4 Comments
User's avatar
Neural Foundry's avatar

The generational contrast between Sneddon and Rowse is interesting because it seems to mirror broader debates about how cities should evolve. Putting Paseo Nuevo to a public vote makes sense given its on public land and will shape downtown for decades. Its worth considering whether pilot progams on State Street could provide valuable data before commiting to a full master plan. The listening tour approach sounds promissing if it genuinely incorporates diverse perspectives beyond typical advocacy groups. What mechanisms wil ensure landlord concerns get equal weight in the rent stabilization discussion?

Expand full comment
Montecito93108's avatar

BTW- Kristen Sneddon also constantly tries to raid Measure C funds for whatever new unfunded request shows up in front of Council. That’s a no-no. City is BROKE! Stop spending!!

Expand full comment
Montecito93108's avatar

With $750K annual compensation, Kristin can afford to open her home door to house many entering our country unlawfully.

Her recent manipulation at Council, setting up newly elected D1 Eastside Rep Wendy Santamaria and bypassing staff, was alarming!

Kristen proved to every City resident she intends to act unilaterally as ‘Queen Kristen’ at the expense of the City’s 66% renters . ‘Let them eat cake’, let them think they matter, when Kristen is blinded by her own political ambitions. Does Kristen actually care about rent stabilization beyond halting growth? Rather, it’s a means to an end. She is Sheila Lodge mentored: No growth is their shared goal. Unless informed, her loyal flock of sheep will follow to be left disappointed, perhaps angry, 5 years from now. Will SB Chapter ‘Endorsed Ally’ D1 Rep Wendy, go along a second time? We’ll now soon. She may listen, but did she hear?

Expand full comment
Nicholas Sebastian's avatar

“My vision, and where I differ with Councilmember Sneddon.”

By Nick Sebastian,

Santa Barbara City Council Candidate, District 6

“On Paseo Nuevo, Councilmember Sneddon and I genuinely agree: a project of this scale needs to go to the voters. It’s public land, and before we commit to a decades-long deal, residents deserve transparency and the chance to weigh in. That’s not delay — that’s responsible stewardship.”

“But when it comes to State Street, we differ. The closure made sense during COVID, but treating an emergency measure as permanent policy has hurt downtown. Vacancies persist, foot traffic is down, and accessibility has become harder for seniors, people with disabilities, and working families. I support a balanced plan that restores circulation, supports businesses, and creates a safe, inviting corridor for everyone — not just those who can navigate a nine-block closure.”

“On rent control, my approach is practical. Overregulation may feel compassionate, but it often reduces supply and accelerates the loss of small, local landlords. That hurts renters in the long run. I want stable, predictable housing through increased supply, ADUs, targeted enforcement for bad actors, and true partnership with the people who actually provide homes.”

“And finally, we must keep local elections local. I respect different viewpoints, but framing city issues around national political battles or Trump-centric narratives distracts from the work we’re supposed to do. I’m running to fix Santa Barbara — to revitalize downtown, strengthen our neighborhoods, and protect our city’s character — not to refight national culture wars.”

“I understand that national politics are emotional and divisive. But if every pothole, every zoning decision, and every budget debate gets filtered through ‘Trump’ or ‘Biden,’ we lose sight of what local government is actually supposed to do. I want City Hall to be a place where neighbors can work together regardless of how they voted in a presidential race.”

Expand full comment