Since 1911, when Californians gave themselves the constitutional right to put citizen initiatives on the ballot, more than two-thirds of them have been defeated, for the simple reason that voters hate complexity and confusion.

Sorry, Props. 40, 41 and 42.

That’s the trio of contradictory and cross-canceling initiatives regarding a proposed wealth tax on billionaires which has emerged from the Byzantine tangle of 14 measures on the Nov. 3 ballot to create the most widespread bewilderment and head-scratching among voters. Newsmakers’ Las Vegas Bureau of Statistical Projection and Populist Prop Bets is wagering they all go down next Tuesday.

On this week’s episode of Newsmakers TV, Sofia Wallace reprises her reporting on the most baffling state ballot in decades, with clear-eyed analysis focused on the three-way wealth tax muddle.

News-Press colleagues Julianna Lozada and Josh Molina also join the genial host for a final round of pre-election punditry and prognostication, breaking down the key races for two SBUSD school board seats, the drama-filled contest for Santa Barbara’s District 4 city council seat and the increasingly heated mayor’s race between outgoing council members Kristen Sneddon and Eric Friedman.

Plus: an update on the Where’s Waldo search for registrar of voters Joe Holland; a look at the approximately zillion dollars a rogue oil company is pouring into a Board of Supervisors race; and an after-action report from City Hall, where Administrator Kelly McAdoo finally called a timeout in the council’s endless bout of passing legislation designed to drive every last Santa Barbara landlord out of business.

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: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Leave a comment

Oil money spill. Campaign finance records show that Sable Offshore Corp. has funneled at least $100,000 into a campaign committee now directing a deceptive attack against Board of Supervisors candidate Ricardo Valencia, falsely insinuating he supports defunding the police.

The rogue oil company, which has enlisted the Trump administration in its defiance of state, local and legal prohibitions against its Santa Barbara County operations, is financing mass mailers and social media messages aimed at Fifth District voters via the North County Jobs & Opportunity PAC, an independent expenditure committee linked to industry interests.

In the high-stakes Fifth District race, the committee has targeted Valencia, a teacher and liberal member of the Santa Maria-Bonita school board, and supports the more conservative Santa Maria city council member, attorney Maribel Aguilera, a political independent. The two are running to replace the outgoing Steve Lavagnino, who represents Santa Maria, Guadalupe and nearby communities.

As a political matter, Sable has great interest in who the next supervisor will be.

Amid the tangle of litigation and administrative conflicts surrounding its restart of the onshore pipeline that ruptured and caused the 2015 Refugio spill, a crucial controversy centers on a county permit to operate the disputed line and other facilities. The Board of Supervisors has already voted against legal authorization of the permit for Sable, with outgoing Supervisor Lavagnino — usually considered friendly to the oil industry — voting no.

With his seat open, whoever wins will be a crucial vote on any of Sable’s future county approvals and disputes. Valencia has said he favors efforts to phase out the oil industry in favor of clean energy; Aguilera, who previously worked in the industry, disagrees.

As a candidate, Aguilera is legally prohibited from coordinating with independent expenditure committees. She has pushed back against efforts to portray her as a tool of the oil industry and previously returned Sable’s $1,000 direct contribution to her campaign: “I’ve never accepted and kept the oil money,” she said at a recent forum.

State of play. Supervisor races are nominally nonpartisan, but in a year when the local Democratic Party has targeted 40 contests around the county, hoping to draw political energy from a national midterm “blue wave,” Valencia’s campaign is its highest priority. A liberal majority now controls the five-member board, and Valencia’s election could give progressives a 4-to-1 supermajority on key issues, including policies affecting the oil industry.

Early vote returns overall show sluggish turnout to date, but Democrats so far are exceeding their 45 percent share of registration in the district by about nine percentage points: 54 percent of ballots turned in as of Wednesday evening are from Democratic voters, according to PDI, a political data firm that tracks elections.

In recent days, the Sable-backed independent expenditure committee has sent out a series of lurid mass mailers picturing Valencia standing in front of burning buildings and vehicles. “Say NO to defunding the police. Say No to Ricardo Valencia for Supervisor,” one headline reads.

The allegation is a major guilt-by-association stretch.

The charge is based on Valencia’s endorsement by Indivisible Santa Barbara, the anti-Trump group that has organized local “No Kings” rallies.

In the fine print of a mailer, the IE committee cites as the source of its allegation a 2020 statement (which the mailer mistakenly dates from 2023) by two leaders of Indivisible’s national organization. Their comments, which include the phrase “defund the police,” followed a Kentucky grand jury’s decision not to indict police officers in the killing of Breonna Taylor, a 26-year-old Black woman shot dead by police in a botched no-knock raid on her apartment.

How the money flows. North County Jobs & Opportunity PAC was formed in November 2025, state records show. Campaign finance records show Sable contributed $61,000 to the committee this Oct. 21, after making previous 2026 donations of $49,000.

The oil company also has contributed about $160,000 to the county Republican Party in the last six months, according to political finance data published by Transparency USA, as the party also donated thousands of dollars to the North County IE.

On Oct. 3, Noozhawk’s Daniel Green first reported the involvement in the race of the North County Jobs & Opportunity PAC, and disclosed the first $10,000 contribution Sable made to the committee. Green’s piece identified the committee’s principal officers as longtime aerospace executive Tony Guy, who is Supervisor **Bob Nelson’s appointee to the county Planning Commission; Santa Maria business leader Glen Morris; and attorney Chip Wullbrandt.

Lobbyist amnesia. In a recent interview with the News-Press, District 4 city council candidate Devon Wardlow was asked about an opponent’s allegation that she had been employed as a registered lobbyist. Wardlow categorically denied it.

“I never was a registered lobbyist,” she told the local news outlet.

Not so.

A federal disclosure report by the ride-share company Lyft, which employed Wardlow in Washington, D.C. for two years, identified her as a registered lobbyist for a period of 2018*, in documents filed with the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate. “Open Secrets,” an independent and nonpartisan website that publishes data on money in politics, also lists her as a “lobbyist.”

“I honestly, seriously, completely don’t remember this,” Wardlow told Newsmakers, when asked to reconcile her unequivocal media statement and the public record. “In my mind, I never was a registered lobbyist.”

Shortly after leaving Lyft, Wardlow returned to California, where she worked for six years as a public affairs executive for retail cannabis businesses, first for Coastal Dispensary and then for the statewide Embarc Cannabis Dispensaries. In February, she left the industry for her current job with a traffic safety company.

As a public affairs executive, Wardlow worked with local governments and community stakeholders to influence and craft ordinances regulating retail cannabis operations. There is no legal requirement in California for those who work to shape and sway legislation at the local level to register as lobbyists.

In the District 4 race, Wardlow’s rival Genevieve Taft-Vazquez has repeatedly asserted that her opponent is a “registered lobbyist,” which Wardlow has denied, as some of her supporters have accused Taft-Vazquez of character assassination.

In a telephone interview Thursday, Wardlow told us she planned to contact Lyft officials to ask why she was included on the lobbyist filing, saying, “I did not know that I was on that list.” At post time, she said she had not yet heard back from Lyft.

(Update 10-30-26): One day after this post was published, Wardlow sent us this comment:

“I was not an active lobbyist at Lyft. When my supervisor went on maternity leave, the company added me to its lobbyist registration out of an abundance of caution, as our team took on additional responsibilities during her absence. Lobbying was not my primary role, and I genuinely did not recall ever being registered.”

Who is Bill Essayli? As Trump’s Department of Justice presses its attack on California election officials and voters, virtually every news story on the matter includes quotes and spin from acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli.

An unknown to most Californians, Essayli and his sudden rise to power were chronicled this week in an excellent piece by the Guardian.

Some longtime California political observers, including this one, recall Essayli as a second-rate Republican backbencher in the Assembly prior to his Trump appointment last year.

In the Assembly, his colleagues included Gregg Hart, Santa Barbara’s Man in Sacramento, whom we asked for recollections of the man who now wields immense legal powers in the state.

Gregg emailed:

“During our time together in the Assembly, Bill Essayli was constantly grandstanding on the floor and on social media for an audience of one — Donald Trump. It was clear to me that he was auditioning for a position in the Trump administration rather than focusing on the serious responsibilities of public service.

In my judgment, Essayli lacks the temperament, qualifications, and independence required of a United States Attorney. United States Attorneys should be above partisan politics and dedicated to upholding the rule of law.

His tenure is another glaring example of how Donald Trump has politicized the Department of Justice, turning an institution entrusted with pursuing justice into an instrument for advancing his personal and political agenda.”

So now you know.

Image: Page taken from one of the mailers being sent by North County Jobs & Opportunity PAC; Excerpts from five-page document filed by Lyft in 2018 disclosing its lobbying team.

** Correction. An early version of this post misidentified the Fourth District Supervisor. It is Bob Nelson, not Bob Smith. Newsmakers regrets the error.

* Clarification: This sentence was revised to make clear that the time period covered by the lobbying report posted above was for a period of 2018, not the entire time Devon Wardlow was employed by Lyft, 2016-18.

Leave a comment

(Editor’s note: House signs represent the most visible means of communication in local political campaigns, so when city election season comes around, we turn to friend and loyal Newsmaker John Roshell for professional insight and judgment on how the candidates shape up. John is a Santa Barbara-based graphic designer who has created hundreds of fonts and logos for the comic book, movie, TV and video game industries - think Black Panther, Daredevil and Angry Birds. Because of his keen eye and discernment, Roshell got recruited into the mayor’s race early this year, as he discloses below, in recounting a behind-the-scenes experience that offers a glimpse of how campaigns operate. -jr).

By John Roshell

With the election a week away, it’s time to focus on the issue that really matters: the graphic design of the candidates’ yard signs. I’m a graphic designer and font creator who’s lived in Santa Barbara for 31 years.

With thanks to the candidates for passing on their images, here’s my assessment of which signs fly, and which fall flat. The criteria, graded from A-F:

Function:

• Readable from across the street, or driving by at 30 mph

• Too much information, or not enough

• Clear hierarchy of information … or big ol’ mess?

Form:

• Immediately recognizable

• Stands out against other signs

• Tells us something about the candidate and/or feels connected to our town

Full disclosure: Unlike the last time I reviewed signs for Newsmakers, this year one of my own is in the mix! You can scroll to the bottom to see it (and give me hell if you like), along with a behind-the-scenes look at the process of creating a campaign sign.

DISTRICT 4

4. Monte Wilson

Function: B

Form: C

Plenty of signs use mountains and ocean waves to signify Santa Barbara, but this is the first I’ve seen that includes a city skyline. Points for originality, but putting the Granada next to the Mission next to the Courthouse feels disorienting.

.The sign is easy to read. But why is his name under the city and not in the sky above it? I know housing is tough to find — is Monte living underground?

The Art Deco type smacks of the “La La Land” movie poster–making this sign perfect for a campaign in Los Angeles … but not here.

3. Jason Dominguez

Function: B+

Form: A-

On the flip side, you can’t get more visually Santa-Barbara than our street sign font in white on dark brown. But the funny border lines aren’t on the street signs!! If you’re going all in, go ALL IN.

Deleting “Santa Barbara” would make room for a bigger “City Council,” which is more important information.

So close.

2. Devon Wardlow

Function: A

Form: B+

Very readable. Good color contrast, and perfect hierarchy of info. The mountains add a little visual interest. Nothing risky here, just a practical, effective sign.

1. Genevieve Taft-Vazquez

Function: A-

Form: A

Fantastic color scheme: tile red and ocean turquoise immediately say “Santa Barbara”. The basic all-uppercase text and super literal wave and mountain icons made this design seem boring … until I saw the alternating green and white versions around town which give it an unexpected cool factor. Brilliant choice.

DISTRICT 5

3. James Zurlinden

Function: B-

Form: C

Certainly unique -- one of only two here that include a picture, and the only sign with instructions: “Elect!” But a sign with this much information needs clearer organization and visual contrast. Why is all of the text in uppercase italics? And choose ONE blue, not three.

2. Ian Baucke

Function: B+

Form: D

Feels like a first pass that needs more attention to detail. It’s easy to read, but the letters in his name are spaced far apart, and the web address looks like “IanF orSB”.

The use of the street sign font here feels like a quick way to “make it Santa Barbara” but it looks fussy and lumpy next to the plain geometric font.

The color scheme is making me nauseous. If the orange was chosen to remind us Ian has a twinge of the ginge in his fringe, that’s smart branding. But combine it with ANYTHING other than forest green.

1. Cevin Cathell

Function: A-

Form: B

This sign has a great hierarchy of information, nice type contrast, includes nothing unnecessary, and is (mostly) easy to read. Buuuut it also completely lacks any personality or local feel. It looks like someone went on Canva and searched for “political yard sign” and said “this’ll do”. And it did.

Like Genevieve, Cevin tried making dark and light versions, but these are less successful. Neither is interesting, and the green text is invisible over dark blue.

DISTRICT 6

4-Annabella Lehne

Function B

Form B-

This one started well but needs some refinement. Her name jumps out and is readable from afar, but everything else is fighting for attention. Better color use could help: why are some divider lines blue and others red, and why is “scan to follow” so far away from the arrow and in a different color? Does it really need two border stripes? I do love the little palm tree -- that’s a fun touch that keeps it from looking exactly like Priority Mail boxes.

3-Alexander Stoeber

Function A-

Form B

Forest green looks great here paired with cream and brick red. His last name is so big, bold and serious compared to everything else. And I’m not sure what “A future here” means -- is he saying if he’s elected he will stay in town? Is this a threat? I’m frankly a little scared of (alexander) STOEBER.

2-Jason Carlton

Function A

Form B+

Bold and effective. You can read it from a mile away, and the sun and reversed-out text on the bottom are just enough to keep it from being boring.

1-Gabe Escobedo

Function: A-

Form: A-

Now this is a cool take! The big all-lowercase “gabe” is friendly, readable from afar, and unlike any other sign in town. My only notes are “escobedo” is spaced too tight, and the gray is tough to see against the blue. Swap it for yellow or orange? Could use more info: which district are you running in? Do you have a website? We like your sign, tell us more.

MAYOR

3. Eric Friedman

Function: B

Form: C

This is a perfect example of a “why” design. Why are those two words in orange and italic? Is there snow on the Santa Ynez mountains?? Why so much space between “Eric” and “Friedman”? Why suddenly blue stripes? Trying to make everything stand out means nothing does.

2. Wendy Sims-Moten

Function: C+

Form: B

The name is so small, and the dark gold text disappears against navy. Why not mirror the bright yellow of her jacket?

I appreciate seeing her motto and values, but “leadership” is there twice, and “2026 election” is unnecessary. Bonus points for making a version in Spanish! More candidates should do this.

1. Boat Rat Matt

Function: A

Form: A

Instantly recognizable, simple and effective. Gorgeous color palette, which the white type stands out against. I love that each sign is individually handmade, like a little work of art. And it even gets a boat in there to support the concept! Though maybe if he didn’t call himself “Boat Rat Matt” he would have a better chance of being elected. Maybe.

Alright, I’ve had my say, now you can let me have it...

Ineligible for the Power Rankings: How Kristen got her signs

Although I’ve snarkily commented on everyone else’s yard sign designs for years, this was my first time creating one. So the pressure was on.

My first idea took inspiration from Mamdami’s New York City mayoral campaign, which had a hand-painted signage look and color scheme that felt 100% NYC.

I wanted to try the same approach in Santa Barbara, using the hand-painted lettering from our city buildings with ocean turquoise and red-tile-roof colors.

My second idea was to do something cool with a palm tree or mountain range.

Kristen liked both concepts, so I did some mockups using fonts I often see around Santa Barbara. Do you recognize any?

As is often the case, my grandiose plans came up against the practical concerns of those with actual experience in the realm. No problem – the designer’s job is to find the sweet spot of art and practicality.

Kristen and her team asked for something simpler, with emphasis on “Sneddon” instead of “Kristen”.

Type-wise, serif fonts are back in fashion, so I pushed for that to stand out against other signs in sans-serif.

One of the fonts I tried above had an S that looked a lot like SB sign lettering, so I used that as a large “drop cap” with a curvy shield shape behind it.

They liked the type, but decided it should look more like her previous campaign sign for familiarity.

Fortunately the colors were similar, but what was that wavy line supposed to be? Ocean waves? Mountains? A stray piece of ribbon?

I put my type and colors into that layout, extended the wavy line past the edges of the sign, and tried lots of color options and combinations of upper and lower case lettering.

Everyone liked the version with green ocean/mountains on the bottom, a ribbon of sunny orange in the middle, and white top where the colors really stood out.

With a few tweaks, we had it!

The final design is far different than I envisioned, but I’m really happy with how it turned out. It’s easy to read, and the color combo and curvy “S” give it a distinctly Santa Barbara flair.

Don’t forget to vote!

Lead image: Josh Molina for Santa Barbara News-Press.

Leave a comment

Six months ago, Newsmakers asked county elections chief Joe Holland what preparations he was making to secure this year’s elections, given Donald Trump’s ceaseless rumble of threats and intimidation about meddling in the midterms.

No big deal, Holland shrugged.

“We’ve been doing this for years, this is nothing new with regards to what Trump or anybody else might do in this election,” said the 68-year old voter registrar.

All righty then.

One week before the Nov. 3 election, Trump’s Department of Justice has followed through on his bully-boy rhetoric, demanding that state officials set aside 20,000 ballots from voters they allege — with scant evidence — are in the U.S. illegally, and sending legal threats to every one of the 58 county registrars in the state, threatening criminal action against them personally unless they comply with the order.

Over the past 72 hours, as Santa Barbara County officials — not to mention local journalists — desperately sought more information about the menacing letter and the shadow it cast on the election, Holland was incommunicado. He not only failed to respond to repeated efforts by reporters to reach him, but also ignored multiple entreaties from senior county officials to engage with the crisis.

Late yesterday, a federal appeals court rejected the Trump DOJ’s bid to intervene in the election, and County Counsel Rachel Van Mullem’s office was coordinating a legal response in collaboration with other counties and the Secretary of State. Tom Schultz has details over at the News-Press.

As county registrars up and down the state made high-profile public and media appearances to issue assurances that every vote would be counted and the election would be carried out in regular order, however, there was not a peep from Santa Barbara County’s elections chief.

So it was left to Supervisor Laura Capps, who sounded the alarm over the DOJ demand that the ballots of scores of local voters be sequestered, to reassure the public.

“These 11th-hour intimidation tactics are exactly what we expected and prepared for,” she said in a prepared statement. “I encourage our Elections Division to remain undeterred by the political demands of the Trump administration and continue doing what they have always done: uphold the law, protect confidential voter information and count every legally cast ballot.”

A few weeks after our interview with Holland last spring, voters ousted him from the office he had held since 2002, in large part because of revelations that he had been working from home for the past two years. Stricken by multiple sclerosis, Holland was managing his $22 million, 100-employee department via Zoom — an argument successfully wielded by his chief deputy Melinda Greene, who triumphed with a landslide win.

Unfortunately, Greene does not take office until January.

Holland’s vanishing act in the face of Trump’s assault on California elections is a sad final scene for a stalwart public servant who served for two decades with efficiency and competence, until ill health and age caught up with him and the political times passed him by.

Press clips. Last December, SB Independent reporter Christina McDermott disclosed for the first time the identity of the architect working to construct an eight-story “Builders Remedy” apartment tower at 505 Los Olivos Street, adjoining the Mission — the most universally reviled project in recent memory.

Last week, in its annual, much-ballyhooed “Best Of” edition, the Indy pronounced the firm — *Bildsten Architecture and Planning — the best architect in Santa Barbara.

Ouch.

The discomfiting episode caused some red-faced internal consternation at the paper — a case study of the eternal contradiction between the editorial and business sides of a news organization. The widely read “Best Of” issue is not just a popular feature but, more importantly, a major revenue stream for the advertising department, while its news-side journalists have no say in who gets honored.

The winners are decided by a blind online readers poll — open to anyone and everyone, it is both a popularity contest for local businesses and a clear invitation for said businesses and their fans to manipulate the voting.

What made Bildsten’s “Best Of” triumph notable — beyond its involvement in the Mission Monstrosity project — is that this is the first time in the contest’s history that local architectural wizard Jeff Shelton, whose whimsical and quality creations highlight architectural walking tours, did not win.

Nobody at the paper was very eager to discuss the matter publicly, but the incongruity of a company tied to the most maligned project in town capturing “Best Of” status in the liberal weekly raised suggestions that online ballot shenanigans — known in Silicon Valley-speak as “vote brigading,” “freeping” or “techbro stuffing” — may have been behind the shocking result.

Kevin Boss, a downtown business owner who has been a high-profile supporter of reopening State Street to cars, shared with local reporters a sharply worded email he sent to Indy editor Marianne Partridge.

In it, Boss not only complained about the award but also pointed a j’accuse finger at Bildsten employee Sullivan Israel, who is the public face of the local chapter of the lefty Strong Towns organization — a group with a large, swarming digital footprint that has been used effectively in the group’s crusade to keep the downtown corridor closed to traffic.

“Could the Strong Towns relentless letter-writing machine have been behind the ‘Best Of’ campaign?” Boss wrote to Partridge.

Israel, in an email to Newsmakers, pleaded innocent to stuffing the Indy’s digital ballot box.

“The ‘Best Of’ award came as a complete surprise to our firm,” he told us. “We never asked anyone to vote for us and didn’t even know the contest was happening! We did not apply to it.

“No one in (Strong Towns) was ever told about the contest or asked to vote,” Israel added. “We’ve done a lot of great work for a lot of people in the region, and some of them must have voted for us because they appreciate what we’ve done for them.”

In its mandatory “Best Of” paean to Bildsten, an Independent writer gushed that the firm is skilled at navigating city permit bureaucracy while “keeping the creative spark lit.”

Heaven help us.

Buckley vs. Buckley. Mega-kudos to citizen journalist and City Hall gadfly Bonnie Donovan, who brought the receipts in challenging some of the hyperbolic claims being made in the Santa Barbara mayor’s race — and amplified in the Montecito Journal’s brass-band endorsement of Kristen Sneddon.

Bonnie’s earnest and conscientious local government reporting is a rare bright spot in the Santa Barbara Current newsletter, a Trump propaganda organ that more often traffics in MAGA swill and Christian nationalist detritus.

The back story made her sharp critique of the MoJo endorsement extra delightful: the Current was co-founded by Jim Buckley, the former owner and editor of the Montecito Journal, who sold it several years ago to a group of investors led by current editor Gwyn Lurie.

When the sale went through, Buckley’s son Tim stayed on as MoJo publisher, even as Lurie shifted the paper’s editorial slant left-of-center from Jim’s hardline right-wing politics — all of which gave an intriguing Buckley vs. Buckley subtext to Donovan’s vigorous attack on the MoJo’s Sneddon endorsement.

There were no injuries.

Image. Reddit.

*Correction: The name of the architectural firm that won the Independent’s “Best Of” award was previously misspelled. It is Bildsten Architecture and Planning. Newsmakers regrets the error.

Leave a comment

(Editor’s note: Amid the Trump Administration’s trampling of state, judicial and community opposition to renewed offshore oil production in Santa Barbara County, Los Angeles Times science writer and author Rosanna Xia has obtained a draft copy of a spurious “federal review” of California’s management of its own 840-coastline. The bottom line: It’s much worse than you feared, Here’s Rosanna’s report, via gift subscription. /jr).

By Rosanna Xia /Los Angeles Times

In what one environmental law expert described as “a dangerous ultimatum,” the Trump administration said it would strip California of its authority to protect its coastline unless state regulators agreed to more than a dozen “corrective actions” that would benefit close allies of the White House, according to the draft findings of a controversial federal review.

Citing “a pattern of jurisdictional and regulatory overreach,” the 92-page review said California coastal authorities have demonstrated “unjustified hostility and political bias against offshore drilling opportunities, oil and gas projects broadly, and SpaceX’s launch activities.”

The document, which The Times obtained through a public records request, said future federal funding for the state’s coastal management program has been suspended “unless and until the identified deficiencies are satisfactorily addressed.”

At the top of the list of corrective actions are demands that the California Coastal Commission meet with SpaceX and “discuss any outstanding concerns about political bias and ... productive next steps moving forward.” It also directed coastal authorities to discuss “any outstanding concerns about regulatory burden and overreach” with Sable Offshore Corp., a Texas-based oil company that has sought President Trump’s influence to bypass state oversight and restart a once-dormant offshore operation off the Santa Barbara coast.

The state’s leading coastal agency must also issue an official statement by January pledging that California “will not categorically oppose initiatives led by certain entities, or relating to certain industries, such as oil and gas, or involving certain activities, such as offshore drilling,” according to the preliminary findings by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Legal experts who reviewed the draft document said they were troubled by the Trump administration’s politicized use of a longstanding federal law known as the Coastal Zone Management Act, or CZMA.

Never before, they said, has the federal government attempted to strip a coastal state of its rights in this way, and the consequences could be far-reaching if the draft findings become final. The action also comes as the president has sought to dismantle clean air policies, endangered species protections and other landmark environmental regulations that have long drawn the ire of industry and fossil fuel producers.

“This audit is an attack on states’ rights…. What is cloaked as a serious review is a dangerous ultimatum that strikes at the heart of California’s democracy,” said Meg Caldwell, who directed Stanford’s Environmental and Natural Resources Law and Policy Program for more than two decades. “The audit contains a lot of puffery and grievance, but the real goal is to commandeer California’s ocean and coastal governmental system for the Trump administration’s agenda. ...The conspicuous questions now are: Where does this stop? Which state is next?”

State of play. The three California agencies charged with implementing the CZMA — the Coastal Commission, the California State Coastal Conservancy and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission — have until Nov. 16 to respond to the preliminary findings and corrective actions.

The Coastal Commission — which has been inundated in recent weeks with media questions and emergency permit requests amid record-breaking flooding from El Niño and tropical storms — is reviewing the draft findings. Spokesperson Joshua Smith declined to say at this time whether the commission would accept the list of corrective actions laid out by the Trump administration.

“The commission was disappointed to receive this draft evaluation given our long history of stellar reviews from the federal government and a 50-year track record of a successful federal partnership, where 96% of the time the commission either approves projects as submitted or negotiates improvements so they can move forward,” Smith said.

Smith added that the commission had requested a 15-day extension beyond the Nov. 16 deadline, “as allowed for in the CZMA regulations, to respond as thoroughly as possible.”

The federal government will then issue its final determinations, and what happens next will be unexplored legal territory.

“Blatantly illegal.” “This is a five-alarm warning to every job and industry that relies on our sandy beaches and beautiful bluffs for its livelihood,” said U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who has condemned the Trump administration’s use of the CZMA as “blatantly illegal” and politically motivated. “Soon, you too could see your environment for sale to Big Oil, Elon Musk, and any other high bidder that buys its way into the White House ballroom.”

For the last five decades, the CZMA has been celebrated as a bipartisan co-management framework that gave coastal and Great Lakes states the power to review and object to federal projects that affect their shorelines. Under the law, each state can create its own guiding principles on how to oversee its coast, and federal officials must honor this state coastal management plan once it’s certified.

Performance reviews under the CZMA are not uncommon — most states are subject to a routine review every five to 10 years — but what’s unusual in this case is that California had just undergone a review during the Biden administration.

A draft of that review, which was completed in 2024 but not finalized, gave top marks to the state.

Tensions escalated earlier this year when U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick announced that he was ordering a fresh evaluation of California’s CZMA compliance using a “new approach” that would take offshore oil production, pipeline maintenance, spaceport infrastructure, desalination projects and undersea cables into consideration, citing national priorities and economic interests.

More than 23,000 written comments were submitted during the 45-day public comment period this summer, and hundreds of Californians rallied at an August hearing in Santa Monica. Surfers, fishers, business owners, real estate brokers, Indigenous leaders, marine scientists and everyday residents lined up for hours to express their support for the state and urged federal officials to set politics aside in their review.

“In some ways, the decision seems already made,” Maureen Ellenberger, a Santa Barbara resident, said in August to the federal officials conducting the hearing. “But I’m speaking today anyway, so there’s a record. So years from now … everyone will know we fought, that we did not consent.”

Disregarding public comment. About 95% of the public comments supported California’s track record of coastal protection, and a memo attached to the draft findings acknowledged “certain areas where the performance of the [California Coastal Management Program] is excellent and where California is a national leader.”

But of the 23,071 written comments, federal officials considered only 22 to be “complex.”

“Of those complex comments, approximately 12 expressed concern and/or disapproval” of California’s coastal management, according to the draft review, which referred to these comments in its recommendations for corrective actions.

“Some commenters claim that the California Agencies are flatly opposed to offshore oil and gas development and thus do not faithfully consider and weigh the relevant interests as required by the CZMA,” the draft review noted. “Some commenters contend that the California Agencies’ approach to oil and gas activities and spaceport infrastructure projects is a threat to national security.”

The review also went to notable lengths to call out the Coastal Commission’s handling of whether people can drive ATVs on the beach at Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area. But the federal government has little jurisdiction over the issue, which has been a longstanding fight between two state agencies over the use of a state beach.

In a footnote, federal officials listed whom they considered to be “known interested parties,” and whom they notified directly about this year’s review: “American Petroleum Institute; Chevron Corporation; Torridon Law PLLC; Salt Point Strategies LLC; Meta Platforms, Inc.; Amazon.com, Inc.; Davis Wright Tremaine LLP; Dredging Contractors of America; Covenant Government Affairs; Mesa Water District; Holland & Hart LLP; the United States Bureau of Reclamation; the United States Department of the Interior; the Council on Environmental Quality; the United States Air Force; and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.”

Bottom line. Wade Crowfoot, California’s secretary for natural resources, said the review process was a failure of the public process and called it “a preordained political attack” by the Trump administration.

“The aim of their rigged review is obvious — to strong-arm California on behalf of oil companies and clear the path for massive new oil drilling off our coast,” Crowfoot said. “They are already preparing to sell new leases to drill even as they go through the motions of this sham review.”

“While federal agencies ignore thousands who made their voices heard against this ludicrous attack,” he said, “we’re standing with Californians to defend our coastal communities.”

L.A. Times environmental reporter Rosanna Xia, who specializes in stories about the coast and ocean, is the author of California Against the Sea.”

Image: Oil drilling platforms and rigs off Santa Barbara Coast (SB Independent).

Leave a comment

By Suzanne Cohen

The bill came due here: Santa Barbara became the cannabis capital of California, and all of us are now left paying the costs.

Twenty years ago, Santa Barbara County was known for avocados, wine, and the price of a house on the Riviera. Nobody was driving out to Carpinteria to smell a greenhouse. Nobody had a neighbor running an air scrubber through the night.

Then the state legalized it, and the county had to write rules for an industry that had never been legal. Many of us said go slow. Slow was not the plan. What happened instead is that politicians who were being lobbied, effectively and relentlessly, were convinced that this county should be the one to figure it out first, and they moved. A lot of us were opposed to that expansion. We lost that fight. Not because we were wrong, and not because we were in the minority in our own neighborhoods, but because we were not the ones in the room when the decisions got made.

It worked, if that’s the word. Santa Barbara County now grows more cannabis than anywhere else in California. Growers reported more than fourteen million pounds in 2025, a third of the state’s harvest, worth about four hundred million dollars, up nearly twenty-eight percent in one year. That is a real economy and I won’t pretend otherwise. What I won’t do is pretend the rest of us came out ahead. Because the sales are private and the bills are public, and the bills are still coming in.

They built the business faster than they built the rules, and the people who paid for that gap were the ones living next door. Roughly four thousand odor complaints have come through the county since 2018. Not four hundred. Four thousand.

Then came the lawsuit. In March of 2025 a judge in Santa Barbara certified the first cannabis odor nuisance class action in the history of California, against a greenhouse operation in the Carpinteria Valley. Every homeowner within a mile was certified as part of it. In a state where this industry has operated for years, in county after county, nobody had ever gotten that far. It happened here, triggered by our neighbors’ complaint. That is what it takes to make a judge do something no judge in California has ever done. It is the sound of a place catching up to a decision it made too quickly.

Potent candy and the vulnerable. And it is not only the smell.

The California State Auditor opened forty cannabis retail products and found that twenty-three of them, nearly three in five, were packaged to appeal to children.

That is not an activist’s claim. That is the state of California, in its own audit, describing what we allowed onto the shelves. A product being sold to adults, deliberately dressed up to look like candy to a kid. And the product itself is climbing in potency, far past what anyone called marijuana when the county was writing the rules. The addiction numbers that come with that concentration are frightening, and the ones who get hooked are often kids, before they have the judgment to say no.

Marketed as part of a ‘healthy lifestyle’ by paid influencers. The industry’s growth plan has always included the young, because that is how an industry builds a permanent customer base. When we ask politicians to protect the people who cannot protect themselves, we get assurances, we get language about responsible approaches, and then we get another storefront.

There is no trust here. Not from those of us who know this industry. There is just talk. And if you want to know why there is no trust, look at who was representing this industry to your elected officials. Not a farmer. Not a business owner down the street.

Public affairs professionals whose job was to make all of this look inevitable, and reasonable, and good for us. You can read the interviews yourself, as they talk about how fascinating the expansion was, how proud they were of it. That is the voice that was selling this to the county, and it is the same voice now asking for your vote.

The rules got made by people with no stake in whether the vulnerable were protected. The profits are privatized. The costs are socialized.

A personal note. And this is where I have to say something I haven’t wanted to write.

Some people spent years on that fight, and it cost us. It tore apart friendships people thought were permanent. It split organizations. That is what happened. There are people who will not have dinner with each other again because of what got done to people who needed to get out of the way.

I don’t say that for sympathy. I say it so you understand the stakes, and so you know that when I tell you there is no trust here, I am not speaking from a pamphlet.

For those tied to this industry and asking for our vote, I want the record. What you did, what you advocated for, and who was helped or hurt by it. The state’s audit is the state talking. The class action is a judge talking. The complaints are our neighbors talking.The only ones still telling us it’s all fine are the ones who were paid to say so.

I know how this sounds, and that some of you will read this and decide I’m fighting a fight that is already over.

It is not over. It is just quieter now, and it is happening at the ballot box.

Suzanne Cohen, a past president of STESA, formerly the Santa Barbara Rape Crisis Center, served four years as president of a countywide Democratic women’s organization. A District 4 resident, she is on the city’s Harbor Commission.

Image: Interior of cannabis dispensary (Yelp).

Leave a comment

Amid weeks of wall-to-wall local political news, the shocking story of alleged racial discrimination in recruiting practices at a UCSB sorority has flown largely below the radar.

On a new episode of Newsmakers TV, Kaitlin Sweeney reprises her reporting on the ugly incident and its fallout on campus. The talented young News-Press reporter also discusses her prolific streak of profiles on leading candidates for mayor and city council in Santa Barbara, including Kristen Sneddon and Eric Friedman.

Josh Molina also joins the genial host to break down the latest from the campaign trail, including an update on the critical North County contest for Fifth District supervisor between Maribel Aguilera and Ricardo Valencia.

Plus: with a spate of school board candidates campaigning against her record, Santa Barbara Unified School District Superintendent Hilda Maldonado calls it quits.

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

Three candidates for Santa Barbara’s District 4 City Council seat made their closing arguments on Newsmakers TV Tuesday, citing their grounding in fiscal matters and experience — professional and lived — as qualifications for the post.

The fourth candidate, front-runner and Democratic Party favorite Devon Wardlow, canceled her appearance on the program, calling the host two hours before taping to say she was unable to meet her commitment to join the conversation because of “a personal situation that just came up.” She did not elaborate.

Two weeks before Election Day, make of that what you will.

Residents of District 4 — which includes the Riviera, Upper East, Mission Canyon, Eucalyptus Hill and nearby neighborhoods — are a key cohort of Newsmakers’ hyper-local audience, and the candidates were all invited to make their elevator pitches to undecided voters.

Key excerpts from their statements:

Jason Dominguez: “I say it comes down to experience. I appreciate my colleagues and everyone here is doing this for the right reasons, but I’ve done it for four years (during a 2017–2021 term as District 1 representative). I did it successfully. I changed the housing plan that the city had 180 degrees. I put forward a motion to ban smoking on State Street and the waterfront. I also was able to pass some reasonable tenant protections. I was named one of the two council members to provide oversight to the renter-landlord task force. I was also part of the housing task force. My colleagues supported me 100 percent by putting me on as a liaison to all the land use bodies — planning commission, architectural board of review, et cetera. And I had great success and I’d love to do this again and bring more stability to the council, which I think has been going sideways.”

Genevieve Taft-Vazquez: “I’m born and raised here. I’m raising my kids here. I’m a homeowner here. And for the past 20 years, my work has been focused on helping communities thrive, building coalitions, managing large budgets, keeping companies accountable to work that they promise to do. And that’s the experience that I’m proud of and that I will bring to city council … as a voter, I want somebody with a strong professional background, with a strong track record that they can be proud of, and someone who actually has skin in the game. And also, just to be clear, this is not some sort of political stepping stone for me. I am running to serve the community that I am from, where I was raised, where my forever home is, and where I want the next generation, including my own kids, to be able to build their future.”

Monte Wilson: “I’ve come from a private sector background. I’ve never run for political office … but I just couldn’t sit back and watch what was going on any longer because I’ve lived here in the district since 2014 and in Santa Barbara since 2010. I’ve got skin in the game. I’ve been evacuated three times. I volunteered for the Montecito mudslides with the bucket brigade. And I do worry about things like evacuation routes. So I’ve really kind of lived that side of it. I’m the only one of the four candidates who actually owns a business on State Street and has been there for 14 years … But to me, the number one issue that we need to focus on is the budget, because we’re kind of going down a slow death here if we don’t turn things around.”

Challenging Democratic hegemony. In our conversation, the candidates unanimously expressed frustration at Wardlow’s last-minute withdrawal and offered muted criticism of her work as a lobbyist for the retail cannabis industry and for a traffic safety company that uses AI to collect data, among other matters.

While offering their own policy prescriptions on issues from road repair to reserve funds, the District 4 hopefuls also offered words of criticism for:

• The outsize role of backroom politics and the local Democratic Party organization in city elections, including its endorsement of Wardlow: “I do think that there should be more transparency for voters because … it’s really hard to make a decision and have all of the right information,” said Taft-Vazquez.

• The inexperience of the Democratic city council slate: “I think they need an adult in the room. They need someone who has life experience, who maybe has owned a home or raised kids in this town. If you have a bunch of kids on city council who just don’t have that wisdom from life experience, it’s going to be a struggle,” Dominguez said.

• The 4-to-3 liberal majority of the incumbent council pushing through rent control and the closure of State Street: “It was abundantly clear … that four-to-three vote with Kristen Sneddon, Wendy (Santamaria), Oscar (Gutierrez) and Meagan (Harmon) — they were heading down this path regardless of what data was put in front of them, what facts were demonstrated to them, and the voices of the stakeholders. They just didn’t listen,” Wilson said.

The three candidates also offered their perspectives on the ongoing referendum campaigns to repeal rent control and the State Street Master Plan, saying the ballot measure signature efforts are evidence of the need for major change at City Hall.

“This is indicative of the failures of the city council to adequately listen to stakeholders,” Taft-Vazquez said, “and clearly this has gotten to the point of incredible frustration that is resulting in this.”

And another thing. For the first time, Taft-Vazquez was asked publicly to address speculation and gossip that has swirled for months around her candidacy — alleging she was enticed into the race by other political figures as a way to blunt Wardlow’s candidacy. She responded that she decided to run solely because of her desire for public service, and sharply objected to previous commentary on Newsmakers TV in which a panelist characterized her bid as a “mean girl campaign.”

“I’m going to address that term because on behalf of all women — somebody with 20 years of professional experience, very good professional experience that I’m proud of, as a mom, as someone who is proudly 50 years old — don’t call me a girl,” she said. “And if you guys are gossiping, don’t call me a girl.

“I heard that videocast and I was offended. I was offended that two male journalists would call me a mean girl. What a weird, weird thing. And Jerry, you didn’t say anything,” she added.

Mea culpa.

Check out our final arguments session with Jason Dominguez, Genevieve Taft-Vazquez and Monte Wilson 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

First things first: All four candidates in the wide-open race for the District 4 seat on Santa Barbara City Council are confirmed for a Final Arguments conversation with the genial host on Tuesday.

(Full disclosure: Intriguing from the start, the contest also is hugely consequential because District 4 is where Newsmakers Global Headquarters resides. With much of our vast executive staff still undecided, I figured we might not be alone, so it seems an auspicious time to bring the quartet of rivals together for one last dance).

Send us questions you’d like Newsmakers to ask when we sit down with Devon Wardlow, Genevieve Taft-Vazquez, Jason Dominguez and Monte Wilson. We’re going to try to avoid re-litigating rent control, State Street and budget reserves for the 800th time this campaign season. So if there’s something you’d like to know that you haven’t heard raised, please email it to newsmakerswithjr@gmail.com.

The future lies ahead. It’s a hoary cliché, found on Page 286 of the Political Writer’s Big Book of Bromides and Banalities, that two weeks is a lifetime in politics.

Just in recent days, city campaigns have been roiled by the sudden appearance of referendum petitions seeking to repeal rent control and the State Street Master Plan, the Indy’s shock endorsement of Eric Friedman for mayor, and the pointed questioning of candidates by former City Administrator Jim Armstrong at a Rotary Club event last Friday.

Nonetheless, pundits gotta pundit. And reading the tea leaves as of today, there appear to be three basic scenarios for how City Hall’s leadership will shake out after the Nov. 3 election.

With a majority of the seven-member council’s seats up for grabs, the new mayor and three new council members will join liberal incumbents Wendy Santamaria (District 1) and Oscar Gutierrez (District 3), along with the more moderate Mike Jordan (District 2).

Against that backdrop, here are the three most likely configurations of the next council, from most to least likely.

1. The People’s Republic of Santa Barbara

In a year when Democrats nationally are poised for an anti-Trump “blue wave,” party organizers are targeting 40 local races in Santa Barbara County, working to install their favored liberal candidates. In the city, termed-out council member Kristen Sneddon leads the ticket.

2. Revenge of the Business Community

The referendum campaigns targeting rent control and the downtown master plan are the most visible signs of a broader backlash by real estate and other business interests against City Hall’s recent left-wing policies. Those interests have poured considerable sums into their preferred candidates, starting with Eric Friedman for mayor. If things break their way, this would be their preferred lineup:

3. The Status Quo, Sustained

Santamaria and Gutierrez were on the opposite side of Jordan in several key votes in recent years that shaped crucial decisions on rent control, State Street and the city budget by narrow 4-to-3 tallies, as lefty policies prevailed and generated repercussions that include the current referenda. It’s possible that City Hall wakes up on Nov. 4 with a similar ideological configuration.

Joyce packs the house. Several hundred of Joyce Dudley’s closest friends rose as one to honor her on Saturday, as The Colleges of Law presented its Distinguished Alumni Award to one of the most consequential district attorneys in Santa Barbara County history.

“The Colleges of Law made everything else possible,” an alternately beaming and teary-eyed Joyce told the champagne brunch crowd gathered in the Reagan Room of the Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort (aka The Fess Parker).

After recalling how she went to school at night while raising kids by day — “breastfeeding with one arm and turning pages with another” - she closed with her all-purpose, bottom line life advice: “Work hard and be kind.”

Images: Igniter media; Joyce Dudley photo by Tracy Lehr for KEYT-TV.

Leave a comment

By Colleen Macey
State Street Business Alliance

In recent days, there has been a series of misleading and inflammatory articles published in local media about the campaign to qualify a referendum for the ballot on the State Street Master Plan.

Which raises an intriguing question:

Why are some people so determined to prevent Santa Barbara residents from voting on one of the most controversial decisions affecting our downtown?

It took just over three weeks to gather 6,000 signatures on the referendum petition, which was submitted to the city clerk this week. Now it’s time to step away from accusations and personal attacks and recall how the community got to this point.

Earlier this year, I organized the State Street Business Alliance to bring together business owners and residents who felt their concerns were being ignored as City Council considered the future of our main downtown corridor.

We worked hard to make our voices heard at City Hall, gathering approximately 1,000 petition signatures and hundreds of comments from people urging a compromise approach to encourage and enable the survival of downtown businesses.

Despite repeated appeals for cooperative give-and-take on State Street, the council moved forward with its uncompromising plan.

That is why we are where we are today.

The council’s 6-to-1 vote approving a Master Plan envisions a predominantly pedestrian-oriented State Street — with an estimated price tag approaching $100 million.

It is an enormous decision, with long-term financial and economic consequences that affect the entire community — one that deserves more rigorous, prudent and conscientious consideration, at a time when so many residents and businesses remain opposed.

The thousands of signatures collected in such a short time, to put the council’s decision before the city’s voters, is a significant demonstration of public interest in weighing in on this momentous policy question — whether you agree with reopening State Street to traffic or not.

Instead of recognizing that thousands of people want their voices heard, opponents seems intent on attacking the petition process itself.

These criticisms are misinformed and misguided.

Examining the process. Article 2, Section of the California Constitution, approved by a statewide vote in 1911, gives citizens the right and power to challenge actions taken by their elected representatives.

Professional signature gathering has long been a legitimate part of California’s democratic process — and people are routinely compensated for this work. It makes no difference where petition gatherers live: they are hired to collect signatures from eligible Santa Barbara voters, and their own place of residence does not invalidate the opinions of the people signing.

As for the petition itself, the referendum language was available for people to read before signing. Everyone should understand what they are signing, and petition gatherers have an obligation to represent it accurately. If anyone deliberately misled voters, processes exist to deal with it; anecdotal, individual allegations should not be used to discredit an entire movement or thousands of legitimate signatures.

It is crucial to understand that there are currently two separate referendum efforts involving City Council decisions. One concerns the State Street Master Plan; the other concerns the city’s recently adopted rent stabilization ordinance.

These are separate petitions involving entirely different issues. The rent stabilization referendum is backed by the Santa Barbara Rental Property Association, not the State Street Business Alliance.

Although signature gathering for these two separate issues may have overlapped — including at locations outside grocery stores — they remain entirely separate petitions involving entirely different issues. The public deserves accurate reporting that distinguishes between them, and media outlets weighing in on these controversies have a responsibility to make that distinction clear.

The heart of the matter. What is far more troubling than spurious criticisms of the petition gathering process is the more substantive effort to portray residents who want a public vote as somehow doing something wrong.

The referendum campaign traces directly to the refusal of City Council to listen to business owners who pleaded to be heard — as we described declining sales, vacancies and the difficulty of surviving downtown. Where was the council when residents asked for a practical solution that could restore controlled vehicle access while allowing outdoor dining, pedestrians, bicycles and community events to coexist?

We did not begin this effort because we wanted a political battle. We began it because we care about Santa Barbara, our downtown and the businesses that have invested their livelihoods here.

If our City Council had genuinely worked toward a compromise that considered the concerns of everyone, rather than repeatedly dismissing those who disagreed, perhaps a referendum would never have been necessary.

Backers of the Master Plan constantly cite an opinion survey of self-selected respondents.

Let’s be clear: A survey is not an election. A City Council vote is not a citywide vote.

People who support keeping State Street closed have every right to that opinion. But those of us who believe it should reopen deserve exactly the same consideration.

Bottom line. The purpose of a referendum is to give voters a lawful opportunity to reconsider a decision made by their elected representatives.

It is not an attack on democracy. It is democracy in action.

I have worked from the beginning to unite people whose opinions were not being adequately represented in this debate. I believe our downtown deserves a thoughtful, economically responsible solution that works for businesses, residents and visitors alike.

So I have one question for those who are fighting so hard against this referendum:

What is so wrong with letting the people of Santa Barbara decide?

If the overwhelming majority truly supports the current plan, as opponents repeatedly claim, then why should anyone be afraid of putting the question on the ballot?

Let the voters decide. That is the fairest way to settle this debate.

Colleen Macey, founder of the State Street Business Alliance, is the owner of Santa Barbara Interiors.

Image: Cover of the State Street Master Plan (City of Santa Barbara).

Leave a comment

Eighteen days before the election, Nick Welsh and Josh Molina joined the genial host for a new edition of Newsmakers TV on Friday, with all the latest news, analysis and commentary about the wide-open campaigns for mayor and city council.

In a week when the SB Independent shook up the local political landscape with a surprise endorsement of Eric Friedman over fellow termed-out incumbent Kristen Sneddon, the newspaper’s executive editor offers transparency and a behind-the-scenes glimpse at the assessments and judgment that went into the decision.

The three amigos also update the city’s other combative race — the four-way contest for the District 4 council seat representing the Riviera and Upper East neighborhoods — and offer an early look at how the referendums to repeal the controversial State Street Master Plan and the contentious rent stabilization ordinance may play out.

Plus: lots of candid commentary as the fellas throw multiple local political figures under the proverbial bus.

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

Check out the new 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

Three weeks before Election Day, a total of 337 voters in the city of Santa Barbara - among a registered electorate of 55,001 - have so far returned their ballots, the large majority of them older, white Democrats.

That’s the first report from the PDI, California’s leading political data firm, whose dispatches Newsmakers will follow closely between now and Nov. 3.

Although insignificantly preliminary, the PDI report underscores a fundamental truth about this year’s wide-open campaigns for mayor and three city council seats: Amid the verbal and visual cacophony of debates, forums, mailers and house signs (not to mention media coverage) the ground on which they all are competing already has been shaped by who is registered to vote, how these voters have behaved in past elections, and what the rules are that determine where and when candidates run.

In Santa Barbara, those fundamentals are easy to overlook, yet they quietly determine which messages resonate, which neighborhoods matter and which paths to victory are realistic.

The three charts below lay out that foundation: the partisan makeup of the city’s electorate, the results of the most recent mayor’s race, and the way that the recent reform moving the city to even-year election changes the makeup of the electorate.

I. Voter registration

The electorate in the city of Santa Barbara is decisively Democratic — 30 per cent more so than both the county and the state - so the party’s endorsement, mailer and campaign volunteers represent a major asset for the candidate who gets it, serving as an important signifier for Democratic voters who may be undecided, or don’t follow political affairs closely, and trust the party’s seal of approval.

II. The 2021 mayor’s race

Randy Rowse, a political independent, won the city’s last mayor’s race in 2021 with a plurality - largely because three Democrats split their party’s voters.

Incumbent Mayor Cathy Murillo finished third in her re-election bid - despite carrying the Democratic party endorsement - when fellow Democrat James Joyce edged her out with an insurgent campaign that offered party voters an alternative to the unpopular incumbent. Pro-business Democrat Deborah Schwartz also won a small but significant slice that further splintered the party’s overall vote share.

III. The shift to even-year municipal elections.

The 2026 election marks the first time since 1958 that city voters will select a mayor and council members in an even-year election.

The change comes about because of Measure B, approved by voters in 2018, a second major change that transformed Santa Barbara’s political landscape, following the 2015 adoption of district elections, under which the mayor became the only member on the seven-seat City Council to be required to win citywide.

Measure B is a consequential change: city voter turnout increased between 15 and 20 percent in even-year, national midterm elections, in years that followed odd-year municipal balloting for council seats and mayor. The even-year balloting drew more younger, more liberal voters who are more likely to be renters than homeowners, according to Democratic strategists, who say the cohort is more responsive to progressive policies and messaging.

Bottom line. In the 2026 mayor’s race, there is no candidate, like Rowse, running evidently in the independent lane. Instead the three major candidates - council member Kristen Sneddon and Eric Friedman, plus former school board president Wendy Sims-Moten - all are lifelong Democrats.

As a political matter:

• Sneddon, who captured the Democratic Party endorsement in large part because she led the charge for the city’s contentious rent control ordinance, is best positioned to take advantage of the boost in turnout from younger, liberal voters, as well as the considerable campaign assets provided by the party organization.

• Friedman, who was backed by the Democrats in his first race in 2017, lost any chance at the endorsement because he opposed the rent stabilization law. As the moderate in the race, he appeals to Rowse’s voters, while trying to peel off enough Democrats who seek an alternative to Sneddon to edge her out at the wire.

• Sims-Moten is a wild card, who has scant financial or organizational support for her campaign, but whose passion about social justice issues and stature as a civil rights leader seem likely to attract more voters from Sneddon’s liberal base than from Friedman’s.

Don’t forget to vote.

P.S. Here’s a look at the first page of the aforementioned first PDI report on ballots returned by voters in the city of Santa Barbara.

Data sources: California Secretary of State, SB County Clerk, Recorder, Assessor and Elections office, and local media election coverage. Charts drawn by Anthropic AI agent Claude.

Leave a comment

By Ben Christopher CalMatters

On the Nov. 3 ballot, California voters are being asked whether they want to keep taxing the incomes of the rich.

And they’re being asked whether to start taxing the accumulated wealth of the even richer.

Wait, there’s more. They also get to weigh in on whether we should ban wealth taxes altogether, subject the money raised by future taxes to a state spending cap and make it harder for voters to pass certain local taxes.

That doesn’t include any of the other propositions on the November ballot that are likely to affect the state budget. Nor does it include the roughly 300 tax and bond measures that will be popping up in local elections across the state.

And you thought tax season only came in April.

With 14 measures in total, the 2026 California ballot is a busy one. Voters haven’t been presented with this many choices in a decade. It’s an especially active year for tax-related measures — those that hike taxes, cut them, introduce new ones, jettison old ones or change the rules by which taxes are approved and enacted.

Five of those are on the ballot this time around, the most since 1994.

Altogether they have the potential to reshape the state’s finances, beef up or starve some of our largest public spending programs, change the rules around taxation and — if opponents of the proposed wealth tax are to be believed — trigger a Randian exodus of the state’s wellest-to-do.

Black Hole on ballot. Though five tax measures are on the ballot, voters are really just seeing three big questions.

The first: Should California be the first state in the nation to introduce a wealth tax?

That question is “the black hole into which all political energy is going right now,” said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, a group that advocates for low taxes.

Three measures — Propositions 40, 41 and 42 — provide opposing answers.

Prop. 40 would slap every Californian with a net worth of at least $1 billion (all approximately 200 of them) with a one-time 5 percent tax on their wealth, excluding real estate and retirement accounts.

This isn’t an income tax, which skims off a share of a person’s earnings, but a tax on the assessed, unrealized value of investments. Think of this like the property tax that homeowners pay on their houses, except it applies to stocks, bonds, business shares, Bugattis and the occasional machine gun collection.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that the measure has the potential to raise tens of billions of dollars. Almost all of it would be set aside for the state’s public health insurance programs, which are bracing for dramatic federal cuts.

That’s assuming the measure passes and survives the blizzard of inevitable legal challenges. Though a number of countries have introduced wealth taxes at either the national or regional level, California’s would be the first in the United States.

No surprise, many of the state’s billionaires are pushing back hard. They’re doing that in the usual way, with literally hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign spending. But they’re also doing it with two additional measures on the ballot itself. Prop. 41 would, among other things, ban the state from collecting taxes that circumvent a 1970s state spending limit, which Prop. 40 is written to do.

Prop. 42 would ban new taxes on financial assets, private businesses and most other forms of wealth outright — an explicit reversal of Prop. 40.

If both the wealth tax and either of the countermeasures are approved by the voters, the one with the higher vote tally becomes law. That’s why the wealth tax could go down in defeat even if a majority of voters support it.

But voters shouldn’t think of Props. 41 and 42 as mere “no” votes on Prop. 40, said Kayla Kitson, a tax policy analyst at the California Budget & Policy Center, a left-leaning think tank. Prop. 41 would also require the state’s auditor to conduct a “pre-election” analysis of any program set to be funded by a future tax measure and then make recommendations on how to cut costs by 10%.

Beyond banning future wealth taxes, Prop. 42 would also prevent future taxes from applying retroactively before a tax is approved. That could remove the state’s ability to keep people or businesses from avoiding a tax they know is coming, said Kitson.

Two more tax questions. The other two tax measures have nothing to do with the wealth tax. One would make permanent a boosted income tax rate for higher earners. The other would make it harder for local governments to raise certain taxes in the future.

The high-earner tax is the third, and possibly final, installment in a decade-long electoral trilogy.

First proposed by former Gov. Jerry Brown as a temporary solution to fund education in the fiscal hangover of the Great Recession, the measure sticks a higher tax bracket on the state’s top 2 percent of earners. Re-authorized by voters in 2016, the tax has generated between $5 billion and $16 billion annually. Most of that money has gone to schools.

The tax expires in 2030, which is why the California Teachers Association, the state’s largest K-12 public school educators’ union, was eager to put its permanent renewal on the ballot this year. If it fails, the union will have two more chances.

Hence, Proposition 3, which would make the boosted tax rates for individually earned income above $360,000 per year a perpetual part of the state’s tax code.

Proposition 43’s backstory also goes back nearly a decade.

The measure would hike the share of votes needed to pass certain local taxes. Specifically, these are taxes that raise money for a specific program or purpose and that are placed on the ballot by citizen signature-gathering efforts, as opposed to local elected officials. If Prop. 43 passes, this very particular type of tax would need the support of at least two-thirds of local voters.

Business groups and anti-tax advocates have been wanting to put some version of Prop. 43 on the ballot since 2017 when the state Supreme Court ruled that so-called citizen-initiated special taxes only need a simple majority of the vote to pass. The anti-tax advocates got close two years ago, but were stymied by another court ruling. This year, the measure finally made it, but only after negotiations with the Democrats in the Legislature pared it down, applying the rule to future taxes only.

Tax measures tend to fail. This all makes for a tremendously confusing voting experience for most Californians.

That’s probably bad news for the supporters of these measures, since uncertain voters tend to err on the side of “no,” said Mark Baldassare, survey director at the Public Policy Institute of California.

“When voters aren’t sure how to proceed, staying with the status quo and letting someone else decide at a later date is a safe bet,” he said.

That may partly explain why tax measures, which are inherently complicated and tend to come with unpredictable consequences, fare especially poorly on the ballot. Since 2000, a solid majority (57 percent) of non-tax ballot measures have passed compared to a mere third of tax propositions.

The sheer number of open questions surrounding the proposed wealth tax (Is it constitutional? Can the state effectively implement it? Will all the billionaires flee to Florida?) puts it on shakier footing with an electorate that tends to reject uncertainty, said Baldassare. A narrow majority of 52 percent of likely voters said they supported the measure in a recent PPIC poll.

The tax on high earners in Prop. 3, may face better odds because it makes permanent an existing tax rather than introducing a new one. In the same poll, 58 percent of likely voters indicated that they would support the measure.

“When people see the words ‘renew’ or ‘extend’ it gives them a sense that this is the status quo, we’re not being asked to make a change here,” he said.

But Prop. 3’s backers shouldn’t take too much comfort in that. Support for propositions tend to decline as Election Day approaches. The sheer number of tax measures on offer could also inflict voters with “tax fatigue” leading them to vote “no” across the board, said Baldassare.

Then there’s the general political vibe.

Earlier this year, PPIC asked a sample of Californians whether they preferred lower taxes and fewer services or higher taxes and more services.

Fifty-five percent said they’d prefer the lower tax bill.

Subscribe to CalMatters here.

Image: CalMatters.

Leave a comment

Twenty-five days before the midterm election, Democrats are poised to capture the House of Representatives, while Donald Trump’s unpopularity has also equipped them for a fierce challenge to Republican control of the Senate.

That’s the bottom-line assessment of Los Angeles Times political columnist Mark Z. Barabak, who returned to Newsmakers TV on Friday to analyze the national political landscape. The war in Iran, high gas prices and blatant White House corruption have created a “red undertow” for Trump-allied GOP candidates that may result in a “blue wave” flipping control of both chambers of Congress, he said.

In the House, Republicans currently hold a narrow 218-214 edge (with two vacancies and one independent), and Democrats are now favored to win a majority, giving them at least one platform from which to slow or stop the right-wing agenda Trump has rammed through a pliant Republican Congress in the first 21 months of his term.

The big surprise, politically, is that the Senate is also in play.

With Republicans holding a 53-47 edge, Democrats need to net four seats to gain a majority that is not at the mercy of tiebreaking votes from Vice President J.D. Vance. The effort breaks down this way:

• Holds. Democrats first need to protect seats they already control in four purplish states — Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota and New Hampshire — and current polling suggests their candidates are favored to do so.

• Pickups. Democrats need to win North Carolina, where former Gov. Roy Cooper is heavily favored, plus some combination of Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Ohio, Texas and Kansas, all states now held by Republicans where polls show favorable opportunities to flip the seat.

“It is very much a reaction and a backlash against President Trump,” Barabak said. “I think it would be a mistake to misread this as, all of a sudden, people love the Democratic Party. They don’t. It’s a binary choice.

“People talk a lot about ‘negative partisanship’ … which basically means ‘I’m not crazy about my party, but I hate the other one even more.’ And that seems to be what’s going on this election.”

Barabak also offered an optimistic take on whether Trump can disrupt the election, despite the administration’s all-of-government effort to do so.

“I’m pretty confident it’s going to play out without utter chaos. I think that the guardrails, which Trump has tested time and again, have been holding so far,” he said. “So I think there’s so much awareness and consciousness around hijinks and these sorts of things that folks are going to double down to make sure that that doesn’t happen.”

Check out our full conversation with Mark Barabak on YouTube below or by clicking this link. Our podcast is available on Apple, Spotify or 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: AARP.

Leave a comment

The bid by real estate bigwig Jim Knell to qualify a ballot measure to rescind the State Street Master Plan is roiling Santa Barbara’s political landscape, as foes of his proposed referendum aggressively confront signature gatherers hired to help qualify it for the ballot.

“DO interfere in their conversations. Toxify their campaign. Embarass (sic) anybody who would sign. Cost the bastard money,” former Democratic Party chair and progressive thought leader Daraka Larimore-Hall advised his social media followers last week, urging them to “fan out for the decline to sign campaign.”

In Facebook posts, Larimore-Hall also detailed a confrontation he initiated with a referendum campaign worker at Ralphs, which resulted in police being summoned, according to his account.

Supporters of the referendum — including downtown business owners who want at least part of State Street reopened to cars — are circulating detailed descriptions and photos of what they characterize as “extremely aggressive” behavior by referendum opponents aimed at signature gatherers, claiming campaign workers have been “harassed,” “verbally abused” and, in one case, targeted with “racial slurs.”

Political impact. Less than a month before the Nov. 3 election, Knell’s referendum campaign highlights the importance of the State Street Master Plan as a contentious issue in contests for mayor and three city council seats. The Democratic Party’s endorsed candidates support it, while many of their rivals oppose it — at least in its current form — and favor a citywide vote on the matter.

The referendum — and the pushback it is receiving on the streets — has introduced new political crosscurrents into the campaign. Candidates now face questions not only about whether they support a special election vote, but also about their perspective on the anti-referendum effort.

In the mayor’s race, council member Kristen Sneddon is a longtime proponent of keeping all eight blocks of the State Street “promenade” closed to traffic. Eric Friedman, her council colleague and chief mayoral rival, has favored a hybrid version that would allow cars on a few blocks and prohibit them on others. To the surprise of some supporters, Friedman joined Sneddon a few weeks ago in voting for the version of the plan that keeps all eight blocks car-free, at least for now.

Responding to questions from Newsmakers about Larimore-Hall’s posts, Sneddon said it was the first she had heard about the “decline to sign campaign” being undertaken against the referendum, which she opposes.

“I don’t condone a campaign to interfere with petition gathering,” Sneddon told us. “And those gathering signatures need to respect those who refuse.

“I’m running to bring civility to our city governance,” she added. “We can disagree and still maintain respect.”

Friedman said the referendum, and the response to it, could have been avoided if council had voted for his proposed hybrid compromise.

“There was every opportunity for the council majority to avoid the referendum and the subsequent decline-to-sign campaign,” he said. “When a significant portion of people don’t feel like they have a voice, it leads to greater polarization and predictable outcomes like we now have.

“Compromise and governing for the center enable everyone to feel heard and become invested in outcomes together,” Friedman added. “Without it you get what we now have — an escalating situation that gets more difficult to defuse.”

Larimore-Hall did not respond to a request for further information about the “decline to sign campaign.”

New Power Rankings

There’s no reliable polling of the city election — at least none that anyone will share — so in the absence of data we’re left with campaign trail vibe checks to assess where things stand. Here’s our latest.

District 4 City Council seat (Riviera, Upper East, Mission Canyon).

District 5 City Council seat (San Roque, Upper State).

District 6 City Council seat (Downtown).

Image: Signature table for State Street referendum, in front of Ralphs (Elaine Sanders photo for the Santa Barbara Independent).

As Donald Trump and his MAGA government blatantly threaten disruption of the Nov. 3 midterms, Indivisible SB has announced plans for a local mass rally to join demonstrations across the nation in support of free and fair elections.

The “No Kings — Vote Early” Santa Barbara rally is planned for Saturday, Oct. 17, from noon to 3 p.m. in Alameda Park, followed by a march down Anacapa Street to City Hall, where a ballot drop box is located, and a celebration in De la Guerra Plaza.

“There are forces actively trying to steal the next election, and if they succeed there may not be another free and fair one for a generation,” the group said in a written statement. “We will gather and show by our numbers that we are not scared, we are not afraid, and we are not intimidated.”

“Participants should bring political signs expressing their advocacy for democracy and freedom of speech,” the group added. “We encourage everyone to vote early, but if you haven’t voted by October 17, bring your completed ballot to the park to vote it with us.”

Check the Indivisible SB website for more information.

It’s the home stretch of campaign season, that time when the thought bubbles above the heads of graybeard political reporters start flashing “Aren’t We Done Yet?”

The phenomenon occurs every election: by the time Actual Voters start tuning in, a few weeks before Election Day, the journalists who’ve spent months following, wrangling, countenancing, questioning, consoling, recording, and squabbling with candidates are ready to round them all up, buckle them into a Saturn rocket, and fire it into the sun.

And yet: steadfast and selfless, we soldier on.

So for loyal viewers and readers just back from vacanze in Tuscany, the Hamptons, or Laucala Island, Newsmakers today presents our Comprehensive Santa Barbara City Election Guide. Four weeks before Election Day on Nov. 3, it’s special to those who’ve been away, or who whiled away the summer day-drinking and now wish to resume activity as responsible citizens.

Stay tuned.

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 published one-on-one interviews with the candidates over the summer.

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.

• Anabella Lehne, candidate for District 6, Aug. 26.

• Jason Carlton, candidate for District 6, Aug. 28.

Newsmakers/SB Talks/TVSB/News-Press Debates.

To give voters the chance to see the candidates face-to-face, we worked with media partners to produce and record debates with the contenders in all four races.

Mayoral. Watch: Here’s the Full (Well-Produced) Video of the First Debate of the Santa Barbara Mayor’s Race. Sept. 9.

District 4. Watch: Genevieve Arrives - and 3 Other Takeaways from SB Council D4 Debate. Sept. 15.

District 5, Watch: Here’s TVSB’s Video Production of the “Newsmakers-SB Talks” D5 Debate. Sept. 22.

District 6. Watch: SB Council D6 Candidates Debate in a Race Shape as Gabe vs. The Pack. Sept. 23.

Fundraising reports.

“Follow the money” was one of the guiding principles of political journalism when Newsmakers got into the business, so we provided the most comprehensive coverage of candidate fundraising. The Independent and the News-Press also published our stories.

Aug. 3. Reports: With $137K in the Bank, Eric Holds 3-to-1 Edge over Kristen in SB Mayor’s Race Fundraising; Devon-Monte’s D4 $50K Duel.

Sept. 27. “New Reports: Eric Holds Big Fundraising Lead over Kristen in Mayor’s Race; Dem Council Favorites Lead Cash Dash in District.”

Spot News and Commentary

Watch: Kristen Just Handed Eric and Issue that Reshapes SB Mayor’s Race. June 12.

As Trump Menaces Elections, SB Indivisible Sponsors Voting Rights Protest to Honor John Lewis. July 17.

Watch: Ready, Set, Run - Handicapping the Races for SB Mayor and Council with the Candidates Primed at the Starting Line. Aug. 7.

Top Candidates for SB Mayor Kick Off Campaign Season Before Big Crowd at New Vic. Sept. 3.

Watch: Picking Winners and Losers in SB Mayoral Debate. Sept. 4.

Watch: Political Junkie Xtra - A Conversation with SB Dem Party Chief Christian Alonso. Sept. 17.

Watch: A City Hall Brawl Between Allies Over Rent Control Heats Up Races for SB Mayor, Council. Sept. 25.

Something Rotten at City Hall. Winners and Losers. Sept. 29

Op-Ed. Ensberg: Who Is ‘Strong Towns’ - and Is Our Town Santa Barbara One to Fix, or One to Preserve? Aug. 5.

Op-Ed: Ensberg - SB Can’t Afford a $96 Million State Street Experiment. Aug. 31.

Op-Ed. McElroy: The Promise of Measure C. Sept. 15.

Retiring but not shy, Mayor Randy Rowse says that partisan politics and ideological agendas have overtaken Santa Barbara City Hall, forecasting referendum campaigns and expensive litigation as the costs of recent contentious city council actions.

“Politics has taken over the practicality,” the outgoing mayor said in a return “Ask the Mayor” episode of Newsmakers TV.

Rowse, who surprised the local political world by announcing in April that he would not seek re-election, has been consistently on the losing end of high-profile decisions in recent months — from his opposition to a sweeping new rent control ordinance and antagonism to an absolutist no-cars plan for State Street, to his votes against new spending on liberal pet projects at a time when the budget is awash in red ink.

Answering questions from News-Press editor Josh Molina and the genial host about recent controversies — as well as his long-term perspective on how politics and policy have changed during the 15 years he has been in and around City Hall — Rowse blamed a “zero compromise” attitude from progressive council members for triggering a new referendum campaign to repeal the State Street plan, and rued the legal costs already incurred over the rent law, with more to come, he predicted.

“We’re going to be in court a lot,” Rowse said.

Since taking office in 2022, Rowse has been accessible and obliging in accepting Newsmakers’ invitation to respond to questions from local reporters on “Ask the Mayor” editions. The new episode is his 12th appearance on the program.

Check out our complete conversation with Mayor Randy Rowse 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

On Thursday, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1448, Santa Barbara state lawmaker Gregg Hart’s latest legislative bid to hinder, if not stop, the Trump administration’s crusade to bulldoze California’s long opposition to expanded offshore oil drilling.

Hart returned to Newsmakers TV soon after, to explain the new law’s ban on oil companies using existing offshore platforms, pipelines and other infrastructure in state waters, at a time when Trump has launched a new leasing program off the California coastline.

“There’s a huge bipartisan consensus that we shouldn’t be doing additional offshore oil development in California,” he told Newsmakers. “This is really putting the roadblock in the latest Trump attempt to put our coast at risk.”

On Friday morning, the Democratic Assembly member — now seeking a third term — is scheduled to appear with prominent local environmentalists and academics to celebrate the passage and signing of his bill. It is a glimmer of good news following the White House’s order to restart offshore pumping under the specious cover of national security, including transportation of oil across Santa Barbara County through a pipeline operated by Sable Offshore that ruptured and caused the disastrous 2015 Refugio spill.

“You know, we have been playing defense on Sable and on all those other issues, but in regard to the new federal leases that the Trump administration has proposed, this legislation will effectively stop that, because it says you can’t use existing oil infrastructure,” Hart said.

In our conversation, Hart also broke down the contentious and confoundingly complex battle over Proposition 40, a proposed wealth tax on state billionaires, and Props. 41 and 42, two poison pill initiatives put on the ballot by tech oligarch Sergey Brin, aimed at preventing it from taking effect even if it passes.

Newsom signed eight of the nine bills that Hart succeeded in getting passed by both houses of the Legislature this session, including one that would take some authority over county jails away from sheriffs and give it to local boards of supervisors, as well as a measure to require health insurers to cover certain treatments for cancer patients.

Check out our conversation with Gregg Hart 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

(Editor’s note: October is Dyslexia Awareness Month, and to mark the observance, the photographic work-in-progress titled “IN/Visible One in Five: The Face of Dyslexia,” by author Cheri Rae and photographer Monie de Wit, will be displayed as part of Artwalk on Thursday, Oct. 1, from 5-8 p.m. at 419 State Street, in the Downtown State Street Improvement Association office. /jr).

By Cheri Rae

When your bright and motivated child struggles to read, nothing else seems to matter much. Daily anxiety over schoolwork in class is magnified each evening by homework assignments that add to family stress. It’s an endless cycle of misery that seems like a mystery that never leaves a parent’s mind: “Why can’t this kid learn to read?”

In all likelihood, that kid can learn to read when taught properly. The decade-long push to replace the “balanced literacy” theoretical approach with the Science of Reading, based on solid research, is finally taking hold — and has been documented thoroughly in this publication. But it’s not enough.

Getting proper curriculum in place is one thing; identifying an individual child’s unique learning needs to provide proper instruction is something else. And in 20 percent of the population, persistent struggles in reading, writing and spelling are due to dyslexia. But it has to be recognized in order to gain mastery over it — and in far too many cases, and classrooms, it is not.

State-mandated screening for grades K–2 was finally implemented last school year, but that’s not nearly enough to identify all the dyslexic students who have not been screened over the years and who did not receive the proper foundational instruction they needed. (Sadly, AB 1369, the act that established the California Dyslexia Guidelines and passed in 2015, had a screening provision that was stripped at the insistence of the California Teachers Association.)

Dyslexic struggles are routinely misinterpreted and treated instead as issues of willful refusal, low intelligence, lack of motivation, laziness and poor character in the child — and blamed on poor parenting. A shockingly high number of parents of dyslexic children (including me) report being questioned by an educator: “Didn’t you read to your child at an early age?”

Reading to a child, even in utero, is certainly a lovely bonding experience and good role modeling — but it is not the explicit reading instruction that imparts the skills that must be taught. The widespread assumption is insulting and dismissive to the parent.

Dyslexia defined. The Cleveland Clinic offers a straightforward definition: “Dyslexia is a lifelong, brain-based learning disability that disrupts how the brain processes written language, affecting a person’s ability to read, write, and spell accurately.”

That ought to be enough to at least get an educator thinking in that direction when a child in class is struggling with the written word.

But that’s not always the case, and many dyslexic students remain unidentified throughout their school years — profoundly affecting every aspect of their adult lives as they fail to reach their academic, professional and personal potential, experience negative self-esteem and are left vulnerable to any number of behavioral risks.

The official definition of the International Dyslexia Association, updated a year ago, is much more detailed and specific. It begins: “Dyslexia is a specific learning disability characterized by difficulties in word reading and/or spelling that involve accuracy, speed, or both and vary depending on the orthography.”

It adds that early identification is important and that psychological well-being can be affected. Read the full text here.

On a personal note, as a longtime dyslexia advocate, I wish the official definition called out some of the strengths that are characteristic of so many dyslexic individuals. The short list may include creativity; skills at big-picture, outside-the-box thinking; recognition of visual patterns; spatial awareness; and entrepreneurial and leadership qualities.

Words matter. Using the word “dyslexia” matters. Just last week, I was approached by a concerned father looking for help for his dyslexic child who attends school in a local district — a fifth-grader still reading at a second-grade level, with no relief in sight.

He noted that school officials not only will not use the word; they falsely claim they’re not allowed to use it. They will only use the umbrella term “Specific Learning Disability,” a general category that qualifies a student for special education.

This maddening semantics issue has been going on for ages.

It’s confusing and incredibly non-specific to use an obscure phrase that encompasses a range of different learning issues. Administrative refusal to use the word “dyslexia” makes it easier for educators to escape accountability for the way they address it — or don’t. If they don’t identify it, they don’t have to use best practices. Confused parents are left wondering: what, specifically, is this “Specific Learning Disability”? And they never get much of an answer.

The federal Department of Education clarified that use of the word “dyslexia” is permissible in its “Dear Colleague” letter of 2015, updated in 2023. California’s Department of Education provides guidance about ongoing research and best practices in addressing dyslexia.

Dyslexia instruction just has to be understood and implemented at the local level — unaccountably, it is frequently simply shrugged off, and it is the child who suffers the lifelong consequences of this educational neglect.

Validation, Hope and Inspiration. Who, outside of education circles, has ever heard of Specific Learning Disability?

Importantly, there is not a single role model anywhere who speaks of addressing, dealing with or overcoming a Specific Learning Disability. But there are plenty who share their stories of dyslexia.

Powerful Hollywood uber-agent Ari Emanuel is currently on a wide-ranging media tour for his book, “Roll the Call.” He recently told PBS News that he wrote it to inspire parents of dyslexic children, recounting how his struggles with dyslexia helped him achieve great success in life.

Just a few pages into his book, he describes how at his high school in his middle-class suburb he was subjected to the familiar taunting and humiliation experienced by many dyslexics. “Circling him, chanting his name, calling him stupid. ‘Nyah, nyah, R—— Can’t read.’ Hurts to talk about — still.”

Ouch. It reminds me of how a neighborhood kid mocked and shamed my athletic, baseball-loving son: “Well, maybe you can hit home runs, but at least I can read.”

Emanuel is only the latest of countless successful dyslexics from virtually every discipline who have shared their stories of overcoming reading-related humiliation to reach high levels of personal and professional accomplishment. A few recent examples:

Director and storyteller extraordinaire George Lucas, who considered himself a “bad student” and was bullied in school over his dyslexia, used his dyslexic big-picture visualization to establish the innovative, newly opened Museum of Narrative Art in Los Angeles.

Sir Richard Branson, of the Virgin Group, refers to his dyslexia as his “secret superpower” and has established the comprehensive charity Made By Dyslexia to promote what he calls the “Brilliance of Dyslexic Thinking.”

Spider-Man himself, actor Tom Holland, is the highest-grossing actor of all time. When he recently appeared on Amy Poehler’s podcast, he said he is “heavily dyslexic” and noted that he is “petrified at the concept of reading cue cards” — the reason he has never accepted an invitation to host Saturday Night Live.

Hometown dyslexic heroes. Paul Orfalea’s dyslexia was never identified when he was in high school, where he claimed he “majored in woodshop.” As a student at UCSB, he famously established Kinko’s, applying his entrepreneurial insights and people skills. He has been incredibly generous to the dyslexia and education communities for decades.

Charles Schwab was the captain of the golf team at Santa Barbara High School (class of 1955) — a student who charmed his teachers but had difficulties with his schoolwork. He was not identified as dyslexic until he was in his 40s, while advocating for his dyslexic child. The financial wizard credits dyslexia with his ability to visualize and process concepts, and established a center to teach parents how to advocate for their dyslexic children.

Kami Craig was a standout member of the women’s water polo team at Santa Barbara High School (class of 2005) and at the University of Southern California, where she graduated in 2010. She was a silver medalist at the Beijing Olympics in 2008 and a gold medalist in London in 2012 and again in Rio de Janeiro in 2016.

Her mother was a terrific advocate who arranged for instructional support for Kami’s dyslexia. Today, Kami is a motivational speaker and a strong dyslexia advocate, noting that “dyslexia has gifted me with resilience, work ethic, intuition, relentless courage and creativity.”

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

Leave a comment