Page 2 of 56
Posted on February 2 at 7:30 p.m.
Ah, the "divide and conquer gambit." The Trails Council gets their trail, which means the surfers get their access and a parking lot!!! (another surf spot ruined by crowds). The kites get evicted and the annual closure on the seal rookery will become another cat and mouse game between the surfers and the some hired rent-a-cop. The rich get their isolated bluff top mansion and the rest of us get the crumbs: Same old story.
On Trails Council Reaches Agreement With Paradiso Developers
Posted on January 31 at 8:54 p.m.
Furthermore, there should not be a single new water meter allowed by any Santa Barbara County water district until we have determined what exactly our long-term and reliable water supply is. We cannot keep cutting this pie into ever smaller slices. Also, we should not have to pay for water we are not getting. I understand that the costs of the state water infrastructure have been incurred and that someone has to pay for those costs, but, as another poster on the Angry Poodle article about this subject observed, you don't pay for pizza that is not delivered. State water has never been a reliable source of water. It was always a developer scam to push growth on the South Coast. We need a Countywide building moratorium until we can figure out how much water we really have. I suspect that we don't have enough for everyone who is already here, much less enough for newcomers.
On 'Mega-Drought' Looms
Posted on January 30 at 3:21 p.m.
Great question Ken. The justification that I have heard says that since the money was spent to build the infrastructure to get the water here, we have to pay for it, whether or not the water is actually delivered. To expand your pizza delivery analogy (actually it was a simile), it is as if we have to pay for the undelivered pizza and the pizza delivery guy says, "Look, we bought the ovens, the dough, the pepperoni, and the delivery car, and we are paying salaries to the cook and the me (the delivery guy) so you have to pay for the pizza whether or not you get any." It's not a perfect analogy, but I like it.
On Let Sleeping Dogs Snore
Posted on January 30 at 1:02 p.m.
I am sure that the problem that the water districts see in conservation is that conservation results in a decrease in revenue, which then means less money to pay for state water that is not being delivered but that still has to be paid for. When a majority of Chicken Little voters were running around in circles screeching that we needed state water, those of us who warned that during a statewide drought there would be no state water flowing over the horizon to save the day were dismissed as idiots. Now we are out of water and we still have to pay for nonexistent state water, just as the idiots predicted. It is past time for a building moratorium until we can figure out what our long-term predictable and reliable water supply really is.
Posted on January 29 at 9:59 p.m.
I agree with Valleyfarmer that the carbon threshold of significance established by the B of S seems like a non-issue with regard to attracting investor money. The weird thing about this story is that it appears as if Santa Maria Energy never had the economic resources to actually implement the project and that now that they have the permits, they are seeking OPM (i.e., other people's money) to get the project built. I am wondering if Santa Maria Energy does not have the capital necessary to do this project in a safe and environmentally protective manner. I am getting a Greka feeling about this.
On Santa Maria Energy Merger Could Raise $40 Million
Posted on January 28 at 1:16 p.m.
I find it interesting that the installation of bulb-outs in Santa Barbara (such as what is going in at the intersection of Cathedral Oaks Road and Santa Marguerita Drive in Goleta) resulted in a hue and cry that a vast anti-car conspiracy was underway. In Goleta the reaction is a collective shrug. Maybe the difference in reactions is indicative of the difference between residents of Santa Barbara and residents of Goleta. Viva Goleta!
On Pedestrian Safety Improvements Begin on Goleta Intersection
Posted on January 25 at 9:39 p.m.
Well Ken, surf conditions are not crowded everywhere; but since you think they are, I won't disabuse you of that notion. Put your board in the rafters Ken, it's over. Sevendolphins may have a better memory than I about the politics of Goleta cityhood elections. But every time that I.V. was included it failed and when I.V. was excluded it passed. Those are merely facts rather than polling. However, I, for one, would have preferred that I.V. be included and still consider that gritty little beach town student ghetto part of my community. Yet the revenue neutrality agreement is unfair and is bad for both Goleta and I.V. Our collective tax dollars are being sucked up by the North County. Maybe one of things to that Goleta could put on the table for negotiating a change in the agreement is to incorporate I.V. into the City of Goleta. What would you think of that Sevendolphins?
On The County’s Fleecing of Goleta Must End
Posted on January 24 at 7:58 p.m.
Gosh sevendolphins, I guess that I could respond by citing all the drunken debauchery, traffic, and crowded surf conditions problems that IV visits on Goleta, but I won't. I.V. is our neighbor and part of the rich diversity that is Goleta, even if they are not in the City. The Goleta incorporation would never have happened if it included I.V. in the boundaries. Not all of us Goletans agreed with political calculus that cut I.V. out, but there would be no City of Goleta if it had been included. The problems in I.V. have been created by the County and UCSB, not by the residents of Goleta. I agree that the students and landowners of I.V. contribute considerably to our community in terms of sales and property taxes. In fact property taxes in I.V. probably fund public services in Orcutt. Goleta's attempt to negotiate a fair revenue sharing agreement with the County, should not pit I.V. against Goleta. In fact we should work together to extract or fair share from the County. I suspect the great sucking sound we are hearing is the tax dollars of both Goleta and I.V. being syphoned off by North County.
Posted on January 23 at 9:29 p.m.
Ok folks, let's not read into this more than there is. Occam's Razor rule is in effect. The simplest explanation is probably the correct one. This is just two politicians puffing up their chests to show their constituents that they are trying to do something about an issue over which they have no influence, much less even a shred of control. People in Goleta are frustrated that their tax dollars are being syphoned off in such huge amounts to benefit people outside Goleta. That is understandable. It is also understandable that the politicians who serve on the City Council would act to show the residents of Goleta that the City Council cares. I'll admit that there is a rather lame political leverage issue in play (with the 2nd District supervisorial election coming up and all). But these chest beating efforts are not really going to affect the election one way or the other. Goleta paid a heavy and unfair price for their independence from the County. Until Goleta has something that the County really, really wants, they won't have the leverage to renegotiate the bad deal. That is what really stinks.
Posted on January 23 at 11:34 a.m.
I don't if sevendolphins ever met anybody from Goleta, but all the Goleta residents that know are pretty nice folk. They are not rich. Rather they are mostly middle-class people like building trade contractors, public servants, engineers, school teachers, public safety employees, college professors, small business owners, retirees, a lot of mellow surfers. They may roll their eyes at the antics out in Isla Vista, but they don't hate Isla Vista residents. The revenue sharing agreement is indeed unjust and should be renegotiated. However, the County has absolutely no incentive to come to the table. I agree that Goleta needs to sweeten the pot with something so that the County can justify negotiating. Otherwise, it just is not ever going to happen.
The Theatre Group at SBCC presents Michael Frayn's hilarious comedy! Read More
Previous Month | Next Month