Page 2 of 15
Posted on February 11 at 1:32 p.m.
To address DancingBear's concerns, the error was rooted in a simple miscommunication between the reporter and Gerli. It has been amended and noted.
On Authentic Italian Restaurant in Isla Vista
Posted on February 7 at 3:25 p.m.
that's a mistake on the byline
On Oprah Visited By Local Pipeline Protesters
Posted on January 13 at 1:17 p.m.
Sorry, the word strident was used in error. It's been changed to stalwart, which is more appropriate for Mrs. Egenolf's work.
On The S.B. Questionnaire: Judy Egenolf
Posted on December 14 at 10:40 a.m.
Oops. Sorry about misleading headline. Not sure how that happened. It's been fixed.
On UCSB Professor Surprised by North Korean Execution
Posted on September 26 at 3:57 p.m.
We don't give Foodie Awards to restaurants that are less than a year old. Maybe next year!
On The 2013 Foodie Awards
Posted on August 29 at 2:37 p.m.
To answer Botany: We publish pretty much every press release sent to us that has relevance to Santa Barbara.
On California Coastal Commission Urged to Protect Coast from Offshore Fracking
Posted on August 27 at 1:58 p.m.
This story is a press release, not a news article.
Posted on August 26 at 4:39 p.m.
Dear Thomas,Thanks for tuning into Independent.com, but you seem to have a deep reading comprehension problem, or at the very least, like your buddy Willy, a basic underlying deficiency for understanding how journalism functions.
The story above is the latest in a long series of reports that we started to publish on hydraulic fracturing a number of years ago, when we discovered that fracking had been conducted onshore near Los Alamos. Santa Barbara County quickly established strict fracking regulations, due to concerns over how potential groundwater contamination could affect farming. Those are the facts of what happened.
A July 2013 report by TruthOut.org and the Associated Press on fracking in the Santa Barbara Channel again kicked up public interest, so I have done a handful of reports since then, mostly from the perspective of the government regulators involved, though also including some information about politicians moving to regulate the practice further. These are also hard facts.
The above piece is based on what the feds told me about how fracking works offshore, based again on facts. The bias, if any, would probably be pro-oil, as they're explaining what happens offshore shouldn't be too worrisome. Maybe you missed that part?
The last paragraph is a response to that explanation from the Environmental Defense Center, which recently spoke to the California Coastal Commission on this topic. They remain convinced that, despite what BSEE is saying, there is a public interest in looking deeper at what fracking means in offshore waters. More than half of Californians agree. Again, facts.
It seems that you may be conflating comments made by the EDC as somehow being my position on the issue, or being reflective of what The Independent thinks about fracking? If so, then you are mistaken. We have not taken a position on any of this, other than the fairly standard idea that, as journalists, it is our job to inform the public about what's going on and why as best we can .
As is often the case with comments alleging "bias" and "drivel" and the like, it may be your own deep biases over this matter or over our moderately minded paper or over whatever it is that enrages you so much that is causing you to look at even coverage of this issue as circumspect.
If you are saying that we simply should ignore fracking and offshore drilling and keep the public in the dark about everything for the sake of some greater good, then I would disagree with you there. My job is to report what's known, what's not known, and what's happening so that the public can make up their own minds based on facts.
Luckily for all, our articles and the professionals who write them with their real names attached carry a bit more weight than the anonymous posters who purport to know the real facts but then aren't brave enough to use their real names. Come out from behind your veils if you are so sure of what you stand for.
On What Is Offshore Fracking?
Posted on July 25 at 1:08 p.m.
The northwestern corner of the Central Coast would be, well, Santa Cruz? There isn't really one. Lompoc is indeed the southwestern corner of both the Central Coast appellation as well as Santa Barbara County. It is certainly not the "southernmost," but it is definitely southwestern. The northwestern corner of Santa Barbara County would be Guadalupe.
On Spotlight on the Sta. Rita Hills and Lompoc Wine Ghetto
Posted on July 24 at 10:09 a.m.
Not sure why I have chosen today to insert myself in our comments section, but this is a complicated issue with no perfect answers. Keeping comments to known facts and straying from personal attacks would help out this process and, in the end, the future of Goleta Beach, though I know that's not the preferred anonymous or even public tactics.
Along those lines, BeachFan is not entirely correct in the assessment of what would happen to the beach if the ocean was just left to go wild on it.
From page two of the executive summary of the DEIR:
"Historically, it appears that this sandspit beach has fluctuated in width, with long periods of a wide beach created by sand accretion, punctuated by periods of a narrower beach caused by erosion. In this way, the dynamic nature of Goleta Beach differs from a typical blufftop or shoreline location where coastal erosion proceeds gradually and somewhat inexorably landward. At Goleta Beach, while the shoreline has been shown to fluctuate within a “coastal process zone” between a verywide beach and erosion to a historic back beach, the sandspit appears to have remained in generally the same area and configuration over time. "
Translation: the beach has always been there, as far as anyone can tell.
On Public Weighs In On Goleta Beach