This opinion article originally appeared on Newsmakers and is re-published here in collaboration
By Lanny Ebenstein
Santa Barbara City College is one of our community’s defining institutions. Tens of thousands of young people from Santa Barbara, Goleta, and Carpinteria have been educated at SBCC over time, and thousands more benefit from it now. The college also has an extensive and exemplary community education program from which many thousands more benefit.
Measure P on the November 5 ballot merits a strong Yes vote.
Measure P would provide vital funding for important capital facilities on the SBCC main campus on Cliff Drive, as well as Wake and Schott campuses. The community has, perhaps surprisingly, not invested much in the college. There has been only one successful bond for SBCC since 1973.
The State of California generally expects community colleges to finance facilities through local bonds. An educational bond requires a 55 percent vote to pass.
Santa Barbara City College has one of the finest community college campuses anywhere. Its programs are exceptional. From children’s centers and concurrent enrollment of high school students at SBCC, to local students who attend SBCC after high school on their way to a four-year college or university and vocational and continuing education for adults of all ages: SBCC serves everyone.
A vibrant Santa Barbara City College is a great asset to the entire community! Many thousands of our neighbors, friends, co-workers, and fellow community members–and their kids and grandkids–will benefit from the planned improvements.
Santa Barbara City College has had only four successful bonds in its history since opening on Cliff Drive in 1959–in 1962, 1969, 1973, and 2008. One successful bond in more than 50 years is not adequate to enable SBCC to continue to address facility challenges and retain its outstanding program, notwithstanding the college has spent significant funds on maintenance and repair. Maintenance can only take place for so long; ultimately, facilities reach the end of their lifespan.
The generations that came before us invested in Santa Barbara City College. Now, it is this generation’s chance to stand up and be counted for SBCC. Measure P has been carefully thought through so that the property tax rate will not exceed the rate already approved by voters with the 2008 bond. Voting Yes on P simply extends this rate.
Inflation has increased, and it would cost more to make the improvements proposed in Measure P in the future. Santa Barbara City College will benefit financially from facility expenditures at this time, and it is to the programmatic benefit of students and the community. It is important to protect the community’s investment in the physical plant of the college.
Measure P will enable Santa Barbara City College to qualify for tens of millions of dollars of state funding that may not (and probably would not) be available in the future and require a local match.
In particular, the Physical Science building–which was originally built with funds from the 1962 bond, more than 60 years ago — would be completely rebuilt. The new facility would become a major community improvement, rather than a deleterious and outmoded, substandard building.
This is the last election that SBCC can use tens of millions of dollars of state funding available for the already approved physical education building replacement project.
Measure P would also allow City College to qualify for tens of millions of dollars of state funding for classroom modernization, including for renovated and improved science labs. The total amount of state funding available as a result of Measure P is as much as $100 million.
Santa Barbara City College is a leader in many fields, including healthcare. The SBCC nursing program is a vital component in our community’s healthcare system. Our community’s nurses and home health aides often receive training and education at SBCC. So do our radiologists and those in health information technology–and so it is for many in all roles in our community’s life.
Many tens of thousands of community members born in Santa Barbara, Goleta, and Carpinteria, and who live here all their lives have, are, and will benefit from Santa Barbara City College.
Community colleges serve all members of the community. SBCC is among the most diverse and inclusive institutions in our area. It is worthwhile to support young people in developing their vocational career, in being enrolled in City College during high school and after they graduate from high school and are beginning their college careers, and again later in their lives and careers.
Vote Yes on Measure P! It’s a great investment for the community, would benefit tens of thousands of local students and community members for decades, and would not increase the tax rate for City College facilities beyond that approved in 2008.
Economist and author Lanny Ebenstein is President of the Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association.
Op-Ed’s are written by community members, not representatives of edhat. The views and opinions expressed in Op-Ed articles are those of the author’s.
[Do you have an opinion on something local? Share it with us at info@edhat.com.]
Also Read
- Santa Barbara County District Attorney Offers Concern for Safety During These Turbulent Times
- Op-Ed: Santa Barbara’s Rent Freeze: Politics First, Housing Second
- Op-Ed: University Of California’s $28 Million System For Pension Payouts Produced Chaos And Complaints
- Op-Ed: Cap And Trade Gets A New Name And A New Mission Beyond Cutting Carbon Pollution
- Op-Ed: A Spate of New Studies Gives the Lowdown on California’s Sky-High Living Costs
Thank you for this viewpoint. After Dale, Francisco’s articulate opposite opinion offered here ( yesterday ?) , I was hoping someone would say why supporting it is a good idea. Something major needs to be done to bring the SBCC buildings up-to-date. Tough decisions do need to be made, if the measure is approved, To adapt to the shifting needs.
The SBCC PAID professional Campaign Operatives write the proponent letters. Lanny has in writing communicated this, admits letters are simply signed by those with something to benefit from passage. Media needs to cover TRUTHS. P will INCREASE TAXES. Lanny wrote that it will but campaign staff DELETES TRUTH. There are NO GUARANTEES. Feed the incompetent leaders with more money to spend as the choose. Everyone agrees SBCC has not been maintained by admin; that buildings need to be demolished. Enrollment down 50%+ and declining. Time for a master plan by District community.
Word salad with tinges of psychosis.
Lanny. Im not for or against P. I’m surprised that you join in the celebration of the “tax rate remains the same” propaganda. Property values have changed continuously since 2008 and thus the property tax bill continues to rise yearly and now under P will continue rising for years to come producing more and more income from property owners. The SBCC chooses the tax rate voluntarily and property values are changed by law but at least have limitations. Is this purely a deceptive talking point to raise millions of dollars? Why not just keep the discussions to the benefits and needs?
First of all, taxpayer money should never be used to promote this bill. SBCC is using public funds to create flyers and web pages aimed at influencing the vote in their favor. There is clearly a conflict of interest here.
But let’s go over SBCC’s webpage, which states that Measure P includes strict accountability and local control requirements, including:
1. By law, all funds from Measure P may only be used to improve SBCC facilities. The key word here is “may.” This word does not provide certainty that the funds will be used for this purpose, only that it is more likely than not. If the goal is truly to guarantee that the funds go to facilities, it should state that the funds shall be used for these improvements, which would remove any ambiguity.
2. No funds raised by Measure P could be used for administrator salaries or benefits.
What Measure P actually does is ensure that the new funds for SBCC must be allocated to specific projects, but it does not mandate that the current budget for those projects remains unchanged. As a result, the measure allows SBCC to reallocate its existing budget. Essentially, the money from Measure P will cover certain project costs, which were previously part of SBCC’s budget. This creates flexibility within the SBCC budget, freeing up funds that can now be used for other expenses, such as salaries and benefits.
3. Measure P claims it would not increase tax rates beyond the amount already approved by voters. Yes, the rate would stay the same, but the amount paid will increase every year, unless SB housing prices decrease—which is unlikely to happen soon.
Finally, let’s look at the top-reported SBCC annual salaries (including benefits) for 2022 (2024 are most likely higher):
Murillo: $465,000
Michael Young: $370,000 (2020 salary: $265,000; increased 40% in two years)
Cornelia Alsheimer-Barthel: $345,000 (2020 salary: $270,000; increased 28% in two years) Nicolas Maestu: $298,000 (2020 salary: $264,000; increased 13% in two years).
Sorry, none of that is very convincing.
SBCC is a local gem, and we should keep it that way.
So you’re voting yes. Others may be more discriminating and only willing to spend this giant amount of money if it looks like a good investment. Not every initiative is a ‘Yes’ for many folks. Is it a “gem”? Hmm. That’s hyperbole. Everyone has a limit to how much money they’d spend on upgrades given what’s happening with enrollment.
Um, “may only” means “is only allowed to”, not “might or might not”.
If the goal is to ensure that the funds must be used solely for upgrading infrastructure, then “must” is the correct word.
“May only be” implies permission with limitations. It suggests that the funds can be used for improving SBCC facilities, but it leaves room for interpretation that they don’t have to be used that way—it’s just the only allowed option.
“Must only be” or simply “must be” implies obligation and necessity. It would mean the funds are required to be used exclusively for improving SBCC facilities, with no flexibility or alternative allowed.
Sorry Anon – the other Anon has it right. In that context, “may only be used for…” does indeed prohibit other uses. For more “flexible” language, check out the wording for the city sales tax measure. That money can be used for anything!
The “may only be” definition was generated by Google AI.
This time I typed in “may only be vs must be” and AI stated:
“May only be” expresses possibility, while “must be” expresses obligation or necessity:
May only be: Expresses possibility
Must be: Expresses obligation or necessity.
Check the disclaimer: “This program makes mistakes.”
No. Dalgorf has it correct.
Talk to a lawyer, Kirk.
ANON – no need. Kirk, Dalgorf and the other Anon have it right. “May only be” is not the same as “may be.” The word “only” limits the use to that which follows “may only be used for. etc etc etc etc”
“May only be” here means funds can be used for ONLY that thing.
“May” is not the”key word.” “Only” is.
Just for you
The “may only be” definition was generated by Google AI.
This time I typed in “may only be vs must be” and AI stated:
“May only be” expresses possibility, while “must be” expresses obligation or necessity:
May only be: Expresses possibility
Must be: Expresses obligation or necessity.
And Google AI is definitive for you, huh?
May only be means there is only one thing that can be possible, if it comes up at all. Must only means that the thing must happen (as opposed to may happen) and then it must happen in that certain way.
So, for example, “funds may only be used for SBCC” means the funds have only one option IF they are used – “for SBCC.”
“Must only” means the funds MUST be used and can only be used “for SBCC.”
Neither phrase allows for the use of funds for anything other than “for SBCC” in my example.
So, whether it’s Must or May, there is ONLY ONE THING they can be used for. ONLY means ONLY, not “maybe something else.”
How long we going to do this?
Here’s a good explanation:
“No, “you may only have only one account” is not merely a suggestion. It is the preferred way to say this. It rules out the possibility of having two or more accounts.
“You must have only one account” would rule out the possibility of having no account at all.”
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/456583/is-there-a-difference-between-must-and-may-in-limiting-phrases#:~:text=No%2C%20%22you%20may%20only%20have,having%20no%20account%20at%20all.
Again….. ONLY is the key word, not MAY. Effectively, there are NO other purposes for which these funds can be used for.
Whether it’s “must only” or “may only,” the funds will not be allowed for anything other than the stated purpose, if used at all.
Hopefully this clears this all up.
Check the disclaimer: “This program makes mistakes.”
Read bond counsel opinion: bait and switch is allowed unless wording is MUST or SHALL. Apparently “Only” has no meaning in their Black Legal Distionary.
If this interpretation is correct the Measure V bond money wrongly allocated. Measure V spent money on projects that were not mentioned in the ballot measure or arguments for it. This is actually the real objection to Measure P which repeats the exact arguments for remedial needs that were made and not addressed in V. If P passes the administration/board “may” spend the proceeds on stuff like the V press box instead of asbestos or earthquake remediation. We will spend millions of dollars on the expanded athletic venue to attract water polo and such while the alleged needs of the building that real students and faculty would occupy remain as they are now (just like last time). I am voting No on P.
Is this you?
Child: “May I play with Johnny?”
Mom: “No, you may not. He’s a bad influence.”
Child goes to play with Johnny.
Johnny: “I thought your mom doesn’t like me?”
Child: “It’s ok, she said ‘may’.”
“Is that you, John Wayne? Is this me?”
Read SBWoman’s comment
The words MUST or SHALL are missing from Measure P2024, as from Measure V2008. Bond counsel ruled after voter passage of V2008 funding that SBCC administrators and Trustees could LEGALLY CHANGE THE PROJECT LIST, to fund other projects at its discretion.
That is why they wrote this one with the “may ONLY be used for…” language. They cannot legally change the project list; any attempt to do so would result in legal action. The city’s sales tax measure also includes a lengthy list of goals (They even argued about which “priority” to list first but went with the election consultant’s recommendation listing public safety first. That would make it “more likely to pass.”) The final item in the long list reads “and for general government use.” Since the city is facing a severe budget shortfall, little of the funds raised will likely be used on the other “priorities.” For Measure P the appropriate language was used to ensure that the funds must (no, that word does not need to be included to make it legally binding) be used as described.
ANON – SBWOMAN is hardly an authority on anything.
This is simple, basic English and reasoning.
ONLY.
Really? Do YOUR homework SacJon. You’re wrong. Spend 3-4 weeks going through every public document on Measure V. Contact bond counsel. I did, Did you? Of course you didn’t.
SBWOMAN – ONLY.
No need to make it my life’s work. I understand the english language and how it is adjudicated. Trust me. ONLY.
ONLY.
A legal and binding phrase is that “The bond funds SHALL only be used for……
Need words MUST or SHALL.
ONLY.
“SBCC is using public funds to create flyers and web pages aimed at influencing the vote in their favor.” FALSE. The Foundation is funding the campaign. No “taxpayer” money is being used to promote the passage of Measure P.
Much of what anonymous says is FALSE and misleading, the Trumpian way to get people upset and emotional about this election.
From SBCC website
https://www.sbcc.edu/measure-p/files/FAQ_TCX_SantaBarbaraCCD1_4c.pdf
SBCC website
https://www.sbcc.edu/measure-p/files/FactSheet_TCX_SantaBarbaraCCD1_3c.pdf
https://www.sbcc.edu/measure-p/
The words MUST or SHALL are missing from Measure P2024, as from Measure V2008. Bond counsel ruled after voter passage of V2008 funding that SBCC administrators and Trustees could LEGALLY CHANGE THE PROJECT LIST, to fund other projects at its discretion. Read online the full history of V2008 annual bait & switch expenditures. READ the Audirors disclaimers!! The wording of P2024 is the same! That is why a decision was made NOT TO ADD TO THE P2024 PROJECT LIST THE ALREADY CONTRACTED OUT PE BUILDING. Overly confident Trustee majority decided that when voters see SBCC they will vote Yes; voters do not care how Trustees spend taxpayer indebtedness. Trustee Abboud stated that ‘Trustees are not comfortable cutting spending’. Watch the 1/25/2024 meeting. Trustees authorized staff to proceed with the $90M PE Building because in November ‘we’ll get the money’ from taxing property owners. BONDS ARE DANGEROUS to taxpayers. Once approved Que Sera, Sera. $500,000 to be spent to convince you. VOTE NO!
1. “may only” is legalese for “if used at all, shall be used only for”. These funds cannot be used for anything else.
No on P
Here is why.
1. For the last ten years, SBCC has been an institution in decline. The 75 acre campus on some of the most valuable land in Santa Barbara is not fully used and no longer justifies the very large costs of maintenance.
2. The number of students at SBCC has declined from 19,331 to 12,675.
3. Of the 12,12,675 students, over 4,199 exclusively study 100% on-line
4. Of the remaining students, 4,900 study partially on-line and partially in classrooms on Campus.
5. Clearly, this 75 acre campus is underutilized.
6. SBCC has been driven to rent classrooms to a “For Profit” private university.
7. The SBCC budget is $224,347,416, almost a quarter of a Billion dollars a year.
8. Measure P seeks to add almost half a billion dollars in principal and interest to the annual budget shown above, and to the existing Bond for $ ……………… approved by taxpayers, who are still paying it off.
9. There is no accounting or oversight of how these vast amounts of money are spent. Except that bloated salaries are about the largest component.
10. The two most knowledgeable and experienced Trustees of financial matters in SBCC voted “No” on Measure P.
11. We the public and we the taxpayers must vote “No” on measure P. To do otherwise is foolish.
12.. A deep investigation into SBCC, by an independent party, must be implemented into the deep and troubling questions raised by yet another very costly bond request that cumulatively, Taxpayers will pay for into 2060. And, the long-term viability of SBCC under current and future conditions, including the very high expenditures spent on salaries and retirement benefits and the current and future need and costs of maintenance for the 75 acre campus
We, the public and the taxpayers, Must Vote “No” on Measure P . To do otherwise, would be a foolish waste of enormous funds until we look behind the curtains to understand the true state of affairs causing the inexhaustible demands for money by SBCC.
Reads exactly like the published Noozhawk letter from the In-coming Pres-Elect Menzel of the SBCC Foundation that’s spending $500,000 to gain passage of P2024 to bail out mismanagement at SBCC & waste of generous donor monies intended to benefit students and District owned SBCC.
So both an argument for Prop P and an argument against it “Reads exactly like the published Noozhawk letter …”?
I smell a bot.
Your nose is off. When someone is giving truth and facts, all they need to do is repeat themselves. Once in Noozhawk now in Edhat. Truth is easy to spot, if you are open to it.
Thank you for the much-needed detailed information. Valid dissenting and informed views are likely why Noozhawk, the Independent, NPR , and others no longer allow comments.
It’s Time for local,state,federal governments to live within their budgets. Just like we all do.
Until the government starts spending OUR money wisely vote NO on any tax measures.
Having lived and grown up in Santa Barbara over the last 70 plus years, my wife and I came to appreciate how important SBCC is to the health and welfare of our community. We attended local public schools and took advantage of SBCC upon graduating from high school. She was in one of the first graduating classes in the radiologic technician program in 1972 and practiced at all the local hospitals and for many doctors. I transferred in 1972 to Cal Berkeley and eventually got my MBA. SBCC launched our careers and allowed us to stay in Santa Barbara.
SBCC’s buildings and facilities are the same ones we experienced over 50 years ago. They are in desperate need of maintenance, repair and, in some cases, replacement for safety reasons. The extension of Measure P will provide critical funding for SBCC to continue to be the educational beacon for thousands of local students trying to get a start in life with an affordable education, WITHOUT INCREASING TAX RATES beyond what we approved in 2008.
My goals in retirement are to give back to the community that lifted my family in life. So, I volunteer with and support the United Boys & Girls Clubs and The SBCC Foundation to ensure that our community’s kids and students have the best chance to succeed. These institutions deserve our support to keep the vitality in this special community. Supporting Measure P is an investment in the future prosperity of the Southcoast.
Pablosba –
Reads exactly like the published Noozhawk letter from the In-coming Pres-Elect Menzel of the SBCC Foundation that’s spending $500,000 to gain passage of P2024 to bail out mismanagement at SBCC & waste of generous donor monies intended to benefit students and District owned SBCC.
Why tell such offensive lies?
PabloSBA
Reads exactly like the published Noozhawk letter from the In-coming Pres-Elect Menzel of the SBCC Foundation that’s spending $500,000 to gain passage of P2024 to bail out mismanagement at SBCC & waste of generous donor monies intended to benefit students and District owned SBCC.
I completely 100 % oppose P. SBCC use to be an incredible school, I myself attended it back in the late 70’s. It’s not the same anymore. I sent my daughter to Hancock which was a much better school and plenty of inexpensive apartments close by. My son attended SBCC and never stepped foot on campus. That’s when Covid was here and the teacher just wanted to teach from home.
I believe they could reduce the size of the campus, many unused buildings and classrooms. Heck they’re renting them out. Get rid of the excess and build some SBCC housing for your students only. It’s tough enough to support low income housing, a lot that is created by SBCC and now also pay for your bond.
It’s my understanding that over $100 million for a new gym? ??♂️
The enrollment continues to drop. No more taxes.
https://www.nop4sbcc.com/
Dale Francisco’s OpEd is reposted here
I am willing to support classroom modernization, improved science labs, asbestos removal, earthquake retrofits, and such. I am way less interested in maintaining or improving the facilities used for sports and recreational physical activities.
No thanks Jerry. I disagree.
BTW, Jerry didn’t write that, Mr. Oblivious.
Vote NO on P. Measure P extends 2008’s Bond Measure V by an additional 30 years of taxpayer indebtedness. V promised us the East Campus construction of a Media Arts / Computer Sciences building which had been in the works for years. When I voted YES for V, that’s what I and others voted for. Where is it? Regarding the state of campus buildings, you’d think by the Pro-P hype nothing’s been done for decades. Not true! When I started teaching at SBCC in 1995, the West Campus buildings were fairly new: BC, IDC, and Luria Library. During the 20 years I taught here, the following were major rennovation/construction projects: Humanities bldg, Adm bldg, East Campus restaurant, and Sciences bldg, football field and press box. On West Campus: Dramatic Arts and its 2 theaters, as well the construction of a new building adjacent. Measure P’s language is intentionally vague and like its parent, V, makes promises it’s under no obligation to fulfill. Only we, the property owners, are obliged to hand over our money to a College in deep fiscal mismanagement — $7 million deficit and no way out. VOTE NO.
Good information on Measure V – but the language on Measure P is not “vague”; the funds raised “may ONLY be used for” the items listed. It cannot be used for other uses, including balancing the budget. Vote for or against it based on how you feel about SBCC and the improvements proposed – but not because you think the funds will be diverted to other uses.
Fact: Tax dollars from SBCC are NOT being used to campaign for Measure P. It is illegal to do so.
Fact: Enrollment at SBCC has increased every year since the negative impacts of COVID.
Prediction: Enrollment will continue to increase as the cost of four year colleges and universities become out of reach for most students.
Well folks, they tried this bonding slight of hand once before in 2014 with a SBCC Bond that would have cost taxpayers (property owners and renters) from the County Line to Gaviota a total of $600 million to pay back. Voters were smart enough to vote this bond issue down by a large majority! Well the people who spend your money at SBCC are at it again.
This time they want us to vote for a new and improved version of the 2014 bond issue that will cost us about $400 million to pay off. This is what taxpayers who are being asked to vote for this reincarnated spend-a-thon should know:
SBCC has had a constant downward student enrollment! Students attending on campus classes have dropped to around 9,000, while on-line students represent about 4,000 students and the the trend is growing. Trustee /Lawyer Marsha Croninger and Trustee/ Educator Veronica Gallardo are both against this Proposition P SBCC Bond. With a declining student body, does SBCC
now need to put our taxpayers in debt for yet another $400,000,000?
SBCC leaders and too many trustees know little about the entire procedure for the floating of bond issues and how their pricing and cost is determined. I defy them to explain full story covering these bonds in a Taxpayer Town Hall!
Now, with half of the on campus student body that SBCC had not too many years ago; with empty and unused classrooms and facilities; with the school advertising for the attendance of out of district, state and country students to keep the SS SBCC from sinking, shouldn’t the staff and trustees utilize what they have instead of putting another $400 millions on the backs of our local taxpayers?”
There is a social cost involved if Measure P is approved by voters: Students from outside the district require housing. This has already reduced rental housing stocks and raise rents even more. If the bonds pass, they will also raise rents as property owners pass the cost on to renters.
If you examine Measure P and it’s costs and consequences, you will vote NO!
Just vote No.
Trick or Treat no on P!
Supporters of Measure P are removing many “no-on-P” signs and replacing them with “yes-on-P” signs. This group, capable of lying and misrepresenting, is also stealing signs.
They are trying to trick voters into supporting a tax increase using lies and deceit, which will affect both property owners and renters in the form of rent increases.
Santa Barbara City College has a continuing decline in enrollment, with only 40% of students attending in person, and an excess of facilities.
Both current and previous administrations and Boards have a pattern of deficit spending and prioritize things that are not in the best interest of students or the community.
Don’t be fooled, Vote “no” on Measure P!
Op Ed from Congressional candidate Thomas Cole RE: No on Prop P
Regarding Trustee Abboud’s plea for another $300,000,000 in tax dollars. In the first place, I would point out the trustees have no experience running a giant facility like SBCC. These trustees cut maintenance by 90% years ago, while increasing salaries and pensions for their far leftist friends, while spending millions on DEI courses, anti white and anti Christian courses and curriculum, and then spending more millions defending those courses as parents and community leaders brought lawsuits. (Fair Education)
Also of note are trustee Abboud’s classic radical left statements which speak for themselves. Like.. “No amount of money is enough to spend on anti racism..” and his other infamous statement on FB.. ”Met some white supremacists today, can’t wait for all these old white people to be dead.”
With this kind of racial hatred and animosity emanating from SBCC leadership, it’s no wonder campus buildings are in disrepair, and student enrollment is down 40%. Who would want to go to college and listen to all this crap from these unhinged far left activists/trustees ?
If, instead of all this hatred and violence directed against our American culture, a culture that has welcomed and fully supported ungrateful immigrants like Abboud, we had trustees who valued their positions of trust and took seriously their responsibilities to maintain academic standards, civility, and also practical facility maintenance standards, well. We all would be in better shape, and SBCC, a fine public facility, would not be in need of constant bailouts, lawsuits, lockdowns, anti pledge riots, constant false racism charges, 12 deans in 14 years and the all bad national attention these inane distractions from true learning have brought.
Teaching meaningful subjects, the beauty of the arts, history, business and the trades all in one public owned facility would be a welcome return to sanity and the trustees should be pursuing this. But they are not and it is they who should be replaced, not the buildings
Spoiled rotten ideologues have no business running major public institutions like SBCC. They have betrayed their constituents, their students and the taxpayers. These perennially vexatious so called trustees need to hear two words. You’re all fired.
Thomas Cole JD Montecito
If you want to see some real hood ornaments, just take a look here at these SBCC race training manuals used at SBCC to ‘teach’ our young people about, well, tolerance? All paid for with millions of taxpayer dollars, and approved by the unhinged, race obsessed trustees at SBCC. Now who’s the racist? The guy pointing this out, or the people propagating race hatred to college students? https://www.coalition4liberty.com/post/how-to-get-arrested-in-santa-barbara
I urge people to read Thomas Cole’s candidate statement in their election pamphlet to see what sort of person he is … it’s at least as bad as the sorts of things he writes above. Or see
https://www.aol.com/news/slo-county-candidate-congress-made-212835666.html
Cole’s twitter feed is even worse than that of Ethan Woodill that I exposed (since deleted).
https://x.com/THOMASCOLE1776