Steve Hilton is saying some bizarre stuff. Is anybody listening? | Opinion

With the primary election finally out of the way, we can take a closer look at the finalists for governor, Steve Hilton and Xavier Becerra. (Tom Steyer’s chances appear to be fading.)

Let’s start with Steve Hilton, who made a campaign stop in San Luis Obispo a couple of weeks ago.

While he spent time giving his usual spiel about housing, energy and the evils of one-party rule, there were a few provocative statements we had not heard before:

• There is a side-benefit to offshore oil drilling: It keeps tar off Santa Barbara’s beaches.

• The battery fire at Moss Landing in Monterey County was far worse than any Santa Barbara oil spill.

• We can have all the housing we need — without forcing it on communities that don’t want it. (Excellent news for NIMBYs.)

• California should aspire to having more places like Las Vegas — a land of housing opportunity. (No mention of water shortages.)

Those were among the topics he touched on in an interview with podcaster/Tribune columnist Clive Pinder.

Tribune editor Joe Tarica was on hand to pin Hilton down on some of the issues of concern to the Central Coast. (You can listen to the full interview on the “In Search of Sanity” podcast.)

No to offshore wind

Like President Trump, Hilton gives offshore wind development proposed for Morro Bay and Humboldt Bay a huge no.

“It’s an insane scheme ... floating windmills 1,000 feet high, the height of the Eiffel Tower ... the level of industrialization to be required ... the batteries, the whole (thing) is just insane,” Hilton said, adding, “no on thinks it’s ever going to work financially.”

Never mind that offshore wind has proven highly successful at reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the United Kingdom, where Hilton was born and raised and worked as a top adviser to former Prime Minister David Cameron.

In 2025, offshore wind displaced nearly 21 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions in the UK and supplied nearly one-fifth of the nation’s energy, according to The Crown Estate.

Hilton is correct in citing the high cost of offshore wind installations as floating turbines are especially costly.

Onshore wind and commercial solar are less expensive (especially solar) but Hilton does not support those, either. He calls for ending mandates and subsidies for wind and solar.

Yes to offshore oil

It’s no secret that Hilton supports drilling off the California Coast. He claims plenty of other people do, too, especially in Santa Barbara.

“You’ve had local people, many of them — the voices that are less often heard — that actually have been begging for production to be restarted, because you’re getting seepage on the beaches and in the ocean, precisely because drilling has been stopped.”

In case you’re wondering, there is truth to that. Studies have shown that natural seepage has been reduced by drilling in the channel.

Still, tar balls on the beach are a minor nuisance compared to the devastation of major industrial spill.

When Tarica brought that up, things took an even weirder turn.

“Well, we see that with every technology,” Hilton responded. “I mean look at the damage that’s been done to Monterey Bay because of the battery plant, purely driven by wind and solar, in Moss Landing. That’s catastrophic ... actually much worse and longer-lasting damage than from anything we’ve ever seen in Santa Barbara.”

The Moss Landing fire did major damage to the facility, caused an evacuation of nearby residents and resulted in a substantial cleanup. And while the EPA’s air monitoring registered normal readings, large amounts of battery-related metals were found in nearby wetlands. Those continue to be monitored.

That accident should not be minimized. But nor should the damage done by Santa Barbara oil spills.

The 1969 spill, which gave rise to the modern environmental movement, released roughly 3 million gallons of crude oil into the Santa Barbara Channel, killed thousands of birds and marine mammals, closed beaches and parks and caused major economic losses for the fishing and tourism industries.

To act like the majority of Santa Barbarans minimize that risk is disingenuous at best and incredibly uninformed at worst.

Communities should not be forced to provide housing

Under the state’s current system, counties are required to zone for a certain number of housing units in various price categories. The units don’t have to be built — the land just has to be earmarked for residential use.

“That’s clearly not working,” Hilton said. “I want to go in a different direction, which I think of as housing choice, where instead of forcing housing into communities that don’t want it, let’s allow housing in the places that do want it.”

That should make the good people of Huntington Beach happy.

But too bad for the workers who cook their meals, take care of their children or mow their lawns. There will never be a place for them.

And what if there aren’t enough communities willing to welcome more residential development?

Hilton has an answer: Build new ones.

“I love the idea of new towns and cities. You know that 100 years ago, Vegas didn’t exist, and now people are moving there from California, because it’s better.”

Sounds good, except won’t new towns and cities require roads, schools, hospitals, sewer and water systems — provided there is water to deliver?

And won’t that cost more than building in established communities that already have those services — making it all the more difficult to create affordable housing?

There’s a reason the state of California imposed housing mandates: Exiting communities, left to their own devices, were not willing to permit new homes, especially affordable homes.

As appealing as Hilton’s promises may sound — $3-a-gallon gas, lots of affordable housing, lower utility bills — he has some fine-tuning to do before November.

We’ll be listening.

This story was originally published June 8, 2026 at 5:00 AM with the headline "Steve Hilton is saying some bizarre stuff. Is anybody listening? | Opinion."