WEATHER »

Comments by Chester_Arthur_Burnett

Page 1 of 35 | Next

Posted on April 18 at 9:36 a.m.

@topcat and @childrinfthenight:

It's worse than that: according to Welsh, the homeowners "lived in the mudslide-prone area since well before the 1980s..." According to local rumor and my hazy recollection, all of these residents were given fair warning and I believe some payout or financial accommodation to move from the City (and FEMA) because of the unstable soil conditions and the extensive work and support that had to be done after a number of rainy seasons -- this was at least 10 to 15 years ago if not longer.

So when the city would no longer invest in the slippery slope, they sued. I don't see the City as the bad guy here.

On Jury Awards Homeowners $300,000 After City Abandons Road

Posted on April 12 at 3:30 p.m.

Ken:
This doesn't appear in the newspaper; even if it did, that would be a crazy idea --

1) two different audiences (with some overlap)

2) seemingly penalizes the website to prop up the print edition. That would have been a bold move in 2003.

On Santa Barbara Crime Blotter, 4/2 – 4/8

Posted on April 12 at 2:13 p.m.

Today is April 14. This crime blotter covers April 2-8.

Anyone else see think the "sell-by" date is past for a news piece?

I mean, how long can it take to re-write a police blotter?

On Santa Barbara Crime Blotter, 4/2 – 4/8

Posted on April 5 at 8:36 a.m.

Another story was done on this lawsuit with more detail:
http://www.independent.com/news/2012/...

Does it change anyone's opinion that Grimm is an investment banker who said "when he bought the land, he sent a letter to his neighbors making it clear that he would be using the property as a vacation rental"?

Or that "Costner’s wife, Christine, wrote in a 2009 email to Grimm that the hedges are in place to protect the family’s privacy from vacationers who rent Grimm’s property and supposedly peer over the fence to catch glimpses of the celebrity family."?

On Judge Sides with Costner

Posted on March 23 at 12:10 a.m.

Help me out here fellows, as it seems I'm missing the admired insight as provided by Holly.

What I see is a rant long on pitchfork waving, an occasional keen observation, but a little shy on proposals or direction.

1st paragraph: Santa Barbara is expensive. Check.
"SB wants service people, but doesn't want them LIVING there." What is the suggested fix for that?

2nd. paragraph: Scum like Pini can thrive here because it's a desirable place to live and Santa Barbara is somehow hospitable to... him? Apart from his apologists in the comments section here, isn't the city fining Pini, denying his project, and enforcing Pini's violations? Is this Holly's call for stiffer laws, tougher enforcement, and locking the bastard up longer?

3rd and 4th paragraphs just provide more of the second.

But the final 'graf is Holly's call to arms which is particularly bombastic with the False Dilemma of "a healthy city populated by people of all socioeconomic strata, or the current rigid caste system perpetuated by stratospheric costs of shelter, and unequally applied rules."

Ummm... I choose the good one.

So how do we do it, Holly?

"Simply remove his incentive." What can that mean? Ban him as a landlord? Or any other current and scofflaws? A fine idea, but a couple hundred years of property rights law and free enterprise decisions would bog down such a heavy governmental hand.

Perhaps you can expand your thesis and point out a bit clearer where we should be heading.

On Pini-Proofing Chino Street

Posted on March 22 at 2:10 p.m.

Oh my god, this is rich:

"Burglary Arrest

Dario Louis Pini, age 63, a well-known Santa Barbara landlord, was arrested for burglary.

On March 17, 2013 at 4:25 p.m., Santa Barbara Police Department Officers Mike Little and Bruno Peterson responded to a call of a burglary investigation at a construction site at 316 W. Carrillo Street. Upon arrival they contacted the victim who is the owner of the house there.

https://local.nixle.com/alert/4976726...

Obviously part of his selfless plans in helping lower income folks with their housing needs.

On Pini-Proofing Chino Street

Posted on March 22 at 2:06 p.m.

Oh my god, this is rich:

"Burglary Arrest

Dario Louis Pini, age 63, a well-known Santa Barbara landlord, was arrested for burglary.

On March 17, 2013 at 4:25 p.m., Santa Barbara Police Department Officers Mike Little and Bruno Peterson responded to a call of a burglary investigation at a construction site at 316 W. Carrillo Street. Upon arrival they contacted the victim who is the owner of the house there....(more)"

https://local.nixle.com/alert/4976726...

Obviously part of his selfless plans in helping lower income folks with their housing needs.

On Dario Pini?

Posted on March 21 at 5:38 p.m.

@Botany:

A fabulously limp apologia to actual court rulings and fines -- one in excess of a $Million -- for squalor, safety and code violations, and other lawless behavior.

You attempt put a fine face on a proven slumlord, and for some reason find no problem with his actions.

Your core justification -- that of 'affordability' -- is a stance, I am happy to say, outside the mainstream of our society and unsupported by our laws.

On Dario Pini?

Posted on March 21 at 3:47 p.m.

Really.

Pini's record on how he 'helps' and 'provides' low income housing is readily available:

Google "dario pini lawsuits" and you get a number of items, including:

- Santa Maria landlord forced to pay $1 million for unsafe living conditions
http://www.ksby.com/news/santa-maria-...

- Two police officers received an award for successfully coordinating a multi-agency action against Pini:

"Beginning in August 1994, Officer Kim Fryslie and Officer
Michael Aspland developed a P.O.P. project involving Mr. Dario Pini, a slum lord who owns 34 properties in the City of Santa Barbara. Many city agencies have known about Mr. Dario Pini's property management tactics for many years, however; none took on the task of addressing the problems as a whole. The problems became chronic since no one was holding Mr. Pini accountable for the squalor he created."
http://www.popcenter.org/library/awar... (this is a PDF file)

- Surfside Motel owner [Pini] to pay $75,000

"In 1998, he pleaded no contest to 11 counts of building without proper permits and was fined $476. In 2001, he was convicted of three similar charges and fined $3,200.

"In December 2003, Port Hueneme officials cited Pini for numerous wastewater, fire district, building and safety, and code compliance violations at the motel."

"A June 2004 inspection found violations in nearly every motel room, including inoperable smoke detectors, leaking sinks, running toilets, rotted ceilings and cockroach infestation." "
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2007/sep/0...

------

Here's some quick links on this website I got by using the Search function with Pini's name in them:

- Dario Pini's Problems:
http://www.independent.com/news/2007/...
- Student Objects to Housing Provided by EF School
http://www.independent.com/news/2008/...

"At one point he and his company, Dario Pini Investments, were targeted in a massive police investigation that ended in nearly 800 building code violations and a jail sentence. Pini famously chose to spend 30 days behind bars instead of going on house arrest in one of his rentals."
http://www.independent.com/news/2011/...

On Dario Pini?

Posted on March 9 at 10:16 a.m.

@redbunz:
Basic math must be hard for someone who prefers their gut over history, and facts in general, so I'll help you out:

1983 was exactly 30 years ago, not "over 40 years [ago]."

As you say: "lol."

On Shoot-Shoot, Bang-Bang

Page 1 of 35 | Next

Vaud and the Villains

This 19 piece 1930s New Orleans orchestra and cabaret will ... Read More