Public Invited to Share Opinions on Cruise Ship Program

correction: the city makes it incredibly difficult / expensive for both landlords and businesses (it's a partnership, they go hand in hand) to open for businesses in a town where too many rely on Amazon/Target rather than shopping local.

correction VOR: it is not the duty or role of the city to decide winners and losers in the free market competition for the consumer dollar. A better mousetrap has been built and those who don't move on are going to fade away.

You're right @12:45, that isn't the city's role. Their role is supposed to be on our side, helping our businesses compete in the regional, national and global economies. Their role is to support and encourage the long-term prosperity of our city and the businesses that call it home; being anti-business by throwing up as much red tape as possible, and then some, goes against this.

Wow, a lot of anti-small business people out today.

VOR, anti small business? is that what you got from the posts? i dont see one post slamming people for having a small business. We just don't have retail in town. SB sucks for shopping. We have to go to Santa Maria, SLO, and Ventura for retail or we shop online. the few small businesses in retail that we have downtown aren't what people are shopping for, which is why they don't last and aren't really needed.

I was referring to the multiple downvotes to my comment pointing out what is really impacting retail (small businesses) downtown, which corrected your erroneous post that it's the landowners that make it so expensive retail can't sustain itself - that is false.

VoR: What you're advocating for is socialism. Favoritism and interference in the economy leads to distortions in competition, even on the local level. I cringed so hard when the last Potus promised an air conditioning factory he would help them expand, or that the coal companies would magically recover. It's not up to the government to make that happen! At best they are false promises, at worst it leads to a system depending on the whims of random officials.

That's exactly what I'm advocating against. What you and many are unware of, is that the favoritism and interference of the economy that is occurring if for the benefit major corporations (and not coincidently big political donors) and to the detriment of small business. They are gutting the middle class (small businesses) further increasing the wealth of the upper class and elite, and pushing more people into the lower class dependent on the government and the major corporations. I'm all for true socialism, where the means of production are controlled by the workers, NOT socialism that is controlled by the government which is NOT controlled by the people, as much as we like to pretend it is. Small-businesses are the closest thing we have to the workers controlling the means of production and they're being decimated by Big Government policies.

"the land owners make it so expensive that retail just can't sustain itself in town. that is the main problem."
I know this thread is about cruise ships but this statement above caught my eye. Our tax code must change so that there is no financial incentive/tax incentive to keep commercial real estate vacant. There are commercial properties on State street that have been vacant for years.

And how about the Biltmore and Coral Casino? Zero income since the mudslide. Can you imagine the annual expenses to keep these properties in good shape?

If there were no incentives to keep the properties vacant, then land owners would have to rent the property at fair market value which would create jobs for people and tax revenue for the city.

There is no financial incentive or tax incentive in keeping a commercial space vacant! To assert otherwise is false and shows a major lack of understanding of finance and taxes.

VoR: In relative terms, there is a financial incentive to keep properties vacant. Many landlords bought commercial properties when property values were higher and expected higher rents than they would get today. They also took out bank loans with those higher projections factored in. If a landlord rents a vacant property now, they would lock in a lower rate than they expected, and rental agreements can last for up to 10 years. Or they could take a loss on the property and renegotiate loans with the banks, claiming lack of ability to pay. Added to this is the universal reluctance of retail chains to agree to years-long commitments when brick & mortar retail is in steady decline.

"There is no financial incentive or tax incentive in keeping a commercial space vacant!"

Well one example cited by my accountant awhile back was an investor with a fairly large real estate portfolio. By not renting one of her commercial properties for 1 year, she was able to lower her tax rate on her whole portfolio. This reduced the amount of taxes she had to pay overall.

Is it your position that landowners holding out for $40, 000 per month rent and do not locate a tenant just lose out on $480,000 for the year without any off-setting benefit?

"There is no financial incentive or tax incentive in keeping a commercial space vacant!"

Well one example cited by my accountant awhile back was an investor with a fairly large real estate portfolio. By not renting one of her commercial properties for 1 year, she was able to lower her tax rate on her whole portfolio. This reduced the amount of taxes she had to pay overall.

Is it your position that landowners holding out for $40, 000 per month rent and do not locate a tenant just lose out on $480,000 for the year without any off-setting benefit?

Chillin your comment shows a lack of understanding of finance and commercial real estate. Those bank loans have covenants in it like occupancy requirements and debt service coverage ratios. You simply don't let a space stay vacant, "take a loss" and "renegotiate" a mortgage with the lender - they could easily foreclose and you'd loose everything. In nearly every case a rent paying tenant, even a low rent paying tenant, would be better than no tenant. The property owner doesn't have to agree to a 10 year low rent lease, and if tenants won't accept a short term low rent lease then the space may remain vacate but there is simply not a financial incentive to let the space remain vacant.

GER8T, you must have misunderstood your account because a portfolio does not have a tax rate, and individual has a tax rate based on the income they receive from all various sources throughout the year. As your tax bracket (rate) goes up, that higher rate is only applied to that incrementally higher amount of income. If you're a dollar below the next tax bracket and you earn another $100, only that $100 is taxed at the higher rate now all of your income. Regarding your question, that is correct, the $480K is lost income with no offsetting benefit. Now you're total income would be less (due to the $480K that wasn't earned) and you'd pay less taxes as a result, but it would more lucrative to earn that $480K and pay taxes on it.

*not all of your income

To the person the other day proposing limits on comments, this here is the problem. Some people like to highjack threads with off-topic, trolling comments and then carry on a complete side "argument" with others that has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the original post. THIS is what needs to be limited.

SACJON: All you need to do is go stand up above Leadbetter Beach, at Shoreline Park. Look at the filth coming out of the stacks on the cruise ships. You don't think that's affecting our air quality? Pay particular attention to when the ships are leaving, to see how thick the particulate matter is, fouling our air. Here's some light reading for you: https://www.marineinsight.com/environment/8-ways-in-which-cruise-ships-can-cause-marine-pollution/

12:50 - I have. But I'm asking whether that smoke (like the smoke I see from cars, industrial buildings in town, etc) is actually degrading our local air quality? Is it such a detrimental source of pollution that it has changed our way of life? I am not convinced the answer is yes. If these were here longer and more often, I might be more inclined to believe so, but the transient smoke while they're under way a few times a year doesn't seem to be enough to disrupt our quality of life.

Also, no need for the snark, I was simply asking if there has been any direct evidence of the local ship visits harming our local ecology. I'm not really pro or anti cruise ships, just curious if, in fact, they have been linked to any local harm. Sounds like the answer is no.

SACJON: Hyperbole and whataboutism are not valid arguments. Just because you can't see the air pollution emanating from the ships doesn't mean it's not there. Diesel engines are what powers all the electricity on those cruise ships. As these ships sit there, diesel fumes are discharging out into our Santa Barbara air. We manufacture enough of our own air pollution here already. I think you'll agree we don't need cruise ships adding to it.

2:54 - "Hyperbole and whataboutism are not valid arguments" - show me where I did either. In fact, the only one putting forth invalid arguments is you. I've asked a simple question and you've provided no answer, only deflection and now some ad hominem type response. Thanks, but no thanks. I'll wait for a proper answer before responding further.

The short answers is yes.

PEBBLEHILL - I'm sure that's true. What I was asking is if it has been documented. In other words, do we have definitive evidence that these cruise ship visits are harming our local ecosystem? Having some proof beyond "look at the smoke" would be helpful to those making the decision. Sure, they're disruptive, smoky (while underway), and I'm sure dump waste further out to sea, but do they harm our air and coastal waters to such an extent that they will do irreparable, permanent and significant harm to our (and our animal friends') way of life?

If they do, then by all means they should be banned. But if not, then maybe we just put up with them and the temporary inconvenience/smoke, etc can be overlooked for the good of our city, who's economy is based primarily on tourism. That's the only question and point I've been trying to ask/make.

SacJon, at the meeting will be, "The Air Pollution Control District of Santa Barbara County will also present information related to air quality and answer related questions at the meeting." The question to be asked is where are the monitors located? In watching the ships anchored and leaving, I have only very, very rarely seen smoke emitted, but perhaps the pollution is invisible?

If there were no cruise ships visiting SB, there still would be cruise ships in the channel, visiting other ports; the questions should be what pollution or ecological damage has been caused to local waters and air by the ships --- has there been any testing of the water the days before the visit as compared with the day after the visit?

3:58 - Exactly. My hesitance with jumping on the "ban the cruise ship" wagon as been the apparent lack of any proof that these ships are damaging (permanently and significantly) our local waters and air. Of course, they're obviously discharging smoke into the air and likely waste into the ocean, but is it to the extent that our ecosystem is being actually damaged. I'd like to know that before pushing to ban them. The mentioned lack of significant revenue for local businesses is important, but not reason alone I think to ban them.

We need also consider this - given that our City has been and always will be an international tourist destination, are we going to be OK with the increased flights and auto traffic and pollution and waste associated with these means of mass transit if we stop visits by sea?

GIZMO - good points. Has there ever been a proper survey conducted of either the passengers or business owners to determine how much revenue is generated for local businesses? It would be interesting and valuable to know when making a decision such as this.

Santa Barbara Independent had a write up about cruise ships a few years back and how very little revenue was generated for local shops and restaurants. Can't locate the article, but I do recall the upshot was that the ships' tourists weren't spending nearly as much as people liked to bang on about. Trading our ocean cleanliness and air cleanliness for a paltry amount of tourist dollars isn't smart. It's not like we don't already have busloads of tourists plus tourists driving here and coming in on the train.

Giz, the city receives $500k per ship from the company that runs the lines. The folks on the boat do not spend much in town. I've talked to many of them, many are disillusioned with promise of great retail shopping in town and they get back on the boat with their 99c store and Marshalls bags. They also get food and drinks aboard which is part of the huge amount of money they pay for. So no, they aren't flooding our diners either.

thats the city council....

ZERO - that's what I was worried about. There's not much unique or interesting shopping downtown. I am surprised though that passengers aren't dining at local sea food spots. I'd think that would be big for a place like this. But yeah, if they're not contributing much to our local businesses, then it's starting to seem not worth it.

Sac, they eat on the cruise ship dude.

BASIC - Yeah, for the most part they do. But not all of them eat every single meal on board, especially when visiting places known for their cuisine.

I know when City staff decided it was a good idea to increase the City income that would feed their future salary bumps, it was also determined that the Harbor would need to be cleaned up for the tourists. What happened? A smelly seafood business was relocated and illegally allowed into two improper zones by the Community Development Department. The City Attorney failed to perform his duties for removal and the business continues today. I wonder why?

we are in part a tourist town, and also are a town full of businesses and industry, agriculture, education. so no, we are not JUST a tourist town. In fact, any town can be called a tourist town...because tourists can and do bring $...but at some point you have to ask yourselves if it's worth it. a city that caters to those that don't live here and yet ignores those that do live here.

I think that having a diversified economy is more resilient. So, I like tourism, I like responsible Ag, I like tech, I like responsible fishing, etc....

I'm not a big fan of the cruise ships at all, but I do like to sometimes see the folks downtown as they are a more diverse group typically than our local people. On balance I tilt slightly negative on the cruise ships because I don't trust their discharge protocols.

Alaska is a massive state and Santa Barbara is a small city, how does this comparison make any sense?

MEBK - what do wood fires have to do with cruise ships?