Page 2 of 73
Posted on January 14 at 6:06 p.m.
How awful for his family and loved ones to start out the New Year having lost him...and so young, too :-(
I ordinarily don't feed trolls as a rule, I have a busy life and rewarding bad behavior with any attention is not productive on any level, but I just can't let the snarky donut comment go.
What a breathtakingly thoughtless, cruel remark to make about another human being and his passing, because you dislike his profession. Had you ever met him? Did he do something to you to deserve that comment? On what planet is it funny to joke about someone's death, particularly in a venue where his family is almost guaranteed to read it?
How would you feel if it was your family reading this about you? Or did it not occur to you while you were being nasty that someone might be badly hurt by that remark?
It's one thing for all of us to have a go at each other here in this forum, but to attack someone who is unable to defend himself is a new low.
On UCSB Police Officer Dies
Posted on January 7 at 8:25 p.m.
OK, I need to make sure I'm understanding this dust-up correctly:
It is OK to call homeless residents of an area "transients", a dehumanizing term that is rarely even close to accurate, as the actual transients in a city (particularly a tourist trap like SB) are in fact, the tourists who stay a few days as visitors, then leave. Homeless people are homeless. They are people without houses. One of my personal favorites is the print media (and of course, KEYT) covering stories with comments such as: "Joe Doe, a longtime, well-known local transient...".
Now, according to this latest situation, we are being scolded and told that it is NOT OK to refer to people who are illegally in this country as "illegal", or "illegal aliens"....despite the fact that they are...yep...here illegally.
We must instead create a politically correct, vetted, approved set of descriptions to add to our current NewSpeak, and those are the terms we must use instead. If we DON'T use them, then we will be forced by people who will assemble in mobs to make sure we use only the language they demand be useD. "Undocumented workers" and "undocumented immigrants" are the approved terms.
So, we must do as we are told, and not use descriptions which are accurate....while continuing to use descriptions which are NOT accurate.
It all boils down to who has the most politically powerful lobby...and it ain't homeless people.
Things that make me go "hmmmm?"
On Protest Planned over <em>News-Press</em> Headline
Posted on January 7 at 8:10 p.m.
I think smoking is disgusting...can't stand the smell of it.
That said, this is going to have the unwelcome consequence of driving the head count down in these institutions, as people who are addicted to tobacco will just find other places to sleep. If there aren't enough cattle in the pen, then the execs running these places are going to have a hard time justifying their fat paychecks to their funding sources and (OMG!) they may well find themselves in the real world trying to find a job.
I've always found it fascinating that it is OK to drink as long as it's wine and it's expensive, and it's OK to smoke if it's cigars or a hookah and is done in a pricey smoking lounge...but if you are poor and homeless, then you're just a wino and a smoker who needs to be curtailed and criminalized.
The person who can afford to be a drunk or a smoker is an aficionado, a connoisseur, one of the cognoscente. The person who can't afford to engage in their addictions in high-priced commercial facilities or a private home is just a drunk or a rude smoker to be criminalized and vilified.
Make no mistake; I detest drunks and the stench of smoking. My curiosity boils down to WHY these practices are OK for people with money & status (and those who pretend to have money and status), but are offensive when practiced by those who have neither?
More things to make one go "hmmmm??"
On Homeless Shelters Go Tobacco-Free
Posted on December 31 at 6:16 p.m.
So, anyone who doesn't want to live in a concrete jungle amid choking traffic and throngs of tourists is a "snob", then?
On Feds Approve Chumash Camp 4 Plans
Posted on December 31 at 5:36 p.m.
And everyone is surprised because.....? Was it ever REALLY in question that this would be approved?
I lived in the SYV for a bit over 7 years and saw how things work there. You do not say no to the bicycle gang, the wine mafia, the tourist industry, or King Vincent Armenta and his interests. The residents live there only to serve these interests, fork over their taxes, huddle in their houses (because the choking vehicle, bike and pedestrian traffic is so bad that you can't GET anywhere), sit down and shut up.
If you say anything, then you are a racist, anti-progress, and not part of the team. The bike races shut people in their homes and anyone who objects is laughed at and told to "become a course marshal and participate!". Objecting to the fact that the wine industry pretty much owns the entire Valley will net you a "Lighten up and raise a glass!" response. Any objection to Armenta's interests garners a comment along the lines of: "Get over it. They were here first and you're just a racist pig. Shut up and hand over your money."
When our family moved to the SYV from Santa Babylon, the area was pretty peaceful, with minimal tourism. I had the misfortune of having to go to Solvang to run an errand and it took me 15 minutes to get through town, and when I arrived at my destination, I couldn't get into the parking lot from either direction. I counted 21 Greyhound sized tour buses, idling and belching diesel smoke, jammed into the lot behind the Post Office/Tower Pizza, including double-parked in the driveway.
Evidently, this is what they want over there; more tourists, more gambling, more booze, more traffic, bikes and pedestrians pouring off the sidewalks in waves. And they are welcome to it.
The tourist infestation is ultimately at the root of all of the area's problems., as it is in SB; when an area sacrifices everything it has on the altar of tourism, it's inevitable that quality of life is sacrificed as well.
Posted on December 10 at 4:19 p.m.
What about everybody else? Or do adults not have any need for eyecare?
On Free Eye Exam and Glasses for Kids
Posted on November 23 at 9:11 p.m.
"These RV dwellers make a mockery of the zoning laws and building codes. How is it that you can't do a thing to your house without a jumping through a ton of city mandated hoops and pay a ransom of fees..."
And this is EXACTLY why people who were fortunate enough to manage somehow (by the skin of their teeth in most cases), to get into housing, hate homeless people.
There it is, the root of the hatred...and who can blame people for being resentful and hateful? They struggle and live like rats crammed into slum housing, paying insane amounts of money to one of SB's many slumlords, and someone else dares to live on the same street in an RV, with space all their own inside of it.
No landlords, no permits needed for any of the myriad things that SB has figured out a way to squeeze money from folks for. How DARE someone escape the iron clutches of the city and its myriad permit requirements!
It doesn't help that most working stiffs in SB are all running frantically like rats on a wheel going nowhere, barely existing from paycheck to paycheck, knowing subliminally that at any second, the entire house of cards could (and probably will) come crashing down around their ears.
If they don't keep all the bedrooms and the garage filled with roommates, if someone loses their job, gets sick, or some other life catastrophe occurs, here comes the eviction notice. If they get far enough behind the 8-ball, they find themselves parked right behind the guy they hated so much 6 months before, still working that dead-end service job, now a refugee in their own hometown, being told to "move on if you can't afford it here!"
Oh and in case anyone doesn't realize this: RVs have toilets and there are dump facilities all over town. People who live in RV's don't pee and poop in the bushes; that would be the Lower State Street drunken college kids and tourists staggering from bar to bar who do that. Just ask anyone who is unfortunate enough to live down there.
As for the assumption that all people living in RV's are child molesters; I hope someone decides to lawyer up and sue for slander. What an ugly, vile thing to accuse someone of...and why...because they are poor? Right then: all poor people are child molesters! When all else fails, play the child molester card.
On RV Ordinance Revision Hits the Skids
Posted on November 21 at 5:38 p.m.
People without extra income to spend are a fact of life, especially in overcrowded and expensive SB, that's not new. The only difference is that these folks are no longer at the mercy of SB's slumlords & trapped in the endless, pointless cycle of renting. Those who own homes usually feel they have more of a stake in the area where they reside.
My objection is that Habitat is primarily about people with children. Single, senior, disabled etc., and don't have kids? Too bad. Like so many other programs, adults must be accompanied by children in order to qualify.
EVERYBODY deserves a shot at seeing some positive feedback & stability result from the fruits of their labors.
I imagine there is going to be pushback from folks who also work hard & DON'T get a crack at home ownership, and $2000.00 Tempur-pedic beds.
I spent decades working two and three jobs, 6 and sometimes 7 days per week including days for a local nonprofit (the guys at the top profited plenty, the employees were kept at part-time and pretty much nonprofit!), weekend graveyards at a residential retirement hotel downtown. Hard work notwithstanding, I never managed to get out of the rent trap at best and living in a camper at worst. Finally I woke up and realized that people like me are not welcome in SB on any level except as service for those who are financially better-off. I managed to escape nearly 10 years ago and have never missed that lifestyle of racing on the wheel to nowhere.
So I get it that there is going to be a LOT of resentment that there are a few favored folks (IE, people with kids) who catch the breaks, including this path to home ownership...while everyone else keeps struggling and mostly getting nowhere on that hamster wheel. I get it that there will also be anger on the part of the "haves" who feel that the "have-nots" should just shut up and be grateful they are allowed to breathe Santa Barbara air at all, and to stop expecting to have a stake in the city they work so hard in. It is ever thus.
For me, the answer was to get out, and now I'm a homeowner with a modest income who can afford to live a life free of that constant stress and struggle.For me and my family, THAT is paradise...not working 60+ hours a week at part-time jobs with no benefits just so I can stay in SB where I had lived since my parents brought our family there when I was a kid.
So if Habitat is providing a path to home ownership for hard working people, GREAT. I'd just like to see the opportunity extended to everyone, not just people with children.
On Beacons of Home
Posted on November 16 at 12:23 p.m.
It makes me wonder if all this noise and splashing around by the usual suspects (H-B J, Das, ad nauseum) isn't a combination of A: Justifying their overpaid cushy jobs and B: redirecting attention from Useless-B's policy of cramming in thousands more students that the are can handle? Just a thought.
As billclausen mentioned, isn't it ALREADY illegal to assault and rape people? Why isn't existing law being enforced? If existing law isn't being enforced, how are more layers of laws going to magically change this situation?
On Talking Sexual Assault at UCSB
Posted on November 14 at 1:57 p.m.
Bicyclists don't obey the law? NO! REALLY?
On Bike Sting Snags Drivers, Riders