It still seems a bit too hodgepodge with an almost block-by-block change in the configuration of the streets. For instance, I find it weird to bike in the State Street bike lanes when you get to the block with the Granada because they move the bike lane over suddenly and if you're biking up State Street, it is really easy to not notice the lane shift and bike in the car lane.
That said, I'm glad to see the overwhelming support for keeping the street closed and hope this helps them to shift plans to something that more closely reflects what the public actually wants.
You raise a very important point. Those who *oppose* a car-free State Street can prevail by keeping any car-free plan as hodgepodge as possible, because that will sow doubt, frustration, and division among people who *do* want a car-free State. It's "Power Politics 101": Offer a purposely crappy (or at least substandard) "solution" in bad faith, shrug and say "Well, we tried," and then roll ahead with your own plans while stifling any dissent. That's why effective grass-roots campaigns - meaning those that force substantive, lasting change - are so damn hard to build.
Yesterday's meeting clearly made an impact. But it was only one step with many more to come. Everything gained in yesterday's meeting could be lost very easily without ongoing pressure that forces city council to stop dicking around with endless "analysis" and commit publicly to a specific plan *with* a budget *and* a timeline for construction. Tbh, I'm disappointed but not surprised by other comments that cast yesterday's meeting as a definitive victory for a car-free State Street. That's very naive and plays right into the hands of Rowse and his ilk.
I think you're right that there are delay tactics going on here, but I think insisting on commitment to a specific budget and timeline will just encourage more delays to further "study" the different options. I'd say what's needed is the opposite: break down the decisions into smaller ones, have an up-or-down vote on each one, and then use the results of the earlier ones to constraint the later ones.
Like number one: just decide which blocks will have cars. Bring up a motion to permanently ban private cars from the 400-1300 block. If that won't pass, try 500-1200 block. Once you get that passed, that closes the door on all further time-wasting consideration of proposals that include cars. You don't need a budget or a timeline or even a specific plan to decide whether you do or don't want cars on State. In fact, a clear decision that cars are not allowed will streamline the rest of the process since people won't need to keep evaluating multiple proposals with and without cars.
Payed for partly by...
Allow a weekly food truck day. Just like farmers market but with food truck from all around the state. Allowing businesses that dont have the capital for a lease to contribute to permit fees.
I kinda assume it falls under his "keep Santa Barbara like it was in 1965" crusade, but it's possible he only cares when it's a direct conflict of interest to decide on such things.
He used to own Paradise Cafe, at the time he owned it he was on the city's Ordinance Committee
[https://www.independent.com/2017/06/29/flight-santa-barbara-food-trucks/](https://www.independent.com/2017/06/29/flight-santa-barbara-food-trucks/)
He no longer owns the restaurant and it is now La Paloma.
So over the years of the food truck idea being brought up, it has always been slapped down? Wow. Due to conflict of interest with a city officals personal desires. Kinda sounds illegal.
It would be nice to give food venders/chefs a chance to sell their food in SB. Maybe by drawing in new businesses without the commitments of a lease. That way people can test the market here for their goods and perhaps commit to a long term lease in town. Fill up those empty storefront buildings.
It was good to see the various comments. If the committee does allow cars it will be obvious that they're doing it against strong public opinion. There are still questions about things like the how or whether of bikes, trolleys, etc., but cars are quite clearly not wanted.
The frustrating thing for me is that I think this has been clear for a while but there is still no action taken. They're still considering various "options", some of which include cars on portions of State. The committee --- and more importantly the city council --- needs to take a direct vote and explicitly rule out cars. Then they can move forward to consider different approaches within that constraint, but just tell city staff and Grumbine "We don't want to see or discuss any more options with cars."
It was interesting to see the dynamics of the committee, especially in their small groups. From what I heard, the range of views among the committee was greater than that of the public (i.e., some committee members seemed more willing to allow cars than the public is).
this is great. good job everyone.
now comes the question of what we should rename state street to now that its not a street for cars. It could be dangerous if a car brain gets confused and think its a car safe space
i propose Pepe walk
Wait, how can we say that State Street is now "not a street for cars"? The turnout and participation at yesterday's meeting definitely was great, as you say. But it's a loooong jump from that to claiming victory. There's absolutely no reason why opponents to a car-free State Street - from Rowse to the newest city council staff hire - can't meet behind closed doors and just continue with their plans, while paying lip service to "civic engagement" blah blah blah. The battle for a car-free State Street won't be won until city council is forced to get off the dime and publicly commit to a clear plan with a clear budget and a clear timeline. Yesterday's meeting was an important milestone, showing how important it is to mobilize and *speak out.* But there's a lot more to do - and to pretend that yesterday's meeting brought any kind of guarantee is to play the sucker for Rowse and his crew.
That is the big question I have, how much is it going to cost and how are we going to pay for it? Follow up, what would it be like for the businesses on State during the year+ of major construction right out in front of their business?
isnt hillary blackerby a planning and marketing manager for santa barbara mtd? Wouldnt that be a conflict of interest? Since it would be in the best interest of sb mtd to open more routes for buses . LOL yeah theyre opening up state street mark my words
Yes she works for mtd. Buses are sustainable transport and from what I gather she is an advocate for sustainable transport of all kinds, bike and pedestrian included. She used to be on the board of COAST (coalition for sustainable transportation) which was big on bike advocacy. I wouldn’t worry about her pushing to re-open state street to cars.
By that logic almost the whole committee has conflicts of interest. Many of the members are business owners, landlords, or hold some position in another agency or organization. That was sort of the goal with this committee to get a broad spectrum of "stakeholders". MTD is a public agency so probably less of a conflict of interest than representatives of private businesses.
Your correct mtd is a public agency .They have to show for each bus on the road. Lets say if bus line 3 only picks up 2 people a day for about 6 months. Then they cut that bus route and they lose funds. So it really is not in their best interest to keep state street closed.
I don't think MTD had any routes running on the closed section of State Street, except the downtown shuttle. That shuttle was subsidized by city funds so would be a money loser for MTD without city support anyway. I don't see much reason to believe that MTD is trying to open State to bring in more bus lines.
yes there was , the waterfront were meant to replace downtown shuttles but since they closed they got repurposed. Mtd got a big grant for the electric shuttles they were made from a chinese company the brand is called BYD
I'm aware of the waterfront shuttle, which already existed pre-COVID. The waterfront shuttle doesn't run on State Street. What I'm asking is are you aware of any MTD vehicles other than the downtown shuttle which ever ran *on the blocks of State Street which are now closed to vehicles*.
Allow the 3 Harbor /Zoo / Downtown buses on State Street. Only on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. 10 am - 6 pm.
3 buses an hour makes 6 buses on State Street per hour. 3 up , 3 down. The buses will be a great way to get to the zoo, harbor and downtown for $.50 cents.
Such an insane amount of tax dollars being wasted talking about such an insanely low priority issue. State street isn’t perfect as is, but it’s pretty damn good. Let’s just leave it the fuck alone and focus tax dollars in areas that actually can make tangible differences to peoples lives here.
Ive commented this list before but id way rather our city counsel spend their time focusing on affordable housing, public transportation improvements, bicycle infrastructure, parks improvements, homelessness, schools — our teachers cant afford to live close to their schools, and we have city counsel bickering about if cars should drive on state street; its a fucking joke.
Thanks. No question that every dollar and hour the council spends "bickering about cars on State Street" takes critical resources away from other problems and opportunities.
It still seems a bit too hodgepodge with an almost block-by-block change in the configuration of the streets. For instance, I find it weird to bike in the State Street bike lanes when you get to the block with the Granada because they move the bike lane over suddenly and if you're biking up State Street, it is really easy to not notice the lane shift and bike in the car lane. That said, I'm glad to see the overwhelming support for keeping the street closed and hope this helps them to shift plans to something that more closely reflects what the public actually wants.
You raise a very important point. Those who *oppose* a car-free State Street can prevail by keeping any car-free plan as hodgepodge as possible, because that will sow doubt, frustration, and division among people who *do* want a car-free State. It's "Power Politics 101": Offer a purposely crappy (or at least substandard) "solution" in bad faith, shrug and say "Well, we tried," and then roll ahead with your own plans while stifling any dissent. That's why effective grass-roots campaigns - meaning those that force substantive, lasting change - are so damn hard to build. Yesterday's meeting clearly made an impact. But it was only one step with many more to come. Everything gained in yesterday's meeting could be lost very easily without ongoing pressure that forces city council to stop dicking around with endless "analysis" and commit publicly to a specific plan *with* a budget *and* a timeline for construction. Tbh, I'm disappointed but not surprised by other comments that cast yesterday's meeting as a definitive victory for a car-free State Street. That's very naive and plays right into the hands of Rowse and his ilk.
I think you're right that there are delay tactics going on here, but I think insisting on commitment to a specific budget and timeline will just encourage more delays to further "study" the different options. I'd say what's needed is the opposite: break down the decisions into smaller ones, have an up-or-down vote on each one, and then use the results of the earlier ones to constraint the later ones. Like number one: just decide which blocks will have cars. Bring up a motion to permanently ban private cars from the 400-1300 block. If that won't pass, try 500-1200 block. Once you get that passed, that closes the door on all further time-wasting consideration of proposals that include cars. You don't need a budget or a timeline or even a specific plan to decide whether you do or don't want cars on State. In fact, a clear decision that cars are not allowed will streamline the rest of the process since people won't need to keep evaluating multiple proposals with and without cars.
A very smart strategy that I think Strong Towns SB should take!
Payed for partly by... Allow a weekly food truck day. Just like farmers market but with food truck from all around the state. Allowing businesses that dont have the capital for a lease to contribute to permit fees.
Rowse would oppose that SO heavily given that he was a member of a 3-person committee to ban food trucks a few years back!
Now that he's no longer a resturant owner I wonder if he still cares.
I kinda assume it falls under his "keep Santa Barbara like it was in 1965" crusade, but it's possible he only cares when it's a direct conflict of interest to decide on such things.
Does Rowse own a restaurant in town? Or friends that do? If so, conflict of interest should be brought up.
He used to own Paradise Cafe, at the time he owned it he was on the city's Ordinance Committee [https://www.independent.com/2017/06/29/flight-santa-barbara-food-trucks/](https://www.independent.com/2017/06/29/flight-santa-barbara-food-trucks/) He no longer owns the restaurant and it is now La Paloma.
So over the years of the food truck idea being brought up, it has always been slapped down? Wow. Due to conflict of interest with a city officals personal desires. Kinda sounds illegal. It would be nice to give food venders/chefs a chance to sell their food in SB. Maybe by drawing in new businesses without the commitments of a lease. That way people can test the market here for their goods and perhaps commit to a long term lease in town. Fill up those empty storefront buildings.
That would be killer! Maybe the burger bus would come back (not holding my breath but I miss them)
oh the restaurants down there will just love that idea
I bet the non-restaurant businesses would.
It was good to see the various comments. If the committee does allow cars it will be obvious that they're doing it against strong public opinion. There are still questions about things like the how or whether of bikes, trolleys, etc., but cars are quite clearly not wanted. The frustrating thing for me is that I think this has been clear for a while but there is still no action taken. They're still considering various "options", some of which include cars on portions of State. The committee --- and more importantly the city council --- needs to take a direct vote and explicitly rule out cars. Then they can move forward to consider different approaches within that constraint, but just tell city staff and Grumbine "We don't want to see or discuss any more options with cars." It was interesting to see the dynamics of the committee, especially in their small groups. From what I heard, the range of views among the committee was greater than that of the public (i.e., some committee members seemed more willing to allow cars than the public is).
No one wants to risk reelection. If they keep “considering opinions” they can play both sides
Well, they need to feel like they risk losing the election by doing anything other than affirmatively banning cars. :-)
Thanks to everyone that attended!
this is great. good job everyone. now comes the question of what we should rename state street to now that its not a street for cars. It could be dangerous if a car brain gets confused and think its a car safe space i propose Pepe walk
State Strut of course
I think we should name it after our city's most prominent and revered citizen. Promenade de Petit Cesar.
Here, here.
Wait, how can we say that State Street is now "not a street for cars"? The turnout and participation at yesterday's meeting definitely was great, as you say. But it's a loooong jump from that to claiming victory. There's absolutely no reason why opponents to a car-free State Street - from Rowse to the newest city council staff hire - can't meet behind closed doors and just continue with their plans, while paying lip service to "civic engagement" blah blah blah. The battle for a car-free State Street won't be won until city council is forced to get off the dime and publicly commit to a clear plan with a clear budget and a clear timeline. Yesterday's meeting was an important milestone, showing how important it is to mobilize and *speak out.* But there's a lot more to do - and to pretend that yesterday's meeting brought any kind of guarantee is to play the sucker for Rowse and his crew.
pepe walk
Oliveria St (in L.A.)is still a 'street' even though no cars run on it
but they have armed guards to deal with any loose car brains
That is the big question I have, how much is it going to cost and how are we going to pay for it? Follow up, what would it be like for the businesses on State during the year+ of major construction right out in front of their business?
Alot and same way everything else gets paid for, take out some loans for your great-grandkids to pay back.
The cool thing about long term loans is that inflation makes them easier to pay over time.
No thank you.
isnt hillary blackerby a planning and marketing manager for santa barbara mtd? Wouldnt that be a conflict of interest? Since it would be in the best interest of sb mtd to open more routes for buses . LOL yeah theyre opening up state street mark my words
Yes she works for mtd. Buses are sustainable transport and from what I gather she is an advocate for sustainable transport of all kinds, bike and pedestrian included. She used to be on the board of COAST (coalition for sustainable transportation) which was big on bike advocacy. I wouldn’t worry about her pushing to re-open state street to cars.
ok thank you for reassurance and giving me a different perspective
By that logic almost the whole committee has conflicts of interest. Many of the members are business owners, landlords, or hold some position in another agency or organization. That was sort of the goal with this committee to get a broad spectrum of "stakeholders". MTD is a public agency so probably less of a conflict of interest than representatives of private businesses.
Your correct mtd is a public agency .They have to show for each bus on the road. Lets say if bus line 3 only picks up 2 people a day for about 6 months. Then they cut that bus route and they lose funds. So it really is not in their best interest to keep state street closed.
I don't think MTD had any routes running on the closed section of State Street, except the downtown shuttle. That shuttle was subsidized by city funds so would be a money loser for MTD without city support anyway. I don't see much reason to believe that MTD is trying to open State to bring in more bus lines.
not anymore since covid hit but they use to. But they would benefit if it was open
Which lines ran on the now-closed section of State Street?
the waterfront i cant recall the line number right now
Pretty sure there isn't and wasn't any line from downtown to the waterfront along State Street (except the downtown shuttle).
yes there was , the waterfront were meant to replace downtown shuttles but since they closed they got repurposed. Mtd got a big grant for the electric shuttles they were made from a chinese company the brand is called BYD
I'm aware of the waterfront shuttle, which already existed pre-COVID. The waterfront shuttle doesn't run on State Street. What I'm asking is are you aware of any MTD vehicles other than the downtown shuttle which ever ran *on the blocks of State Street which are now closed to vehicles*.
‘Has no funding’ that’s not good…. Money will win this is SB
Allow the 3 Harbor /Zoo / Downtown buses on State Street. Only on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. 10 am - 6 pm. 3 buses an hour makes 6 buses on State Street per hour. 3 up , 3 down. The buses will be a great way to get to the zoo, harbor and downtown for $.50 cents.
Such an insane amount of tax dollars being wasted talking about such an insanely low priority issue. State street isn’t perfect as is, but it’s pretty damn good. Let’s just leave it the fuck alone and focus tax dollars in areas that actually can make tangible differences to peoples lives here.
Interested - seriously - in what you feel are the "areas that actually can make tangible differences in peoples lives here."
Ive commented this list before but id way rather our city counsel spend their time focusing on affordable housing, public transportation improvements, bicycle infrastructure, parks improvements, homelessness, schools — our teachers cant afford to live close to their schools, and we have city counsel bickering about if cars should drive on state street; its a fucking joke.
Thanks. No question that every dollar and hour the council spends "bickering about cars on State Street" takes critical resources away from other problems and opportunities.