Page 1 of 55
Posted on January 26 at 8:26 a.m.
Eckerman, same is true of Noleta. The difference between Noleta & IV is that IV's votes would have carried the election. The Goleta city hood folks didn't want a city with 45% in favor in Western Goleta carried by 80% in favor in Isla Vista. And the city hood folks viscerally dislike IV…
IV, of course, was subdivided in 1925, and is quite a bit older than all Goleta subdivisions outside of Old Town. Goleta only really got going when UCSB moved to Bishop mesa. The point is: 95% of Goleta residents moved in after IV and UCSB were already there, and either knew or should have known what IV & UCSB were. Indeed Goleta benefits enormously from the economic activity of IV & UCSB. It is up to the Goleta City folks to find the better angels of their nature and overcome their petty prejudices.
The attempt by the City of Goleta to seize Goleta West and its assets has poisoned all sorts of wells in IV and UCSB, particularly after the City's revenue gerrymandering with its boundaries.
The City of Goleta made its bed and now has to lie in it. A `my bad' issued by the City for the attempt of the Goleta West seizure would be a good start.
Then discussing annexation would make sense.
On The County’s Fleecing of Goleta Must End
Posted on January 25 at 12:07 p.m.
No Taco Bell, but a Habit. No more Javan's, but Chinese food is finally back. Just got to know where to look for it.
The Goleta Roundtable reports from 2000 flatly contradict you, Eckerman. The only pan-Goleta Valley polling indicated a city of Western Goleta + IV would pass. The confounding factor is Eastern Goleta; if you include them, the West + East + IV failed. But East Goleta also didn't want to be in with West Goleta, and is now Noleta. The polling definitely said West G + IV would pass at the ballot box.
It was the Goleta city hood folks who didn't want to believe the polling, and wanted to trap maximum revenue with minimum responsibility. So they grabbed where Isla Vista shops to grab to sales tax, but dumped all the Section 8, developmentally disabled, and Spanish-speaking folks in IV on the County.
The attempt to grab Goleta West Sanitary just proved it again.
Thank goodness Bob Braitman is out.
Maintain the Revenue Neutrality Agreement forever!
Posted on January 24 at 4 p.m.
Eckerman wrote ``I don't if sevendolphins ever met anybody from Goleta, but all the Goleta residents that know are pretty nice folk.''
Indeed, I met them at the hearings for the formation of Goleta city hood. When it comes to IV, they transformed from nice, pale, dull people into clenched fists and hard faces.
IV is the home of a lot of Section 8 housing and some of the only group homes for developmentally disabled. The Goletans don't give a damn if they grab all the sales tax those folks spend inside the cherry picked Goleta boundaries. Some of the Goletans said to me, `Well, we took Old Town, and enough is enough'. Fair to them is: we get the Isla Vista sales tax revenue and bed tax, and Isla Vista can just get screwed.
Isla Vista is a revenue generator that easily pays it law enforcement costs if you include all the sales tax generated by the fairly spendy students and all the bed tax generated by their visiting parents and friends. It is a myth that Isla Vista is a sink of money… parents from all over California deposit money in the students' checking accounts and they spend it here. Or they spend the State financial aid locally here.
Loads of property tax generated in IV too, per unit area just huge, few streets and services to support off that. Net, IV subsidizes the more rural portions of the County.
Don't forget the Goletans tried to seize the Goleta West Sanitary District, a very well-managed special district. It was a bald power play by the City of Goleta to steal assets of what was originally the Isla Vista Sanitary District.
Sorry, the face the Goletans show to Isla Vista is one that is hard and enraged. They are the petite bourgeoisie in Goleta.
With luck Doreen Farr will stick to her guns and do the right thing, which is keep the Revenue Neutrality in place.
Posted on January 22 at 4:50 p.m.
Uh… Goleta's boundaries purposely cherrypicked revenue generators like Costco and Bacara and Goleta Hotels.
Goleta's boundaries purposely avoided Isla Vista, full of residents who go shop at Costco and whose parents and relatives fill the Goleta hotels.
Well, Isla Vista also has a lot of poor families that Goletans hate and wanted to screw.
No way should the County ever end this revenue agreement. The County has a duty to not let Goleta abscond with all the tax revenue Isla Vista generates for them.
Giving back money to the Goleta haters of Isla Vista families is just wrong.
Oh, don't forget, Goleta tried to grab the old Isla Vista Sanitary district too, a brutal, heartless, nasty attempted theft of Isla Vista resources.
Don't let the Goleta haters win.
Posted on January 18 at 12:27 p.m.
Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown.
Writing ``(In that effort, Caltrans fully embodied the jack-booted bureaucracy of its stereotype and the photo simulations of what the project would look like — provided by Caltrans itself — were devastatingly bleak.)'' is wacko, Nick.
Real jack-booted thugs would throw you down the stairs and break your back, Nick.
On Green Light for Highway 101 Widening
Posted on January 16 at 8:30 a.m.
My main congestion problem is the hordes of Santa Barbara, Montecito, and Carp residents who throng to the Costco near Storke & Hollister. Maybe we could narrow the 101 between Goleta & Santa Barbara and bring back the Fairview/101 stoplight. And then do the widening to Ventura, so that they'll all go to the Costco down there.
On Car Chasing Dogs
Posted on July 10 at 8:59 a.m.
Harwood has pointed out something irrelevant... the only legally required lights for bike riding at night face *forward*. There is no legal requirement for rear lights.
Front lights would not have prevented this tragedy.
On the rear of the bike, only reflectors are required... Harwood makes no comment about whether or not Joshua Canning had rear reflectors.
There are no legal requirements on the color of a bike riders' clothing.
Cars are lethal to bicyclists. Most bicyclists ride in incredible fear of the carelessness of car drivers who are eating, talking on their cell phones, speeding, changing the radio channel, etc, or several of those at once.
I hope the driver's cell phone records are examined in this case; remember Eric Okerblom. I hope Officer Harwood examined the drivers' car for food, radio on, CDs, etc.
On City Worker Killed in Vehicle-Bicycle Accident
Posted on May 16 at 6:12 a.m.
fredb93117 nailed it. And widen it to 4 lanes each way, just through Montecito.
On Sleep with Dogs, Wake with Flea Powder
Posted on April 16 at 2:36 p.m.
The only thing that is obvious: he is not guilty.
He may not be innocent either, but the court/prosecutorial system has weighed in and found him not guilty.
On DA Dismisses DUI Case Against Tony Denunzio
Posted on October 4 at 2:21 p.m.
Noozhawk ain't bad, and from time to time the Daily Nexus does something.
On Baying at the Moon
This new SBMA favorite returns to perform works by American ... Read More
Previous Month | Next Month