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).
Excellent article supporting free speech in Santa Barbara. Why indeed are so many supposed Democrats afraid of giving the electorate a direct say?
Such a poor opinion piece. I watched multiple city council meetings on this issue time and again, and every single time the majority of those speaking during public comment supported the master plan of keeping State Street closed. If the State St Biz Alliance believes they represent the majority of the will of the people, why did that not appear to be the case during public comment at city council meetings? As the writer herself writes, "It is an enormous decision, with long-term financial and economic consequences that affect the entire community." I wholeheartedly agree, however, that same "entire community" stretches far beyond just Santa Barbara city limits. This idea that this referendum will take this issue to the people is a bald-faced lie. I imagine there are business owners who own and operate businesses on or around State Street who do not live within city limits - under this referendum, they will have no vote and no say in the outcome. Similarly, I'd wager many who work on State Street in the downtown area also don't reside within city limits, and they too will be locked out from this supposed democracy in action. The success of Santa Barbara's downtown core does indeed matter to the entire community, and that community includes Goleta, Isla Vista, Summerland, and Carpinteria- residents of which are completely locked out from this referendum. And ultimately, where has the money come from to push for this referendum? They say follow the money, and we have. Jim Knell has been fully transparent about funding this referendum. Knell, as we know, is the single largest landlord in the downtown area - if you think he is doing this out of the goodness of his heart, I have a bridge to sell you. He has made no secret of the fact he wants to tear down the Press Room and build another unneeded downtown hotel, and he feels he needs cars on State to do so, probably in part due to cars on State increasing the value of his portfolio writ large and thus his ability to borrow money to fund more development no local wants. So please, spare us the self-righteous indignation expressed here by the State St Biz Alliance - we see this effort for what it truly is, a greedy money grab from a small group of landowners. Where was such an effort to ask the community how they felt about an even more expensive project, the new police station? In broad terms, I have no issue with this issue being put on the ballot, but it should be put to the ENTIRE COMMUNITY if this issue truly is an enormous and monumental decision changing the character of downtown for generations to come. This all strikes me as the current state of play in the while of the US - aging boomers used to getting what they want when they want it, on their terms, are starting to age out of power, and a new cohort of younger, intelligent, and empathic people who recognize the value of quality of life and not merely chasing the mighty dollar are beginning to take those same reins of power, and that older generation simply does not like it. But this shift is what gives me hope for our nation. As the old saying goes, great people plant trees in whose shade they know they will never sit. Great people would support the brave and bold, ambitious future put forth that is the master plan, not a knee-jerk backwards step to ruin the future.