Samarkand Neighborhood: Enter at Your Own Risk

Regarding; Samarkand Neighborhood: Risk Factor

It's very nice when Barney to takes time from reporting on the usual wine, dining and other matters of the bon vivant. The refreshing report on more serious matters of parking citations is relevant as we must have our streets cleaned in order to keep pollution from entering our streams.

The solution for the Samarkand Retirement community guests would be to post signs at all pedestrian entrances that would advise guests to park onsite at all times. The retirement community could add these new signs to their existing posts that advise their residents and visitors to drive no faster than the posted 5mph.

As for the Samarkand "Neighborhood" residents it is incumbent on the visitor to pay attention to all posted regulations. Street sweeping advisement signs are posted at every entrance to the neighborhood so let's pay attention folks because it is your duty!

As for the Independent's writer Matt Kettman ticket experience perhaps his Samarkand host could have informed and thus saved him the cost of a ticket. Still it is Matt's responsibility to pay attention. Let us not forget the Matt has momentary lapses in responsibility as evidenced in this post by Matt while reporting for the Independent.
(http://www.independent.com/news/2007/apr...)
Let us hope that Matt did not waste the courts time as the professor did.

The broad issue, of course, is why some neighborhoods have a high frequency of street sweepings signs installed and why other neighborhoods do not.

Through this judicial ruling in local court by Judge Denise de Bellefeuille, the precedent now has been set about how infrequent the signs can be installed and still be frequent enough for the City police to conduct enforcement for car parking during the designated street sweeping day and hours.

Therefore, the City now has no excuse not to REMOVE, or not to prevent local residents from doing so, the numerous and highly frequent signs installed throughout the other Santa Barbara neighborhoods. The Court just decided that many signs (as in 4 per typical downtown block) were not necessary to uphold car parking enforcement.

Naturally, if the downtown and Westside and Eastside neighborhoods had the signs removed to be the same installation frequency that the Court just decided was good enough for Samarkand neighborhood, a lot of people would not get it and thus receive these car parking citations in the other neighborhoods.

City revenue would go way, way up and offset that fat budget shortfall of more than $3 million this year alone. Of course, this would be car parking citations and budget balancing on the backs of the City residents who can least afford it.

It all, again, points to the arbitrary policy that City officials have adopted about why some neighborhoods have few if any street sweeping enforcement signs, while other neighborhoods have 4 signs to a typical street block length, as if the people in those neighborhoods should not be afforded any respect about the visual blight the signs impose.

This all was discussed at length by the City Council on 27 June 2006. They talked about lots of good ideas and made plenty of observations about the inequity of how the street sweeping signs were installed, but nothing has happened to follow through with any of it. City staff continue to do what they want, especially about not installing any signs where the neighborhood people push back.

To see this City Council discussion, go to the video archives of their meetings. This meeting is the oldest one, at the bottom of the list. It is agenda item 28, which starts at timecode 2:59 hours into the meeting video found at this link:
http://santabarbara.granicus.com/ViewPub...

Of course, I luv the Samarkand neighborhood just like my own Westside 'hood, but I also feel that the car parking enforcement signs should be installed with the same fair and equal treatment throughout all neighborhoods in Santa Barbara. Now the Judge has defined what fairness could mean for how many signs are enough.

It is interesting to see how offended people can be when they find out that laws enacted by "their" legislature can be used to arbitrarily inflict pain on them. The decision of the Commissioner (not Judge) is completely consistent with the Vehicle Code's permission established for these street sweeping laws. If you don't like the law ask your state official to change it. But most people don't object to the law when it applies only to others. My My.
By the way, the idea that parking enforcement is an appropriate revenue stream should chill us all. Still the City of SB relies on it heavily.

I think all the commentary on this issue is very nice, but for me it's a rip-off pure and simple, and it doesn't matter if the thief is the city or some jerk.

Not to deviate too far from the issue at hand, but the final point made by initial commenter 'jonathansmith' needs to be addressed.

As thrilled as I am to receive confirmation of what I've long suspected -- that people all over the world have the puker story bookmarked for frequent reference -- I will say Mr. Smith has chosen a poor example to demonstrate a lapse in responsibility on the part of Mr. Kettmann. Indeed, Kettmann suddenly found himself with a puker on his hands (and, more than likely, some puke as well). And yet, throughout the chaos, he managed to maintain control of the situation.

Who reassured the terrified bystanders? Who made sure the puker got home OK? Who was carefully coordinating the ensuing San Onofre Rd. de-pukification within minutes, proclaiming "We're gonna need some pants over here! … And a shirt!!" -- cell phone in one hand, puker in the other? The truth is, Kettmann demonstrated a high level of responsibility that fateful night, even in the face of endless, thick clumps of rich, golden vomit.

Addressing comments in order of appearance.

Matt Kettmannn; Speaking of misspelling your article from last year contained the following paragraph >>>
>>> We walked up Las Positas back toward Diamond Dave’s house on the Samarkand."
Matt "on the Samarkand" does not make sense.

Perhaps in your own mind have a valid excuse and apparently others agree. If however your ticket was on Samarkand Drive or as suggested by pp's post San Onofre then I don't think there would be an excuse.

Also Matt, for various reasons I would welcome that the puker piece appear in print. I'm sure that you'll have many like minded that will come to your defense. But really people do not care for yours and Penis Paul's alcoholic binge behavior in public places. What's more I would bet that many would think that the Independent would be foolish for not reprimanding or even perhaps terminating your tenure for such behavior. Most employers would not tolerate such a representation.

David Pritchett; Your points allude to discrimination or a lack of representation. There is a hugh problem with representation at many different levels especially when you have at large electors. When it comes to people and their cars, the city is always in a loose-loose situation. The Golden Quadrangle of the Riviera, San Roque, Samarkand and Mesa neighborhoods all conspire aloofly against better representation. If it's any consolation to the Westside neighborhood this Quadrangle will even allow their own to be discriminated against. Example in this Samarkand neighborhood would be Calle Real and Las Positas.

RHS and rubenken; I know it's difficult to get a ticket but perhaps you should complain to the people who sold you your car and the advertising firms who promote their products as the care free objects. For me I think it is the city's responsibility to clean the streets and it is your responsibility to legally park it.

pp: is that “nine” greyhounds before coming to the fair" Penis Paul?
Your buddy Mat won't always be around to save you. Over the years I've known too many mishaps from alcohol abuse. Deaths by car accident, cooked in hot tub, concussion and hemmorrage after diving into a toilet and choking to death on ones own vomit. Figure it out while you can my friend!

The Samarkand incident brings to my mind a similar incident in which I was involved over 30 years ago. My brother and I had driven to the Mojave desert well east of Lancaster to ride our street legal dirt bikes. There were no signs of civilization in any direction except for the dirt road that we had arrived upon. We had ridden blissfully for less than 30 minutes along a pre-existing dirt road (not off-road) when we heard a loud sound that drowned out the exhaust note of our bikes. Suddenly a Sheriff's department helicopter descended in front of us. An officer emerged from the helicopter and promptly wrote my brother and I tickets for riding in a posted "no riding" zone. We told the officer that we did not see any signs or we certainly would not have ridden in such an area. He proceeded to point in the direct opposite direction from which we had arrived and said, "There are signs at that end of the road." "Yes but our truck is over there in the opposite direction, surely you can see it from the air." He shrugged his shoulders and flew away. A few weeks later we drove one hour each way to appear in court for five minutes. We repeated to the judge what had occurred but he was totally unsympathetic. We were both sentenced to eight hours of community service. The phrase "Ignorance of the law is not a valid defense" casts a pretty wide net. Is anyone really certain that the Apollo astronauts did not post "Do Not ..." signs on the moon?

Johnathansmith, you must learn to allow yourself to be entertained. By now, you have probably at least begun to realize the reason you are frustrated or have failed in your own pursuits. If not, here’s a clue: you understand things too easily. You are obviously far from being able to grasp the motivations behind a piece as simple as the Puker article, and thus, from a reader’s perspective, have no real business commenting on more relevant writings. For a publication whose staff integrity you supposedly question, you seem to devote an unusual amount of energy to promoting The Indy by consuming and contributing to its content.

Instead of touting the dead bodies of your former acquaintances as soapbox ornaments, take from their collective passing the true lesson: that life is too short to be spent (for example) exposing your insecurities to the world by superimposing them on others as an armchair journalism critic. Your systematic pursuit of confrontation in these discussions works to no end, other than allowing you to get off on reading your own words while polluting the site’s index. You criticize Matt for using a widely accepted figure of speech, while finding yourself unable to spell his first or last name.

Your brand of ranting is easily accomplished by a computer program equipped with a sufficiently large dictionary. Deep down, I’m assuming, you are a human being, with the unique capacity to enjoy life. You’d be wise to focus more on this precious gift.

How about painting the street cleaning days/hours on the curbs (where available of course). Signs still on the perimeter of the area but at least notices on the curbs making visitors aware? Just an idea

cwaiton; Good suggestion. But still people make all kinds of excuses for their bad behavior. And it would still take some paying attention to ones surroundings to see the curb notice. Overtime perhaps it would stick in even the laziest of minds. Anyway it could help the city and the court uphold tickets. The city is really doing its part to clean up but it requires the citizen to be involved.

Mattt and PeePee; Yes I make mistakes and more are to follow I am certain. Now lets get back to the issue which is public drunkedness and the "Jackass, The Movie" "Puker" adventure article. As a writer, Matt, you must expect different interpretations from the reader. My response is my own and I do not make any excuses for it and I will try to explain it. I am at times greatly moved by the Independents articles and columns. I sincerely hope that you are feverishly working to get your 2007 "Puker" (with pp's title) in print this week. If not I am sure you can make deadline for next week. It would be interesting to see how the community reacts especially the Sheriffs Department, Showgrounds management, carnival rider attendees and lastly the Samarkand neighborhood. Finally, for now anyway, "on the Samarkand" is new and I don't think it will stick as a colloquialism. "On the Riviera" and "on the Mesa" somehow makes since and are established colloquialisms. "On the Samarkand," "on the San Roque," "on the Bell Air Knolls" just doesn't work. I think your discussion of this is a diversion and are making excuses again while being understandably evasive about the location of your parking ticket.