Comments by at_large
Page 1 of 3 | Next
Posted on October 30 at 2:16 p.m.
How can they vote to use county funds to build a swimming pool "complex" in Cuyama? How about building one in the south county also if they're so flush, so swimming with disposable money! Buellton folk probably would also like to splash about in a publicly funded pool or pools (what is an "aquatic complex" anyway?)
Posted on October 18 at 7:16 a.m.
About time the city of Goleta gets some campaign finance reform so that this kind of anonymous hit stuff can't happen so easily.
Blois/Gilman's pooh-pooh's are not particularly believable..... They would be more believable if all candidates supported Easton's suggestion of all donations over $250 made be reported within a couple of days. Better, imo, if it were brought down to $100.
On Goleta City Council Candidates Decry Negative Ad Campaign
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on October 18 at 7:08 a.m.
I hope there is consideration in the sentencing given to his age AND especially to the possibility of rehabilitation. After all, that should be a factor in prison terms --- rehabilitation (along with punishment.)
This young punk will come out of prison a hardened con and society owes it to itself that efforts are made that he can become a productive citizen.
Btw, after all the fuss that the defense made over the photos, did they find anything of value?
Posted on October 17 at 12:54 p.m.
According to the Sierra Club, "Prop 7 ... lowers the penalty rate for utilities failing to meet renewable energy targets from 5 cents to only 1 cent per kilowatt-hour; it writes five loopholes into law for avoiding payment of penalties; it creates new regulatory problems for cities with "community choice" clean energy plans; and it requires 2/3rds of the state legislature to repair any flaw--no matter how minor."
Also opposed is the League of Conservation voters, the Democrat and Republican parties (how often do they agree on propositions!) and 17 of California newspapers, including the LAT.
See this overview in the CSM: http://features.csmonitor.com/environmen...
On Dog Is Dead
2 of 2 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on October 7 at 10:25 p.m.
So, what is happening on the 13th, next Monday, when it was originally scheduled? Nothing? Apparently so if they've already allowed "phased construction" to proceed --- without any public input.
No wonder government is considered corrupt.
No wonder, too, they're rushing ahead with this, knowing that Firestone is a lame duck and there is not much chance of having a third vote.
It's totally outrageous ... and I speak as one who is not a part of the Naples coalition and has never participated, but only live here and love the unspoiled, somewhat unspoiled, coast.
Posted on September 5 at 7:32 a.m.
(Btw, the average individual American consumption of water is 159 gallons and more than half the world's population lives on 25 gallons or 0.18 acre foot and and 0.005 acre foot.)
That's per day, I meant to add ---
In Palm Springs, for instance, the average family consumption is 1,400 gallons/day or a little more than 1.57 acre feet/year; in the UK it's about 45 gallons/day.
At 1,300 cu ft of water/month, the av. SB city household uses about 325 gallons per day or a little more than a third of an acre foot per year.
On H2Oprah
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on September 4 at 8:57 a.m.
So, Ms Winfrey used about 32.53 acre feet of water in 2007 and 19.5 acre feet in 7/07-7/08 at her property! Wow!
What's the average per household property consumption in Montecito? in Santa Barbara? in Santa Barbara County?
What was the consumption of Harold Simmons on Cold Springs Road?
Perhaps if they begin to publicize how much the greedy Montecitans use, it might help curb somewhat the appetite for lawn watering.
(Btw, the average individual American consumption of water is 159 gallons and more than half the world's population lives on 25 gallons or 0.18 acre foot and and 0.005 acre foot.)
On H2Oprah
Posted on August 14 at 8:25 a.m.
The present pain of the sight/site for sore eyes should be cleaned up by the owner. Why hasn't the County fined him for allowing the property to go so derelict, forced him to keep up the property to reasonable health standards?
If I let my property get so rundown, the city (for me), hearing from my neighbors, would be on me in a flash! Why has Caruso been allowed to have the buildings be so dilapidated?
Posted on July 24 at 8:19 a.m.
Unfortunately, there's nothing that the city of Santa Barbara does or will do that will affect the desirability of - and the zoning of - the County land along the Gaviota coast. The recently-approved 12,000+/- sq foot Ballantyne house shows that. The pending Naples development does also.
"Environmentalists" who urge the buildup and densification of Santa Barbara should keep that in mind.
Two different jurisdictions and the County wants development..... If the City does also, that is, if "the new urbanists" (not so "new", anymore, btw) do also, well, it'll be non-stop construction everywhere.
Last night's gathering was not a discussion so much as a wish list for various neighborhoods and interest groups on an outline chosen by the Planning Staff. This is a staff-driven process, for better or worse.
Page 1 of 3 | Next
Previous Month
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 13 at 2:07 p.m.
If the tenant has been there for more than a year, the owner has to give 60 days.
On Mass Evictions on Modoc Road