Page 1 of 56
Posted on February 24 at 3:30 p.m.
Actually, Isla Vista is at about 30 feet above sea level while the Santa Barbara Airport is only about 9 feet above sea level. Consequently, the airport will be under water long before Isla Vista is. As sea levels rise, the king tides will likely do a number on the Del Playa bluffs and some of the properties will be lost, but not all of them. The buildings on the mountain side of the street are probably fairly safe for a long time. I wonder if UCSB has plans to retreat from the low lying areas surrounding the lagoon?
On Goleta's Slough of Problems
Posted on February 21 at 3:03 p.m.
It would be easy to shrug (or even laugh) this off. However, looking at the long term projections for sea level rise and the potential for large El Nino influenced storm events occurring simultaneously with king tides and it is very easy to come to the conclusion that the Santa Barbara Airport could very well be underwater for extended periods of time in the future. Imagine what it would cost to raise the airport six feet or so and how much fill dirt it would take to do so. I probably will not live to see it, but the day may come when the airport has to be moved to the north side of Hollister Avenue and current land on which the airport now stands has to be abandoned to the ducks.
Posted on February 19 at 8:34 p.m.
Not much comment on KUSC on this string. KUSC is the best classical station in California. The announcers are informative and entertaining. The playlists are eclectic. The best part is: No advertisements! I like a lot of different kinds of music and programing, but radio advertisements turn me off and make me turn the station, back to KUSC. It was great of them to willing to be part of this deal.
On Santa Monica’s KCRW to Buy KDB
Posted on February 19 at 2:11 p.m.
Well, How Green is My Vallley, I never recommended any utopia in my post and I don't and will never find a need to do so. I live in my utopia every day. I have not a single complaint. Life is sweet and I could not imagine it being any better than it is. And John Tieber, just to let you know, I have lived to a ripe old age and have resided in many places all over the U.S. and the World, even in places that had very high crime rates. My father was an avid outdoorsman and I grew up with guns and learned to handle them at a very young age. However, regardless of my experience with guns and having lived in places where it was more common to be a victim of crime than not, I have never felt it necessary to resort to a gun for my personal safety. In fact, in all the times that I have been in danger in my life, my first instinct was to seek a safe escape not engage in confrontation. Consequently, I have never been injured by criminal violence and have never been arrested by the police in lo these many years of living on this crazy planet. I consider a person who was safely in his house who then retrieves a firearm and exits the safety of his house to confront some perceived danger as both fearful and unhinged. But that is just my opinion.
On Man with Gun Arrested on De La Vina Street
Posted on February 18 at 8:52 p.m.
What kind of a human mind when faced with prospect of a dog on the loose in the neighborhood would:a) React with fear,b) Retrieve a firearm from within one's home and then return to the danger zone where the dreaded dog may be lurking, andc) Charge about the neighborhood like a man unhinged?The answer is, a mentally ill mind. The next question is, why do we allow mentally ill people to own firearms in this Country just to maintain fidelity to holy 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. Perhaps we, as a Country, are all out of our collective minds.
Posted on February 13 at 9:45 p.m.
I agree with RHS that food is way too cheap considering the scarcity of water in the San Joaquin Valley (where so much food comes from). The farmers should pay more for water and we all should pay more for food. On the other hand, do we who live in the suburbs of Southern California really need lawns and pools and dust free cars? As far as all those several acre lawns in Montecito and Hope Ranch, well, that's just immoral.
On Curse of Amnesiac Dogs
Posted on February 12 at 5:30 p.m.
Since Venoco claims that producing oil from the formation from which they are pumping reduces the quantity and rates of leaks from the seep formations, is it possible that acidizing could affect the seeps by either decreasing or increasing seep rates and quantities? These are the sorts of questions that are relevant and should be asked and answered. Venoco seems to want to be able to claim that their activities reduce air pollution and liquid oil emissions from seeps but does not want to acknowledge that their well stimulation activities could affect seep emissions. They cannot have it both ways. Either the formations from which they are producing are connected to the seep formations or not. If they are then any stimulation activities could affect the seeps and should be analyzed before being allowed. If the formations are not connected (which ARCO claimed many years ago), then no analysis is necessary. But if that's the case, then Venoco needs to quit claiming that producing oil reduces seep emissions.
On EDC Says Venoco “Acidizing” Offshore
Posted on February 5 at 7:10 p.m.
This all turned out better than it could have. However, the beach access issue remains unresolved. The developer has provided all sorts of access to the bluff top, but the route down to the beach will remain a cat and mouse game. That's ok. It has always been so. Only two houses and no golf course and plenty of open space easement. Hard to complain. The beach access will sort itself out.
On Gaviota Homes Approved
Posted on February 4 at 3:18 p.m.
Actually Foo, I don't want any rights not available to any person. I want the access to the property (which the owner has agreed to by the way), but I don't think that the access has to be so accessible as to require no effort. One of the great aspects of wild places is that they are, well, wild and lonely and not littered by hordes of people. Just as one of the quaint things about a large metropolitan city like Paris or London or New York is the vibrancy and diversity of the teaming masses. Making a place like the Gaviota Coast too accessible to the teaming masses would ruin the wild aspect of it. I don't want any special favors and I don't mind that someday I will be too old to scramble down a steep slope to get to the beach. I just think that we should have access to some places but to keep the wild aspect we should make the access physically challenging and inconvenient.
On Trails Council Reaches Agreement With Paradiso Developers
Posted on February 3 at 8:30 p.m.
You know Foo, I don't begrudge the owners of the property a house. If I owned that property, I'd build a house there. My problem is that this is shaping up to a situation where beach access is apparently being provided but will be severely restricted during certain times of the year while at the same time, a parking lot will be constructed that will encourage the hoards to descend from LA and other points south. It is just a recipe for conflict. My idea is to build the house (or a couple of houses) and provide an unimproved and rustic pathway to the beach without signage and that requires athletic ability and an adventurous spirit to find and navigate. There is currently plenty of parking available (if you know where to find it), so there is no need for a parking lot. Providing access but not improving accessibility would protect the traditional access to the surf spot, protect the kites and seals from hoards of LA surfers and local dog-walkers, and provide the property owners with the isolated enjoyment of their little private bluff-top enclave. Seems like a win-win-win to me. However, I have a feeling that absolutely nobody except me and few local wave sliders would love this idea.
One of Hawaii’s most popular artists, Keali‘i (kay-ah-LEE-ee) Reichel performs ... Read More
Previous Month | Next Month