Santa Barbara Civic Platform
Positions · Records · Receipts
ADVANCED · PASSED REVIEW AND THE EDITORIAL GATE. LIVE AS EXA-000 THIS PAGE REMAINS AS THE ISSUE'S GENESIS RECORD.
Resident proposal

The City of Santa Barbara should have a standing, verified record of where its residents actually stand on local issues.

SUBMITTED AUGUST 5, 2026 BY BEN W., FOUNDER
Back itA signal, not a vote

Add your name behind this idea. It's a signal to the Council that residents care, not a binding vote.

BACKING: 12 OF 5 FOR GUARANTEED REVIEW (INCLUDES EXAMPLE FIGURES)REVIEW GUARANTEES AN ANSWER, NOT PASSAGE
Backing means “this deserves a decision,” not “I’m for it.” You can back a proposal you would vote against.
YOUR BACKING: · PRIVATE · ONLY THE COUNT IS PUBLIC · WITHDRAW ANY TIME
THRESHOLD IS RELATIVE AND MOVES WITH THE ACTIVE RESIDENT POPULATION; THE FORMULA, PUBLISHED →
In their wordsRanked by endorsements · For and against both belong
EXAMPLE STATEMENTS · COMPUTER-GENERATED, LABELED

I have watched this Council for twenty years and the only tally anyone keeps is applause volume. Write it down where nobody can argue about what was said, and put the votes next to it. That is the whole ask.

TYLER C. · 78 · RIVIERA · OWNER · RETIRED CONTRACTOR · SIMULATEDENDORSED BY 9 RESIDENTS

I back the record existing. I still say whoever signs up for a website is not the town, so the number I will watch is the one at the top of the front page: how many of us are actually counted.

NANCY Z. · 52 · UPPER EAST · OWNER · PROPERTY MANAGER · SIMULATEDENDORSED BY 5 RESIDENTS

One statement per resident · no replies by design · statements against belong here too; they feed the review · endorsements open with verification · attribution shows only what each resident chose to share.

The gate's responsePublished · The guarantee, honored

This is the platform's founding question, and it is kept here as a worked example of how every proposal travels: an ask enters, gathers verified backing toward the published threshold, earns a guaranteed review, and a gate decision is published either way. This one did not travel that road, because no residents existed yet to back it. It was submitted by the founder and advanced editorially on August 5, 2026, the same day accounts opened. The backing meter and the two persona statements below are computer-generated examples, labeled, so a first visitor can see the mechanics; real statements from signed-in residents appear beside them. The live issue is EXA-000.

What happens at the threshold

1. Research packet. No agenda to extract, so the pipeline grounds the idea instead: which body would decide it and by what instrument, and whether the city has considered it before. It is a search of the public record, with any cost or feasibility figures cited only where a document states them.

2. Neutrality audit. The same adversarial audit every candidate issue gets, published verbatim.

3. The gate. Editorial review decides. Advanced: the proposal becomes a live issue with a document code and an open ballot, and this page remains as its genesis record. Not advanced: the reasons are published right here. Either way, the answer is on the record.

If a ballot opens, backers are notified, never auto-registered. Backing was “decide this”; your position stays yours to mark.