You mean Alma by Ramon
To better supply the rich Montecito gringos with “Mexican” food…
I think it's going to be closing regardless.
No, for the same reason our elite "climate champions" are buying expensive ocean front real estate.
I’d wager that over 90% of all the new AUD ( average unit density) apartments that have been built over the past 5-7 years are all renting at or above market value. The city really dropped the ball in their quest for more housing at any cost, by not requiring a % of each development to be low income housing or even affordable housing. Now we have several hundred new units on the rental market but we are talking 750 sq. ft. 2 bed/1 bath for over$3,500 a month.
Appreciate the update on the city projects.
As someone who struggles with finding affordable housing in Santa Barbara, all I scan say is if you don’t think there’s a housing crisis, come down to the Rescue Mission and ask the workers how many people they have to turn AWAY everyday because it’s full.
Housing costs for someone rebuilding their lives or a college student working 2 jobs is simply too high. No one can afford to live on their own. When places do come open, it’s impossible for 90% of people to even move into a place due to 1st, 2nd and deposit requirements.
The homeless who happen to have jobs can’t save up enough money to move into these places because “priority” is taken to those with greater looking rental history.
Until all new housing is addressed towards low-income housing, we shouldn’t be building anymore hotels or storefront plazas.
How about another 1 or 2 Rescue Mission type buildings so we can finally take care of ALL the homeless at the same time not just when they happen to revolve into a homeless shelter when there’s an opening.
I managed Michael’s Waterside (now home to Stella Mare’s) in the mid 90’s. The smell from the bird refuge was awful at times and it seemed someone always had the next new thing to fix it but 30 some years later and we are still dealing with it. But, there were things that were did inside the restaurant to help people forget the awful smell they had to deal with before coming in. I’ll agree an outdoor dining experience is never going to be available year to year in that location.
I agree with you about the city's decision to seemingly go all in on tourism. I am deeply concerned we are becoming a fully tourism based economy/place a la Porto or any other number of cities that have been hollowed out, and some would argue destroyed, by the phenomenon. I do, however, think we could do with some new thoughtfully implemented housing downtown. Retail is in dire straits and I think additional apartments downtown would help State Street remain vibrant. Our rental housing stock is also pretty dismal even for the people and professionals who can afford to live and work here. It is a major problem when trying to attract new talent to town even in high paying industries including tech and medicine. I have to laugh when people think we will ever make Santa Barbara affordable, and certainly not by building a few more apartments, but it would directly serve to make it more likely that young professionals will relocate here to fill essential roles or work for local companies.
The final bell has rung in the SYV- Los Angeles has won! Enjoy!
100% agree.
Look up sampling bias and nonresponse bias. There are inherent issues with a survey you have to go online and voluntarily take, similar to inherent biases with having a booth on State waiting for people to voluntarily engage and take the survey.
Santa Barbara does not need more housing, it needs better jobs and a culture of fostering sustainable economic growth.
The problems that we have in SB are a direct result of the city's choice to foster low value services and tourism jobs over industry or tech. So we have a large population of unskilled workers and low income students who will never earn enough to afford a home here and will never have a chance to build a better life, unless they leave. And leave they do. Leaving behind those who are unmotivated to build a better life and those with no choice or option.
The city sold its future for quick bucks years ago when they went full tourism. Instead of fostering young companies or even offering incentives to larger ones, they decided low wage, low skilled service jobs and short term transitory tax boosts were a better offering. So they spent all their time making it as difficult as possible to start or run a business here. They ignored the hundreds (thousands) of highly skilled graduates coming out of UCSB every quarter, and instead focused on min wage jobs and the monthly tax revenue from hotel rooms to fund their bloated payroll. We produce some of the greatest engineering minds in the world, and then they leave for greener pastures when they all want to be here. Live here. Thrive here...
SB has a long history of creating giant brands and companies. But during the last 10 years, that’s all gone in favor of corporate owned hotels, low wage service jobs and menial work. We have almost no non-public jobs here in town. The Government is the largest employee by a factor of 3x. We are in essence a socialized economy. Completely reliant on the Government (Federal jobs, State jobs, County jobs, City of ____ jobs, UCSB, SBCC, Vandenberg AFB) and the dozens of small private businesses that support these Government funded entities.
Without an underlying industry or the encouragement of entrepreneurship, we will continue to slide deeper and deeper into debt and farther and farther from a way out. Want to build a better city and community? Start fostering startups and businesses that are NOT services geared towards tourist. Make it easy and possible to build something here and you will find a way out of this situation.
Every critique I've seen of the City choosing to start this pilot program seems to conveniently glance over the fact that these laws are already in place. The "honest citizens" you mention are actively violating the law. Full stop. Their intentions do not matter.
Try not to forget that the law exists and is applied to all citizens, not just ones that you don't like.
Lately all I see is more hotels being built and "some" affordable housing. Who do you think is going to be able to afford these units a few blocks from the ocean? Santa Barbara is no longer the quaint spanish style city I fell in love with years back. I see these massive block style buildings popping throughout the city. You're kidding yourselves if this will solve the housing problem.
We are loosing our population in SB because of housing and high cost of living . I believe that these projects are way over due and we Santa Barbarian need to stay within other cities in California . The streets are like you live in the third word country, the buildings are old and falling apart within.
Now some people complain about not see the mountain or views of land scape etc , is selfish .
I cannot believe how ugly that proposed development is—it's frightening. I absolutely love that block as it is right now, and I pray it stays that way.
Times are changing fast and SB will be Orange County soon enough. Money talks, and feelings don't matter. None of the projects look innovative, or classic. They are cheap looking architectural pseudo spanish styles currently in vogue like cooker cutters houses of the past. Nothing special. That must be what they teach in Cali schools of design, or what the boss wants.
Same here...agree! The low profile and views are a big part of what makes SB so special. We can disperse small complexes of housing throughout town without building all these high rises!!
True, but $5 LED light strips gets you a lot . . . in this case apparently $4M.
Re: the Hope/State project: 1) Wouldn't this demolish the last middle class department store in all of SB, Montecito & Goleta (Macy's)? 2) Wouldn't it also demolish most of the free retail parking in that area?
Agreed. There needs to be moderate income housing built into these developments, or they need to pay into a fund to build them.
https://www.change.org/Develop_Santa_Barbara_Workforce_Housing
They're saying fall.
“The City needs housing”. Inaccurate. Correct statement: The City needs moderate income housing. Every one of the 10 projects described makes the current housing imbalance worse. The current draft Housing Element makes zero effort to promote market rate moderate income housing. Zero is also the number of market rate moderate income units built in the last 8 years.
Wow, just revisited this post in order to read your comment and I hadn’t seen the rendering. Blight!
Oh, I do hope these rumors are true. I hate that one so much, minus the housing component.
Why aren't all projects mixed use, with housing on the upper levels? Is max. building height being used as an excuse for not accommodating the needed housing?
