Comments by ramey

Page 1 of 4 | Next

Posted on August 27 at 9:35 p.m.

just have to say: I love riding my bike in SB and do it almost every day from my home - that's a 10 mile round trip. Funny part is that door to door - it takes about the same amount of time as driving my car, finding parking and walking to the destination.

I'm guessing that the same traffic which makes riding worthwhile also intimidates a lot of people. So it's not impossible that more bike lanes would encourage more people to ride. Better bike racks would help too! I doubt that more bike lanes would make traffic any worse.

On Bikes and Cars

Posted on January 22 at 11:08 a.m.

Great idea!

Doesn't need any new infrastructure. Just ask people who think this is a great idea to just make a donation of 1 % of what they spend every month. If you think it's a good idea - just start doing it!

On One-Percent Homeless Solution

Posted on January 16 at 10:12 a.m.

everyone who lives here, regardless of means, makes a sacrifice to do so. That is one reason we have a population which is likely more civic minded that other places.

Subsidizing housing here won't lead to more affordability except for a select few. To the extent is successful, it just draws more people in and makes the "problem" worse for every one else.

"Commuters do not contribute to the local economy, as the money they earn in the local workplace is spent in the community where they live."

This is actually offensive. Every person voluntarily paid for the services he (or she) renders contributes to the economy by definition.

Promoters of public housing complain about the difficulty of competing with buyers with actual money. The recent 54 unit complex of small apartments at Bath an Haley cost $13M which works out to be $225,000 (not including the land) for each small studio apartment! The promoters of public housing, though well intentioned, serve neither the taxpayer nor society in general.

I've avoided mentioning the recurrent scandals in this area in the interest of brevity.

On Affordable Housing's Prospects

Posted on January 10 at 10:05 a.m.

I ride all the time.

I didn't like the helmet. But an over the falls experience in the back country convinced me the idea had merit. It has had one good benefit. Without the the helmet I get a scab created by the sun right in the spot where my hair (yes I still have some!) parts. Hey - it beats putting sunscreen on your scalp.

Really - it's not really that bad once you get a used to it. There's really no downside to it. I also recommend polycarbonate sunglasses to keep bugs and tree branches out of your eyes (of course the sun as well) and helmet with a "bill" on it to keep the sun out of one's eyes.

There is nothing like getting on the bike on a beautiful day, riding downtown past the cars stuck at stop lights or looking for parking spaces, locking the bike in front of the granada (lock the helmet too), going to the free lunch time opera recital, going for cheap lunch at Nortons ($8.00) or the taco stand near haiely and garden ($3.50 !!!!). Another s--tty day in paradise!

On How Now, Bow-Wow?

Posted on December 23 at 10:56 a.m.

hmmm - I'm hoping none of the commentators here own any weapons.

On Dog Got Your Tongue?

Posted on November 15 at 10:04 a.m.

Hmmm - doing math:

$13,800,000 / 54 units = $255,000 / unit

each unit is approx 400 sq ft

so cost / sq ft is ,,,

$255,000 / 400 = $638 / sq ft.

Is this right? Does it really cost $638/sq ft to build a high density apartment in santa barbara?

Perhaps the 13.8 million included the purchase of the land - how much was that out of the total. Or maybe not.

Perhaps the Indy staff would like to clarify the facts here?

Robert Ramey

On New Affordable Housing Complex Opens

Posted on October 27 at 12:01 p.m.

Given that this is such a great investment, can we stop using tax payer's money to subsidize this now?

On Going Solar

Posted on October 15 at 8:43 a.m.

To any highway patrol officer who tickets any idiot driving greater than 55 mph on Highway 154.

Thank you.

On Doing 70 on the 154

Posted on October 2 at 10:03 a.m.

"Roseanne Barr and Cindy Sheehan, Gary Johnston and his running mate are just two examples of what the writer is referring to."

Hmmm - I don't think he referred to anyone specifically. I'm not sure you can speak for him - but maybe you're him - I don't know. But it was a rhetorical question in any case.

"I think Ramey possibly meant that we haven't seen a 3rd party candidate"

OK - here is what I meant.

We have a huge diversity of opinion in this country. There is no way that we're going to really agree. The best anyone can hope for is to muddle through and get to some sort of compromise that pleases no one and a majority can only barely stand. The process of picking our government strongly reflects this.

This is the same process which has given a number of participants their say and exposed them to voters and shown them to be grossly unprepared, representing the thinnest slice public opinion, or unsuited to this role. Think Al Sharpeton, Ron Paul, or anyone you like or don't like.

Now the process has narrowed it down to two individuals who are, at best, everyone's second choice. And the carping begins: we don't like the candidates, they don't represent our views, they don't tell us the truth, etc., etc., etc. - Get over it. If you don't like this, consider all the well intended alternatives suggested here - Rosanne Barr, George Carlin, etc. etc. How many of you would be happy with any of those? Actually, considering all the sacrifices that one has to make to be a politician, I think we get a lot better than we deserve - and I don't even like these people.

Robert Ramey

On So-Called Debates

Posted on September 30 at 9:42 a.m.

"No other viable candidates will be allowed"

Which other viable candidates are you referring to?

On So-Called Debates

Page 1 of 4 | Next

event calendar sponsored by: