WEATHER »

Comments by maximum

Page 1 of 47 | Next

Posted on November 15 at 11:31 p.m.

Okay, what is moshing?

On Singer Detained During UCSB Concert

Posted on November 10 at 9:57 a.m.

Another take from a Muslim woman physician on "the veil" - this is a stunning journey well worth taking: http://www.amazon.com/In-Land-Invisib...

On Wearing Hijab for Modesty in All Things

Posted on November 5 at 12:21 a.m.

Overheard at the Fess Parker Bar... "The whole country's turning red, except California. What's wrong with you people?" says the guy from Georgia. Indeed. Kudos to the No on P team... And down in flames to spendy S and a host of other bad bills. Capps only wins because students are stupid (sound familiar Doreen?). The tide is turning...

On Santa Barbara Votes: 2014 General Election

Posted on November 3 at 10:45 p.m.

@dolphinpod14 - how about we ALL get set back decades - to Reaganomics, Gingrich in the House, and REAL FREEDOM & ECONOMIC RECOVERY. That's a "lift" we could all use! Voting for ANYONE but the same old, stale old Capps/Obama disaster. Unless you LIKE seeing all those boarded up businesses on State Street and elsewhere...

On Mitchum: Not for Women

Posted on November 1 at 10:04 a.m.

Be informed, not emotional. The Chamber of Commerce drilled down on this measure - the answer is Vote NO on P. See why: http://www.santabarbaraview.com/santa...

On Measure P Is Not Flawed

Posted on November 1 at 10:02 a.m.

I'll believe the Chamber of Commerce - who attended presentations on P and studied the impacts of the measure. Their conclusion - Vote NO on P . http://www.santabarbaraview.com/santa...

On No on P

Posted on November 1 at 10 a.m.

No, they read the measure - as did the Chamber of Commerce: be informed - see: http://www.santabarbaraview.com/santa...

On Measure P: Disappointment

Posted on November 1 at 9:48 a.m.

The chamber’s position is based on:
First: The ballot measure is written in a way that is likely to mislead voters. Its title says that it is a ban on “fracking.” This is misleading for two reasons: there is no fracking in Santa Barbara County and, in addition, the ballot measure also prohibits many other forms of oil and gas extraction. A voter would have to read the entirety of the lengthy and complicated measure to understand that its impact is far greater than suggested by the title.
Second: Measure P is not necessary or appropriate. It prohibits oil and gas production techniques that have been used safely and responsibly in Santa Barbara County for many decades. There is no significant evidence that these techniques — including using steam made from undrinkable water — are likely to cause adverse environmental or health impacts.
Third: Measure P is likely to result in shutting down existing oil and gas operations in Santa Barbara County. An impartial analysis prepared by Santa Barbara County found that 100 percent of the active oil and gas wells currently use one or more of the production techniques prohibited by Measure P.
While the proponents of Measure P assert that existing oil and gas operations are not going to be closed, the ballot measure’s language does not support this claim. If the drafters of the measure intended to allow existing operations to continue, they could and should have included language clearly so stating. It is unfortunate that this major defect in the language of the ballot measure cannot be cured.
Fourth: Measure P is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the local economy. The energy industry estimates that Measure P could result in a loss of $291 million to the local economy. More than a thousand jobs — mostly well-paid, blue-collar positions — would be lost. There is a ripple effect when an industry loses so many jobs, because the newly unemployed can no longer buy groceries, pay rent, buy clothes, and otherwise contribute to the local economy.
Fifth: Measure P will have a significant impact on public services. The county’s impartial analysis found that in 2013 the county received $16.4 million in revenues from onshore oil and gas production. Of this amount, the schools received $10.2 million and fire services received $2.1 million.
Legal experts, including the county counsel, are predicting a great deal of litigation over Measure P. In addition, the county is facing substantial liability from the owners of mineral rights who have a legal right to claim that Measure P results in a “taking” of their property, thus entitling them to sue for damages. The county’s liability for damages and litigation expenses could exceed $100 million.

On What Really Matters About Measure P

Posted on November 1 at 9:42 a.m.

How many operations will be shut down before "the language is fixed." How many hundreds of thousands spent on lawsuits (that WE pay for) before "the language is fixed." How many times do voters want to vote for a "promise" only to be burned yet again. The Chamber of Commerce attended all meetings re this. Their assessment is realistic and they say NO on P. http://www.santabarbaraview.com/santa...

On What Really Matters About Measure P

Posted on October 31 at 11:44 p.m.

If you vote yes on P and for Capps don't count on a job in SB county anytime in your lifetime. For that matter, better give up your car too. Get a grip - be hip - and informed for a REAL change.

On Getting Out the Student Vote

Page 1 of 47 | Next

event calendar sponsored by: