Page 1 of 30
Posted on March 6 at 11:02 a.m.
Uh, "Rancho Guacamole"? Holy shmear, Batman! ☺
On Supes Allot CREF Funds
Posted on March 6 at 9:39 a.m.
We said it before, as far back as 1979 when we wrote EIRs and staff reports with financial impact sections detailing the inevitable slow decay of public infrastructure and services that would result from Prop. 13's artificial cap on property tax revenue. To make it as simple as possible: every year since 1978 that inflation has exceeded 2%, and that's most of 'em, things have gotten worse. Reassessments upon resale have done little to soften the overall impact, esp. since commercial and industrial properties, as well as residential "income properties," are resold and reassessed very infrequently. Also, new development never pays for itself in the long run--never. Fees, impact assessments, benefit assessments and the like are all band-aids on a severly injured patient. It's way past time to scrap or "reform" Prop. 13, as well as the general two-thirds requirement to pass new taxes or increase tax rates. The will of the large majority often is thwarted by a minority as small as one-third-plus-one; how is that rational or fair?
And yes, I (we) own a very modest little house, and have for every year since 1981 except for one year when we were in-between our first and current houses.
On Maintenance Ordinance Dead on Arrival?
Posted on March 5 at 12:30 p.m.
Interesting lack of balance, logic and intelligence in this commentary thread, so far. All I have to say is, I told you so. Go ahead: put it on the ballot, and watch it go down in flames when sentient voters get the facts.
Posted on March 5 at 5:53 a.m.
Happy trails, Steve!
On Goleta Public Works Director Moves to Sanitary District
Posted on March 5 at 5:49 a.m.
Nicely written article, George!
On Where Did All This Growth Come From? – Part 2
Posted on March 4 at 1:51 p.m.
Hopefully, to be a little more clear and precise:
--Water use does not cause droughts, which by definition are prolonged periods of little or no precipitation, with amounts that are significantly below the long-term average, over any given time period, for any given area and its long-term average climatic regime. We are, unquestionably, in a major drought, and human water demand has nothing to do with it. Even if the local human population was zero, it'd still be a major drought.
--Water demands in excess of reliable supplies cause water shortages. This can happen even in wet years and wet cycles, if the demands from all sources exceed the available supplies from all sources.
--The science and art of water resource conservation and integrative land use planning have come a long way. However, competent practitioners of both are overwhelmed and sometimes consumed by the greed and ignorance of people who don't understand and-or don't much care about one or the other or both, never mind the complex relationships between the two.
--There is no question that most of California including the Santa Barbara area has "grown" to the point that water supplies cannot be relied upon in a prolonged drought without major discomfort, economic losses and environmental damage. That "growth" includes both agricultural and domestic (municipal & industrial) uses; to pretend otherwise is to deny objective reality.
--Even if it hadn't rained during the past week and doesn't rain another drop for another year or two, groundwater supplies would carry us people along for another year or two, even much longer in some areas, but at ever-increasing economic and environmental costs. Both terrestrial (land) and aquatic flora (vegetation) and fauna (critters) would be harshly screwed, but most of our irrigated crops and gardens and livestock and pets would hobble by, unless people decide it's just too expensive to keep them alive. Basic human needs would be met, as long as the supply wells didn't sand in or go dry to the bottoms of their aquifers. The question then begged is, what about the year(s) after that, and what costs are we willing to bear, and which ones, and to what ultimate extent?
On Rainstorm Lands With Ferocity
Posted on February 19 at 12:18 p.m.
Back in the day, a number of us from county planning et al. used to take monthly hikes at various locations. Several of these excursions turned into ordeals that we lovingly called "death marches," and a couple nearly ended with injuries. This was waaaay before cell phones, GPS, and any of that stuff; we had maps, experience, youth (well, most of us), and relatively good health and judgment to get us out of our own pickles. Now, as for one certain libertarian editorial writer for the SBN-P, who had to get plucked by a socialist government helicopter from a self-induced crisis ... ☺
On Six Exchange Students Rescued in Mission Canyon
Posted on February 19 at 12:09 p.m.
Agree with Draxor. Thanks be that nobody else was killed by this moron.
On Wrong Way 101 Driver Dead in Carpinteria
Posted on February 6 at 5:55 a.m.
I agree--minimal changes to EBG.
On Major Makeover Slated for Cabrillo Bathhouse
Posted on February 5 at 1:29 p.m.
-sigh- Let me just say that it's a good thing most people don't pine for a libertarian Utopia. Regulations exist because, among other reasons, left alone, the unfettered market kills people: with car crashes (unrestricted at-grade intersections); tainted food and water; tainted and poisonous drugs and medical quackery; dogma passed off as fact in private schools including at-home "schools"; need I go on?
Now, back to Makar: the owners bought the land for a very tidy sum, with an expectation of enjoying reasonable use of the land. I have no quarrel with that. However, the future reasonable use needs to account for the "bundle of sticks" that came along with the land when they bought it: possible prescriptive easements for public access; legitimate use restrictions due to biologic, geologic, hydrologic and other resource concerns; the existing Hwy. 101 and UPRR transportation corridors; and a host of others. Every property owner assumes a "bundle of sticks" whenever land is bought--that's settled law. How many sticks are in that bundle, what kind of wood they are, how long and thick they are, what color they are, how strong they are--all vary from situation to situation and may be subject to interpretation and reasonable debate. What's not open to reasonable debate is whether or not a fee owner has unfettered rights to do whatever they please; they don't.
On Trails Council Reaches Agreement With Paradiso Developers
This inspiring human rights advocate, UNICEF Advocate for Children Affected ... Read More
Previous Month | Next Month