Comments by Pagurus
Page 1 of 1
Posted on April 18 at 1:02 p.m.
It's so like SB to want its cake and eat it, too. In therapeutic terms, that's known as "cognitive dissonance."
By the way, shame on Marty Blum for taking sides in this issue, by signing the petition to reduce building height, on which legislative prudence required that she stay neutral. But good on those who are trying to find a compromise in order to avoid "planning by initiative" - the worst possible way to build a great and well-functioning city.
P.S. the recent award for "livability" (10th in the nation) was not SB's alone, as a previous article inferred - it was awarded to "Santa Barbara-Santa Maria", essentially the region of SB County. But, again, SB always wants to take more credit than it deserves.
Posted on March 28 at 8:12 a.m.
If Goletans want absolutely security and anal-retentive santitation, they can go to WalMart. Leave Fairview Gardens alone; a healthy community needs to be in contact with the earth beneath it. Who knows, perhaps the Goleta of the future could learn a bit of sustainable living from Fairview's example? Hopefully, FG's supporters will chain themselves to City Hall - or better yet, to the city councilmembers who want homogenization and standardization. FG is NOT a public health threat. To those who resent the rooster: GET A LIFE!
Posted on March 14 at 9:16 a.m.
Here's a suggested slogan for the "birthplace of environmentalism":
"GROW UP, SANTA BARBARA -- not out!!"
Those fighting development of moderate height limits in the urban core (and 60' is moderate, for cat's sake!), would freeze the present circumstances forever, doing no favors to future generations or the working folk the city absolutely relies on. No city worth its salt would do that. (Even Jefferson warned against binding the hands of future generations who must make their own choices, even if those choises are different from the present.) Those who point to buildings like the Granada, Arlington and Balboa adding interest and texture to the cityscape are right on. Does a thriving urban core need open spaces and play areas? Of course: density without relief is oppressive -- but all good planners and smart growthers know this.
GROW UP SANTA BARBARA!
Posted on August 23 at 9:20 a.m.
Perceptive minds will read the second posting above, about which California regions have commuter rail, and discern one trait in common: large populations and dense population centers. That is why Santa Barbara will not have AFFORDABLE commuter rail in any current player's lifetime: IT DOESN'T PENCIL OUT! Talk all you want, it just won't work, and that's been apparent for several years -- it's just that the SB idealists, bless their hearts, won't accept the facts. With the increasing costs of fuel, we will be relying more and more on rail transport for goods, which should ease some of the 101 congestion a bit (local workforce housing would relieve it much more), and put Union Pacific in an even sterner position of having little/no incentive to "deal" with the City of SB, regardless of whatever puny support the City Council could offer for a second rail along the coast. Please -- someone do the math and figure out how much commuter rail would cost per passenger/mile. YOU WON"T WANT TO AFFORD IT.
By the way, I'm not anti-public transit, just anti-fantasy. The most affordable (there' s no free lunch...) congestion solution between Ventura and SB Counties are buses, which will cost less per passenger/mile, are more mobile since they don't use fixed tracks, and largely solve the unaddressed issue of needing connector transportation between RR station and final destinations. Does that make too much sense? Apparently.
Perhaps someday, SB will elect someone to City Council who can do basic math....
Page 1 of 1
Previous Month
Posted on June 30 at 9:39 a.m.
A pack of lies, a deck of cards...
"The Queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. 'Off with his head!' she said, without even looking round." Sound familiar? We need more Lewis Carols among the journalists to whom Queen Wendy sent her lunatic email to call a spade a spade (or Queen of Hearts, in this case). Bless those locals like Smith and Brantingham, along with the makers of the documentary, for doing what they can to keep the public informed.
When a diamond-wearing tyrant doesn't respond to small rebellions, a larger club is needed (to continue the deck of cards metapor). Hopefully, the wider journalistic community which still believes in ethics and a truthful interpretation of the First Amendment will provide that club in the form of repudiations of the Queen's unsolicited email.
In the meantime, perhaps some clever Santa Barbarian will create a deck of cards, ala the Iraq invasion and Bush Impeachment reasons, with the characters in this drama assigned appropriately. We already know who fills the Queen of Hearts (McCaw), the Jack of Diamonds (the kept man known as der "Nipper", and the Joker (who else but Herr Armstrong?); I'm sure the rest shouldn't be too hard to come up with. Perhaps all of the departed reporters could be Aces...
On Wendy McCaw: Knight of the First Amendment