Comments by at_large

Page 1 of 56 | Next

Posted on October 20 at 9:22 a.m.

Many excellent comments here, starting with gardengal's and continuing to John_Adams's and on, especially nomore's, "We have to begin building within the capacity of our environment. Making special case exemptions is bad public policy."

Further up the creek from this lot there is a beautiful restoration of that same creek. A similar restoration should be worked here, not least for flood control purposes. 25' is already much too little that not an inch should be seized.

Low-income anyone, not just seniors (are there really that many in SB presently without housing? J_A's question points accurately: where are the residents presently living?

On Can Creek Restoration and Affordable Housing Coexist?

Posted on October 17 at 11:01 a.m.

Agree with RHS. How can anyone who cares about education support this major tax measure that's all about construction and encouraging SBCC to increase its size!

What's needed are funds for education, usually thought to be teachers, to lower the high student-teacher ratio. What's needed is not rebuilding the Sports Pavilion and tearing down rebuilding a larger Wake "Campus". What's needed is an emphasis on locals and that is not a mega tax measure.

In combination with the No on P, this recommendation shows how out-of-touch with the needs of the south coast the once proud Independent is.

On Endorsements 2014

Posted on October 13 at 8:19 a.m.

The SBCC foreign students have been on campus since August; surely, in that time they have heard and seen the trains, noticed that there is but one track.

Yes, that bridge is scenic and maybe there should be yet another sign warning of the danger of walking, standing on the tracks, especially tracks over the arroyo from which there is no escape.

I do have sympathy for those who fall off cliffs and those who get hit by trains, but how much warnings of danger should be made and how much protection needs there be for risks that are to most self-evident?

On Train Hits and Kills One Pedestrian, Injures Two Others

Posted on October 13 at 8:11 a.m.

How about the city working with someone other than developer-architect Peikert! He bulldozes his way through citizen advisory committees, charged with upholding city policies! Surely, there is someone in the development/architectural community who has respect for city requirements?

The 50-foot setback is not just a guideline to be abandoned at will. It is, as Creeks director Cameron Benson said, the scientifically "minimum" requirement. In Santa Barbara it's a basic policy to work to restore natural waterway, which are healthy for wild creatures and humans.

And why is it that one City agency, the SB Housing Authority, shows so little respect for another city agency, the Creeks Department?

On 90-Unit Senior Project Gets Warm Embrace

Posted on October 10 at 8:30 a.m.

I say yes, too, to this panel but I object to the age discrimination, of charging anyone over the age of 18 $10 to see this film/panel discussion - therefore charging most all SBCC students.

On Capps to Talk Women in Power After Film Screening

Posted on October 9 at 4:12 p.m.

This is what’s on the ballot: - there's not one word about building housing:
“To repair, construct, acquire and seismically upgrade facilities, sites and equipment at City College, maintain access to quality, affordable education for students, including local high school graduates and returning veterans, prepare students for careers and transfer to four-year universities by upgrading academic, science, engineering, healthcare and vocational classrooms and improving technology and energy efficiency, shall Santa Barbara Community College District issue $288 million in bonds, at legal rates, requiring citizens’ oversight, audits and no money for administrators’ salaries?”

Isn’t a “specific” and “concrete” promise a violation of the elections code that promises "protection by law from deception in political campaigns":

For instance,
Elections Code section 20001
(4) The voting public is entitled to protection by law from
deception in political campaigns in the same manner and for the same reasons that it is entitled to protection from deception by advertisers of commercial products.

If in fact Ms. Gaskin DID make those promises, the Trustees should demand her resignation. (NB: Four of the Trustees have donated towards this bond measure.)

On City College's Sprawling Impact

Posted on October 9 at 3:59 p.m.

So the pres of SBCC promised the Democrats, led by Larimore-Hall, student housing. "Most of the members shifted their vote because Gaskin gave a “specific” and “concrete” statement about how Measure S funds would be used to tackle the housing crisis, according to chair Daraka Larimore-Hall."

--So, what's she telling the taxpayers who will be on the hook for this Measure S and the (nothing "specific", nothing "concrete" in the ballot measure) housing? "Oh, sorry, we forgot to add that to the ballot description." Aren't the ballot statements required to be accurate?

--And if she doesn't deliver, what then? Will Larimore-Hall's Democrats then sob, "Oh, but you promised"?

Are there new classrooms needed? Hiring teachers, having classes on Fridays would help and even having more online classes. (SBCC keeps quiet how many cheaper-for-SBCC online classes it already has.) Even during the four days it operates, there are many classrooms empty. As for how to eliminate the problems in the lower westside, cut back on the enrollment of out-of-district students. Enough is enough.

On City College's Sprawling Impact

Posted on October 7 at 9:48 p.m.

You're right, hodgmo; I should have left it at the last paragraph of my first post on this. "As for that LA cop, charge him with manslaughter. It won't bring back to life his victim, but it will set a example of punishing egregious behavior."

I also agree with billclausen on how cops protect their own. It's wrong.

On Failing to Share the Road

Posted on October 7 at 11:58 a.m.

I appreciate your point, snugspout, but the end result is what's more important than the nuisance of licensing. Carelessness (of both bicyclist and driver) and roadrage are big issues; if bicyclists were treated equally and followed the rules of the road re stop signs, for an instance, the latter would be less of an issue.

On Failing to Share the Road

Posted on October 7 at 7:15 a.m.

Agree with all the points here: bicycling is dangerous, even in Santa Barbara. It's infuriating to not use my bike to go downtown because I am afraid -- all of us regularly see cellphone usage by drivers, see careless driving, and never read of tickets given for such usage.

BUT also a big issue for drivers is the question of fairness. Bicycles need to be licensed just as visibly as are cars. The numbers of bicyclists who run red lights, who ride on sidewalks, even when there are bike lanes, are immense and this nose-thumbing, along with the 'give me three', give rise to a dangerous level of road rage.

Start by increasing the visibility of bikers by requiring all street bikes be licensed, with a license plate.

As for that LA cop, charge him with manslaughter. It won't bring back to life his victim, but it will set a example of punishing egregious behavior.

On Failing to Share the Road

Page 1 of 56 | Next

event calendar sponsored by: