Comments by LWH16
Page 1 of 2 | Next
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on May 7 at 11:27 p.m.
question: what is happening on the eastern border of the fire? Is it moving too? The focus has been on the west for the last few hours...
On Mandatory Evacuation: North of Cathedral Oaks to Patterson
3 of 7 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on February 18 at 7:38 a.m.
A simple google search reveals that Joshua Decker-Trinidad is an ex Westmont student.
Crack reporting, Independent.
After that editorial chastising all the commenters who suspected a Westmont student connection at the time, and considering the "no current Westmont students were involved" line from Beebe, it would seem prudent for you guys to check something this elementary out.
Posted on November 21 at 12:47 p.m.
azfans,
Fair question. MigraineJane's answer is more or less mine: a residential private college with lot of out-of-area students (and rules that drive certain behaviors off campus) increases the college's responsibility to provide a more thorough safety orientation. On the other hand, it is obvious from recent events that fire (and earthquake) safety education should be emphasized in ALL our schools.
BTW, if you didn't see it, on another comment page a Westmont student wrote in to say that fire safety is indeed emphasized in Westmont's orientation.
1 of 3 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 21 at 7:30 a.m.
While some posters made very regrettable and bitter comments, to be sure, and while this story is a great illustration of the importance of "innocent until proven guilty," there was nothing anti-christian nor anti-Westmont *per se* about people drawing the conclusion that the kids involved were likely to be Westmont students given the information presented by the Sheriff's dept.
Indeed, lots of Westmont supporters also drew that same conclusion. (Some of my friends in that community were very VERY relieved to discover they were wrong!)
Now that we know it's CC kids, my *new* assumption is that they're likely to be at least some kids in the group who have lived in Montecito, just because they knew about the Tea Gardens. Maybe that assumption is wrong, but it's a natural one, too. We'll see what the facts say.
As any neighbor of Westmont knows, Westmont kids certainly DO go into nearby wooded areas to smoke cigarettes or drink. This is nothing new. It's a fact of life in the neighborhood. The students also sometimes drive recklessly. They sometimes park where they shouldn't. Etc etc. It is *also* true that the students are generally kind, respectful, well meaning and good hearted. But yep, they are kids and they do stuff kids do. Indeed, I know a few neighbors who are very tolerant of the use of their land for student gatherings because they understand this.
I bring this up because the 'facts of life,' coupled with the way in which the Sheriff presented the information he released combined to create NATURAL implications and lead to natural conclusions. That was the dry tinder. The frustration and despair of watching an entire neighborhood destroyed was the match for some individuals (not all, by any means!). Yes, tempers flared and this has caused offense and hurt, but I suspect now things will calm down. It is frustration and despair, more than hate or bias, that led to the angry words.
4 of 5 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 20 at 1:18 p.m.
Agreed, the Sheriff handled it very badly. He left an information vacuum for suspicions to rush into. He should have realized that the college most proximate to the fire would be suspected, in this case unfairly.
Posted on November 20 at 9:23 a.m.
jrb
I apologize for attributing prop 8 comments to you that were not yours.
I'm perfectly happy for people to read all my comments and draw their own conclusions. Good idea.
On Westmont Says Its Students Cleared of Tea Fire Wrongdoing
0 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 20 at 8:56 a.m.
Um, I brought up prop 8 because you did -- and I used it to illustrate that persecution complexes can flow both ways.
I am not taking issue with the school, and I have not done so.
People should be able to express divergent opinions civilly without being accused of "hate" or "agenda." If any critic, however mild, of any aspect of Westmont College is labeled as having an "agenda" or hating, THAT is divisive.
You brought up my comment about the sheriff office's unfortunate, implication-ridden statement as though it's evidence of me having anti-Westmont agenda, when it was simply stating WHY some neighbors (again, not me) leapt to conclusions. That's why it is out of context.
Relax! Some of us have no agenda!
On Westmont Says Its Students Cleared of Tea Fire Wrongdoing
0 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 20 at 7:30 a.m.
jrb,
There is a wide range of sentiment about Westmont in this community. Some people are very fond of the school. Others less so.
I wouldn't say any of it corresponds to "hate"-- but there is certainly some skepticism/bitterness over past events and-- yes-- past misdeeds of the college in promoting ITS "agenda" in the community.
No entity is perfect; Westmont is no exception. Try to be a little more serene about that fact. Yes, Westmont has done good things-- but it has also stepped on toes over the years, and created resentments in the neighborhood and community. This is not something invented by unhinged neighbors, this is simple reality.
I would say that most people in our area, even those who have specific, pointed criticisms of the college, DO understand that there are wonderful aspects to the school as well. All of us in SB have friendships and associations with alumni, staff, students.
I AGREE with you that to accuse the fire-starters of being from Westmont without hard evidence was wrong. Some people went off half-cocked with only sketchy info. That's obviously very upsetting. But many others-- like me-- just raised questions ("what is the college's fire prep orientation? etc) without making any hot headed accusations or assumptions.
Westmont supporters seem to freak out if anyone questions Westmont *on any level*. This position essentially demonizes and judges those who, for any reason, look askance at Westmont-- and I think it's an immature, reductive position.
There's a huge blind spot if supporters think Westmont is so perfect that it has never 'blown it,' never offended or disregarded neighbors, never thrown its weight around over a 50 year history. Come on!
And re prop 8 (which I did not bring up but some others did): this is an institution that forbids homosexuality in its school rules. If you are gay, that is likely to be offensive. It might feel like you are 'hated' by Westmont. You might think Westmont is "against" you. I doubt Westmont hates gay people, but it could be construed that way by someone who is gay. Can't you see that? That's the flip side of the coin.
Supporters of Westmont would do well to understand that *reasonable* people can have resentments or lingering distrust based on their experiences with the school, and that DOES NOT indicate an agenda, or hatred, or any other blanket condemnation of the school as a whole. It's a complicated neighbor relationship and like any complicated relationship-- sibling, marriage-- there will be resentments and disagreements and two sides to all those stories.
On Westmont Says Its Students Cleared of Tea Fire Wrongdoing
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 19 at 10:37 p.m.
Okay, I assumed it was me you took offense to because I brought up the booze/dorm rules.
Thanks for clarifying.
On Westmont Says Its Students Cleared of Tea Fire Wrongdoing
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Previous Month
Posted on June 15 at 7:54 a.m.
Adjacent neighbors suspected that the Val Verde foundation was financially unsound and a sham/tax dodge from the beginning...
On Where Did Val Verde Estate Money Go?