Page 1 of 92
Posted on May 16 at 6:40 a.m.
"Wiley stressed repeatedly the inclusion of John Does was an inconsequential legal formality common to all civil filings and that he had absolutely no intention of amending the list of the individuals named. As a matter of practice, he said, the Does would be eliminated from the filing once the injunction trial starts."
ALL THIS TIME AND MONEY FOR ONLY THE 30 NAMED PERSONS, half or more of whom already are incarcerated.Ending this boondoggle would almost pay for the pensions problem itself.
On Heated Debate Over Gang Injunction
Posted on May 9 at 1:21 p.m.
No, surging italian, those are her highly abridged qualifications when distilled down to a single sentence by a haggard news writer on a tight deadline.
When next year she is sitting in the chair currently occupied by Frank Hotchkiss, you can have another nice day then.
On Dem Committee Announces Council Race Endorsements
Posted on May 9 at 1:18 p.m.
Was the invader along that Goleta creek really bamboo or was it arundo, its graminoid-bambusoid tribe cousin?
Posted on May 9 at 1:12 p.m.
Revenue: raise taxes on the EXISTING oil and gas extraction industries in the county. Done.
On Adam Tries, Fails to Shrink Energy Division
Posted on May 2 at 12:17 p.m.
This is all very critical for those people who toss raw, moist, loose meat in their cloth bags.
For the rest of us, not so much.
On What's the Harm?
Posted on April 26 at 8:14 a.m.
Gregg Hart, dude, you gotta STOP --NOW-- commenting in public and on record about anything to do with city of Santa Barbara stuff. Just write the comments for the SBCAG bosses and keep out of the fray, and out of the room, if you want any chance of getting elected to the city council this year.
On Playing Chicken with Freeway Widening
Posted on April 26 at 8:07 a.m.
We look forward to this open discussion, at last, at city council so everyone can learn that their favorite local zoning violations are not getting resolved or enforced against because the city attorneys are chasing their tail down the fiscal black hole of their attempted gang injunction here.
Too many illegal garage conversions in your neighborhood?Too many commercial cars stored on your streets?Too many junk strewn properties?Or negligent slumlords?Too many commercial lodging houses under the guise of residential homes?Too many barking dogs?
These and more are not getting fixed because the city has spent more than a million dollars on an injunction that would target only about 10 people who are not already in prison.
Give the Mayor and Council member Bendy a way to save face so they can reverse their bad decision they feel they cannot get out of.
On City Council Finally Addressing Gang Injunction
Posted on April 25 at 9:58 p.m.
I am curious why some people advocate for candidates who seem not to stand for anything nor want to do anything specific if elected.
Just a tip: being backed by Westby and Francisco is partisan, but they just will not admit which political party principles they are.
Clearly they are assembling a slate for Wiscomb to prop up Hotchkiss.
On And They're Off
Posted on April 25 at 2:57 p.m.
How much money, and spent on what?
No at the city is disclosing those facts nor remotely thinking of the costs versus benefits.
Posted on April 25 at 7:58 a.m.
How much money is this attempted injunction costing the city treasury, what is the benefit (if any but political cover), and what else could have been accomplished instead with all that city attorney and police time expended here?
Follow the money.
Previous Month | Next Month