Jerry RobertsBy Jerry Roberts of Newsmakers
In a special Press Clips edition of Newsmakers TV, Noozhawk political writer Josh Molina joins the host for an all-politics-all-the-time conversation about the upcoming Santa Barbara city election for mayor and three council seats.
With 137 days to go before Election Day, it marks the first time since the pandemic began that Covid-19 was not Topic A on the show, as the mansplaining duo descend deep into the rabbit hole of local political punditry.
Amid a political landscape shaped by sharp debates about housing, homelessness, economic development, race and equity — and a recent series of high-profile City Hall controversies over cannabis, department heads and sexual harassment — the four-way mayoral contest pits incumbent Cathy Murillo, seeking a new, five-year term, against a trio of challengers who present sharp contrasts in both substance and on style.
Although three City Council seats are on the ballot, only one so far is a contested race, and District 4 incumbent Kristen Sneddon, a Sheila Lodge-style goo goo, faces the aggressive upset bid of well-funded downtown developer and Planning Commissioner Barrett Reed, in what shapes up to be a consequential debate over the future of Santa Barbara’s economy, environment and aesthetic.
Among other things, the episode produced the first Power Rankings of the season in the mayor’s race — and here’s how the Newsmakers Political Desk ranked the rivals at this juncture:
#1-Cathy Murillo. The incumbent, running on a promise of Five More Years of the status quo, has always demonstrated far more ability to campaign than to govern, and this time has come out early and energetically to raise a bushel of cash and capture the key Democratic Party endorsement. Although the mayor is the only City Hall officeholder forced to run citywide, there’s no majority vote needed under the current (and badly outdated) winner-take-all rules, and Mayor Cathy never made a serious effort to expand her coalition beyond the 27 percent she won four years ago, which could prove costly if fed-up homeowner/taxpayers rebel.
#2-Randy Rowse. On the natural, the former longtime council member and restaurant owner’s non-partisan, pragmatic approach to city government carries natural appeal to gimlet-eyed business owners and taxpayers who foot the bill for the union-friendly, woke progressive, social welfare policies of the mayor and council majority. The key question is whether he can raise enough coin to put together a robust enough campaign operation to compete with the proven Dem-labor-lefty voter turnout organization.
#3-James Joyce. The veteran state legislative aide and entrepreneur, who founded the “Coffee with a Black Guy” anti-racism movement, has been using social media channels to campaign quietly and could benefit from the focus on equity and social justice issues amid the current political atmosphere — especially given Mayor Cathy’s widely-publicized falling out with Black Lives Matter/Healing Justice activists. We’re still waiting to hear a crisp and clear rationale for his candidacy, however.
#4-Deborah Schwartz. The longtime Planning Commissioner and scion of a prominent Santa Barbara political family argues that local elected officials should gain some of the power now invested in the City Administrator and his far-flung bureaucracy, as a means of slashing at the maddening system of delays, obstruction and appeals that now controls effort to get things done in the city. Support from developers may be a double-edged sword.
Check out the show via YouTube below or click through on this link. The podcast version is here.
The worst part of our local election system is that a mayor was elected with only about one out of very four voters casting their ballot for her. Mayor Murillo was elected with only 27% of the ballots cast. This is a major flaw in our local election law that must be changed. A mayor with only 27% of the cannot garner the public support needed for this position and Mayor Murillo has proven my point.
As to those running: MURILLO has shown that though she is a decent person, she failed to lead in crisis after crisis. She failed time and time again to use the bully pulpit that the mayor enjoys. JOYCE has no constituency here and has never spent one second in any local or appointed position. He says he will eradicate homelessness.
It will not happen in his lifetime! SCHWARTZ has a likability problem and has had problems working with city staff in a professional manner. She has also suffered serious financial issues in the past, which brings her budget leadership abilities in question. If she can’t manage he won finances, how can she manage our city’s finances? ROWSE is a capable person, but before you or I vote for him , he needs to outline whether he as mayor will give the residential areas of Santa Barbara some of the attention and city funding that now is mostly lavished on the downtown business area. The residents of the foothills pay the most costly residential property tax bills, but they have been literally orphaned by our mayors and city councils for far too many decades. Lets what they say in the debates!
Ugh. Agree with whoever said Mayor Murillo is terrible in a crisis. Yes. Too bad that’s all there seem to be these days! But even day-to-day stuff, like sexual harassment in the city, she is too incompetent to address. Rowse and Schwartz both hark a ‘return to the past’ note. Well, the past wasn’t exactly good for many of us! And…we don’t have the luxury of returning to the past. With climate change, pandemic, economic issues, we’re in a whole new world now. There’s only one guy that can speak to that, and it’s James Joyce. He has plenty to work with: homelessness, high fire danger year-round now, unstable hillside that burned, drought, seismic shifts in the economy, and ridiculously high cost of housing. His state experience will be quite handy in many of these, and his experience in the Thomas disasters is hugely helpful. The forums should be quite interesting.
Cathy Murillo is, by all measures, the worst mayor in this city’s history. During her tenure, nothing has improved. Not a single thing. She needs to go. She came, she tried and she whiffed…. What we really need in our city hall are experienced, intelligent, strong and capable executives. Not inept, weak, inexperienced, empty politicians. How an elementary theater teacher ended up as a mayor of a city this size is a real problem. She went from overseeing paste and construction paper budgets in the $100’s of dollars to our city’s budget of almost $350,000,000 with one hop in between. That’s insane. She may be nice but she has turned out to be an poor leader and really has no business being an official of any org of this size or scope.
Regarding the homeless crisis “At least we’re not as bad as LA” – Cathy Murrillo. That statement should be the nail in her coffin.
Randy Rowse is an old white conservative man. That is unelectable in today’s Santa Barbara.
Murillo was our first female Latina mayor. That apparently mattered in the last campaign because it was often mentioned. The big question is whether voters will ever hold the SB Independent’s long string of political endorsements accountable for where we are today. Why the Independent keeps endorsing this continual revolving door of same old, same old one-party domination of non-partisan offices needs a political column all of its own. Why voters continue to march in lock step with the Independent’s one-party endorsements is another story. “Government’ in its various forms is the largest local employer, so public employee unions also play an outsized role in the final outcomes too. Is this a matter of a private business knowing who butters their bread ,or did the Independent honestly think this long string of one-party domination was a good thing for the community? There was plenty of talent from both sides of the political spectrum at the table. But this leading local political opinion setter, the SB Independent, was almost too predictable which way they would always choose to go. If we are going over the cliff today, you can add your thanks to decades of SB Independent political endorsements.
It should be simple — Cathy OUT, Randy IN.
The only reasonable choice.
Good riddance ….. Hope we get some intelligent, new representatives with some common sense.
The challenge is most intelligent people with common sense wouldn’t touch politics with a 10′ pole.
Rowse and Schwartz are the only 2 that anyone should even consider if they want this badly listing ship to be righted. I don’t care if you are left or right, most ppl agree this city is taking a nosedive and it will only get worse if we vote in the same old, same old.
By, we’ve already hashed out that teachers don’t make millions for their work and can’t afford to buy houses in SB. So I guess their all -powerful union according to you is not doing as much as you think.
Pitmix, Teachers do retire like millionaires, who live off their interest and never touch their invested principal. At today’s 1% fixed rate interest, it would take $5 million dollars in the back to throw out a guaranteed for life $50,000 a year teachers pension as just one example. If you take a job in this area, it is assumed you know up front what the real estate situation is and that it most likely will require a commute to more affordable areas, like the vast majority of other employees – 40 minute commutes are the national average. Santa Barbara is “affordable” for those who have the resources to afford market price in this premium area. And many do. Some cannot, so they will need to face a commute if they chose to take a job here, if it does not crack their own affordability barriers, or take a second job during the summers they have off. if they are a teacher. I think the term you are looking for is you think there is not enough subsidized, price fixed housing so everyone who wants to come here gets a 3BR home in the upscale suburbs with no commute. Be more realistic and pragmatic about your housing demands, and you will get what you want. Manufactured housing remains accessible entry level housing for those who are serious about getting a housing start in this community. A 3-5 year plan to build equity or build serious savings elsewhere is also on the table.
People should ask why Murillo is wholly owned by the building trades unions. Why do Ventura Pipefitters, Santa Paula Carpenters, etc. unions heavily fund our mayor? Payback is clearly involved…like Project Labor Agreements.
Yes, people advocate for their interests. And union workers make a decent salary and can afford a decent life for their families. Why is that so odious to so many people?
I bet Union Workers pay more taxes than Amazon did last year.
Ahh yes, the public employee unions…. When there is no business to negotiate against, asks become detached from reality. In the free market, Unions balance their asks against that pesky little thing called profits. In the public sector, there is no such counter balance. So their asks are always met and since they are literally the “foxes guarding the hen house”, they ask and get way, way, way more than they deserve. The bottom line is that our civil servants work less than private sector peers, receive more benefits than their peers in the private sector and are paid higher salaries than the private sector offers… Nothing about this scenario is balanced for anyone but the few who happen to be the ones receiving the money. Throw in the fact that the Unions hand pick and fund the Pols, and you have a terrible situation for the people to whom these civil servants actually serve. Us. In the USA, labor laws have long since eclipsed the need for workers rights. Instead, they act as collective bargain agents. Which is fine, when there is a natural limit to their demands – Profits. When there isnt? You end up with a grossly imbalanced system that actually destroys upward mobility for most workers. Excluding more than including. Not a good situation and one that HAS TO CHANGE or we (the city) will be bankrupt.
Pit, teachers and other public employees who receive pensions are in fact retiring with millions in the bank. Its our bank though, not theirs. A teacher making 75k a year, who retires with a full pension and receives a little more than 1/2 their salary in a monthly stipend. Is the same as a person who saved their whole lives and socked away 2.5m. If you can pull 3% out of your principle and do not account for inflation… So you either dont know or you haven’t been taught. Either way, do your own research and math, you may be shocked at how much our teachers and other public employees actually earn when you factor in this benifit. And this does not account for the fact that teachers work 9months of the year… So add in a 25% or reduce it, and you’ll see why having a public pension is a gift unavailable to anyone in the private sector these days. Not saying they shouldn’t receive it, just pointing out that your not fully understanding the math. Personally, I’d pay teachers more and fire every admin who makes over 120k. But that’s me…
Plenty of examples of organizations (corporations, police unions, prison guards) using their power to tilt the playing field in their direction. If you going to criticize public employee unions only, it seems unfair. Plenty of blame to go around in our crony capitalism system.
Rowse supported the developer in the Veronica Meadows lawsuit that brought us the Arroyo Burro open space and is generally a friend to developers. Joyce has not been involved at all in City commissions or local housing and other issues. Does anyone REALLY want to be lectured to by Deborah Schwartz for the next 5 Years??? She puts on a listening expression but doesn’t seem to hear anything but what she wants to hear.
That leaves Cathy and at this point she seems like the best of the bunch…..
As is Cielito… Unfortunately, people are not very well educated in today’s America. 50% of our population reads at an 8th grade level or lower. That means half the people walking around town hold a 100 or lower IQ and cannot read a Harry Potter book. And people wonder how we ended up here… Fifty years of the GOP under-funding schools and injecting their religious tainted beliefs into our lives has produced the dumbest population on earth. And the results are playing out in front of our eyes, all in slow motion and high definition…
07:43 AM: Do you live in a building? If the answer is yes, you should know that someone “developed ” that building. They took the risk, did the work and made it happen. You hating on developers is like hating on farmers while shopping for your lettuce at Whole Foods…
Maybe a mature conservative is exactly what our city needs.
Under-funded schools?! They get over half our property tax funds.
America JOEG, not just SB. Thank you for providing an real life example of how half our population lacks the skills to read beyond an 8th grade level… Good work! You get a gold star.
I’m not the 07:43 commenter, but here’s my take: there comes a point where development needs to stop. As you say, we need and enjoy housing, but we also need open space. People talk about compromise, but in my eyes, the compromises have already been made.
Prop 98 to protect public education funding was passed shortly after Prop 13 which put in property tax limitations back in 1970’s, Voters agreed to send 50% of all general fund tax revenues directly to public education every year. Since that time California public education, once the pride of the nation in the top 10%, has dropped to the bottom 10% according to various rankings often close to only #45 nationwide. Public support for this guaranteed 50% share of general tax revenues has not retuned public benefit. The huge impact of open borders and growth of non-English speaking students diluted the per pupil funding share of this automatic 50% public education funding. But those are choices made elsewhere in our political system. So can we, or should we, be spending more than 50% of general funds on public education when there is no evidence of a plan to get value in return? What part of the other 50% of government spending would get re-directed to public education ,if one buys into this oft-repeated refrain – schools need more funding. How much more, for what proven net benefits, and for whose benefits exactly – legal resident students, undocumented foreign national students, teachers or administration? Irresponsible teacher pension funding consumes more of the annual education budget every year leaving less for present expenses, but this in fact translates as a teacher benefit so teachers themselves are not getting short changed. The biggest loss is to education infrastructure repair, maintenance and improvements – for that part of the education budget constant demands are made for more school bonds and parcel taxes which are added to the local property tax burden, in addition to the Prop 98 guarantee of 50% of state general tax revenues. It is time to push back on this knee jerk litany –schools need more funding — and ask why is this the case when they are already privileged with so much public generosity. Where is that money going and what are we getting in return is the only question that should be put on the table first.
SantaBarbaraObseror – there is no GOP short-changing of schools. For decades, the California Teachers Association has been the dominant voice in California politics. Even Gov. jerry Brown called them the unelected fourth branch of government in this state and always brought them to the table for their unique input, even though they are an unelected private third party organization – and pretty much and extension of the Democrat Party voter base. In the 1970’s Prop 98 that protects public education funding was passed, shortly after Prop 13 was also passed putting in reasonable property tax limitations. Voters supporting Prop 98 agreed to send 50% of all general fund tax revenues directly to public education every year. Since that time California public education, once the pride of the nation in the top 10%, has dropped to the bottom 10% according to various rankings now often close to only #45 nationwide. Public support for this guaranteed 50% share of general tax revenues has not returned public benefit. The huge impact of open borders and growth of non-English speaking students diluted the per pupil funding share of this automatic 50% public education funding. But those are choices made elsewhere in our political system. So can we, or should we, be spending even more than 50% of general funds on public education when there is no evidence of a plan to get value in return? What part of the other 50% of government spending would get re-directed to public education ,if one buys into this oft-repeated refrain – schools need more funding. How much more, for what proven net benefits, and for whose benefits exactly – legal resident students, undocumented foreign national students, teachers or administration? Irresponsible teacher pension funding consumes more of the annual education budget every year leaving less for present expenses, but this in fact translates as a teacher benefit so teachers themselves are not getting short changed. The biggest loss is to education infrastructure repair, maintenance and improvements – for that part of the education budget constant demands are made for more school bonds and parcel taxes which are added to the local property tax burden, in addition to the Prop 98 guarantee of 50% of state general tax revenues. It is time to push back on this knee jerk litany –schools need more funding — and ask why is this the case when they are already privileged with so much public generosity. Where is that money going and what are we getting in return is the only question that should be put on the table.
Pitmix, you mention a list of public sector unions but fail to mention the biggest player of them all who has dominated state and local politics for the past several decades – the California Teachers Association. Not sure what role “capitalism” or “corporations” play in our state politics when in fact it is the public sector unions who provide the discipline and manpower to get out the vote, and even run the elections, while public sector unions and their members still supply the vast majority of campaign funding in this state. Big government is big in California. And the biggest government of all is the very powerful California Teachers Association (CTA and its various subsidiaries)
SBO, we’ve had solid Dem rule in CA for my entire adult life of 30+ years and a supermajority for most of it. They can literally do and pass whatever they want. CA, not the Feds, are responsible for funding public schools in CA. Holy cow how can you blame this on the GOP?
She’s an acquaintance of mine and I think she absolutely sucks as a mayor. Worst ever. Absent, rude, and zero skills in running a city or a business for that matter. Most of the City Council need to go as well. Time to flush the toilet and get some new leadership in SB. Our city is a train wreck. Worst I’ve seen it, and even prior to the pandemic and lockdown and changes, it was really bad. Id even say worse than it currently is. This city council is to blame as is Cathy. At this point i’d take anyone over her. Randy? I don’t personally agree with you, but you did run a business downtown successfully for decades, so maybe you’ll do better running this town…?
Here we go again. Another person who lacks reading skills to comprehend what was actually written…. America at large, not just our tiny little city. >>>>>>>>>>
No party wants to defund public schools, one party does want to open up school choice which has shown to benefit students (isn’t that the goal?), that does not equal defunding public schools. The federal government doesn’t fund state’s public schools, the states do, so please explain how the GOP could possible be at fault for CA’s failing public school system?
Cathy Murillo is invisible at any time other than when she needs to raise money and campaign. She is a totally void as a leader, she has done nothing for this community. It’s a poor field, IMO, Rowse is probably the best of the bunch.
Once again this response shows an issue with reading comprehension. Maybe, just maybe that’s a part of the problem… As Yoda would say: “The bias is strong with this one…” While you’re seeking the validation you want for the policies you support, check out the % of vouchers that are used at religious based private schools. We are supposed to live in a society FREE from religion’s power and influence over our government and our lives. We are supposed to have a clear separation of Church and State. That means our tax dollars are not supposed to fund any religious based org. Especially when they are tax exempt themselves… We can disagree on many things but if you think that teaching anti-science, fable base dogma to children is good for society, then somewhere like Utah or a non-secular country would be more appropriate for you. Personally I dont care what you believe, but your faith is not fact nor should it ever be taught as such. And for the record: I am not a Democrat nor do I support many of their policies or practices. Our local schools are an epic mess due to the bloated administration and ridiculous expenditures, like $100m for a stadium or a few billion for iPads… my property taxes are full of payments for bonds that were wasted on lawyers, unions and inane administrators.
“check out the % of vouchers that are used at religious based private schools.” wouldn’t families using vouchers at religious based schools be an example of a free society? They aren’t forced to attend those schools over public schools but chose to do so. If you think religious schools = anti-science you’re painting an entire swath of excellent schools with a brush dripping in inaccurate stereotypes.
SBO, who exactly wrote the volumes and volumes of the California Education code that require installing layer upon layer of “administrators” to ensure very voluminous regulation is carried out to the nth degree, or else the district finds themselves on the wrong side of a workplace job action by one of the district employee unions? Since most of the EdCode regulations protect teachers and not educational standards for students, it is odd the teachers unions are the first ones to complain about this now necessary layering of school “administrators”. Internecine warfare among various internal education industry special interest never serves the students. No wonder our schools fail when the driving issues are turf war among the various education industrial complex members, all competing for their own larger share of the taxpayer pie. I recommend everyone stop by the county Courthouse law library and thumb through the volumes upon volumes of Calif Ed Code regulations, before taking sides whether there are “too many administrators”. Or are there too many state regulations. If there are, then “too many administrators” is entirely a self-inflicted problem. Clean up the internal turf wars and get back to at least sending kids out competent in the three R’s; rather than mal-educated victims of adults fighting over the education money pie. CSEA, SEIU, CTA – what in fact are these huge education union interests doing to our badly failing state K12 public education system?
LetMeGo, you are misrepresenting local “basic aid” district funding versus state per pupil funding from general fund taxes being distributed per pupil out of Sacramento, with the goal of more equitable student funding across the state. But “basic aid” versus state per pupil funding is a good issue to bring into this discussion. Time for a Great ReSet in public education entirely – and time to break up the monopoly of mandatory government schools because it has badly lost its way over the past several decades . Open borders has diluted per pupil funding in this state, so that too has to be put on the table.
Byzantium, 100% in agreement. All bureaucracies eventually become about self preservation. The fact that so-called “educators” put themselves above the needs of the students, should tell you everything you need to know about their true makeup and their goals. However, I am still talking about the country at large, not just the small and terribly managed Santa Barbara School District.
They are free to educate their children however they see fit but, just like I cannot dictate which of my tax dollars are spent on which war or weapon or other expenditure, they cannot dictate where their tax dollars go for the education of ALL children. There should NEVER be government monies gifted to or spent on religious based orgs. PERIOD. Our true freedom in the USA comes from the clear separation of religion and government. Without it, you end up with any number of possible problems that religion and its insularity inevitable produces. There is no argument here, that is unless you are anti-American and actually want to live in a society that favors one flavor of religion over another… If that’s the case, you should move to Afghanistan or Israel…. Here, in America, we are FREE to practice what we choose as long as it doesnt infringe on others. And, most importantly, you are free to make more money and buy your kids anything you choose. Pretty simple. Unless you’re a fascist….
Byzantium, couldn’t agree more. Six figure salaries with union protections, lifelong retirement benefits, vacation, etc., etc., and many of these administrators do more harm than good. The whole system needs a revamp–instead of spending our tax dollars to educate kids we support a whole lot of lazy clock watchers who just want to collect a retirement.