Page 1 of 5
Posted on August 14 at 10:06 a.m.
Well at least Egenolf seems to acknowledge the real purpose of the initiative is to kill off the oil industry in Santa Barbara despite supposedly only being a ban on fracking (which isn't even taking place in this County). Given how successful the wine industry as been in SB County while co-existing with the oil industry, that claim is nothing more than a scare tactic. However, you claim this initiative is necessary to protect the tourism and wine industries from being "potentially adversely impacted by effects derived from the oil industry." Lots of hypothetical scare tactics loaded in that sentence. Not much fact.
If the purpose is to bank fracking, why not propose a narrow initiative tailored to that objective? Why continue to push a poorly written overly broad initiative?
You may comfortably dismiss the impact of cutting 1.64% of GDP from Santa Barbara County but economists won't. What do you tell those who will lose their jobs? Tough luck? Fire and Police personnel have already come out and said the impact on their budgets due to loss in tax revenue will be substantial.
Plus, you haven't even mentioned the real cost of the lawsuits, taking claims, etc. against the County. Ask the County Counsel's office their opinion and they make it clear the cost to the County could be in excess of $1 billion. What will those costs due to the economic engine in Santa Barbara County........
On Measure P Lawsuits Commence
Posted on September 18 at 2:38 p.m.
Homeless, Inc. would beg to differ on your belief that caring for the poor is not a profitable move. To the contrary, those employees of the local Homeless, Inc. community know and understand that it can be quite profitable, provided you are one of the employees of Homeless, Inc. and not one of the unfortunate individuals who have to rely on their services.
On 'Tough Love' for Homeless Shelter
Posted on August 9 at 9:06 a.m.
Ken: You're following quote is exactly the problem with the local Homeless, Inc. - "Now all local shelters chase after the same type of homeless person."
The local shelters should not be "chasing" after anyone for their business. They've become part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Casa Esparanza was not being operated for the benefit of the local community; i.e., helping the less fortunate in our area who have fallen on hard times and need a helping hand. Rather, it became a magnet for homeless from all over California and across the west coast precisely because its programs effecitvely served no purpose other than to enable these individuals to continue to engage in the same self-destructive behavior. While thankful for the change in policy, I'm skeptical of whether they plan to make real changes at Casa Esparanza. Openly stating they don't intend to strictly enforce the policy and highlighting that drunks and abusers can still come get a free meal isn't really how you change the culture there.
On Casa Esperanza Implements New Sobriety Rules
Posted on March 15 at 1 p.m.
Sorry, but you can't just ignore (aka, "work around") the ADA "stuff". If you don't like the impact of the legislation, talk to your legislators. As for the "public space" that is the brick patio, I've never seen anyone in that space that wasn't there specifically for an event at the Lobero. As wonderful as the idea sounds, this is not a public meeting space used by the general public that will suddenly be lost by this improvement.
If the current configuration was created to accommodate floats, floral displays and spotlights, as you've opined, it is clearly no longer needed for those purposes. I appreciate the and support the desire to maintain the general characteristics of the space, but you've failed to provide any meaningful reason to oppose the current plan besides your assumptions about what Smith may or may not have proposed back then and why. Moreover, just because some of the original proposals presented back then weren't suitable for the times is no reason to mandate we be prevented from revisiting them for eternity irrespective of the reason for doing so.
On Leave It Be
Posted on March 1 at 7:12 a.m.
They have no incentive to serve the public? Are you really claiming that a non-profit entity that turned a dump into a public park without any tax dollars has not served the public? Thankfully taxpayers are no longer being asked to pay for your tennis instead of funding more important things. The self-entitlements with some of these people really is a sad commentary. Of course, SRL just joined here to specifically comment on this article so the bias is to be expected. Again, let me know when you want to start paying for my rounds of golf
On No Love on the Courts
Posted on February 28 at 6:31 p.m.
Best place in SB for tennis? Are you crazy? The buildings there are literally crumbling. They had to shut down the restroom because its a public safety hazard. Biggest misperceptions Niles continues to put out there is that just leaving this place alone was an option for the City. The City was LOSING money desipte the fact that it was run down and not being maintained. Part of the reason was because people like Niles and his friends were dodging the City monitors who came by to collect user fees. Sorry, but I personally don't see why I should have to pay more taxes so Niles can pay less on his tennis membership fees. I like to golf, any chance we can get the City to raise taxes so the municipal golf course can be even cheaper than it already is?
Posted on May 10 at 8:59 a.m.
Agree. Excellent work by the Oversight Board. Taking the $5 million away from "affordable housing" and using it to retire debt on the bonds is an excellent start.
The SB Housing Authority's definition of "affordable housing" is actually buying up properties throughout town and placing the homeless there. Those properties are then permanently removed from the property tax payroll, thus further reducing property tax revenue for the City. Those properties not only generate absolutely no future property tax revenue, but they actually decrease the values of the surrounding properties and produce absolutely no net positive economic gain. To the contrary, it has resulted in ever increasing number of vagrants and transients coming to this town. Rob and Homeless Inc. use those numbers to justify larger budgets and increased salaries for themselves.
Remember how RDA funds are supposed to be used? You clean up blight that then results in a positive net economic impact and the RDA funds are eventually recouped through higher property taxes on the increased property values. 20 years from now history will show that Rob Pearson and his management of the SB Housing Authority will have done an incredible amount of damage to Santa Barbara. His impact is the exact opposite of Pearl Chase.
On Dividing the Redevelopment Spoils
Posted on May 9 at 2:02 p.m.
I've yet to see a project Marc Chytilo isn't prepared to oppose for the right price. Thankfully his success rate seems to be pretty bad or we'd be stuck in a state of perpetual decay in this town. He's really trying to make the bull stick to the wall on this one if his argument is that the creek is just fine as is while at the same time saying any improvements would be ruined when the rest of the creek is restored. So which is it? Is the creek just fine as it is or does the whole creek need to be restored?
On Y is a Lie, Opponents Say
Posted on May 9 at 1:33 p.m.
Unfortunately Goss is right. You can go by there on any given day and there are usually anywhere from 6-12 homeless people and their shopping carts. Any improvements made to this spot will be for the sole benefit of the homeless people there until Homeless, Inc. and the SB Housing Authority stop exacerbating the homeless problem in this town. Good luck seeing that happen in our lifetime.....
On Ping Pong for Library Plaza?
Posted on October 31 at 3 p.m.
I too am a pretty informed voter and have to agree that I couldn't vote for Murillo under any circumstances. I'd rather have a split 3-3 council that would result in deadlock than have Murillo be the one casting the deciding vote. Both Murillo and her "irascible" husband (and that is putting it nicely) need to stay as far away from any position of authority as possible.
On The (Mosh) Pit and the Pendulum