new measles cases, pushing this year’s national tally to 2,465. That is already higher than last year’s total of 2,289, which was by far the highest since 1991.

And those numbers aren’t mere statistics: They are real people—mostly children who are unvaccinated or have unknown vaccination status, and are in some cases being hospitalized. They are at risk of encephalitis, long-term vision and hearing loss, plus a progressive brain condition that can injure or even kill children years after infection. A child in Los Angeles died from that condition late last year.

And it’s not just the measles making a comeback.

Pertussis, the “whooping cough” disease that once killed thousands of children a year, is on the rise again. Doctors and hospitals are reporting more parents turning down Vitamin K shots that prevent potentially lethal brain clotting during infancy. Overall, one in six parents now say they skipped at least one of the officially recommended vaccines for their children, according to a KFF-Washington Post poll from last summer.

Kennedy and other administration officials get super prickly at the suggestion they are responsible for any of this, arguing the decline in vaccination rates behind disease resurgences antedates Trump’s second term. They are correct about the timing, just as they are correct to suggest that anger over public health policy during the COVID-19 pandemic helps to explain declining confidence in what the experts recommend.

But Kennedy has been no innocent bystander to this process. He’s long been one of America’s most influential sources of vaccine misinformation, especially when it comes to the unfounded suggestion of links between vaccines and autism. And since taking over HHS he has repeatedly used his office to undermine confidence in vaccines.

Monday’s announcement is a sign that Kennedy is still pursuing his crusade. And it makes clearer than ever before that the crusade is as much Trump’s as it is his.

Brain worm science. Trump has been cheering on Kennedy for a while, and just two weeks ago the Wall Street Journal reported that he was actually frustrated that Kennedy wasn’t pushing even more aggressively to change the vaccine schedule.

If there are any lingering doubts about Trump’s interest in the matter, they melted away during a Monday Oval Office signing ceremony when he seemed especially—and bizarrely—fixated on the amount of fluid that vaccination supposedly requires injecting.

“I saw this early on, and I’ve seen proof of it, where they have a vaccination that looks like the size of a bottle of soda poured into a little child’s body,” Trump said. He brought it up again later, referring to “what seemingly looks like gallons, where they pump so much in.”

And when explaining the order to break up the MMR into its three components, delivered separately, he said it would increase the time elapsed “between visits, so the body can handle this massive amount of fluid being pumped in. I think it’s going to make a big difference.”

In reality, the amount of vaccination fluid in a normal medical visit wouldn’t fill a fraction of a bottle cap, let alone a whole soda container.

But Trump was tapping into a sentiment widely shared in the anti-vaccination movement—and evidently by senior adviser Stephen Miller—that both the total number of shots and the combination of MMR shots into one are hazards because they overwhelm the immune system.

“We get off of this ridiculous path of having our children get seventy to ninety shots,” Miller said, working himself into one of his familiar mini-rages. “That is wantonly excessive. Remember, every one of these shots produces a profound immunological response.”

It is true that doctors give kids more shots today than they did twenty-five or fifty years ago. It’s not true that this is provoking an overall greater response from the immune system. That’s because—as Stanford University infectious disease specialist Jake Scott told me in a phone interview—the shift away from whole-cell vaccines and more precise vaccine engineering means today’s vaccines contain far fewer antigens, which are the proteins and other substances that trigger the body’s immune response.

“We basically learned to strip vaccines down to only the pieces needed for protection, so there are more shots but less [antigenic] material,” Scott said. Overall, he noted, today’s vaccine schedule protects against 16 to 18 diseases with about 165 antigens, while the 1986 schedule protected against just 7 diseases with more than 3,200 antigens.

“The trade we made is more shots, far less immune burden,” said Scott, who also noted that children take in thousands of antigens a day through normal contact with the outside world. “So what is the concern? The number of needles, or the number of things that the immune system is being exposed to.”

Retracted claim. Trump didn’t discover or invent the claim that evidence shows a link between the combined MMR vaccine and autism. It traces back to a now-infamous paper in the Lancet by British physician Andrew Wakefield that the editors ended up retracting and the British Medical Journal found after an investigation to be “fraudulent.”¹ British authorities ultimately took away Wakefield’s license to practice.

At the time, Wakefield maintained he was being punished for daring to question the scientific establishment. It’s the same posture Kennedy has long maintained, one that taps into widespread distrust (even outside of MAGA circles) of American institutions and once-revered experts.

“This is what gold-standard science means,” Kennedy said in the Oval Office Monday. “No predetermined answers, no institutional taboos, no sacred cows, no hiding uncertainty. . . . Be honest.”

But a truly honest assessment would acknowledge—as countless academic reviews and media fact-checks have shown—that researchers across the world have investigated vaccines over and over again, conducting exactly the sorts of inquiries Kennedy says have been lacking, and found no evidence to sustain fears of the vaccine skeptics and opponents.²

“There are so many studies, vaccines have been some of the most thoroughly studied medicines of all time,” Scott said. “I think the honest version of [Kennedy’s statement that scientists haven’t fully explored an autism link] is that people have studied it, they’ve thought about it, they’ve published on it for decades, and he just doesn’t like the answer.”

A truly honest assessment would also acknowledge that more than a hundred countries use the combined MMR vaccine. It would likewise acknowledge that the only exception among G-7 countries is Japan, which since 2006 has offered the mumps vaccine as a separate, optional shot. And now Japanese officials are considering a switch back to the combined MMR, amid concerns about mumps outbreaks from low vaccination levels.

“There is not a single legitimate medical or public health organization that has concluded the MMR vaccine should be split up into three vaccines,” Joshua Sharfstein, a pediatrician and former FDA deputy commissioner who is now a public health professor at Johns Hopkins University, told me. “There is no evidence to support splitting up the MMR into three vaccines. That concept was based on one study, which was later found to be untrustworthy and was retracted by the editors.”³

CDC MIA. Monday’s executive order came one week after the Senate confirmed Erika Schwartz to serve as CDC director, giving the agency its first permanent director since Trump, at Kennedy’s behest, fired Susan Monarez a year ago.

Schwartz is a physician and former deputy surgeon general who during her hearings said she supported vaccines, while sidestepping questions about her willingness to defy Kennedy if he handed down orders at odds with the scientific consensus.

Schwartz was not present for Monday’s signing ceremony, despite the CDC’s central role in vaccine policymaking. And the HHS media office did not respond when I asked whether Schwartz agrees with the new Trump directive, or whether she wished to comment on it.

Public health experts, including some CDC veterans, have noticed.

“Seemingly the implementation of such an order requires participation by the new director or the secretary,” Demetre Daskalakis, the infectious disease expert who resigned from a senior CDC post after Monarez’s ouster, told me via text on Tuesday. “Given the lack of data supporting this order, silence from the director would be complicity.”

Trump did have a doctor with him in the Oval Office on Monday.

It was Jay Bhattacharya, the director of the National Institutes of Health who had been overseeing the CDC while it waited for its new leader. Bhattacharya did not specifically endorse the scientific content of the order, such that it was. Instead he spoke about the importance of rebuilding faith in vaccines by acknowledging the questions about them.

This supposedly neutral approach is the way Kennedy frequently justifies his position, and it’s the type of thinking that Trump has referenced as well—that they are merely asking questions about vaccines, even though the questions have been asked and answered many times.

“The message you’re sending is that our current schedule, which has been developed over decades, is not safe—that MMR is not safe,” Reiss said. “That’s going to undermine trust, not increase it. . . . It’s just going to create more fear, uncertainty, and doubt.”

If Trump had considered the possibility, he didn’t show it. “Nothing bad can happen from what we’re doing,” he said. But bad things are happening already, as the measles figures show, and more are on the way.

1-The investigation was by journalist Brian Deer.

2-Scott noted that one of the most definitive studies is one Danish researchers published last year. It took advantage of the nation’s exhaustive data-keeping to follow 1.2 million children born over a two-decade span, and found no link between the presence of aluminum salts—a vaccine additive many critics allege is harmful—and dozens of conditions including autism. Kennedy demanded that the journal, the Annals of Internal Medicine, retract the study. The editors refused.

3-For more background on the history of MMR and the perils of breaking it up, I recommend Matthew Herper’s latest article in STAT.

Author Jonathan Cohn writes “The Breakdown” newsletter for The Bulwark. Subscribe here.

Emily Flake cartoon for The New Yorker.

Leave a comment

Friday was the filing deadline to run for Santa Barbara mayor and city council, so as we await City Clerk Sarah Gorman’s announcement of the final ballot lineup, Newsmakers TV presents a starting-line view of the races and rivals.

It’s the most important city election in a decade, with a majority of the seven council seats on the ballot, including the citywide vote to succeed Mayor Randy Rowse and neighborhood district contests to replace three termed-out incumbents.

As a political matter, the current council in recent months has decided a series of consequential matters on narrow 4-to-3 votes, and voters now will decide the balance of power at City Hall from an array of candidates with sharp differences on issues like rent control, the future of State Street and the city’s $750 million budget.

The races:

Mayor. Both first elected in 2017, council members Kristen Sneddon, endorsed by the Democratic Party, and Eric Friedman, a close ally of the departing Rowse, have been on opposite sides of recent big debates and votes. Voters across the city will choose between her more liberal political stances and his more moderate views, with former school board president Wendy Sims-Moten a wild card in the race.

District 4. The upscale district — including the Upper East, Riviera, San Roque and other nearby neighborhoods — features an intriguing four-way scrum: retired tech executive Monte Wilson and Planning Commissioner Devon Wardlow, both of whom have been campaigning for months and are sitting on $50,000 each; ex-council member Jason Dominguez, who still has plenty of name recognition; and corporate consultant and first-time candidate Genevieve Taft-Vazquez, who could surprise.

District 5. Ian Baucke, a 27-year-old aide to state Senate leader Monique Limón, touts big City Hall connections and the Democratic Party’s endorsement, but retired film producer Cevin Cathell may appeal to homeowners who dominate the voter rolls in the district — which includes Upper State Street and nearby neighborhoods — and look askance at the current lefty tilt of City Hall. That argument is echoed by former chef James Zurlinden, campaigning as a blue-collar tribune of common sense.

District 6. School board member, former planning commissioner and rent control supporter Gabe Escobedo is the early favorite among downtown voters, who overwhelmingly are renters, but realtor and first-time candidate Alexander Stoeber is engaging in making the case that his market-driven ideas would benefit them more.

With 88 days to go before the Nov. 3 election, Josh and Jerry also announce the first big mayoral forum of the campaign, to be held on Sept. 3, with plans also in the works for district forums, to be recorded and televised in partnership with TVSB.

All this and more, right here, right now, on Newsmakers TV.

Check out our railbird handicap of all the races via YouTube below or by clicking this link. Our podcast is available on Apple, Spotify, or on SoundCloud. TVSB, Channel 17, airs the show every weeknight at 5 p.m. and at 9 a.m. on weekends. KCSB, 91.9 FM, broadcasts the program at 5:30 p.m. on weekends.

Image: Runners at the starting line for the 2014 U.S. Air Force Marathon (arpc.afrc.af.mil).

By Cassandra Ensberg /Santa Barbara FAIA Architect & Artist

If you have been following the debate over State Street since its closure during the COVID-19 pandemic in May 2020, you have probably heard the name “Strong Towns.”

Many people may be wondering: Who is Strong Towns? What are its goals? And does Santa Barbara have the kinds of problems Strong Towns policies were created to address?

Strong Towns offers worthwhile ideas for communities struggling with suburban sprawl, automobile dependence, and costly infrastructure. Santa Barbara is not one of those communities. It is already an established, walkable, mixed-use city centered around a historic Main Street.

To better understand this issue, it helps to know why Strong Towns was created.

A bit of history. By was of background, after World War II, much of America experienced rapid suburban expansion.

Cities spread outward through large subdivisions, shopping centers, office parks, and miles of roads connecting everything together. These communities became heavily dependent upon automobiles and required increasingly expensive infrastructure to maintain.

In 2009, Charles Marohn, an engineer and city planner raised on a farm in Minnesota, founded Strong Towns to address the challenges and failures associated with this pattern of development. The organization draws attention to the problems of suburban sprawl and promotes long-established planning principles such as walkable neighborhoods, mixed-use development, incremental growth, and responsible local planning.

Many Santa Barbarans understand and support these principles and love Santa Barbara because of these qualities that the city exemplifies.

The local chapter of Strong Towns Santa Barbara was established in 2023. Since then, it has become an increasingly active and influential voice in discussions concerning the future and functional use of State Street.

In these public discussions, the Strong Towns chapter appears to be given greater consideration over the opinions and needs of other members of the community who are entitled to have practical access to the downtown public right of way.

Key questions. This concern is especially significant since more than 700 businesses and community members have signed a petition supporting the reopening of State Street for safe, slow, shared public use.

This brings us to two important questions:

1. Why does the local Strong Towns chapter appear to receive greater consideration than the hundreds of businesses, residents, and community members asking for shared access?

2. Does Strong Towns recognize that Santa Barbara is not a troubled example of suburban sprawl requiring correction, but is already, according to many of its own principles, a strong town?

Santa Barbara evolved from classic planning and design principles long before postwar suburban expansion and sprawl occurred.

Known as the “American Riviera” and the “Jewel of the Central Coast”, Santa Barbara is one of California’s most recognizable historic cities, centered around an authentic Main Street with the flexibility that has served the entire community for generations.

Long before “walkability” became a modern planning term, Santa Barbara already had it. A person can walk from the Mission to the Courthouse in approximately 30 minutes or less.

Our downtown is surrounded by established neighborhoods that provide convenient access to the services, businesses, institutions, and public spaces traditionally found along a Main Street. Residents have historically been able to reach downtown using the form of transportation that best meets their needs.

A ‘slow street.’ Before the pandemic closure, State Street was already an early example of what planners now call a “slow street” or “shared street.”

Automobiles traveled at relatively low speeds while sharing the street with bicycles, pedestrians, public transportation, deliveries, and emergency services. State Street was always flexible, and could be opened or closed as needed for farmer’s market, parades and other special events and festivals.

I believe that Charles Marohn developed Strong Towns principles to encourage financially responsible communities with strong civic centers and traditional Main Streets.

Santa Barbara and State Street should therefore be recognized as a model to preserve, not a place whose historic identity and essential function be fundamentally altered.

SB: Already Strong: Strong Towns was created to help struggling communities become more like Santa Barbara. Santa Barbara should not now be changed because the opinion of a local Strong Towns chapter is that our historic Main Street should function differently.

Rather than attempting to change the essence of Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara Strong Towns chapter could refocus efforts on priorities that more closely reflect the organization’s stated principles:

• Preserve Santa Barbara and restore Our Town’s historic Main Street by reopening it for safe, slow, shared use and access by all.

• Provide an ADA-accessible municipal shuttle operating up and down State Street throughout the day.

• Encourage appropriate higher-density housing downtown while preserving the scale, character, and historic heart of Our Town.

• Support the development of a practical regional mass-transit system that offers a meaningful alternative to private automobiles.

• Encourage thoughtfully located and appropriately scaled development that respects Santa Barbara’s historic character and protects important landmarks such as the Old Mission.

• Address new suburban sprawl projects proposed throughout Santa Barbara County and elsewhere in California.

Bottom line. Because Santa Barbara already reflects many of the basic planning principles Strong Towns promotes, our town should not be pressured to fundamentally alter the identity and function of its historic Main Street.

Nor should the views of one organized advocacy group outweigh the needs and experiences of other community members and the more than 700 who have signed a petition to reopen State Street.

Santa Barbara leadership has the duty to seriously and respectfully respond to these concerns by reopening State Street for safe, slow, shared public use. Doing so would restore access for everyone, improve bicycle and e-bike safety, accommodate public transportation and emergency services, and preserve the flexibility to close the street for celebrations, community events, and the Fiesta 2026 parade.

Santa Barbara has always been more than just another city. It is Our Town.

As the renowned preservationist and journalist Charles Fletcher Lummis put it - in a 1923 speech that Pearl Chase saw was reprinted annually in the News-Press:

“Stand Fast, Santa Barbara.”

Santa Barbara architect Cass Ensberg works to educate her fellow citizens about the importance of art, design, and architecture through her community involvement, most notably the Architectural Foundation of Santa Barbara and the Kids Draw Architecture program, which she founded in 1989.

Image: Aerial view of Santa Barbara from above Stearns Wharf (istockphoto.com).

A version of this opinion piece also was published by Noozhawk and the News-Press.

Leave a comment

Alexander Stoeber, a candidate for the District 6 seat on Santa Barbara's City Council, is trying to perform political jujitsu.

In a downtown district about 80 percent populated by tenants, he’s trying to convince voters that their best chance for a representative at City Hall is a guy who opposes rent control and sells luxury real estate for a living.

It’s a hefty political challenge, to be sure, but the 34-year-old Stoeber has overcome a host of bigger, more turbulent and traumatic obstacles in his personal life. So he’s confident that his communication skills and understanding of the complexities of housing policy will help him make the sale with voters.

“I see myself as the change candidate,” he said in a Newsmakers interview.

“When I’m door knocking, when I’m talking to people who are renters in Santa Barbara, they’re not all screaming about rent stabilization and rent control. They’re saying, ‘We don’t have any other options to go to. There’s no competition for our landlord.’ So we need more competition in the market,” Stoeber said.

“I think right now we’re having a hard time in Santa Barbara really seeing through the scarcity mindset that we currently have. And I really want to focus on a growth-minded mindset that’s focused on affordability today and abundance tomorrow,” he added.

Humble roots. The 34-year-old Stoeber (STO-ber) was born in Humble, Texas, and his upbeat and sunny manner belies a childhood torn apart by divorce, ugly custody fights and his mother’s drug addiction — a period he spent moving from place to place, sometimes homeless. He finally found stability in Turlock, where he became a star student and won acceptance to UCSB, earning a degree in political science and selling his first property — his fraternity’s house (Sigma Pi), which needed bigger quarters after his term as membership chair expanded the rolls.

After graduation in 2015, he worked a series of jobs — in tech, telecommunications, data analytics and as a fundraiser for the university — before getting his real estate license in 2019. Since then, he said, he’s sold about $75 million worth of property, from Hope Ranch to Carpinteria.

“My track record is coming from homelessness to selling real estate in the most beautiful place in the world,” Stoeber said. “I see myself as the one who has had to pay my own bills with my own revenue, my own sales, the one who’s picked myself up.”

State of play. District 6 includes downtown and Oak Park, among other neighborhoods, and has the highest percentage of renters — about 84 percent, according to U.S. Census data — of any district, and the lowest percentage of homeownership.

In the race, Stoeber faces an uphill battle against Santa Barbara Unified School Board member Gabe Escobedo, a UCSB recreation department director who is endorsed by the Democratic Party and has been actively engaged with local politics and policy for years, including a term as a city planning commissioner.

With no comparable background or experience in community affairs, Stoeber also failed to vote in city elections in 2017, when Gregg Hart was elected to represent District 6 in the first year the district system went into effect, or in 2021, when voters overwhelmingly backed incumbent Meagan Harmon, who is now termed out — and when there also was a contentious citywide campaign for mayor.

In our interview, Stoeber said he had “not ever missed an election.” Presented afterwards with a copy of his voting record, obtained via the California political data service PDI, however, he said that while he voted in every presidential and national election since registering in Santa Barbara, he regretted missing the two city-only ballots. He explained the discrepancy in an email exchange.

“For years I treated national elections as the ones that mattered and local elections as background noise…That was exactly backward from what I believe today.

The city council has a huge effect on our lives. I believe it’s more important than almost anything I was focused on nationally instead. What changed is that I started paying attention to how the decisions actually get made - the budget, permitting, State Street, public safety staffing, housing that never gets built. I realized these were the things I complained about most and understood least.

Once I saw that, sitting it out stopped being an option. I got involved, and now I’m running.”

Asked why he’s running now, Stoeber said he believes he has important perspectives that are currently lacking at City Hall. He not only views the city’s business through a private-sector lens, he said, but also would focus on new ways to spur economic development instead of fixating on regulation and taxation.

“I think there’s a space for career politicians, but it’s not Santa Barbara City Council, especially in District 6,” he said. “I’m running because I love Santa Barbara so much. It can be abundant. It can really have the feeling of safety. It can have the feeling of affordability.

“We have the resources for it,” he added. “State Street can be that center of awe that I remember when I came here in the beginning. And right now it doesn’t. And I think that the city council has had a lot of time to make changes … we’ve had a lot of time for change in Santa Barbara. And I don’t think that (council is producing) the change that we need.”

On the issues. Our conversation with Stoeber is the latest in a summer-long series Newsmakers is doing with candidates for council and mayor. In our campaign interviews, we ask the candidates for their views on four key issues. Here’s what he said about them, lightly edited for clarity:

Rent control. Stoeber said he opposes both the rent freeze council previously put into effect and the stabilization ordinance nearing passage. “It should be voted on by the people … I think it is a Band-Aid. I think that it is something that will create immediate relief for tenants right now. I don’t think it is a policy that is backed up by case studies or any long-term studies that have been done in other cities … Without a doubt, it will pinch (housing) supply, and our affordability is going to go down if we do have rent control. I’ve done a study on what it means for a $3,000-a-month rental in Santa Barbara — I think the savings is like $100 a month with rent control. And yeah, that does impact the bottom line for a lot of people, but we are spending hours and hours and hours debating this, almost like it’s a full-time job talking about rent stabilization and not talking about the other solutions.”

State Street. “I walk State Street almost every day. I’m out there. I see people smoking meth. I see people using State Street as a toilet. I don’t have the experience of it being sacred right now … We have the longest promenade in the country … I think that there is a space and time for a pedestrian mall, but it’s also our center of commerce right now. There are times in our day and our week where we can open it up so that businesses can get shipments … we need to make it as dynamic as possible with retractable bollards and a clear mode schedule for what mode State Street is going to be in.”

Budget. “My background is in technology and automation efficiency. And that’s what I think we need right now — automation, bring in some AI … I think we can make our city staff more productive, and I think we can do better with technology.”

Ranked-choice voting. "I have such a low voter turnout district that I don't want to make it any more complicated … I wouldn't be averse to (putting it before voters)."

Check out our conversation with Alexander Stoeber via YouTube below or by clicking this link. Our podcast is available on Apple, Spotify, or on SoundCloud. TVSB, Channel 17, airs the show every weeknight at 5 p.m. and at 9 a.m. on weekends. KCSB, 91.9 FM, broadcasts the program at 5:30 p.m. on weekends.

Newsmakers’ Candidate Conversations. To offer Santa Barbara voters early introductions to contenders for four City Council seats, including Mayor, in the Nov. 3 election, Newsmakers is publishing one-on-one interviews with the candidates over the summer. Upcoming interviews include mayoral candidates Wendy Sims-Moten and Kristen Sneddon. Here is who we’ve spoken with to date:

District 4

• Monte Wilson, candidate for District 4 council seat, June 23.

• Jason Dominguez, candidate for District 4, July 6

• Genevieve Taft-Vazquez, candidate for District 4, July 16.

• Devon Wardlow, candidate for District 4, July 21.

District 5

• Cevin Cathell, candidate for District 5, July 23.

• Ian Baucke, candidate for District 5, July 26.

• James Zurlinden, candidate for District 5, Aug. 3.

District 6

• Gabe Escobedo, candidate for District 6, July 13.

• Alexander Stoeber candidate for District 6, Aug. 3.

Mayor

• Eric Friedman, candidate for Mayor, June 28.

  Leave a comment

City Council member Eric Friedman has quietly raised nearly $150,000 for his campaign to be Santa Barbara’s next mayor, giving him an early 3-to-1 fundraising advantage over chief rival Kristen Sneddon, campaign finance records show.

Besides Friedman’s big haul, the biggest surprise in the first round of city campaign spending reports, released this week, is the robust fundraising by both Planning Commissioner Devon Wardlow and retired tech executive Monte Wilson, each of whom is sitting on about $50,000 in the race to represent District 4 at City Hall.

Sneddon got off to a fast start in the mayor’s race late last year, when she was the first to declare her candidacy to succeed Randy Rowse in the job. Her fundraising has lagged behind Friedman’s, however — he entered the race about a month later.

With four of seven council seats on the Nov. 3 ballot, including the mayor’s post, Friday is the final deadline for candidates to register to run. Former SB Unified School Board member Wendy Sims-Moten is also expected to campaign for mayor.

As a policy matter, the Sneddon-Friedman matchup presents a sharp contrast on the biggest issues confronting City Hall in recent years: she strongly supports the contentious rent stabilization ordinance, which is slowly moving toward what looks like inevitable passage, while he has opposed it; she has been a leader in the move to keep seven blocks of the State Street “promenade” fully closed to traffic, while he has sided with Mayor Randy Rowse in urging a more flexible approach. Most recently, the two have clashed over who bears more responsibility for the city’s budget woes.

As a political matter, however, Friedman dominated the first round of campaign fundraising filings — which covered money raised between Jan. 1 and June 30 — supplying him with resources to communicate widely as the race moves into the crucial stretch when voters begin tuning in, less than 100 days before the election. It is a strategic hedge against the organizational advantage Sneddon holds because of her endorsement by the Democratic Party.

Campaign records show that:

• Friedman has raised $148,310 to date, with $136,944 cash on hand;

• Sneddon has raised $42,945, with $34,606 cash on hand.

The latter number is the key figure for political strategists at any point in a campaign.

In the weeds. About $11,000 of Friedman’s total was transferred from a campaign committee he had formed previously to raise money for a possible run for supervisor.

Another $9,000 came from construction trade unions — electricians, plumbers, pipe trades and sheet metal workers — perhaps in gratitude for his leadership in pushing through a Project Labor Agreement ordinance that guarantees union labor on large city public works projects.

Friedman, who is termed out of the District 5 council seat to which he was first elected in 2017, also received a total of $8,400 from Rowse and Mike Jordan, his two closest allies on council. Many of his contributions, Friedman said in an interview, came as the result of a large fundraising reception sponsored by Haley Conklin, who was married to the late Mayor Hal Conklin.

Most of Sneddon’s money came from modest contributions from friends, family and feminist leaders in the community. Her husband. county public works director Chris Sneddon, gave $2,000, with other notable contributions from journalist and retired nonprofit CEO Eileen White Read ($5,900); environmental advocate Lee Heller ($1,500); and $500 each from Supervisors Laura Capps and Roy Lee. She also received $500 from former Supervisor and feminist icon Susan Rose, and a combined $850 from three ex-mayors — Marty Blum, Helene Schneider and the late Sheila Lodge, who died last month.

The other races. In the District 4 contest, where four candidates are vying to replace the termed-out Sneddon, only Wardlow and Wilson have so far reported contributions. Corporate consultant Genevieve Taft-Vazquez, who only recently entered the race, reported raising no money so far, and there was no filing from former City Council member Jason Dominguez posted on the city website.

In other council races:

District 5. Ian Baucke, an aide to state Sen. Monique Limón, led other candidates in District 5, with $6,667 raised and $4,519 cash on hand. Film producer Cevin Cathell reported raising $1,850 and the same amount on hand. Financial services professional James Zurlinden reported making a $500 personal loan to his campaign.

District 6. SBUSD school board member Gabe Escobedo reported raising $3,750, with $2,376 cash on hand. Residential real estate agent Alexander Stoeber did not report raising money.

All of the campaign finance reports filed to date are on the city election website here.

Leave a comment

A political novice, James Zurlinden decided last year to run for Santa Barbara City Council, driven by frustration at feeling constantly “worked up” and “embarrassed” by the City Hall soap opera.

At 41, Zurlinden had a 15-year career as a chef before transitioning a few years ago into accounting and financial services work. In seeking the District 5 council seat, he positions himself as a fiscal moderate and a blue-collar guy who provisionally backs rent control on behalf of families economically struggling to stay in Santa Barbara, and supports reopening the upper blocks of the State Street “promenade” on behalf of local businesses.

Born and raised in Tucson, he moved back to Santa Barbara in 2013, after briefly living here in the aughts, and says he is running as a “nonpartisan person” seeking to represent neighbors “who don’t feel represented by City Council anymore.”

“I’m really trying to create a voice for the working people of Santa Barbara,” Zurlinden said in a Newsmakers interview. “I never saw myself running for any kind of office. But instead of being worked up and just kind of fed up with what’s been going on … there comes a point in time in your life where you say, ‘Okay, you got to put your money where your mouth is.’”

“Because when you feel strongly about something, there comes a point where you have to stand up,” he added.

State of play. District 5 includes Upper State Street, part of San Roque, Hitchcock, Hidden Valley and other nearby neighborhoods. It is relatively affluent, with the highest share among the six council districts of bachelor’s degree holders, according to U.S. Census data, and over half of households owning their own home.

Zurlinden is one of three candidates who have pulled papers to run, with film producer and community volunteer Cevin Cathell and Ian Baucke, a Democratic Party-endorsed Monique Limón aide, also competing for the seat.

While offering a set of prescriptive generalities for a familiar litany of problems Santa Barbara faces, the candidate promised to provide a level-headed alternative to what he described as “embarrassing” ideological and personality clashes among incumbent council members that have little to do with the day-to-day lives of ordinary citizens.

“With my background growing up in a working family … I’ve seen the struggles that families take and I’ve experienced them — including having to leave Santa Barbara (in the early 2000s) because it was just not feasible to live here anymore,” Zurlinden said. “And seeing the issues that people are having — hard time paying rents, getting around town, the lack of housing, all the issues going on with State Street and all the development that’s going on … people want an actual voice in city council.”

“People are just feeling their voices are left behind, that the people in city council, they have their blinders on,” he added. “There’s been a lot of heated confrontations in City Hall, and it’s kind of embarrassing.”

On the issues. Our conversation with Zurlinden is the latest in a summer-long series Newsmakers is doing with candidates for council and mayor. In our campaign interviews, we ask the candidates for their views on four key issues. Here’s what he said about them, lightly edited for clarity:

Rent control. I support rent stabilization, but only as a piece of a larger housing strategy, not as a solution...I believe it can be used more of a bridge solution while we’re getting housing developed a little bit more (but) what actually concerns me with the city, is they don’t have any kind of a sunset for this. I see it kind of like a way to really incentivize - let's do five years while we're cleaning up the permitting, incentivizing redevelopment, doing this (while) saying, ‘let's study the actual housing population. So what units are getting taken off the market?…We need transparency on everything, the actual costs (of) this entire ordinance…It's a great program, but it needs to be used correctly.”

State Street. “I think a promenade of about three blocks would be great…I see it as a smaller promenade keeping the upper sections open, be it one-way or two-way traffic (but) I don't feel we need eight or 10 blocks closed…I would like to see is a (cars-free) promenade from De La Guerra to Haley, a three block stretch…Up from De La Guerra Plaza, I haven't seen the need to have that entire section closed. It's a huge stretch.”

“(On e-bikes) I think we need to give the police the resources to actually enforce the laws that are on the books and encourage the crackdown events that they’re doing. And so if we have on State Street, the promenade, those three blocks, we need to have an officer down there, especially right now because it’s kind of wide open, and we need to have that force down there to be able to start educating these people.”

Budget. “It’s very embarrassing…emergency reserves should not be used in normal times (and) we can't just keep breaking out the credit card to pay for everything. And so we've got to get our emergency reserves paid back. (On a vacancy tax): We need to talk to the property owners and say, ‘What’s going on? Is it a permit holdup? Is it a need for a reduced fee? What is it to help encourage you guys?’ Because...it can’t be the only thing. And so I would consider it, but I wouldn’t say it has to happen right away.”

Ranked choice voting. “I think an introduction to ranked choice voting might be good….but maybe looking at the mayoral race, for example, as a (way) to start out and see how that’s going to go.”

Check out our conversation with James Zurlinden via YouTube below or by clicking this link. Our podcast is available on Apple, Spotify, or on SoundCloud. TVSB, Channel 17, airs the show every weeknight at 5 p.m. and at 9 a.m. on weekends. KCSB, 91.9 FM, broadcasts the program at 5:30 p.m. on weekends.

Newsmakers’ Candidate Conversations. To offer Santa Barbara voters early introductions to contenders for four City Council seats, including Mayor, in the Nov. 3 election, Newsmakers is publishing one-on-one interviews with the candidates over the summer. Upcoming interviews include candidates Alexander Stoeber, Wendy Sims-Moten and Kristen Sneddon. Here is who we’ve spoken with to date:

District 4

• Monte Wilson, candidate for District 4 council seat, June 23.

• Jason Dominguez, candidate for District 4, July 6

• Genevieve Taft-Vazquez, candidate for District 4, July 16.

• Devon Wardlow, candidate for District 4, July 21.

District 5

• Cevin Cathell, candidate for District 5, July 23.

• Ian Baucke, candidate for District 5, July 26.

• James Zurlinden, candidate for District 5, Aug. 3.

District 6

• Gabe Escobedo, candidate for District 6, July 13.

Mayor

• Eric Friedman, candidate for Mayor, June 28.

  Thanks for reading SB Newsmakers! This post is public so feel free to share it with a friend and invite them to subscribe for our singular coverage of Santa Barbara.

  Share

In a power grab corrupt and odious even by the unfathomably low standards of the Trump Administration, the House of Representatives last week approved a measure to wipe out all state, local, and other legal authority over the Sable Offshore oil company’s operations in Santa Barbara County.

A very special interest amendment to the annual military spending bill, sponsored by the Republican congressman from Sable’s home district in Houston and approved by one vote in the GOP-held House, would give the Pentagon absolute sway over the company’s actions, brushing away reams of pending regulatory and legal objections to the rogue oil outfit’s reckless behavior, and handing jurisdiction to Pete Hegseth, the boozy Fox News weekend host who Trump installed as what he insists on calling the “Secretary of War.” Nick Welsh reported:

“The amendment language would make such authorization irrevocable and irreversible, no matter how various state and federal courts, now deliberating over various legal controversies surrounding Sable’s production plans and jurisdictional supremacy, might rule.”

On this week’s episode of Newsmakers TV, Nick returns to reprise his reporting on the issue, and to handicap the chances of California’s two U.S. Senators heading off the disastrous matter when the Defense spending bill comes before them.

Callie Fausey joins the gang with a breakdown of how the Administration is simultaneously trying to dismantle the federal Endangered Species Act, by redefining what it means to “harm” a species, while Josh Molina updates the latest sturm und drang from Santa Barbara City Hall over the city’s rent control ordinance.

Plus: the heart-breaking story of the deaths of two newborn red pandas at the Zoo, a new twist in local efforts to handle the homeless, and Josh shares about his big social media breakthrough, with an account of his Joe Rogan-length podcast interview with Santa Barbara’s biggest Instagram star.

All this and more, right here, right now, on Newsmakers TV.

Check out the latest episode via YouTube below or by clicking this link. Our podcast is available on Apple, Spotify, or on SoundCloud. TVSB, Channel 17, airs the show every weeknight at 5 p.m. and at 9 a.m. on weekends. KCSB, 91.9 FM, broadcasts the program at 5:30 p.m. on weekends.

Image: Los Angeles Times.

Leave a comment

On Wednesday, Newsmakers’ pointed criticism of the sinister tone and imagery employed by some tenant activists during this week’s raucous rent control hearing at Santa Barbara City Hall struck a chord in the community.

The post, viewed by more than 2,000 readers, generated dozens of public and private comments and responses, the majority supporting our editorial stance — which specifically decried the display in chambers of a sign featuring a guillotine primed to be wielded against anti-rent control politicians — although a significant portion also took issue with our argument.

The most notable reply came from rent control advocate Ana Garcia, who identified herself in the comments section on our site as the author and bearer of the off-with-their-heads protest sign.

Garcia posted this comment under the post: “So the ‘violence’ of my SIGN is more important to report on as political violence than the ACTUAL violence these elected officials condone against the people every day?” she wrote. “Don’t be distracted by this. The sign has a ballot box as part of the guillotine, but that just gets ignored as well, right?”

In a follow-up exchange via Substack, seeking clarification and elaboration of her statement, Garcia criticized Newsmakers for over-emphasizing symbolic violence — as represented by the graphic of a guillotine, historically associated with the most bloodthirsty era of the French Revolution — instead of focusing on what she characterized as real violence perpetrated by elected officials who oppose rent control.

“It’s symbolism,” she said of her sign. “As for violence, I think choosing to side with people who are exploiting tenants and who make poor choices in their business endeavors, over helping to ensure constituents stay housed, is violent.”

Also noteworthy was the first statement on the matter from council member and mayor’s race front-runner Kristen Sneddon. In preparing the original story, I texted every member of the City Council a photo of Garcia’s sign and posed “a binary question”: Did council members condemn the display of the sign in City Hall, or did they find it acceptable?

Before deadline, I tried and failed repeatedly to connect with Sneddon, who later texted a 74-word comment, at 1:52 a.m. Wednesday, inserted a few hours later as an update to the original story on the Newsmakers site:

“We all support the First Amendment and welcome public comment at City Hall, from all sides, on any issue,” Sneddon wrote. “There are times when comments or images are used to provoke, and this one clearly did. I don’t think it affected any of our votes on the issue, one way or the other.

“Regardless,” she added, “I don’t think images that can be interpreted in this way should be broadcast on City TV, for all our safety.”

Here is a representative sample of other comments we received, pro and con.

• Rent control supporter Zachary Cosseboom cited the opening line of the Newsmakers piece — “Maybe I’m just overly sensitive” — and employed multiple emojis to argue that the guillotine image clearly symbolized electoral politics, not physical violence. He also took issue with comments by Mayor Randy Rowse, saying it was a bipartisan warning to politicians, not just to Republicans: “Yes, Jerry you are overly sensitive 🍼,” Cosseboom wrote. “It is cutting a piece of paper. Also I don’t think Randy saw it had a rhino & a donkey 🤦‍♂️”

• Journalist, teacher and friend of Newsmakers Cissy Ross also reacted negatively to the piece, saying that First Amendment rights of free expression far eclipsed objections to the message and content of the “rage bait” sign. “Concerning the sign at the rent control meeting — ‘rage bait’ is right,” she wrote, referencing a comment by council member Oscar Gutierrez. “Study how to make an effective argument. This ain’t it.”

Most of those who commented on the site or by email, however, agreed with Newsmakers’ condemnation of the sign.

• "Thanks for laying it out there. When our representatives are silent on stuff like this — very bad deal," wrote environmental advocate Hillary Hauser, who applauded council member and mayoral candidate Eric Friedman's disapproving comments. "Thank you, Eric, for speaking up. The violence in this country is increasing by the day, thanks to the hatefulness of our Supreme Commander — and the only way to fight such stuff is in our own back yard," Hauser added. "We're all depressed/oppressed/obsessed by the news. We need backbone close to us right now; we need a City Council with backbone. A sign with guillotine/violence is NOT permissible in any city council chamber."

• Planning Commissioner Brian Barnwell also connected the local episode to national politics. “It is what President Obama, in his statesmanlike way, referred to as ‘the coarsening of public debate,’” Barnwell wrote. “I am not supportive of silence on this coarsening, which is a form of bullying, and which is a page taken directly from the playbook of the most coarse and heinous of them all: the drumpf” — his final word a mocking reference to Donald Trump.

• Former city Fire Chief Pat McElroy was critical of council members who did not speak out publicly at the meeting. “It was a shameful day,” he wrote. “How afraid of their own supporters are some of these council members? They can’t bring themselves to condemn something akin to the signs of January 6th. I think this council, and probably the next, will have a hard time keeping really talented staff, who they continually throw under the bus.”

• Cheri Rae, biographer of Santa Barbara icon Pearl Chase, expressed regret on behalf of venerable local values, writing that “our civic discourse has drifted a long way away from the days when Pearl Chase advocated for what she referred to as the three C’s: ‘Communicate, Co-ordinate, Co-operate.’”

• (Update 1Aug26. Late Friday, council member Wendy Santamaria responded to our original question about the guillotine sign with a 169-word statement texted more than 48 hours after Newsmakers asked the binary question. Santamaria echoed the argument made by Ana Garcia, saying she does not “condone political violence in action or in rhetoric. It has no place in our discourse or in our city,” and adding that evictions and the brutality of ICE agents on the streets of Santa Barbara also are forms of violence that should be “condemned.”

You can find further public comments about the post on the Newsmakers website here.

Image above: The Amherst Current.

Image: The contentious sign (Josh Molina photo for the News-Press).

Leave a comment

Maybe I’m just overly sensitive.

But I’ve actually covered the assassinations of two local elected officials,1 so seeing a sign hoisted at Santa Barbara City Hall on Tuesday night that glorified the beheading of political leaders made me sick with disgust and outrage.

Is that who we are now? Is this what politics in Santa Barbara has come to — that anyone who disagrees with you on a policy issue deserves to be put to death?

Please spare me the lectures about freedom of expression. I’ve spent a lifetime manifesting and defending the First Amendment, and I’ve got the scars — physical, emotional, legal, financial — to show for it.

Count me all in for freedom of speech — but as a simple matter of plain civic virtue, in a town long distinguished by civility and mutual respect, can we not agree that graphically cheering the decapitation of political foes is, if not unconstitutional, simply wrong?

What council said. Newsmakers surveyed the seven members of City Council, all of whom saw the off-with-their-heads sign at Tuesday night’s packed meeting about rent control, and were also witness to hours of jeering, heckling and berating of members, City Administrator Kelly McAdoo and other city officials, largely by tenant advocates.

Their responses broke down into two categories — the gallant and the timid.

The Gallant

Eric Friedman, who is running for mayor, had a clear and direct response to the offensive sign and those celebrating its sentiments. “It’s not acceptable to me,” said Friedman, acknowledging the First Amendment argument. “In a time when elected officials have faced threats, violence and even been killed, everyone should take time to think about the potential ramifications of their actions.”

Mayor Randy Rowse, the target of much of the vitriol hurled at the dais, said he “100 percent” condemns the sign. “That kind of directed violent imagery tests the boundaries of free speech,” he said. “I assume the elephants on the picture indicate Republicans and perhaps it was directed at me. Too bad I’ve never been a Republican.”

Meagan Harmon responded with swift moral clarity to our question about the menacing sign. “It’s an easy ‘unacceptable,’” she texted. “I guess the First Amendment says it’s okay, but like, does anyone say it’s a good thing?”

Mike Jordan criticized himself for not speaking out in the moment with the outrage he said he felt. “I’m extremely sorry, looking back, that I didn’t just pop off about that, and the loud personal verbal attack on (McAdoo) and staff … I’m pretty much done politely dealing with immature (people) who think part of advocacy or discussion is jeering, attempting to intimidate, and generally acting like spoiled toddlers.”

Oscar Gutierrez, calling the sign “rage bait,” defended the free-speech right to wield it, but said that “for me personally it’s not acceptable,” adding that he plans to “voice my disapproval” to those behind it and “ask the city attorney if we can limit signs at the public comment podium.”

The timid.

Wendy Santamaria, to the surprise of no one, did not respond to our questions about the offending sign. Her one-note symphony of politics begins and ends with rent control, and she is more responsible than anyone for the toxic tone of public hearings on the subject.

More surprising is the silence of Kristen Sneddon, even though her support for rent control largely fuels her campaign for mayor. Over the course of an afternoon and evening, she didn’t respond to repeated texts and calls seeking response to a simple, binary question - does she condemn the sign, or does she find it acceptable?

So she either: a) doesn’t know what she thinks or; b) is trying to duck the whole thing. We’re not sure which is worse, but it is disconcerting that someone imploring voters to install her in the office that is the public face of Santa Barbara lacks the gumption to stand up for basic decency.

(Update 30July26): About seven-and-a-half hours after this piece published, council member and mayoral front-runner Sneddon responded to our simple question with this terpsichorean answer:

“We all support the First Amendment and welcome public comment at City Hall, from all side, on any issue. There are times when comments or images are used to provoke, and this one clearly did. I don’t think it affected any of our votes on the issue, one way or the other. Regardless, I don’t think image that can be interpreted in this way should be broadcast on City TV, for all our safety.”

Editor’s’ note: Donald Trump’s personal and political corruption is so unprecedented, so fast-moving and so ubiquitous that it often feels overwhelming to comprehend, let alone to keep track of it. So we admired and saluted California U.S. Senator Adam Schiff’s attempt last week to inventory and explain all the bribery, graft, extortion and other criminality which has become commonplace (and dangerously, normalized by much of the legacy media) during the second Trump Administration. Here’s the text of an extraordinary speech Schiff delivered on the Senate floor on July 23. /jr).

Mr. President,

More than a year and a half ago, when Donald Trump placed his hand on a Bible and took the oath of office for the second time, he swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

In the time since, he has failed to live up to that basic promise. Instead, he has focused laser-like on a very different priority — to preserve, protect, and expand his family’s wealth.

The payments to the president and his family have been massive. The self-dealing and profiteering have been absolutely breathtaking in their scope.

And you don’t have to take my word for it. Two weeks ago, the president filed his annual financial disclosure — signed under penalty of law. It shows more than $2.3 billion dollars in income last year alone. $2.3 billion made by the president in the last year alone. Wow.

That is three and a half times what he reported the year before. So, either he’s just become a much better businessman since he became president, or he is corruptly using his office to enrich himself. The same can be said for much of the rest of his family.

Exposing this corruption is the first necessary step to stopping it. This is important in its own right — public servants should not be enriching themselves at public expense.

But it is even more crucial to root out corruption for another reason, and that is because the cost of corruption is an economy that does not meet the basic needs of the American people, an economy that does not produce housing that average families can afford, or a college education that young people can obtain without mortgaging their future, or quality healthcare that is accessible, or groceries that don’t break the family budget.

When the president is fixated only on his family’s personal wealth, on the money he can make by abusing the power of his position, on his own vanity projects, gilding the White House, gilding statues and gilding a ballroom, he has very little time or inclination to address the problems facing ordinary Americans. They are mere afterthought, and the country suffers.

That is the true cost of corruption.

So today, I’m going to walk you through the top ten ways this president has turned the Oval Office into a personal revenue stream. The settlements he’s collected. The gifts he’s pocketed.

The money he and his family have extracted from anyone with the misfortune of needing something from this government. And the pet causes he has extorted money to fund. Bear in mind, every number I am about to give you is either taken from his own financial filing, or from public reporting.

And because the president seems to enjoy ratings and rankings, we’ll count them down – from number ten all the way to number one — of the top ten most corrupt self-enrichment schemes of the president.

And by the time we reach number one, we will have tallied billions of dollars for him, for his family, for his personal whims — and nothing for you. That is the cost of corruption.

Number 10. Let’s start small. And by small, I mean $23 million.

Since his re-election, the Trump family has made at least $23 million dollars licensing the Trump name overseas. A hotel in Oman. Towers in India. Golf courses on the outskirts of Riyadh and Doha.

These are just a few of the more than twenty overseas projects the Trump Organization is now pursuing – many of them requiring the cooperation of foreign governments. And here’s the thing about needing help from foreign governments when you happen to be the President of the United States —

Those governments are going to want something in return. They’re going to want you to treat them very, very favorably in return.

These countries all want something from the United States of America — U.S. military protection, U.S. nuclear power plants, U.S. technologies, U.S. AI chips, you name it. They want something from this country. And these countries are not investing in the Trump family projects out of the goodness of their hearts. They want payback, and much to the detriment of Americans’ national security interests, they are getting it.

Let’s look at just one example, this one from Southeast Asia. The administration agreed to lower its threatened tariffs on Vietnam — but not until after the Trump Organization broke ground on a $1.5 billion Trump golf complex outside of Hanoi. A golf complex that Vietnamese officials fast-tracked – by ignoring their own rules.

This kind of overt pay-to-play is playing out in country after country after country.

What is the cost of this corruption? Well, our national security suffers when the president sells advanced chips to a gulf nation, not because it’s in our interest to do so, not because our own AI companies don’t need the chips to compete, but because the president or his family got a payoff. Our country suffers when the president makes national security decisions for financial reasons that benefit not the country, but himself.

Did the president just approve nuclear power plants in Saudi Arabia because it’s a good idea? Or because the Saudis have been phenomenally generous to the Trump family business, to the president and his sons, and to his son-in-law Jared Kushner in particular, in whom they invested a cool $2 billion.

Will American troops, our sons and daughters, be more at risk of deployment to the Middle East, with more endless wars, or because of a nuclear arms race that we helped get started in the region — not because helping the Saudis go nuclear was good for us — but because the Saudis wanted payback for their investment in Donald Trump’s family? That is the cost of corruption.

Number 9. Number nine rings us to perhaps one of the most frivolous media lawsuits to ever see the inside of a courtroom. Following a 60 Minutes interview with Vice President Kamala Harris during that presidential campaign, Trump sued CBS, alleging, believe it or not, “election interference.”

His claim?

That CBS edited the interview to make Harris sound better.

Let me remind everyone – most long-form television interviews are edited. That’s how television works. But in Trump’s reality, editing is election interference if he doesn’t like the edits.

CBS acknowledged the suit was frivolous. The president had no right to sue because he doesn’t like how an interview with someone else is edited. It’s absurd. The studio has a first amendment right to make those decisions for itself.

Nevertheless, CBS agreed to pay off the president — $16 million. Why? Not because they thought they would lose the litigation — they knew Trump’s claim would never be successful. No, CBS agreed to pay off the president because its parent, Paramount Studios, wanted to merge with Skydance in a deal worth $8 billion dollars. What was a $16 million dollar payoff compared to an $8 billion dollar deal?

And it wasn’t just the $16 million dollar payoff. Skydance also committed to paying another $20 million in advertising and public service announcements favored by the president. Final tally: $36 million, that the president was able to extort because he could leverage his power to kill the merger deal — into a personal payoff.

So, what’s the cost of that corruption to you? Well, if you’re a worker in the entertainment industry, it just might cost you your job, because a merger was approved on a corrupt basis and without considering job losses in the industry wasn’t made to benefit you.

If you’re a consumer, you’ll be paying more for your streaming service and have fewer choices, because this deal wasn’t approved with consumers in mind — it was approved to make money for the president.

This particular brand of corruption — suing media companies to extort them for payoffs — goes beyond anything the president did in first term. This president doesn’t just complain about the press – calling them “fake news” or “enemies of the people.”

No, no. That was the stuff of Trump 1.0.

In Trump 2.0, he sues them into submission. Uses the leverage he has over their business deals and mergers. And pockets the proceeds. More money for him, fewer jobs for you, and more money out of your pocket when you want to stream your favorite shows. This is the cost of corruption.

Number 8. Number eight is a three-for-one. Twitter. YouTube. Meta. Sixty million dollars, combined.

Trump got suspended from these platforms for conduct related to the attack he incited on the Capitol. He sued. And one by one, the companies paid up. To him personally, and to his pet projects, like the golden ballroom.

Twitter – now Elon Musk’s X – settled for $10 million. A case a district judge had already thrown out and that an appeals court was openly skeptical of. They paid anyway.

And the president’s response?

He went on television to complain it was not enough, it was too low – that he “was looking to get much more money than that.”

YouTube settled for $25 million. And in a flourish of creative accounting, $22 million of it was routed straight to the White House golden ballroom project.

More on that ballroom in a minute.

But Meta – parent company to Facebook and Instagram – they also settled for $25 million.

And just to sweeten the pot, they kicked in an additional million to Trump’s inaugural fund.

So, let’s recap just this item. The president sues these platforms over their refusal to amplify his false claims about the election and his incitement of insurrection. Using the leverage he now has over them as president, to help or to hurt their businesses, he extorts them to the tune of $60 million dollars.

It is a disinformation loyalty program – except the rewards go to the president, and the rest of us get more false claims, more false information, more social harms from an unregulated social media, and potentially, more incitement of violence around our elections. This is the cost of that corruption.

Number 7. For number 7, we move back to the family business.

You may have seen the trailers.

Amazon struck a $40 million deal with First Lady Melania Trump for a documentary about her life before and during her time in the White House.

Reports indicate that Melania’s team shopped the project to several studios and executives – many of whom had attended Trump’s inauguration – before Amazon closed the deal.

And Amazon, separately, contributed another $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund.

Of the $40 million though, the First Lady personally received $28 million.

The big-time theatrical run of this film brought in only $16 million at the box office – landing it at a sweet #68 on the 2026 releases, behind “Bunny!!,” behind “Guru,” and behind “Mobile Suit Gundam Hathaway: The Sorcery of Nymph Circe.”

Bear in mind the Melania movie was so bad, that one reviewer at Variety said that if you saw the film on a plane, you would still walk out. But Amazon paid the Trump family $40 million for it. Why?

Because Amazon has huge government contracts at stake, worth billions of dollars. What is a $40 million payment for Melania, when you want a federal cloud computing contract worth a hundred times that much? Worth billions.

So – while families across this country are wrestling with the skyrocketing price of groceries, the First Lady is collecting $28 million for a documentary about….herself.

But more important, we end up paying Amazon billions in government contracts when Amazon may — or may not — be the best deal for the American taxpayer. When the amount of the contract may — or may not — be competitive with other companies, when Amazon may — or may not — be the best competitor in the bidding process.

We may never know if taxpayers are getting ripped off, and whether the true cost of the Melania film was a bad deal for the country costing taxpayers billions of dollars on cloud computing that we didn’t need to spend.

This kind of corrupt contracting — where taxpayer funds are wasted because of a backroom deal or a kickback — is common in developing countries, but it hasn’t been common here, not until now. And that is the cost of corruption.

Number 6. Just 24 hours before taking the oath of office, Donald Trump launched a meme coin called $TRUMP. A memecoin is, a kind of a “joke” digital currency. But Trump still saw the opportunity for personal profit – about $635 million worth.

And the people on the other side of that trade? More than 810,000 of them have lost a combined two billion dollars. That’s 810,000 people that bought this memecoin, this Trump memecoin, mainly the president’s own supporters, lost money so the president could make hundreds of millions of dollars.

But even that is not the end of the story. It gets worse.

Trump hosted a private dinner for the top holders of his memecoin. Investors were told they had a two-and-a-half-week window to buy enough $TRUMP to earn a seat. He created a public auction, where what was being auctioned off was access to the president – buy Trump’s memecoin and you get to dine with the president. Where? At his own private club in Virginia.

And among the guests?

A crypto billionaire who’d been charged by the SEC with fraud, in a case in which Trump’s SEC just coincidentally asked a judge to hit pause on the matter just weeks before the meme coin dinner.

And this March, the case was dropped entirely — dismissed with prejudice, never to be brought again — with the company paying a mere $10 million penalty while admitting nothing. This, for a crypto billionaire who had poured some $75 million into Trump family crypto ventures.

So, to recap this item, the president invents a by-definition worthless asset, profits while hundreds of thousands of Americans lose their savings buying it, breaks bread with the people his government is investigating for defrauding investors, even as his administration puts an end to the alleged fraudster’s potential prosecution.

The cost of corruption here: hundreds of millions of dollars go to Trump, hundreds of thousands of Americans lose the value of their purchases — about $2 billion in total — and fraudsters get a pass to commit other frauds on the American people. More money for Trump, more fraud for you. This is the cost of corruption.

Number 5. Number five is one of the most audacious schemes in presidential history: the gold-plated, gilded, and gaudy White House ballroom. The president has solicited ever-larger donations for this pet project – which now has a whopping price tag of $600 million.

A $600 million monument to his vanity, built for him by people who need something from the government. And paid for by you, the taxpayer. Because far from the president’s promise that no tax dollars would be used for his golden ballroom, he’s making you pay an estimated $300 million of your tax dollars towards this project. Promises made, promises broken, and the taxpayer left holding the bag.

Now – I have sought answers from the White House on this ballroom. Asking who are the private donors, and how much they have given, and what business do they have before the federal government. Their response?

Not surprisingly, no response. Not willing to say. Not willing to be transparent. Wanting to keep it hidden from the American people.

But we know there are at least 37 donors. Among them, Amazon and Apple and Google and Meta and Microsoft and Coinbase and Tether and Caterpillar and Lockheed Martin and T-Mobile. And more.

Of these corporate donors, two-thirds have been awarded federal contracts over the last five years – contracts worth $279 billion. And fourteen of them are either facing, or have had suspended, federal actions for violations of the law.

So let’s get this straight – companies under federal investigation, many of them, write a check for the president’s ballroom, and their legal troubles go away, or their contracts multiply. Or in some cases, both.

Trump even told these donors they’d be the first guests welcomed into the finished ballroom – “if I still like you at that time, which I’m sure I will.”

Translation? Keep paying, and I’ll keep liking you.

The cost of this corruption: Hundreds of millions in taxpayer funding that could go to building new hospitals in your community. Or building new schools, or keeping the ones near you open — go to a ballroom instead. Hundreds of daycare centers that could have received funding so you don’t have to pay so much for childcare, or so there is even childcare in your area.

But instead of building roads or bridges, hospitals or healthcare clinics or childcare, the president is building a gaudy gold tollbooth in place of the East Wing. And federal contracts are going to the biggest donors, not the best competitors, and that could cost you billions more in taxes.

Number 4. Number four is the gift that keeps on taking.

A $400 million luxury jet, “gifted” by the government of Qatar, to serve as Air Force One through the end of Trump’s term.

And then?

Transferred to Trump’s own museum foundation. His to keep! He took his maiden flight aboard it just a few weeks ago.

And while the president insists the plane is “free,” outfitting it to serve as Air Force One could cost American taxpayers up to one billion dollars in security upgrades.

A billion dollars. For this “free” jet. That he gets to keep. Paid for by you, the taxpayer, and his generous friends, the Qataris.

And let’s not pretend there’s nothing expected in return. Trump himself volunteered that the United States provides security for Qatar – and “will continue to.”

He also explained that only a “stupid person” turns down a “free very expensive airplane.” Only a stupid person would turn it down. How could he refuse?

So, a foreign government hands the president a $400 million jet. We pay a billion in taxes to make it usable. He keeps it when he leaves office. And if you think that’s corrupt, he thinks you’re the stupid one.

That is not a gift to America. It’s a gift to Donald Trump – paid for by the American taxpayer, courtesy of a foreign government that now holds a great deal of leverage over the president.

The same foreign government whose wealth fund is invested in developing the Doha Trump International Golf Club – complete with luxury villas and 18 holes of world-class golf.

The cost of this corruption: American foreign policy our national security interests in the region now skewed towards a country that gives the president exorbitant gifts or develops real estate deals with his family.

That is not putting America first, but putting it last, well behind his family and personal interests in a plane and golf courses.

Number 3. At three –– the numbers have turned even more staggering.

After a barrage of executive orders targeting the legal profession, nine wealthy law firms struck deals with the administration – pledging nearly one billion dollars in “pro bono services” to make those threats go away. Threats to disfavor their clients, threats to take their security clearances away so they couldn’t represent other clients, threats to look unfavorably on the mergers their clients want, government contracts or lucrative deals favored by their clients.

Now this money didn’t land directly in the president’s bank account. This is value he extracted – nearly a billion dollars in legal work, redirected to causes he favors, surrendered by law firms who were afraid of what he might do to them if they refused.

And who negotiated these deals? Reportedly, Boris Epshteyn – the president’s personal lawyer. Not a government official. A private citizen, allegedly shaking down America’s largest law firms on the administration’s behalf.

Nine hundred and forty million dollars, extracted under threat. And all too easily complied with by firms that were unwilling to take a stand. It is a modern protection racket.

What is the cost of this corruption: well, law firms are silenced from representing clients whose interests may be averse to the president. That might be you one day. Businesses unable to get counsel because these law firms are too scared of crossing a vindictive president. That business may be your business one day.

And the law firms that stood their ground and defied the president, they risk losing business in a corruption of the economy that only favors firms willing to capitulate to the president. It is Putin-style economics. And it doesn’t work any better here than it does in Russia.

Number 2. We are now in the top two.

World Liberty Financial. The Trump family cash cow.

A firm in which the Trump family holds an ownership interest of around 75 percent.

The sale of these governance tokens has earned the family well over a billion dollars. A single deal tied to a state-backed fund in the United Arab Emirates funneled $500 million into this venture. A single deal, made by a wealthy sheik who is also head of that country’s intelligence service. What could go wrong? And in return, they just got American made advanced AI chips, just like they wanted. Coincidence? I don’t think so. If you do, I have a ballroom I’d like to sell you.

But the scheme doesn’t stop here.

Because the Trump family is also entitled to the interest earned on the reserves backing their stablecoin – this income is ongoing, grows by the day, and is pegged to the U.S. dollar itself. Unlike the memecoin, this is real money.

More than $1.5 billion. And counting.

Over a billion and a half dollars, flowing to the president’s family, through a financial instrument his family controls, launched while he sits in the Oval Office.

Not a side business. Not a blind trust.

The President of the United States, using the power and prestige of his office to drive money into a venture he owns – and from which he profits every single day.

And consider what one of the family’s business partners got in return. The world’s largest crypto exchange, Binance, helped turn World Liberty’s stablecoin from a small venture into one of the largest in the world — first by settling a $2 billion investment from an Abu Dhabi state fund in the Trump coin, then by building it into the exchange’s own trading systems.

And for that Trump family earns interest on every dollar.

And the founder of Binance, what did he get out of it? He’d been convicted of money-laundering crimes and was facing the consequences. Until, last October, when the president pardoned him. A foreign-funded boost to the family business, repaid with a presidential pardon.

The cost of this corruption? Crooked deals to benefit convicted fraudsters. U.S. foreign policy for sale to the highest gulf bidder. Less time, attention and resources of the country focused on bringing down your costs, improving your quality of life, bringing back prosperity to America.

Number 1. Which takes us, ladies and gentlemen, to number one. The crown jewel.

The president his IRS settlement and the $1.7 billion slush fund. So, here’s the scheme and you have to give the president credit for its audacity. The president sues the IRS an agency run by one of his employees, one of his appointees, and represented by the Department of Justice, also run by one of his appointees. His lawyers bring the suit, and his lawyers defend the suit. He is functionally suing himself.

And he, not surprisingly, settles with himself for a staggering amount. He gets an IRS get out of jail free card, he faces no audit or investigations for any prior tax fraud or underpayment that he, his kids, his businesses, or his associates have ever made or participated in — a deal estimated to be worth up to $100 million dollars for the Trump family, personally.

It is a sham settlement, castigated by a federal judge as based on a suit brought wholly for an improper purpose and a settlement that was the product of the worst form of collusion and self-dealing. But that is just the start. The $100 million tax get out of free card only a start.

The settlement also purports to give the president control over $1.776 billion in taxpayer money which he can use as a personal slush fund to compensate his friends and allies who claimed that they were wronged. Included among the aggrieved — people who violently attacked law enforcement officers on January 6th.

Now these people who attacked police officers on January 6. They already got pardoned by the president, on his first day. But that wasn’t enough, for them or the president. They want to be paid for their acts of insurrection, and the president is willing to pay them with your tax dollars. Imagine, your tax dollars going to pay cop beaters.

And besides the morally repugnant nature of that slush fund and its beneficiaries, it comes at a huge cost. He wants nearly two billion of your money your tax dollars to fund this cop beater program. Not to serve the public. But as a pot of money, he controls – to pay out to the people loyal to him. Willing to use violence for him.

Congress and the courts have compelled Trump’s acting attorney general to back off the fund for now, but not the president. He still wants to make the payoffs to his cronies and enablers, and the administration is looking for other ways to loot the treasury for the same purpose, using other funds of the Department of Justice.

Taxpayer money, converted into a personal patronage for the preseident.

There is a word for governments that take public money and hand it to their friends.

And it is not “republic.”

The cost of this corruption: incalculable. Besides misappropriating billions of your money, it is also rewarding people seeking to overturn a free and fair election. If it succeeds in encouraging others to do so in the next election, the cost to you just may be our whole democracy.

So, let’s add it up.

• Overseas licensing: $23 million

• Media lawsuits: $36 million

• Big Tech settlements: $60 million

• Amazon and Melania: $40 million

• The memecoin: $635 million

• The White House ballroom: $600 million

• The Qatari jet: $400 million

• Big Law: $940 million

• World Liberty Financial: $1.5 billion and counting

• The IRS giveaway and slush fund: $1.7 billion and $100 million

For a grand total of 6 billion dollars. And that fellow Americans is just the top ten.

What’s not counted. That doesn’t include the Trump wine sold at the Coast Guard exchanges. It doesn’t include Don Jr.’s executive branch club. It doesn’t include the Trump resort in Qatar or the Trump hotel in Belgrade. It doesn’t include Don Jr.’s 2.6 million in a drone company that just got, coincidentally, landed an army contract. And it doesn’t even include all the stock trades of the president.

The president’s own filing shows 3,642 trades in just the first three months of the year. 58 trades every single market day. Up to three quarters of a billion dollars worth of trades. Think about that. The man who’s supposed to be running the country, instead he’s running a trading desk.

And what a trader he is. He bought Nvidia stock on January 6th of this year, and one week later, his commerce department approved Nvidia chip sales to China, a $50 billion opportunity for the company. He bought more Nvidia in February. A week later, Nvidia announced a blockbuster deal with Meta.

What are the odds, trade after trade, perfectly timed two decisions only his government knew were coming?

And these are only the deals that we know about.

No one put this historic level of corruption in perspective better than the Vice President, J.D. Vance, who recently told a crowd that if Watergate took place today, it would be a 12-hour story.

Think about that for a moment. If the president broke into the Democratic Party headquarters, bugged the place, used hush money to cover it up, used the CIA to thwart the FBI’s investigation of it. Lied to the country about it. J.D. Vance says that would be a mere blip on the screen for them today.

He is telling us, the Vice President is telling us, that the corruption of the Trump regime, his regime, is so pervasive, they have so successfully normalized it, that Nixon’s behavior would seem quaint. Congratulations, JD. You’ve made the most egregious corruption commonplace. Well done. You should be so very proud.

After Watergate, Congress passed a host of reforms to constrain a future corrupt president. They included limits on campaign finance, safeguards to wall off presidential misuse of the Justice Department, New oversight mechanisms for the intelligence community. Offices of Inspector General to root out fraud and much more.

What is to be done. It now falls on us in this generation to usher in a whole new set of reforms to address a far broader range of lawlessness and corruption.

During the first Trump administration, I introduced the Protecting Our Democracy Act, a package of reforms meant to address the many violations of law and norms by the president at that time. We have reintroduced it in the Senate, but as the list of laws and guardrails shattered multiplies, the need for corrective action must multiply with it.

Just this week, I have introduced three additional bills meant to attack conflicts of interest, keep convicted fraudsters out of the government and tighten our laws against the bribery of public officials. In the weeks and months to come, we must propose the best laws that we can, meant to constrain the worst impulses of human nature.

But we must be mindful of this truth as well. And that is, no set of laws, no matter how well conceived, no Constitution, no matter how brilliantly constructed, can protect our lives, our liberty, our prosperity if elected officials are unwilling to live up to their oaths or to accept the truth or to put their country over their party. None of it will be enough.

We must also return prosperity to America. We must make it possible when people are working hard they can earn a good living for themselves and their families. When people see the lives that their parents had as better, all too many are willing to entertain and put their fate in the hands of any demagogue who promises that they alone can fix it.

Our democracy will not be on solid ground until our economy is working again for all Americans.

When the founders gathered in Philadelphia in the sweltering summer of 1787, they debated a great many things. But one fear united them across every divide, the fear of corruption. They had just thrown off a king. They had risked everything, their lives, their fortunes, their honor, to build something new.

A republic, a government of laws, not men. And they knew with a clarity born of hard experience that a republic would not long endure if leaders used public power for private gain. That’s why they wrote a constitution of checks and balances. One that set the ambition of one branch of government against the other. And included provisions meant to address the personal weaknesses and failings of a president, any president.

Because they understood human nature. They understood those in power would be tempted to enrich themselves. They understood that foreign governments would try to buy our leaders with gifts and payments and favors. They imagined something like what we are witnessing today.

But what they may not have imagined, what they may have exceeded even their worst fears, was a president so brazen, so shameless, so relentless, and so creative in the pursuit of personal profit. And a Congress so feckless, so loath to confront him, so lacking an ambition for its own power and institution, so willing to let him profit at the public expense, with payout after payout after payout.

The snuffbox factor. In 1785, Benjamin Franklin was serving as our ambassador to France. The King of France gave him a gift, a snuffbox encrusted with diamonds, a gesture of diplomatic friendship. In Paris, such gifts were routine, business as usual. But back home in America, it sparked a controversy. Franklin had to ask Congress for permission to keep it, and the Congress, then under the Articles of Confederation, granted it.

But the concern that a leader less scrupulous than Franklin would be tempted, would be compromised, lingered. So, when delegates gathered in Philadelphia two years later to write our Constitution, they remembered the snuffbox. The first draft said nothing about foreign gifts or emoluments. The final draft did, because they remembered the snuffbox.

Edmund Randolph, one of the Constitution’s framers, later explained it this way. This restriction was provided to prevent corruption. A box was presented to our ambassador by the king of our allies. It was thought proper in order to exclude corruption and foreign influence to prohibit anyone in office from receiving or holding any emoluments from foreign states.

They wrote it into the Constitution because of a snuff box.

Imagine. And now we have a president accepting a $400 million jet? Can you imagine what the founders would have thought of that?

We have a president earning more than a billion dollars from a cryptocurrency company, his family controls funded in large part by foreign interests. The founders understood that once you accept the first gift, the second becomes easier and the third, and soon you’re not making decisions based on what’s right for the country, you’re making them based on who’s been generous to you. As president.

Bottom line. My colleagues, the White House has become a marketplace and the presidency a crooked family business.

Every one of these transactions, the dozens we know about and the many more we surely don’t, raises profound questions about the influence of foreign governments and the buying and selling of American policy, American justice, and American democracy itself.

Every single day this continues. Our democracy is weakened. Our institutions are compromised. The office of the presidency is degraded. And the costs come out of your pocket. Out of your pocket.

But here’s the thing. The founders and their warning to us about corruption also gave us the tools to fight it. They gave us a free press to investigate and expose it. They gave us a separation of powers so that no branch could become too powerful. We have those powers in this body. In this body to stop it. If only we will use them.

And they gave us above all A government of the people. The ultimate authority. The final word. And it will take all of us demanding something better. Voting for something better. Refusing to accept that this is normal or inevitable or just the way things are. A 12-hour story.

Our story is not 12 hours long. But 250 years old. It is the story of a country that began as an improbable experiment, where people believed that we had sufficient virtue to be self-governing, that we did not need to be ruled by a despot, a country where what’s right matters, where the truth matters, and where decency, basic decency matters.

That is the story of the birth of this country. And that can be the story of its future if we are willing to fight for it.

Adam Schiff, 66, was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2024, after serving 12 terms in the House of Representatives. He was a leader in the first impeachment trial of Donald Trump.

Image: Schiff prosecutes the case in the Senate impeachment trial against Trump in Jan. 2020 (The New Yorker).

Leave a comment

Ian Baucke “got the political bug” early, he says.

Born and raised in Santa Barbara, he headed to Washington, D.C., after his 2017 graduation from San Marcos High School to attend George Washington University, one of the nation’s premier training grounds for political leaders.

Blocks from the White House and Capitol Hill, he earned an undergraduate degree in Political Science and a master’s in Professional Studies in Political Management, although the pandemic temporarily disrupted the latter pursuit. Back home during lockdown, he dipped into some local campaigns and causes while also landing a remote gig with a nonprofit that distributed federal relief funds to counties.

“I got involved in local politics during what I call ‘the spring break that never ended,’ as I started grad school during Covid,” Baucke said in an interview. “And those experiences really made me decide that the local level is where I would want to invest my time as someone interested in a career in public service.”

Today, the 27-year-old, self-confessed policy nerd is a leading candidate for the open City Council seat in Santa Barbara’s District 5, his campaign bolstered by an interlocking network of plugged-in personal, political and policy alliances.

A Democratic county committee member, he won a coveted spot on the party’s endorsement slate card unanimously. A district representative on state Sen. Monique Limón’s staff, he earns an annual state salary of $69,600, according to payroll records. He’s known around City Hall, as the son of city Planning Commissioner John Baucke; as the chair of the city’s advisory Transportation and Circulation Committee; and as a public advocate for Strong Towns Santa Barbara — the local chapter of a national progressive urban planning coalition best known here for its successful, absolutist crusade to keep the State Street “Promenade” closed to traffic.

“I think there’s a bit of a misconception out there that we have a Chicago-style party boss machine or something like that,” Baucke told Newsmakers, when asked about the Democratic Party endorsement.

“So yeah, I show up when I can with groups like Strong Towns or the Tenants Union or the Democratic Party, because I found them and I joined them intentionally because they aligned with my values,” he said. “And so that’s why I have the opinions I do. But I’m always happy to talk to folks who have a difference and work it out.”

State of play. District 5 includes Upper State Street, part of San Roque, Hitchcock, Hidden Valley and other nearby neighborhoods. It is relatively affluent, with the highest share among the six council districts of bachelor’s degree holders, according to U.S. Census data, and over half of households owning their own home.

Having moved back home for good in 2024, Baucke is one of three candidates who have pulled papers to run, with film producer and community volunteer Cevin Cathell and financial planner James Zurlinden also vying for the post.

In the interview, Baucke expressed confidence in the ideological correctness of his economic and political analysis of what ails Santa Barbara, but said he remains flexible in crafting policy prescriptions for dealing with it.

“I try to talk to people with a diverse set of perspectives, but I do land on positions that align with my values and what I think is the best path forward for the community,” he said. “And I think that’s a value add for voters.”

“Just growing up in this community as a local, so many of my friends and folks of my generation and beyond have been priced out and displaced — folks who would have stayed in Santa Barbara,” he added. “Our tax dollars were spent educating them and they were invested here. And then through no fault of their own, they’ve been pushed out.”

“Everybody in Santa Barbara … is making a financial sacrifice to live in this community,” Baucke said. “And I think the city council needs to recognize that and honor that and get to work on the policies that we need, especially affordable housing, to make a difference and make it easier for people to live here.

“So that’s kind of the thesis for my campaign,” he said.

Fun with faction. Asked if he’s concerned about political polarization in a small city — as indicated by recent 4-to-3 council votes on a host of long-term consequential policies, from rent control to State Street to the budget — Baucke said divisiveness would decrease if Democratic candidates win more seats.

“I think the reality is that you have an overwhelmingly liberal city,” he said. “And so you’re going to have more of a liberal majority on the council inherently, going forward now that we’ve increased voter participation by moving to even-year elections and district elections.

“And so I would like to see more consensus — I’m really excited about the other (Democratic) candidates running in Districts 4 and 6,” he added. “And if people want to see more consensus … they should vote for us, because you’re going to have a lot fewer 4-to-3 votes if that’s the case.”

With city council seats required by the state Constitution to be non-partisan, we asked him to identify anything in the local Democratic Party’s 7,800-word platform, with which he disagrees: “I struggle to think of an example,” Baucke said, acknowledging that he has not read the document closely, “and I think that just happens to be what my politics are.”

“I’m a progressive,” he said. “That’s the only label I subscribe to — other than that I’m a progressive Democrat.”

“And I believe I’m fighting for working-class Santa Barbarans who are being pushed out. And I think we need a city council that isn’t afraid to say, ‘These are the problems and these are the solutions that we believe in and that we’re going to fight for,’” he added. “People are free to disagree with any of them, but I think they’d appreciate knowing where you stand.

Baucke shrugged off questions about any appearance of a conflict of interest between his duties as a council member and his simultaneous service to Sen. Limón, one of the most powerful politicians in Sacramento, who has her own, far-flung and complex policy and political agenda.

“My day job is my day job,” he said. “I have the utmost respect for Senator Limón. It’s an absolute privilege to work for her. We’re focused day-to-day in the office on delivering results for constituents and helping them … So I don’t see it as a conflict. It is something to be mindful of and to be transparent about and navigate.”

On the issues. Our conversation with Baucke is the latest in a summer-long series Newsmakers is doing with candidates for council and mayor. In our campaign interviews, we ask the candidates for their views on four key issues. Here’s what he said about them:

Budget. Baucke said he does not see any current budget expense that should be cut, and his major fiscal concern is identifying a steady and reliable revenue stream for the city’s Local Housing Trust Fund. “I think there’s a lot of revenue possibilities that have a direct nexus to affordable housing that are the most appropriate. Vacancy tax, residential and commercial, I would support. Real estate transfer tax I think is something worth looking into … The number one expense for the city, as it is for any organization, is people — the staff and their salaries and their benefits. And my preference is to not cut any of them. The city residents deserve the full-service city that we’ve built over the years and have come to expect. And I’m committed to finding every possible way to maintain those services.”

Rent control. “I support rent stabilization … This is about preserving the population, the people who define and make up Santa Barbara, and their ability to live here. If we don’t make policy actions like this, this town is going to wither away. That’s just the demographic reality that we’ve seen over the years. And I don’t want that to happen, and I’m going to do everything in my power from a policymaking perspective if I’m elected to prevent it. And if that requires us standing up to special interests, I get it … But I’m committed to making sure there’s a process for property owners who have unexpected repairs they need to make for tenants, to find ways to amortize that. It’s not about being punitive or picking sides between one economic group or another. It’s about preventing an increase in homelessness.”

State Street. For Baucke, reopening any portion of downtown State Street to traffic is a non-starter. However, he said the proliferation of e-bikes has created problems that require further regulation. “I kind of think that we ended up going with the worst of both worlds by putting a giant bike lane down the middle with no actual separation. Because what it tells people is, ‘This is my space.’ And now we have this proliferation of both legal and illegal e-bikes. A lot of what you see there are going 30, 40 miles an hour and are not even street legal … But we need to get it under control. I believe that we should be impounding any vehicle that’s not street legal and that’s being ridden.”

Ranked-choice voting. “Ranked-choice voting is a great system. It’s definitely preferable to the one that we have now … if we’re able to do it in a way that gets other races incorporated, I think that would be preferable. But it is objectively a better system. So yes, I would be supportive of that or a runoff system.”

Check out our conversation with Ian Baucke via YouTube below or by clicking this link. Our podcast is available on Apple, Spotify, or on SoundCloud. TVSB, Channel 17, airs the show every weeknight at 5 p.m. and at 9 a.m. on weekends. KCSB, 91.9 FM, broadcasts the program at 5:30 p.m. on weekends.

Newsmakers’ Candidate Conversations. To offer Santa Barbara voters early introductions to contenders for four City Council seats, including Mayor, in the Nov. 3 election, Newsmakers is publishing one-on-one interviews with the candidates over the summer. Upcoming interviews include candidates Alexander Stoeber, James Zurlinden, Wendy Sims-Moten and Kristen Sneddon. Here is who we’ve spoken with to date:

District 4

• Monte Wilson, candidate for District 4 council seat, June 23.

• Jason Dominguez, candidate for District 4, July 6

• Genevieve Taft-Vazquez, candidate for District 4, July 16.

• Devon Wardlow, candidate for District 4, July 21.

District 5

• Cevin Cathell, candidate for District 5, July 23.

• Ian Baucke, candidate for District 5, July 26.
  

District 6

• Gabe Escobedo, candidate for District 6, July 13.

Mayor

• Eric Friedman, candidate for Mayor, June 28.

Topics A, B and C on Santa Barbara’s local news front this week was the heartbreaking death by drowning of a puppy named Bruce at a popular Eastside doggie day care facility.

On a new episode of Newsmakers TV, News-Press reporter Kaitlin Sweeney joins the gang to reprise her reporting on the viral story, which not only triggered a street protest outside the shuttered premises of Camp Canine but also generated sickening and detestable social media threats of violence aimed at the business operators.

Ryan P. Cruz checks in with a preview of next week’s big City Council vote on a sweeping rent control ordinance, which will cascade through the political landscape — as Josh Molina explains in breaking down how the contentious issue is shaping campaigns for mayor and three open council seats.

Plus: a big waterfront rally on behalf of free and fair elections; an important community project to equip kids with back-to-school supplies; seniors in despair over being displaced by a major construction project at the Presidio Springs Senior Housing Complex; and the genial host’s head explodes at language-police meddling.

All this and more, right here, right now, on Newsmakers TV.

Check out the latest episode via YouTube below or by clicking this link. Our podcast is available on Apple, Spotify, or on SoundCloud. TVSB, Channel 17, airs the show every weeknight at 5 p.m. and at 9 a.m. on weekends. KCSB, 91.9 FM, broadcasts the program at 5:30 p.m. on weekends.

Image: Bruce the English Bulldog, 1, who died by accidental drowning at Camp Canine (courtesy photo via Santa Barbara News-Press).

Cevin Cathell worked for decades in the production side of the film industry and says the skills she developed — administering budgets, organizing complex projects, managing personality clashes, herding cats — equip her for the duties of serving on Santa Barbara’s City Council.

A political novice, Cathell came to Santa Barbara in 2000 and has paid community dues for a quarter-century as a low-profile volunteer with the SB Women’s Club, the Music Academy and the Film Festival. Now she is seeking the District 5 council seat being vacated by the termed-out Eric Friedman, who is running for mayor.

In an interview, she said she was prompted to run for office for the first time by watching the current council, where long-range consequential decisions like rent control, the future of State Street and even the city budget are being decided on 4-to-3 votes — which she said is leading to “polarization” across the city.

“We are at a crossroads now in Santa Barbara — the polarization is not good for the city,” Cathell (her name is pronounced Keh-vin Ka-THELL) told Newsmakers.

“I’m at a point where I feel like I can give back — I have the skills, I have the organizational skills, I have the budgeting skills,” the 67-year-old Cathell added. “I feel like my strengths, in everything I’ve done, have been to help bring people together — not necessarily in a kumbaya way, but just being able to talk to people and get them to work together.

“I don’t know if that’s gonna be possible, frankly, but I’m gonna do my darndest,” she said.

State of play. District 5 includes Upper State Street, part of San Roque, Hitchcock, Hidden Valley and other nearby neighborhoods. U.S. Census data shows it is relatively affluent, with the highest share among the six council districts of bachelor’s degree holders, and over half of households owning their own home.

Cathell is one of three candidates who have pulled papers to run, with Democratic Party-endorsed Ian Baucke, an aide to Sen. Monique Limón, and financial planner James Zurlinden also vying for the post.

Cathell’s commentary on key policy questions is heavy on platitudes — “we’ve got to bring everyone to the table” — and short on specifics — “I don’t have the whole entire answer; I wish I did” — but she speaks clearly in broad strokes about the big issues facing the city: she opposes rent control and most new taxes, and favors experimenting with returning cars to several blocks of upper State Street on the downtown “promenade.”

“We need to develop more retail, and we need to support the retail that we have already,” she said. “Building affordable housing downtown will bring more businesses down there as well, and of course that will increase sales tax revenues.”

*** Cevin vs. DCC. A lifelong Democrat who was raised by liberal, politically active parents in North Carolina, Cathell said she sought the Democratic Party endorsement but was surprised and disappointed to learn that the county committee had “handpicked” Baucke as their candidate early on. In any case, she was disqualified because of her opposition to rent control, a determinative issue for the party.

She gave this account of her dealings with the party:

“From the very beginning, when I started telling people that I was thinking about running, they were so encouraging — they said, ‘We’re thrilled; however, you have to know that the DCC, the Democratic Central Committee, has chosen somebody else. They’ve handpicked somebody else.’”

“And I said, ‘Fine, I’m going to go for their endorsement anyway, even though I know that they’re going to choose this other person…And so, yes, I went up against the big machine. I did get an interview with the Democratic Central Committee. It was not the most positive interview I have ever done, but I knew going in that they were not going to choose me.

“I feel that they have chosen somebody who has gone with the party line, which is more of a socialist-democratic platform, rather than opening up to all of us …

“I’m not using this as a stepping stone. I’m doing this because I really care about what’s going on in Santa Barbara. And I’m willing to sacrifice and use all my talents to actually try to do the right thing for Santa Barbara … and not be beholden to an agenda.”

*** (Update 9:08 p.m. 7-23-26: About an hour after Newsmakers posted this piece, we received an email from DCC Chair Christian Alonso taking issue with her version of events in which he stated:

“I have great respect for Cevin and the energy she's bringing to this race, and I also understand that campaigns are hard, personal, and often exhausting. But I want to be direct: the characterization of our endorsement process in her Newsmakers interview is not accurate.

The Santa Barbara County Democratic Party's endorsement process is open to every registered Democrat who chooses to seek it. Every candidate who applies receives the same interview process before our Central Committee, made up of elected representatives from across the county. No candidate is chosen in advance, and no outcome is predetermined before candidates have had the chance to make their case.

I take seriously any suggestion that our process was unfair, and I've reached out to Cevin directly about her concerns. But I want your viewers and readers to know clearly: our committee's decisions reflect the votes of its members, made through an open process, not a "handpicked" outcome decided in advance. I wish Cevin well in her campaign and look forward to a race focused on the issues that matter to District 5 and city voters”).

On the issues. Our conversation with Cathell is the latest in a summer-long series Newsmakers is doing with candidates for council and mayor. In our campaign interviews, we ask the candidates for their views on four key issues. Here’s what she said about them.

Rent control. Cathell said she opposes the rent stabilization ordinance before council next week — specifically the 60 percent of Consumer Price Index limit on rent increases — and thinks it will discourage construction of new rental units. “We need more affordable housing, and I’m not sure that this one-pronged approach is going to get us there. It is going to work in the short term for a very small number of people, but I do believe that it will discourage more housing, and we need more affordable housing. That’s the only way we’re gonna get out of this.”

State Street. Cathell said she greatly enjoys the so-called “arts district” and the lower four blocks of State Street, which she thinks should remain closed to traffic, but that the city should be more flexible with the closed upper blocks. “There are a lot of people on the upper part of State Street that are suffering, and those businesses may not be there for much longer. We need a more vibrant downtown, and if opening it up is part of the way to do it, great … Open it up with the option of closing it.”

Budget. Cathell said she might support increasing the city’s Transient Occupancy Tax but opposes a so-called “vacancy tax” on unused downtown properties or housing units. She declined to identify any specific savings in the city’s $257 million general fund, deferring to “the experts” on City Hall staff. “But we are very heavily taxed here. Personally, part of the reason I’m running is because it’s hard to live here. It’s very expensive. And when you are being taxed heavily and your insurance is going up and inflation is going up, it’s very difficult to keep going. And so I think we need to get creative.”

Ranked-choice voting. Cathell said she has not studied the notion of changing the city’s election system but would be willing to support putting it on the ballot in a regular even-year election, but not as a special election measure.

Check out our complete conversation with Cevin Cathell via YouTube below or by clicking this link. Our podcast is available on Apple, Spotify, or on SoundCloud. TVSB, Channel 17, airs the show every weeknight at 5 p.m. and at 9 a.m. on weekends. KCSB, 91.9 FM, broadcasts the program at 5:30 p.m. on weekends.

Newsmakers’ Candidate Conversations. To offer Santa Barbara voters early introductions to contenders for four City Council seats, including Mayor, in the Nov. 3 election, Newsmakers is publishing one-on-one interviews with the candidates over the summer. Upcoming interviews include candidates Ian Baucke, Alexander Stoeber, James Zurlinden, Wendy Sims-Moten and Kristen Sneddon. Here is who we’ve spoken with to date:

District 4

• Monte Wilson, candidate for District 4 council seat, June 23.

• Jason Dominguez, candidate for District 4, July 6

• Genevieve Taft-Vazquez, candidate for District 4, July 16.

• Devon Wardlow, candidate for District 4, July 21.

District 6

• Gabe Escobedo, candidate for District 6, July 13.

Mayor

• Eric Friedman, candidate for Mayor, June 28.