Vote No on Measure P
For the last 10 years, SBCC has been an institution in decline.
The 75-acre campus, on some of the most valuable land in Santa Barbara, is under used and no longer justifies the very large costs of maintenance as a City College.
The number of enrolled students at SBCC has declined from 19,331 ten years ago down to 12,575, a 35 percent loss.
Of the 12,675 students, more than 4,199 students study 100 percent online and do not need campus facilities.
Of the remaining 8,476 students, 4,900 study part-time online and part-time in classrooms, further reducing the utility of the 75-acre campus.
SBCC has been driven to rent classrooms to a local “for profit” private university.
The SBCC current budget is $224,347,416, almost a quarter of a billion dollars a year. But a majority of SBCC trustees want a lot more!
Measure P seeks to add, almost a half-a-billion dollars in principal and interest to the taxpayers’ existing burden. It would add to an existing bond that will continue to be paid by taxpayers until 2033. Measure P will add over $400 million to that existing taxpayer debt, into 2060.
We need to remember that no matter how SBCC presents its proposal, the interest on the bond usually exceeds the amount of the bond. That is why the real cost of Measure P is not just the principal amount of almost $200 million; in reality, it is close to half-a-billion dollars.
Two of the most knowledgeable and experienced SBCC trustees on financial matters in SBCC voted “no” to Measure P. We need to know why they voted no.
We, the public, and we the taxpayers must vote no on Measure P. To do otherwise, would be a foolish waste of an enormous amount of public money.
A deep investigation by an independent body into why these ever-lasting demands for enormous sums of additional money by SBCC is requested before we again approve new bond proposals from SBCC.
Where does all the money really go?
The underlying, fundamental, question is why taxpayers need to continue to pay the costs of maintaining 75 acres of some of the most expensive property in Santa Barbara for an institution that is not only declining in over-all student enrollments, but also, declining further in student use of the campus for education?
The effective, regular, physical use of the 75-acre campus by students is now down to 44 percent of the total student enrollment SBCC had 19,331, ten years ago.
We do not need to spend more taxpayers’ money on a new swimming pool and new gymnasium to attract more out-of-county, and more foreign students, with country-club amenities.
Why should Santa Barbara taxpayers subsidize these external, attending students, who will add to our extreme housing shortage, in addition to significantly increasing our tax burden?
A smaller, site for SBCC and a significant downsizing of faculty and other staff are required moves to reduce ongoing costs. That would enable a much more profitable use for 75 acres in the center of Santa Barbara.