Last week the Santa Barbara City Council reviewed updated plans for the redevelopment of the Paseo Nuevo mall in downtown Santa Barbara.
The new plans reduce the original plan’s housing units from 500 total to 233 market rate units with an additional 80 affordable housing units in a new 7-story development in the former Macy’s building.
Development Changes
The project’s development team, AB Commercial, determined their original 500-unity project required demolishing the entire Paseo Nuevo Mall, excluding the former Nordstrom’s building, and rebuilding an entirely new foundation.
“The new foundation alone would be cost prohibitive to build and make the project financially infeasible,” AB Commercial’s presentation to the city stated.
This updated plan will only demolish the former Macy’s building that spans Ortega Street from Chapala to State Streets for their 233 market rate units. The 80 affordable units would be located across the street from the former Nordstrom building at the current site of City Parking Lot 2.
The project will also retain the Paseo Nuevo mall’s in-line shops, art museum, and theatre while creating new public spaces and retail space. They are also asking for an exemption to increase the building’s height from its current 66 feet to 75 feet.
The plans include two large retail spaces aimed towards a fitness/wellness tenant and a “specialty grocer” with a total of 175,368 square feet of retail space in the entire mall.
In terms of parking, there are three parking lots covered by the Reciprocal Easement Agreement with plans to provide 1,529 spaces compared to the existing 1,687 spaces.
The proposed redevelopment would reorganize and increase spaces in Lot 1 with 47 spaces to their main commercial tenant and 233 spaces to residential units. 320 spaces would remain to accommodate retail uses and any dedicated spaces required for redeveloping the Nordstrom building. Lot 2 would be reduced by 186 stalls to make room for affordable housing and Lot 10 would remain as is.
AB Commercial stated this reduced development brings the project closer to financial viability and achieves their goals of revitalizing the property, supporting rejuvenation of State Street, and adding much needed housing to downtown, including affordable units.
City Council Approves Negotiations
This updated proposal is due to a collaboration of several entities including the City of Santa Barbara who owns the land lease for 40 years, AB commercial who owns the building and mall leases, and the separate owners of the former Nordstrom building.
City Administrator Kelly McAdoo stated the plan is gift the land, valued between $32 million and $38 million, and a portion of property tax revenue to AB Commercial in exchange for ensuring 80 affordable housing units, six times more than required, and 233 market-rate units.
“Housing isn’t actually allowed by the reciprocal easement agreement, so we’ll need to negotiate the elimination of that agreement,” McAdoo stated.
If all parties do not agree to the updated plans, there would be no other opportunity for residential housing in Paseo Nuevo.
If this agreement is approved, state law provides AB Commercial the right to increase the building height to 75 feet without city approval.
“Most cities have about 20% of their downtown as residential uses. In Santa Barbara, we only have about 5% of our downtown as residential,” said McAdoo.
When asked why affordable housing is separated, city staff explained by placing all affordable housing in one area there are more options to obtain tax credits and open up partnerships to agencies such as the Housing Authority.
The city council voted unanimously to approve the amendment and direct staff to negotiate a development agreement.
Options for public engagement and comment will be available in the future as the city council did not approve the project as a whole.
Also Read
- CHP Investigates Fatal Solo Crash on Figueroa Mountain Road
- Validation Ale Opens Seasonal Pop-Up at The Shop, Targets Santa Barbara Bowl Crowds
- SpaceX Prepares Falcon 9 Starlink Launch as Vandenberg’s Sonic Boom Discussions Continue
- Rare Tornado Whirls Through Northern California Near Vina, Lasts Just a Minute
- Historic Carlton Hotel Reopens After Major Renovations, Joins Marriott Tribute Portfolio
It appears from this article that City Of SB is using some of their resources to encourage the developer to increase the percentage of affordable housing. AB Commercial is getting a pretty sweet deal! They get to own the land after they build on it as well as a chunk of tax revenue for some (years?) into the future, in exchange for building “six times” the number of affordable units. Using the numbers given in the article, that means AB was only required by law to build 13 or 14 affordable units for the 233 market rate ones, or about 6%! (full disclosure: I don’t know what % the law actually requires)
That’s really great that COSB is putting their money where their mouth is. Standing applause, for that. I hope (just a wish, actually) they will also use their municipal government voice to lean on State lawmakers to require more than some single digit percentage of affordable units for large housing developments. It should be waaay more than 6% and I’m just to cynical to buy the “it just doesn’t pencil out” excuse, sounds like just more Blatant Sophistry from the wealthy class. How truthful are they being? I don’t know. I think they could make it work if they wanted it to. It’s too bad large developers cannot summon just a little more civic responsibility over cushy profit margins.
People are spending an unhealthy portion of their income just for rent, and I think the people who are crushing mad profits making houses here at the “Santa Barbara market rate” could afford to make a few more basic units for the average struggling buyers and renters.
It’s a big giveaway but a small price to pay to prevent missing the housing benchmark for the city that could allow more builders remedy projects to slip in. City said if they didn’t get this deal done, there wouldn’t be any housing at all in this area.
Which may or may not have been true, but anyways I agree with you that it was a good move by the city, and the revised plan seems way better than the original, although I never saw too many details about that one.
I just wish we as a state or a country had our heads on a little better about legislation regarding how we treat the economically challenged, which is a rapidly growing demographic. The system is almost upside down, in my opinion. The wealthy get all the breaks, when they don’t even need them, and the poor are always the ones having to wait and sacrifice.
they did the same for the developers when they build the mall. used tax payers money as incentives to bring in the anchor stores like Macys’ Nordstroms, Gap, etc. Gap remains, the rest left.
Where’s the concern over water that new developments need, plus road, electricity and education infrastructure?
The concern is there, but I’m pretty sure local governments don’t get much of a say anymore. We either approve projects with SOME say in their implementation, or outside developers will come in based on our noncompliance and we get NO say
Years of no growth and NIMBYism have given us almost no wiggle room. California says we need to build. We need to say yes to decent projects so we can have a say at all. This one is already significantly down in scope and is architecturally in line with the “Santa Barbara feel,” much better than the behemoth proposed by the mission
the roads around the location have recently been repaved and restriped. there are many…many schools in the area, electricity and water we have….with a cost
Education infrastructure should not be a concern. There have been many articles noting that our enrollment is declining. All the housing in this area feeds into Monroe – La Cumbre – San Marcos, but there is always room for SBUnified to do redistricting as needed to spread out the students.
Ouch. Another “not affordable” monstrosity coming our way. City Council, and SB voters that ALWAYS vote for the pro-development Democrats these days, I ask, where will all the water come from? And, can you say more traffic? Oh yeah!
pro development democrats? lol that’s a new one. most dems i know don’t want to build…its the other party that wants to bulldoze everything.
KNEIN – dude never knows what he’s talking about. Of all my dem/liberal friends, I don’t know a single one who wants to build more and expand our footprint even further. Heck, I can’t recall ANY liberal I’ve ever talked to being pro-development at all.
Now, converting existing buildings into actual low-income housing, well that’s another story.
But “pro-development Democrats” is about as close to reality as an “honest and intelligent MAGAt.” Ain’t no such thing.
sheezus this has zero to do with any partisan party politics. what a poorly informed and limited frame you choose to see the world through. “pro-development Democrats” is laughable
Basic, you are absolutely correct dems are pro development …they just eroded CEQA for housing taking away peoples protection
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/new-ceqa-reform-law-under-ab-130-and-sb-9687552/
They updated the housing element for high density
And
City of Santa Barbara to Apply to State’s Prohousing Designation Program
https://www.edhat.com/news/city-of-santa-barbara-to-apply-to-states-prohousing-designation-program/
Just 2 years ago we were in a 7 year “extreme severe drought”, cities were running out of water…this is why no development occurred. Development is water intensive and high density intensive to maintain.
https://youtu.be/_o86UyJdkoI?si=RG-DGQ_GKhB3_Gfr
And yes California is running out of water.
Additional there are other problems:
Public Health Risks
Disease Transmission: tuberculosis, pandemics like COVID-19 spread more rapidly in densely populated areas due to shared ventilation systems, elevators, and close quarters.
Mental Health Strain: Crowded environments increase stress, anxiety, and feelings of isolation, especially when green space and privacy are limited.
Environmental Degradation
Urban Heat Island Effect: Dense developments with concrete and asphalt absorb heat, raising local temperatures and increasing energy consumption.
Air and Noise Pollution: More people means more cars, more traffic, and more emissions—especially in car-dependent regions like California.
Infrastructure Overload
Traffic Congestion: Concentrated populations strain road networks, leading to gridlock and longer commute times.
Loss of Community Character
Aesthetic Decline: Many new developments are criticized for being visually bland or monolithic, eroding the unique charm of neighborhoods.
Emergency Vulnerability
Evacuation Challenges: Tall buildings and narrow streets complicate evacuation during wildfires, earthquakes, or other disasters.
Historical Lessons
Failed Projects: From Pruitt-Igoe to 1970s infill efforts in California, many high-density housing initiatives collapsed due to poor planning, lack of community input, and social isolation.
Pandemic Echoes: Historical outbreaks—from the 1918 flu to tuberculosis—spread rapidly in crowded urban environments, reinforcing the risks of density without adequate health infrastructure.
High density housing is “insane” and it was passed and Pushed all by dems in the California Senate and the governor. None of the developments include solar energy and battery backup, recycling water etc… is just a big monstrosity of a disaster just like the projects back in the 70’s
SUN I may sound like an idiot to you, but at least I can argue on my own without needing chat gpt to do it. You should try it, seriously!
Natural stupidity requires artificial intelligence.
Anonymous-Stupidity is thinking you know everything!
Sac,
A- I do not use Chat GPT
B- I research
C- Libraries were invented for people to learn
D- No person contains the knowledge. Of the Universe and only through research can you expand your self
” A- I do not use Chat GPT”
Just stop it. You admitted to it repeatedly.
Liar.
I guess I should lead within like you
Sac, no I never stated I use Chat GPT, you stated that…I stated AI is used by multiple industries and intertwined .. AI can even write poetry and jokes easy to remember… I guess I’ll lead within and be as nice as a person as you…
Does anyone know if there is an organization suing the state over the high density housing mandate? The county is doing nothing to protect citizens only going along with dangers listed above. Wish they would spend 700,000 to protect citizens like they do for others….
A coalition of over 200 organizations—including NRDC, Center for Biological Diversity, and California Environmental Voters—are publicly demanding that the Legislature repeal SB 131. Their concerns center on the bill’s sweeping exemptions from CEQA for industrial projects
SB 131
-Strips away public transparency and environmental review for polluting industries
-Threatens endangered species and critical habitats
-Undermines tribal sovereignty and conservation areas
-Was passed through backroom budget negotiations with minimal public input
You can thank the following legislatures for taking away CEQA’S protection for all the People ….they have opened the door to the destruction of CEQA. If you care about CEQA Protection, your Rights and the Environment contact your democratic legislatures and the Governor to repeal SB131 the law they voted yeah or just didn’t show up to protect you.
See list of legislatures who voted yeah , they have removed your CEQA protections
So Deceitful…
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB131
Additionally, Many of the same organizations that are pushing back against SB 131 are also demanding the repeal of AB 130, which created a full CEQA exemption for urban infill housing projects.
AB 130 allows developers to bypass CEQA entirely for housing projects in urban areas up to 20 acres—even if they include no affordable housing.
Critics argue this:
-Eliminates environmental review for large-scale developments
-Sidelines community input, especially in historically marginalized neighborhoods
-Accelerates gentrification and displacement
-Sets a dangerous precedent for privatizing land-use decisions
Groups like the Center for Biological Diversity, California Environmental Justice Alliance, and Sierra Club California have voiced strong opposition. They argue that AB 130:
Was passed with minimal public debate as part of a budget trailer bill
Undermines CEQA’s core mission of environmental transparency and accountability
Could lead to unchecked urban development with serious ecological and social consequences
Again you can thank your democratic legislatures listed below who voted yeah and request they repeal SB 130… such deceitfulness
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB130
Both SB 131 and AB 130 have great support for repeal now it’s up to the democrats to repeal what they voted yeah… contact your legislatures to real their vote and protect you!
While it is great that the County, City and Goleta have distributed $700,000 of tax payers money to protection illegal immigrants. It is HIGH TIME that the County, City and Goleta STAND UP and allocate $700,000 to repeal SB131 and AB 130 and protect ALL PEOPLE not just who they want. We need a show of thousands of people lining the streets in Santa Barbara County to repeal SB 131 and AB 130 and millions in California, to line the streets to repeal SB 131 and AB 130 to Protect our Rights afforded by CEQA! We need to join the over 200 organizations that oppose these destructive bills.
What the democrats have done is destructive to CEQA , to the way of life for all Californians and now they want to hide it . Show the same political will and billions provided to protect illegal immigrants …. Show the same respect and compassion for regular citizens who are being abused and not protected by SB 131 and AB 13…. Democrats true colors are visible, they have done nothing to protect regular citizens.This election, elect individuals that will repeal SB 131 and AB 130 giving the power back to the community on how they want to develop their community.l The only thing they have done is taken that power away! They complain about others who take away peoples power, yet they do not look inward to the damage they have done, such Hypocrites.
SUN – what does “protecting illegal immigrants” entail?
Like most ignorant MAGA folks, you fail to understand that US citizens are also provided social services. Undocumented immigrants aren’t getting anything more (and always very much LESS) than US citizens who meet the same income requirements.
Why shouldn’t people who pay taxes get some benefit from them?
Before you start posting Chat GPT responses and wailing about that $30 million figure or whatever you say is “costing” us to pay for undocumented immigrants, look at this:
.
The federal government spends over $1 TRILLION a year on welfare services.
CA spends about $200 BILLION a year.
You don’t care or have any compassion that people’s rights have been taken away by the destruction of CEQA! All as you can say is CHAT GPT because you can’t refute the damage done..and I don’t even think you know what CHAT GPT is or who uses it, and like I informed you before I don’t use CHAT GPT…government cites are not CHAT GPT , or what ever you think….you have no care in the world the damage the democrats have done and the power they have taken away from people…you are such a fraud and a hypocrite …I think you have a CHAT GPT fetish AND USE IT when you can not deny the damage
SUN – please stop lying. You use Chat GPT here all the time and have admitted it. Stop deflecting.
The Dems are not destroying CEQA. It’s not something that can be “destroyed,” it’s legislation.
Yes, I agree though, the housing mandate was misguided and I strongly oppose new development, especially given the environmental concerns. Most liberals do, as YOU YOURSELF posted (or what is Chat GPT?)
My point is though, it’s really hard to take you MAGAts seriously about your “environmental concerns” when you fully support the destruction of our planet every time you vote.
“I don’t even think you know what CHAT GPT is or who uses it”
and then this….. “I think you have a CHAT GPT fetish AND USE IT”
Pick a side. You’re all over the place.
LOL that’s funny.
BASIC – “There are tons.”
Ok…. so like I said, name one.
And no, joking about your abilities or trolling you with the moustache guy are not a “false statements.” Name one thing I’ve lied about or intentionally misrepresented here.
Come on. What you got?
SUN – ask yourself: what is my point here?
I’ve said over and over I agree that these are bad and I do NOT support them. Yet you insist that I do. Why?
I don’t agree that “Democrats are taking peoples rights away” though. That is an overly broad, vague and untrue statement.
If the courts strike these down as unconstitutional, awesome! I’d be happy. Thing is, I don’t think they will.
So again, what is your point in “arguing” non stop here about this singular issue with someone who agrees with you that it is bad for our community?
Why?
A mentally ill cheapskate, who likes to advertise, verbosely. That’s our sun!
Again, you don’t get to decide the unconstitutionality, the courts do!… move on
Anon, you speak but your words have no meaning. . You take pleasure in the destruction of CEQA , you think that makes you clever. Keep hiding behind anonymous…
Sac, look you want to support the democrats with their deceitful push of SB131 and AB 130 go right ahead. But I do not support their actions…both bills are unconstitutional, they take away peoples rights of due process, the bills damage the environment and CEQA, their impact damages people’s health with pollution and congestion. End of story
SUN – I’ve said MULTIPLE times I don’t support this. You need to stop lying.
I actually agree with you on all of this EXCEPT you are wrong saying they took away Constitutional rights. This has nothing to do with “due process.”
You don’t understand what you’re talking about and insist on continuing to ignore my clearly stated opposition to these. At this point, it’s clearly intentional and for the purpose of instigating argument while you cry about me being mean or stalking you because I respond to your nonsense.
Enough. Give it a rest.
You can claim SB 131 and AB 130 is not unconstitutional , however 100’s of organizations believe otherwise…the courts will decide not you. It is you who is crying and don’t know when to stop or what you are talking about just for the sake of arguing nonsensical …just let it go and let the courts decide
Furthermore if the courts come back and state SB131 and AB 130 are unconstitutional as well as violate the 5th Amendment the people and organization that oppose these insane monstrosities win and the environment and CEQA wins. That’s a good thing!!!
SUN – once again, while I disagree with these and do NOT support all this housing development, they do NOT violate due process laws like you are saying.
You should find a new topic to spend all of your time yelling at others about.
I wait for the courts to decide the unconstitutionality of the laws, not you…let it go and move on
Agree. Unfortunately, that’s not the latest, hottest cause for them to protest against. I don’t think most of them have a clue. It’s not real sexy right now for them to protest in support of our community and the environment itself. Quality of life? Traffic? Water? Ehhh…
Hopefully they can clue in, but don’t hold your breath. They’re obviously completely obsessed with protesting vs. the President and immigration enforcement.
BASICCANTREAD – “Unfortunately, that’s not the latest, hottest cause for them to protest against…..It’s not real sexy right now for them to protest in support of our community and the environment itself.”
Uh…. maybe you should read Sun’s AI-generated comment. Heck, you don’t even have to read past the FIRST SENTENCE:
“A coalition of over 200 organizations—including NRDC, Center for Biological Diversity, and California Environmental Voters—are publicly demanding that the Legislature repeal SB 131.”
and then this one….
“Additionally, Many of the same organizations that are pushing back against SB 131 are also demanding the repeal of AB 130,”
Oh here’s another one!
“Groups like the Center for Biological Diversity, California Environmental Justice Alliance, and Sierra Club California have voiced strong opposition. ”
Hey SUN and BASIC, if you’re so concerned about our environment and clean water, etc, why do you support someone who is INCREASING fossil fuel production at an almost unprecedented scale while at the same time banning renewable energy projects that are already under construction? If you hate your tax dollars being spent, wait till we foot the bill to defend against the lawsuits these companies will be brining…. Whooo eeee! Gonna hurt!
Yeah, keep “crying” about the environment you happily crap all over with your votes.
Sac, You keep telling yourself democrats haven’t eroded CEQA and taken away peoples rights. It’s gotta hurt to be betrayed by your own party.
SUN – What rights did they take away? Name one.
Sac, I can name many if you would only educate yourself
SB 131
-Strips away public transparency and environmental review for polluting industries
-Threatens endangered species and critical habitats
-Undermines tribal sovereignty and conservation areas
-Was passed through backroom budget negotiations with minimal public input
AB 130 allows developers to bypass CEQA entirely for housing projects in urban areas up to 20 acres—even if they include no affordable housing.
Critics argue this:
-Eliminates environmental review for large-scale developments
-Sidelines community input, especially in historically marginalized neighborhoods
-Accelerates gentrification and displacement
-Sets a dangerous precedent for privatizing land-use decisions
The dems have taken away the rights for communities to protect themselves through CEQA, they have eroded CEQA.
The result is
• Air & Noise Pollution: More vehicles, construction, and people can increase particulate matter and ambient noise, especially in areas already near capacity.
• Traffic Congestion: Adding units without expanding infrastructure can choke evacuation routes and daily commutes.
• Water Scarcity: California’s water systems are under stress, and more residents mean more demand-often without new supply.
• Emergency Evacuation: In fire-prone zones like Santa Barbara, denser neighborhoods could complicate evacuation logistics and increase risk.
We already see Hollister turned into a freeway congested and full of accidents daily.
Furthermore they deceitfully added these bills to the passing of the budget. These bills are “unconstitutional “ and seriously damaging to people as a whole….not sure why you don’t understand this…
The only thing you know how to do is distract, instead of actually looking at the problem these bills create.
Stop distracting just looks at the real problem that has been created by these bills, educate yourself please…
As a reasonable person, look at the problems created by these bills and the damage they do….can you understand …
Do you understand what pollution is, Air and noise and what that does to you health and medical bills?
Do you understand what traffic grid lock is?
Do you understand emergency evacuation made impossible?
Do you understand what happened in the palisades fire, people became trapped and they didn’t even have high density housing…
Do you understand water scarcity?
You don’t know who I voted for yet you make assumptions, and they make up other ridiculous accusations…you live to distract instead of really look at the problem of these bills, seriously…. And then you have anonymous which might be you again expecting a solution is one sentence, seriously
There are documented cases of spontaneous remission of schizophrenia, so there’s hope for you.
Your living proof
SUN – none of those aee rights that are being talen away. They are negative imoacts for sure and I don’t like them. BUT…. they aren’t “rights” that are being taken away by democrats or whatever you’re saying.
Yes they are being taken away, those rights existed prior to SB 131 and AB 130
Eliminates environmental review for large-scale developments
-Sidelines community input
The bills are unconstitutional
Removing most of the parking lot 2 on canon peridot is a big mistake. It is a core parking structure for downtown and often full.
yep, and many….many businesses use it. the city is just full of short sighted decisions.
Oh Santa Barbara….”farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies, farewell and adieu to you ladies from Spain…”
This sounds very encouraging! Can they/would they keep the 66ft height that’s at present? Or, please justify why there _has to be_ an even taller building. Keeping to what’s there would be very important to Santa Barbarans who care about our city and keeping to prior agreements! It is really not desirable to establish a new height, a new precedent of, “sure, we’ll build but just as we developers want, not as you city residents want.” (I am a former downtown resident who loved living downtown but now live a mile or so away, with more space … and parking.)
its going to be 1 story short of the granada. this will make a big difference…and will open up many other developers to build more taller buildings….it takes just one
“The 80 affordable units would be located across the street from the former Nordstrom building at the current site of City Parking Lot 2.”
Separate….but “equal.”
They had to do this to guarantee the 80 affordable units, which is more than the developer legally needs to put in. IF they didn’t separate it this way to allow for grant funding, the developer could have only put in 12-20 affordable units.
Adequate, ongoing parking for everyone in town at Lot 2 is far more important than ripping it out so a lucky few can get affordable homes
Ah yes, the altruistic voice of compassion from the shores of Montecito.
Good thing that most good people are willing to park a block away so that some of our less fortunate neighbors who do critical jobs for our community have a place to live.
All of the renderings show a vibrant downtown Santa Barbara…complete with an open-to-traffic State Street (1st drawing at State/Ortega). Like including the Rusty’s Pizza in the Milpas “Monster” Projects rendering.
BEES – I noticed that as well, strange. Are there plans to re-open State to traffic that have not yet been released? I really hope not, especially with this new development there. It would cause an even worse traffic nightmare than that which permanently existed on State before.
During the meeting the city staff said the cars on state is just a drawing from the developer and not indicative of any plans to open State.
Whew! That’s a relief!
So so sad to see our beautiful SB turn into Santa Monica. I long for the days that cities could decide their own building projects that are in line with their city’s history, aesthetics and “feel.” If only rich donors would donate their $$ to keeping up SB’s infrastructure so we wouldn’t have to depend on the state’s “building guidelines” being met in order to receive state funding for local road improvements, etc. It’s tragic, really.
It sucks here now, you should probably leave.
What I find totally hysterical about this whole development conversation is all these gatekeeping “locals” (like, you’re not indigenous, your third generation status is a blip in time, y’all crapped on and disrespected the real original people here so get over yourselves) yapping about the good old days and all these terrible people screwing things up.
Guess what–you’re the people that screwed it up. Your parents. Your grandparents. This place was a paradise and your families had the opportunity to maintain it…and you didn’t–you sold out, built and built, and profited as much as you could.
So, OG Cito rats, Santa Barbarians and Goletanos–go yell at your grandpa.
Nice rant. Are you some sort of Chumash elder, or just an LA transplant white guy?
Hey, some folks support massive development in SB and some don’t.
Those who support Newsom are to blame for all these 5-7 story monstrosities coming our way in SB and Goleta. But it’s “affordable” right?? Ehhh…
BASIC – “Those who support Newsom are to blame for all these 5-7 story monstrosities coming our way in SB and Goleta. ”
Funny. You say you don’t support child rapists just because you support trump, then say something as stupid and hypocritical as this….
Even funnier is that most liberals actually speak out against Newsom’s misguided mandate, yet you keep quiet about child rapists being moved from prison to a country club detention center after gushing in an interview about how much they “admire” and “like” Trump. Sick.