The headline of Nick Welsh’s recent article, “Jim Knell’s Big Move: Santa Barbara Real Estate Mogul Launches Drive to Get Cars Back on State Street,” and the petition proponents’ framing are deeply misleading. The subtitle is more accurate: the petition seeks a referendum to overturn the recently passed State Street Master Plan.
That distinction is critical, because the Master Plan does not close State Street to cars. Nothing in it requires a “pedestrian promenade,” and nothing requires State to stay closed to automobiles during the interim phase. The automated bollard design exists precisely so a future council could restore full-time traffic at the touch of a button. That flexibility is why councilmembers who oppose an entirely car-free State, including Councilmember Friedman, joined a 6-1 vote to adopt it. The companion Title 31 amendments likewise permit, rather than mandate, flexible access. Revoking them would strip the city of its ability to adapt access block by block.
As Sharon Rich correctly noted, the plan is about far more than “cars or no cars.” Most of it is vehicle-neutral: wider sidewalks that allow dining without makeshift parklets, better signage and lighting, more mid-block crossings, and long-overdue stormwater and utility upgrades to support downtown housing.
The Master Plan is not perfect. Car access, funding, and timing are fair questions. But those discrete issues deserve careful consideration and targeted fixes, not a petition that takes the “nuclear option” of scrapping the entire plan.
So when you hear that “the city is spending $96 million to close State Street to cars,” or that you are voting to “open State,” understand that you are being misled. The Master Plan is on the city’s website. Read it before you sign, and certainly before you vote should the referendum reach next year’s ballot.
