Page 1 of 1
Posted on January 27 at 10:25 p.m.
The Caruso Affiliated web site says:
"The Miramar is unique among California resorts as it is the only luxury hotel owning its own piece of private beach - 500 linear feet to be exact."
"Additionally, a beach bar will offer food and drinks right on the hotel’s own boardwalk, and directly on the sands of Miramar Beach. The private beachfront also allows Caruso Affiliated to host memorable events, including weddings, right on the sand. This is something no other Southern California resort can provide."
I picture everybody being forced to detour their beach walks around the resort during weddings and private beach parties. Montecito isn't the Hollister Ranch extended and enforced to the water line, keep it public - No to private beach ownership, no to private beach functions.
On Miramar Approved, but Not So Fast
Posted on April 24 at 5:37 p.m.
Keep the mega-stores out of SB, if you want to shop at megastores, go to Ventucky or Oxnard. State Street has already become a disappointment for a huge number of tourists who used to visit for the small mom and pop businesses that can no longer afford inflated rent, not to mention most residents who don't shop at those newer places anyway. I've met visitors who told me State Street is now just like the mall in their hometown - cookie cutter, same big name stores. How unique! Now an 11 acre, 160,000 square foot warehouse full of junk next to a traditional, historical looking classic Santa Barbara/Spanish style building, as if Marshalls on the corner of State and Canon Perdido wasn't Fresno enough. Maybe one day we'll see YouTube videos of Black Friday ghetto madness fights over Tickle-me-Elmo's at Target, Downtown Santa Barbara!
On Targeting Goleta Target
Posted on March 20 at 11:47 a.m.
"At Large" said - "Slip tenants should not be allowed to have a year-long storage space for a vehicle that doesn't move."
- I agree and this is the only problem, and it's not that many vehicles compared to the number of spaces. The idea to punish every slip holder for this is the wrong approach. The Harbor Patrol and Waterfront knows absolutely who those year long non-moving storage car and milk truck owners are. Perhaps the Waterfront could propose an "application" for a year long parking permit. Based on previous history, people who are obviously taking advantage of the system should get denied. The slip holders who are in accordance with the rules and not "abusing" the loophole should receive year round permits. The current proposal would be devastating mostly to liveaboards and fisherman who are the core of the Harbor community, and also to boat owners who take extended length trips multiple times per year.
This proposal if passed will cause a lot of resentment towards the Waterfront with some year round slip holders and this type of division between the two parties is unhealthy in such a small community.
The the best thing is to work together and come to a plausible agreement instead of simply cutting everybody off.
Either get revoke privileges to the obvious abusers or make year round permits application required by all slip holders.
I think that's fair, do you?
On Eliminate year-long parking passes for harbor slip-owners?
Posted on March 19 at 12:02 p.m.
None of the the people with the special permits OWN their slips. The city/Waterfront owns them and the slip holders pay monthly rent. People who live on their boats often go multiple days if not weeks without driving their cars because they are conveniently located to work, grocery stores, etc and can bike or walk. Some liveaboards work in the harbor and have very little need for daily use of their vehicles. Commercial fisherman often go for multiple days or even weeks without driving when they are out at sea for extended periods of time and they need the benefit of the slipholder parking permits.
There are a set amount of "year long" parking passes allocated only for slip holders so they have the convenience of having a place to park their vehicle while on multi-day trips or if they live aboard as noted above. Liveaboards also pay an extra fee for the extra use of facilities, which include parking, water, electricity, etc. This proposal would be like your home or apartment landlord telling you to move your car from the driveway every 3 days or pay a fine. Also, there are really only a few dozen cars at any one time that aren't regularly moving around - it's not like there's a lot full of cars that never move, not even.
If there's a concern about patrons needing extra parking in this specific lot, then why does the Waterfront sell an unlimited number of Waterfront parking passes to SBCC students? SBCC students jam up BOTH lots and make it difficult and at times impossible for harbor workers, slip holders, fishermen, beach goers and people who actually do their activities WITHIN the Harbor to find a parking spot. SBCC students should be parking at SBCC or at least restricted to the west Leadbetter beach lot which is mostly SBCC students during the week and beach goers during the weekends.
Posted on May 1 at 2:22 p.m.
Joey. You are correct about the oxygen depletion, but you are incorrect about anything being human caused, aside from the harbor being man-made. Have you SEEN the amount of fish schooling in the harbor? They are shoulder to shoulder in the hundreds of thousands and completely burning through o2.
There is not enough oxygen to support the sheer number of fish in this harbor that gets a reasonable to low amount of circulation from the ocean. There could be a bloom causing more oxygen depletion and "fueling the fire" so to speak, as someone mentioned they saw red tide spots outside the harbor, but "man" did absolutely nothing in this instance.
To the person who asked how many, there are hundreds of thousands of fish along the walkway that frontages the restaurants today and they. Take a trip down and see for yourself. It's quite a display!
On Temporary Oxygen Shortage Kills Harbor Fish