Good intentions are not enough when spending public money. Before making a commitment, city leaders should explain how they will pay for it, what other needs will have to wait, and what the choice could mean for years to come.
That is my concern with mayoral candidate Kristen Sneddon’s record. Her votes suggest a willingness to commit first and settle important financial questions later. When Santa Barbara’s savings are already low, that approach puts everyone’s financial safety at risk.
In June 2025, the city reported that its reserves were depleted, about $30 million below the city’s target. Sneddon supported promising $2 million from city reserves to the following year’s housing fund. The same motion directed staff to develop a plan to balance the budget later. Eric Friedman voted against that commitment. Sneddon later admitted that she did not understand the budget.
Sneddon supported the rent-control program and rental registry; Friedman opposed them. This new bureaucracy is estimated to cost $2 million-$2.4 million each year. While fees may fund a portion, committing to this program with uncertain funding is dangerous. Sneddon promising funds directed to her supporters for the promises that she cannot keep is disingenuous.
Sneddon has voted several times in support of depleting the budget reserve. That is poor judgment with public money. It leaves less room to meet important community needs and increases the risk that taxpayers will face harder choices later.
Friedman opposed these commitments. His record shows he has thoroughly informed himself on these critical issues facing our city. Sneddon did not.
Santa Barbara needs a mayor who understands the funding, considers the long-term effects, and protects emergency capacity before making promises. That is why I believe Eric Friedman is the stronger choice for everyone.
