Nick Welsh

Santa Barbara’s first female mayor brings her 36 years of service to an end.

Santa Barbara Congressmember Salud Carbajal Not Troubled by Biden Pardon ‘Joe Biden's Actions as a Father and Someone Seeking to Blunt Donald Trump's Agenda of Revenge Are Fully Understandable,' Carbajal States President Joe Biden with son Hunter Biden | Credit: EPA While many Democrats are agonizing over President Joe Biden's recent decision to issue his son Hunter Biden a blanket pardon for any crimes and transgressions — charged or otherwise — over an 11-year period, Santa Barbara Congressmember Salud Carbajal said he is not among them. “Context is everything,” Carbajal wrote. “Donald Trump's handpicked FBI Director didn't just hint that he would seek political persecution of Hunter Biden — he repeatedly promised to charge him. With a witch hunt of his son all but assured, Joe Biden's actions as a father and someone seeking to blunt Donald Trump's agenda of revenge are fully understandable.” Hunter Biden pleaded guilty to charges of tax evasion and of lying about his extensive drug use when applying for a gun permit. President Biden repeatedly stressed that he would not intervene or interfere with the judicial process where his son was concerned. Multiple times, he denied he would issue his son a pardon. Many Democrats contend Biden's about-face will tarnish his legacy and that it undermines the party's insistence upon the rule of law in the recent campaign against President-elect Trump. Carbajal dismissed those arguments, contending that what Hunter Biden did is nothing compared to the crimes for which Trump himself has been found guilty. “This pardon of a victim-less crime pales in comparison to the widespread absolution that Mr. Trump has promised for those who assaulted police officers, attacked our democracy, and sought to overthrow our government on January 6,” Carbajal stated. In conclusion, Carbajal added, “I hear from my constituents every single day about pressing issues like the economy and the future of our nation. The number of messages I got about the President's son can be counted on one hand.” Hunter Biden was convicted by a jury in Wilmington, Delaware, of three felony counts for lying about his widespread drug use when applying for a gun permit. He was also convicted on six misdemeanor counts for cheating the IRS out of $1.4 million in taxes over a three-year period. During that period, the younger Biden's consulting company, Burisma, sought to capitalize on his father's international connections. He wrote off as business expenses all sorts of high-flying low-life costs for such things as lap dances and nights of carousing. Biden's convictions carried a maximum sentence of 17 years behind bars, but other news outlets have quoted sentencing experts who claim 36 months was far more likely. President Biden has since suggested he might expand the breadth of his presidential pardons to include political supporters whose actions and statements have aroused the wrath of Trump, who has publicly stated many — such as former congressmember Liz Cheney — should be criminally prosecuted. In sharp contrast, Adam Schiff, California's newest senator, has made it clear that he does not want any preemptive presidential pardon even though Trump has frequently blasted him in his complaints. President Biden has mentioned Schiff among those to whom he has given thought to issuing a protective preemptive pardon. Schiff, who early in his political life walked precincts in Santa Barbara on behalf of then State Assemblymember Jack O'Connell, has argued that such pardons seriously undermine the credibility of Democrats' “rule of law” critique when it comes to President-elect Trump and his vow to pardon those convicted of attacking the Capitol on January 6 and his threat to use the Justice Department to go after his critics. Fri, Dec 13 12:00 PM Santa Barbara Fri, Dec 13 7:00 PM Santa Barbara Sat, Dec 14 7:00 PM Santa Barbara Fri, Dec 13 5:00 PM Santa Barbara Tue, Dec 10 6:00 PM Santa Barbara Tue, Dec 10 6:00 PM Santa Barbara Fri, Dec 13 12:00 PM Santa Barbara Fri, Dec 13 7:00 PM Santa Barbara Sat, Dec 14 7:00 PM Santa Barbara Fri, Dec 13 5:00 PM Santa Barbara Tue, Dec 10 6:00 PM Santa Barbara Tue, Dec 10 6:00 PM Santa Barbara Fri, Dec 13 12:00 PM Santa Barbara Fri, Dec 13 7:00 PM Santa Barbara Sat, Dec 14 7:00 PM Santa Barbara

Del Cielo Mobile Estates in Orcutt | Credit: Google Maps In a vote striking for its unanimity and speed, the Santa Barbara County supervisors voted to extend temporary emergency ban on conversions of seniors-only mobile home parks to mobile home parks open to residents of all ages by another 10 months and 15 days. Led by North County Supervisor Bob Nelson, the supervisors agreed that the proposed conversion of the seniors-only Del Cielo mobile home estate posed an immediate threat to the county's limited supply of affordable senior housing. Based on that finding, the supervisors agreed that the temporary conversion ban enacted in November should be extended so that permanent zoning changes could be enacted to preserve such housing. Del Cielo's new owners have threatened to sue the county for adopting discriminatory housing restrictions. Supervisor Nelson pointedly noted that the new owners were well aware of the seniors-only restriction of the mobile home park when they bought it and are now attempting to claim they did not to bolster their case. He stated he had a written copy of this admission, which, he added, contradicted the owners' efforts at historical “revisionism.” Of the 21 mobile home parks in county jurisdiction,11 have seniors-only admission policies. The waiting list for senior citizens seeking affordable housing is exceptionally long as it is. There are nearly 6,000 senior residents on housing authority waiting lists. The 11 seniors-only mobile home parks provide 1,862 unsubsidized — and relatively affordable —spaces for senior residents. Five seniors-only mobile home park residents showed up to thank the supervisors for caring and acting so swiftly. If the county cannot adopt new protective ordinances within the next 10 months, the supervisors have the legal latitude to extend the emergency ban on park conversions for an additional 12months.

Connecting the dots between Baby Jesus and the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.

In Santa Barbara, the tide will be at its highest this Saturday morning and lowest that afternoon.

Venture capitalist, onetime S.B. resident Thomas Barrack has been longtime ally and major donor to the president-elect.

The former city councilmember and state assemblymember departs county Board of Supervisors after more than 20 years in political office.

California allows sheriff to tell ICE when undocumented inmates are to be released.

Sable Offshore Energy Clears Major Hurdle to Restart Damaged Pipeline in Santa Barbara County Governor Newsom's Office Intervenes to Stop Local Public Meeting with State Fire Marshal over Pipeline Safety State Senator Monique Limón (center) and State Assemblymember Gregg Hart (center left) have both expressed keen disappointment in the decision of the state Fire Marshal and governor's office to grant a “waiver” to Sable that qualifies as a key procedural victory in its plans to restart the oil pipeline that caused 2015's Refugio Oil Spill. | Credit: Courtesy Office of Monique Limón and Paul Wellman File Photo California State Fire Marshal Daniel Berlant approved a key pipeline-corrosion-control plan submitted by the Sable Offshore oil company on December 17 that's absolutely pivotal in the company's long-range efforts to reactivate not just the pipeline — which ruptured and spilled about 450,000 gallons of crude in 2015 — but for restarting production at what used to be ExxonMobil's massive oil and gas operations in Las Flores Canyon. Exxon, like all oil operators off the Gaviota Coast, has been shut down the past nine years because of that pipeline rupture. For Sable — which took over Exxon's processing plant, pipeline, and three offshore oil platforms two years ago — the Fire Marshal's decision on December 17 to issue a “waiver” for the plant's “cathodic protection” corrosion control system qualifies as a key procedural victory in its efforts to get the former Exxon plant restarted again. State Assemblymember Gregg Hart and State Senator Monique Limón have both expressed keen disappointment in how the decision was made, coming 13 days after the California Fire Marshal had given them both strict assurances no such decision would be released until he'd first held a public meeting in Santa Barbara to hear concerns from community members. That meeting did not happen and has been tentatively postponed until sometime after January 1. Waivers were required from Sable for the pipeline's cathodic protection system because that system is designed to protect pipelines that are both heated and insulated, as Sable's pipeline is, from corrosion. That system — which for many oil pipelines is regarded as fundamental essential safety equipment — utterly failed to protect the pipeline from the ravaging effects of corrosion that caused the 2015 rupture, spill, cleanup, and subsequent criminal conviction of Plains All American Pipeline, the pipeline's owner at the time of the spill. In fact, the cathodic protection system was mandated by the conditions of approval for the pipeline when it was first approved and installed in the late 1980s by what was then the Celeron Pipeline Company. That pipeline was subsequently purchased by the Plains All American Pipeline Company, then by Exxon, and, now, most recently by Sable. According to a statement issued by the Fire Marshal's office, the waiver does not “abandon” the requirement for cathodic protection but acknowledges that the system in place is not adequate to prevent leaks and spills and that Sable must use “alternate measures to meet or exceed” specified state and federal safety requirements. According to the statement, “There are 63 conditions listed in the State Waiver that ensure Sable will exceed minimum protections. These conditions include additional reporting requirements for leak detection and more stringent integrity testing.” Sable issued a statement expressing “appreciation” that the Fire Marshal approved the waiver and forwarded it to the federal agency in charge of pipeline safety for concurrence. Company spokesperson Alice Walton stated that Sable's proposal includes “state-of-the-art internal and external inspection” programs that will be deployed 10 times more frequently than currently required to address “potential anomalies.” “Anomalies” is an industry term to refer to corrosion hot spots. After the 2015 spill, federal pipeline regulators determined there were at least 92 such anomalies. Walton added that Sable's waiver application pledged to repair such anomalies at a rate 20 percent higher than required by existing regulations. To put the amount of work anticipated in perspective, Walton stated, “Anomaly repairs average 1.5 excavations per mile along the 124-mile pipeline.” Attorneys with the Environmental Defense Center (EDC) and the Center for Biological Diversity — both leading the charge to stop Sable from restarting the former Exxon production facility — issued press releases blasting the Fire Marshal's action. Both press releases have the same headline: “California Allows Dangerous Santa Barbara Oil Project to Move Forward.” Both question the fundamental safety of a pipeline that was allowed to get so badly corroded as the one Sable hopes to restart and have challenged the notion that such a damaged pipeline can be repaired to be “as new” as Sable has promised. Likewise, the EDC has objected that the public has not been allowed to review the documents in which the details of the proposed waiver are outlined. They contended that the technology for in-line oil-pipeline integrity, on which Sable and the Fire Marshal are relying, is notably unreliable. According to analysis of the 2015 spill by the federal pipeline agency, the in-line detection system then checking the pipeline missed the boat. According to inspection reports, the pipeline where the rupture occurred was 47 percent corroded. But when the pipeline was excavated and the level of actual corrosion measured, they discovered the true level of pipeline corrosion was 86 percent. From their respective perches in Sacramento, State Assemblymember Hart and State Senator Limón have been working hard to bird-dog the project with the Fire Marshal and other state agencies with oversight jurisdiction. Hart acknowledged that he himself had not seen the waiver application or the waiver approval. “I probably wouldn't understand it if I did,” he added. “These are highly technical documents.” Limón was equally blunt: “Let's get this straight. I am not a pipeline inspector, right.” While Sable executives have undeniable cause to sigh vast cumulonimbus clouds of relief, it remains premature for them to start popping champagne corks, suggested Limón. “Yes, this is a setback, and yes, it's disappointing. But it is hardly the last word on the proposal, and it's hardly the final decision,” she stated. The Fire Marshal, she noted, still has two key decisions to make on pipeline and plant safety. Five other state agencies, she stressed, must sign off on aspects of Sable's proposal, as well. When Hart and Limón spoke with the Fire Marshal and members of Governor Gavin Newsom's staff about this on December 4, the governor's staff committed to generating a flow chart clarifying just what jurisdictional bite out of Sable's proverbial apple each of these agencies had. What was their purview? What findings did they have to make to greenlight Sable? What evidence was required to make those findings? And what were their respective deadlines? According to an interview with Hart on December 19, that flow chart has yet to be generated. To the extent anyone currently has this information, it is the government affairs officers and land-use consultants working for Sable. Hart and Limón have found themselves put in the unusual and uncomfortable position of having to herd cats for these six state agencies on behalf of the Santa Barbara community at large, because earlier this summer, the County of Santa Barbara settled the lawsuit Sable filed against the Board of Supervisors by agreeing that it had no jurisdiction over any work the company did on the pipeline. Once the county settled with Sable, it ceased to offer the traditional community portal for public hearings that the county's Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors always has in the county's historic and often epic battles over oil development. During Hart and Limón's December 4 meeting with the Fire Marshal and representatives of the governor's staff, they say they were given point-blank assurances by the Fire Marshal that no decision would be made about Sable and its waiver request until after a public meeting was held in Santa Barbara first. It was not clear at that point whether the meeting would involve just the Fire Marshal or representatives from the other state agencies with jurisdiction. What was clear, however, was that this gathering would not have the legal weight of a public hearing — where testimony is entered into the public record and has the quasi-legal weight of evidence that could be cited in the event of subsequent litigation. It was just a meeting. Mostly, it was courtesy being extended to Santa Barbara's two representatives in the statehouse. It was not legally required. About 5 p.m. on December 7, Hart said he got an email from the staffer in the governor's office who had been party to the December 4 meeting. Call me, it said. Hart was informed that individuals higher up in the governor's office — higher up over the Fire Marshal — had other thoughts. The Fire Marshal, they had determined, was not the appropriate entity to convene a public meeting. As state agencies go, the Fire Marshal's office does not hold public hearings; its decisions are typically made behind closed doors with an air of papal infallibility and Vatican secrecy. To the extent the courtesy of a public process was extended to Santa Barbara, Hart said, he was told that perhaps the California Coastal Commission or the State Lands Commission — both of whom wield some degree of authority over aspects of Sable's proposal — would provide that forum. Still, he was less than thrilled by how things played out. “It was a complete about-face. There was no warning. No advance notice. This was the exact opposite of what was promised,” he said. “I never experienced anything like this: a direct promise that was not kept.” Limón was not happy either. “Clearly, I am disappointed that the waiver was been approved despite a commitment there would be a community discussion between the state agencies involved and the community of Santa Barbara first. This is a setback. But in my eight years here, there have been setbacks involved in every major decision I've been involved with. It's not over by any means.” The agencies with jurisdiction and oversight that have yet to weigh in on key decision points include the California State Fire Marshal, the California Coastal Commission, the State Lands Commission, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Division of Oil Spill Prevention and Response, and the California Geologic Energy Management Division. Sat, Dec 21 4:00 PM Santa Barbara Sat, Dec 21 11:00 AM Santa Barbara Sun, Dec 22 11:00 AM Santa Barbara Fri, Dec 20 5:00 PM Santa Barbara Fri, Dec 20 5:30 PM Santa Barbara Fri, Dec 20 8:00 PM Santa Barbara Fri, Dec 20 9:00 PM Santa Barbara Sat, Dec 21 11:00 AM Santa Barbara Sat, Dec 21 12:00 PM Santa Barbara Sat, Dec 21 4:00 PM Santa Barbara Sat, Dec 21 11:00 AM Santa Barbara Sun, Dec 22 11:00 AM Santa Barbara Fri, Dec 20 5:00 PM Santa Barbara Fri, Dec 20 5:30 PM Santa Barbara Fri, Dec 20 8:00 PM Santa Barbara Fri, Dec 20 9:00 PM Santa Barbara Sat, Dec 21 11:00 AM Santa Barbara Sat, Dec 21 12:00 PM Santa Barbara Sat, Dec 21 4:00 PM Santa Barbara

WHEN GOOD DOGS GO BAD: Like a lot of guys, I've had the habit of falling for safely unavailable women. Initially, my wife looked like one. But after 33 years of marriage, I guess she wasn't that safe. Sometimes lightning manages to strike its target. My latest infatuation, however, appears to be lightning proof. She's been dead since 1975. If she was still alive, she would now be 120. Maybe you've heard of her: Her name is Hannah Arendt. Yes, that Hannah Arendt. For those tuning in late, Hannah was a Jewish German-born philosopher-political scientist who studied authoritarianism for a living and is most famous for coining the phrase “the banality of evil” when reporting on the war-crime trials of famous Nazis. She had a wicked way with words, chain-smoked cigarettes, laughed husky, and radiated a feral, fearless intelligence. She also had a sly toothy grin that suggested mischief might come knocking on the door. Hannah Arendt wasn't particularly good looking. She was hot. In recent months, Arendt has been resurrected from the grave thanks to the arrival of Donald J. Trump on the global stage. All his authoritarian bosom buddies — popping up like a case of terminal acne — helped call her back too. As a result, you can't go anywhere on the world wide web these days without tripping over one of her quotes. She's become an unlikely meme machine, a post-mortem social influencer. “If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies,” she said in a relatively recent interview, “but rather that nobody believes anything any longer.” Trump and his campaign people call that “Flooding the zone,” a phrase they lifted from professional football speak. In the same interview, Arendt also said, “The moment we no longer have a free press, anything can happen.” Admittedly, the inclusion of this last comment qualifies as self-serving on my part. But it happens to be true. I don't care how many zones get flooded to the contrary. I dredge up all this high-minded platitud-inty because just this week Donald J and his undeniably inventive team of legal thugs just sued the Des Moines Register newspaper and its highly respected pollster J. Ann Selzer because the Register published a Selzer poll shortly before the election indicating Kamala Harris up ahead by a few votes. Trump wound up winning Iowa by double digits. Selzer, a pollster of some repute and integrity, fell on her sword and retired. But she's hardly the first pollster to get things wrong. Trump, however, will most definitely be the first elected official to sue a pollster on the grounds that her poll results — and the Register 's decision to publish them — were tantamount to election interference. The case has since been moved to federal court, and it will probably be rejected on the grounds of its inherent silliness. Still, it's enough to make a cynic blush. Does that mean Trump can sue me too? After all, I amplified Selzer's poll results in my ill-fated column, assuring everyone that Harris was going to win and that women voters would be saving our collective bacon. Or maybe Elon Musk can now sue me for getting the name of the oversight agency wrong that will be hosting a series of three public hearings to discuss the environmental impact of all the sonic booms we're hearing now because of SpaceX — Musk's rocket ship company — and its new, accelerated launch schedule from Vandenberg. I said it was Fish and Wildlife. It turns out it's the Air Force. It was a dumb mistake. Embarrassing even. Before, I would have responded by saying, “So, sue me.” Now, I suppose, he just might. In the past year, the number of SpaceX launches from Vandenberg increased from six to 36 to 50. That's where we're at now: 50 a year. That will change to 100. Real soon. Each launch I am told — but I won't say by which agency — has two sonic booms. One on the way up and a bigger one on the way down. You don't necessarily hear every single one. It all depends on the angle and the atmospheric conditions. But when you get woken up at 5:30 in the morning — or 3:20 a.m. like this past Saturday — you don't forget. And you sure as hell don't forgive. Especially not when the vast majority of all launches have no immediate military or national security application. It's all about Elon elongating even more what's already plenty long enough. But all that's small potatoes compared to the Big Enchilada Trump has up his sleeve. You may have heard how ABC News — owned by Disney Corp — settled a libel suit filed by Trump to the tune of $15 million. ABC commentator George Stephanopoulos erroneously reported that Trump had been found guilty by a New York jury of raping writer E. Jean Carroll back in the 1990s. Carroll wrote a book in 2019 in which she levelled these charges. This led to a subsequent civil lawsuit for rape and defamation. For the record, Stephanopoulos got it wrong. The jury found Trump guilty of “sexual abuse” in the civil case, not rape. Under New York law, “digital penetration” legally qualifies as “sexual abuse,” not rape. So to prove rape, you must demonstrate penile penetration. Given how the judge in the case issued a written decision stating — and in some detail — that both forms of penetration are considered to be rape under “the common parlance,” I'd suggest Stephanopoulos's confusion is understandable. There's been a lot of uproar that ABC chose to settle rather than fight. I get it. After all, Carroll was awarded $5 million by a jury in the first trial for sexual abuse defamation. As usual, Trump denied it ever happened, denied knowing who Carroll was, and pointed out she wasn't his type anyway. Carroll testified that Trump attacked after they met in a chance and playful encounter by the lingerie section of a high-end department store, where he banged her head up against the wall and yanked down her tights before inserting into her whatever he inserted. In a follow-up trial on the same issues, a subsequent jury would award Carroll $83 million. Naturally, Trump would argue he should be immune because he uttered whatever the jury construed to be defamatory while functioning as President of the United States. Flooding the zone, anyone? Given these facts, why wouldn't ABC fight it out in court? One theory holds that Disney — ABC's parent company — caved as yet another demonstration of spineless obsequiousness by corporate America in the face of Cyclone Trump. The other explanation is more chilling, yet more sympathetic. The typical defense in this case would be for ABC to assert Trump is a public figure, that it was an honest mistake, that there was no malice, issue a correction, and then apologize. This is the law that's governed the land since 1964 when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark free speech ruling known as the Sullivan Ruling. In that case, the court argued that free and unfettered civic debate — even if rough around the edges — was of vital importance. If the media could get sued by elected officials or other movers and shakers for making honest reporting mistakes, the justices expressed alarm at the chilling impact that would have on free speech. For politicians and big shots to file libel suits, the justices ruled, the plaintiffs had to demonstrate actual malice by the reporters involved. In other words, that they got the facts wrong on purpose because they wanted to damage someone's reputation. That's a high bar. Trump has no use for the Sullivan case protections. Justice Clarence Thomas has made it clear he has no interest in the Sullivan protections, even though the case involved a southern sheriff suing Martin Luther King Jr. for disparaging remarks King had made in a paid political advertisement about the racism of a southern town. With the Supreme Court majority having swung so far in favor of populist plutocrats and imperious autocrats, there's good reason to wonder if the Sullivan protections will go down the same garbage disposal as Roe v Wade So if ABC took a dive, then it was a strategic dive. Whether that's enough to save Sullivan , I have my doubts. If you think the media now is bad — and a lot is — you ain't seen nothing yet. American Pravda, here we come. That's enough to choke even an unflinching bad ass like Hannah Arendt. It's not that we believe the lies; It's that we don't believe anything. And she wasn't talking about Santa Claus. It's called flooding the zone.