Comments by Eckermann

Previous | Page 2 of 74 | Next

Posted on March 19 at 3:27 p.m.

This is one of those "crisis of the commons" deals. Groundwater does not sit in nice little distinct pools under each property owner's property boundaries. Consequently, if I take water from the groundwater basin beneath my property, I am at the same time draining the water from beneath my neighbor's property. There is no motivation for me to conserve my neighbor's portion but a huge motivation to pump as fast as I can (an put into to trucks and sell it to folks who have none). Until we start treating the groundwater basins as if they are a common resource owned equally by all the land owners above them (or at least proportionally to how much land an owner possesses), and then measure each well user's take from the basin to make sure he or she is not taking more than his or her fair share, this will continue to be a huge mess for lawyers to argue about and make money from.

On Well Moratorium Dead on Arrival

Posted on March 17 at 5:48 p.m.

When I was a college student (lo those many years ago) I dated a woman who lived in a teepee in Isla Vista. I had no idea that was disrespectful. I thought it was an ingenious (and courageous) way to get cheap rent. If she is reading this, I wish her well. The relationship wasn't a long one, but I remember her (and her teepee) fondly. It is funny that today of all days (St. Patrick's Day) I am wondering how some people (like those of us of Irish heritage) can get over characterizations of our ancestral culture, and others cannot. My Irish ancestors were treated with distain in this Country. In his retirement years, my great-grandfather had to repair the shoes of the rich in order to survive. The rich were not kind to him and complained about his meager fees (in the fractions of dollars). Yet I am not offended by all the green leprechaun hats and debauchery (the Irish don't black out, you wimps). Why is that?

On Tempest in a Teepee at SBCC

Posted on March 12 at 8:45 p.m.

I recently read an article in Harper's Magazine about folks (mostly people retired and living on Social Security) who live in RVs and travel around, following the seasons and some following seasonal and part time employment, and live in established RV encampments all over the United States. Apparently, there are plenty of places for RV dwellers to live in peace and even in community with other RV dwellers. For reasons of sanitation, aesthetics, and public safety it is necessary to regulate where RV encampments can be. Just as, we cannot allow folks to pitch tents in City partks, we cannot just allow folks to camp in their RVs just anywhere. RV folks should seek out the places that are set up for them. Why demand to live in a place without the infrastructure to accomodate you?

On RV Dwellers Sue City

Posted on March 2 at 8:19 p.m.

Jarvis, you are a laugh riot. As you well know, greed and all forms of selfishness are simply forms of cowardice. Greed and selfishness are born out of fear of want which is born out of fear of death. Altruism is courageous because it entails the risk of denial of reciprocity. Altruism is a leap into the dark, a drop down the face of huge wave that may engulf and slaughter you. Loon is correct that the government provided monopoly to the ISPs, and now the pigs are trying to expand their place at the trough. Sorry pigs, you already got your risk free portion. The content providers, who actually take risks should not be subject to tolls by bridge trolls (sorry for mixing my metaphors here). Monopolies are indeed not our friends, however, those who enjoy them should understand the deal that they have made with the devil and be satisfied with the risk free slop at the trough.

On Cox Condemns FCC's Net Neutrality Vote

Posted on March 2 at 10:55 a.m.

The internet service providers (ISPs) brought this on themselves. Once they saw that the content providers were making a lot of money, envy and greed took over and ISPs decided to attempt to stick their straw in that content cash milkshake. This caused the content providers and consumers to run to government for protection from the ISP attempt to set themselves up as the troll under the bridge collecting tolls from both the content providers and the consumers. Government control of the internet is not a good thing, but it was ISP greed that made this happen.

On Cox Condemns FCC's Net Neutrality Vote

Posted on March 1 at 9:57 p.m.

The other day, at Haskell's, I witnessed a petit woman retieve a small club from the trunk of her car before emarking on her walk down the path to the beach. So it has come to the state that people feel that they have to arm themselves to walk on the beach. That is sad. Dogs usually give me a wide bearth, for whatever reason, so I am not so bothered that I feel that I have to arm myself with a club to enjoy the public beach. But dog owners need to understand that the behavior of their dogs could result in severe restrictions on unleashed dogs. Control your pets people.

On City Studies New Off-Leash Areas

Posted on March 1 at 4:35 p.m.

I know that too many people would oppose the following idea for it to become reality, but here goes: IV needs to be incorporated into the City of Goleta and the City of Goleta then needs to shift to a district election system, which would give IV one solid seat on the Council and another shared with with folks a little up Storke Road. To sweeten the deal for Goleta, the revenue neutrality agreement between the County and Goleta is thown in the trash can. Without having to subsidize the County, Goleta should have plenty of money to govern Isla Vista. Isla Vista can keep it's name, like a lot of Goleta neighborhoods have (e.g., Santa Barbara Shores, Ellwood, El Encanto Heights, North Patterson, etc.). While they are at it, you could even incorporate Noleta into Goleta, thereby reducing the IV number of representatives on the Council to one and solving another wierd LAFCO mistake. That way the entire Goleta Valley would be within the City of Goleta as it should be. I know, I know, it's a pipe dream, but I think that it is the only pipe dream that makes sense.

On Isla Vista: Divide and Conquer?

Posted on February 26 at 8:28 p.m.

Ok, full discloser, I surf this spot. My selfish wish is that it not be developed and that access to it not be made any easier than it is now. So now for reality: This is private property that has pre-existing development rights. So the solution has to accomodate private property rights and the desires of the community, never an easy balance to achieve. It would be very difficult for us preservationists to come up with 50 or 60 million dollars that it would take to buy this property. The likelihood of public policy being able to stop development of this property is small. Consequently, we are going to have to accept some kind of compromise: Something like four mega-mansions with a torturous path public access or some kind of limited developement north of the Highway 101 with public park on the land south of highway 101. It would be great if the whole property (and all the Gaviota Coast) would remain undeveloped; but that is not a reality for which we can hope. Let's find a solutiion that saves most of it, perserves the open spaces, and keeps access to the surf spot open (but not too easy to access). There should be a solution, even if it allows billionaires to have a couple of mansions there.

On 'Mythical Being' Wants Naples

Posted on February 25 at 8:04 p.m.

Being the only person in the house without perfect pitch, it was odd that I was the one chosen to sing lullabys to my younger daughter at bedtime. We had a routine (it was the entire Baby's Bedtime Book from beginning to end), and then she would drift off to sleep. I knew that routine would not last (afterall I had an older daughter, so I understood the progression), but still I was sad when it ended. Both my daughters are full grown adults now (the older one with a daughter of her own). The younger one has cycled through so many stages and is now chasing a dream with all the intensity she had as a youngster. I want to sooth her. Hush a bye, don't you cry, go to sleep my little baby. When you wake there will be sweet cake, and all the pretty little horses. Blacks and bays, dapples and greys, all the pretty little horses.

On Bedtime: An Emotional Odyssey

Posted on February 24 at 9:33 p.m.

Guns were specifically invented to kill people (at the time, people in armor). Guns democratized power by making even the most lowly peasant equal to the most highly trained knight. Consequently, the Founding Fathers of the United States of America decided to institutionalize the democratization of violent power in the 2nd Amenedment to the Constitution. So now everyone (including criminals and mentally ill people) can own guns. As long as we, as a community, believe that eveyone should be able to own guns, we have to put up wiith senseless slaughter. That said, the answer to this issue is not easy. If we were to attempt to design laws to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, who then decides who is mentally ill and who is mentally healthy? Might not the government designate those they perceive as a threat to power to be mentally ill and thus shift the democratization of power that guns provide toward the government? Where exactly is the balance between public saftey and individual liberty? It is not an easy balance to attain. However, it is my firm belief that a person who has been under psychiatric medical care since childhood should not be allowed to own guns.

On Elliot Rodger Report Details Long Struggle with Mental Illness

Previous | Page 2 of 74 | Next

event calendar sponsored by: