Santa Barbara City Council Votes to Extend Business Hours

420722 - No, it's not "pretty simple" and you know it. Why do you insist on ignoring all the science/data, etc showing that gatherings (especially with alcohol involved) are high risk situations for spreading the virus? It's not just about me catching it. If I go, I can spread it to others. Again though, you know all this, yet you insist on acting like nothing's wrong. Not surprised here.

What parent is going to send their kid back to IV if the classes are all online? Only parents that never liked their kid much to begin with.

College students aren't returning, for the most part.

GINGER1 - not sure closing the beaches will help much with the crowding downtown, especially now that SB has allowed people to remain in restaurants drinking until 12:30am. Sure, some will stay away if the beaches are closed, but those who come here just to party will still come. This is a terrible decision by SB, encouraging bar-like atmospheres at restaurants now. I don't know how they came to this decision, but it was definitely NOT in the interest of public health.

GINGER, Unfortunately that would be very illegal, you can't restrict access to public property based on residence address. Oh, how I wish it weren't...

4:09, They do this all of the time. Hope Ranch for one. Hollister Ranch for two. But the Coastal Commission would probably not let a City do it.

Pitmix, that’s because Hope Ranch and Hollister Ranch landowners own their beach. Santa Barbarans don’t technically, legally, own Leadbetter, though I wish we did.

Own their beach to the high tide line. Anything below that is public and Coastal Commission is supposed to provide access. Did McCaw ever have to provide the access in Hope Ranch that was a condition of her house purchase? She fought it long and hard.

Yes Pitmix, they own their beaches to the mean high tide line. But if you can’t park nearby, and can’t cross the sand they own, how are you going to get to the public portion? Swim in, or paddle in on your paddle board or boat? Yes, that works for some people.

Because there is no Union of risk averse employees being paid to stay home backed by vocal rich stay at home moms.

Why are you comparing adults to kids? Are you suggesting we serve tequila to kids A-1597274369? I'm sure kids can be trusted to make the same distancing judgement calls that adults do. Also, where are these outdoor classes that you speak of?

GCHEADLEY - there are no outdoor classes, that's the point. For kids' school, they just outright cancelled it, as opposed to getting "creative" like they have with adults and their love of drinking alcohol all night. THAT was the point I was getting at, not that the kids should be served. Not sure where that came from....

1. The Governor of the state has set the metrics that are required in order to have in-person school. We do not meet those metrics, not even close.

2. Prior to the Governor's order in July, the district was, in fact, planning to return to school in person (the school board meeting they mentioned that they had to "pivot".) Not clear whether they were planning on full in person or hybrid.

3. SBUSD has been, in fact, going through all of the planning required to return students to school - working on both hybrid and fully in person. These plans include additional cleaning, purchasing tents to allow for outdoor learning, changing class sizes (or using a hybrid model), to allow for 6' distancing, purchasing masks and face shields for all teachers and students, etc.

TLDR; stop blaming the schools, parents, or teachers for the love of all that is holy. Or attend a frigging meeting once in awhile. The metrics required to return to school in person are very clear, and are being mandated from above. This change is a CITY change and has nothing to do with the schools.

LETMEGO - I get it, was just trying to make a point. The city/state/whoever is more interested in allowing public alcohol consumption via creative re-naming, loopholes, etc than they are about getting creative for kids to get in school (eg, outdoor classrooms, allowing districts to decide whether to go back in person or not, etc). My comment wasn't directed at the districts, but rather the state/city.

Yeah, I get it, $. Or more specifically $100 dollar bills. But the intent of your comment reeks of anti-semitism. We are in an era of unprecedented business hardship. The ripple effect of the unanticipated consequences of trumps fecklessness will take years to heal. I'm more in favor of a national mandate to require masks (Go Joe and Kamala!) than to, through civic negligence, cause local businesses to close forever from loss of business. Personally, I miss the martinis and Lasagna at Trattoria Vittoria.

IAN D PAIGE - where do you see an "anti-semitism?"

I do not live within Santa Barbara City so those of you that do, PLEASE write your council members and ask them to kindly pull their heads out of their asses. Our kids can't go to school but strangers can congregate at bars nightly. This is appalling.

206,000 excess deaths across the US compared to last year. Some were children. Others young adults. If we totally reopen that number could increase dramatically. Is that okay with you?

LCP112233 you are spot on here! It's absurd to allow restaurants to essentially become bars. No one is ordering dinner after 11pm, unless they are musicians who have just finished performing at the restaurants, but since live music/performance is not allowed, it's a moot point. Allowing restaurants to serve alcohol until 12:30am (1.5 hours before bars' last call), is really just letting them make more $$ by acting as sit down bars. And what about the neighboring residents? Outdoor "eating" and drinking is allowed until almost 1am?? SB City truly only cares about the money here. This is stupid and reckless any way you put it. I will be "gathering" with my family whenever and wherever I want in SB.

City Council has two goals- keep the populace safe and keep the businesses healthy. These goals conflict at this time. I don't fault them for trying to achieve a balance in this situation. Depending on your priorities, feel free to criticize and let them know what you would do to achieve these two goals in tandem.

PITMIX - yeah, but 12:30am? That's not just "conflicting," that's outright pandering. No restaurant needs to serve food past 11pm (and that's late as it is). 12:30am is purely an excuse to allow late night drinking at outdoor bars that serve chips or beef jerky with their drinks to remain compliant. It will also turn restaurants into bars as they stop serving full meals but just heat up some fries to serve with their booze late into the night. If you want to drink all night, do it at home (I have imbibed plenty in my backyard "lounge"), but there is no need to extend drinking hours (remember this is not about food in any way) at restaurants OUTDOOR past midnight. I live in Goleta so I can't really say anything to the SB City Council, but I strongly urge SB residents to if they oppose this.