Comments by Nockamixon

Previous | Page 2 of 9 | Next

Posted on November 25 at 2:39 p.m.

I am doubtful that this ice rink will serve the needs of the larger community, beyond the well-to-do who will be able to afford the fees. I don't see the working families of Goleta benefiting from this. Further, it sure seems like a large investment (ie, waste) of resources -- water and power.

If Goleta can have an ice rink to the tune of $15 million, why not a skate park, which is near the top of the list in Goleta's "Recreation Needs Assessment" surveys? I can't see a few skating plazas around town costing nearly this much.

On Ice Rink in Goleta Breaks Ground

Posted on November 6 at 7:50 a.m.

What a magnificent open space / park that land would make! There are much better uses than a golf course that would far better serve the community.

On Privatizing the Muni Links?

Posted on October 29 at 7:46 a.m.

Energy-neutral? As in, the University wishes to produce all of its own energy? Shouldn't the article read "carbon-neutral", as in it strives to release zero net carbon emissions? I think the Indy editors should re-check this.

On UC System Working to Become Energy-Neutral

Posted on October 20 at 12:07 p.m.

A few facts about UCSB and housing: In 2013-14, 38% of UCSB students were living in University housing (dorms and apartments). The total number of students was 8,443.

Compare this to 10 years ago. In 2003-04, 27% of UCSB students lived in University housing (5,580).

During this time, enrollment has increased from 20,847 to 22,225.

So while UCSB has increased its enrollment over the last decade, it has supplied housing for all of the increase, and more.

(All of this information is available online, through the UCSB Office of Budget & Planning.)

On No Vacancy in Isla Vista

Posted on October 20 at 10:03 a.m.

With so many reasonable options available to us, why waste our time with this fanciful thought exercise? Instead, let's talk about putting pedestrian/bike pathways along the creeks that currently cross the path of the 101 (e.g. San Jose Creek), or perhaps look at more pedestrian overcrossings, like Santa Barbara has done. There are feasible things that Goleta is exploring to bring together the divided community. Let's not be distracted by this folly.

On Goleta of the Future

Posted on September 23 at 10:14 a.m.

Glad to see such positive strides forward! As the roads become safer for cyclists, more people are opting to use their bicycles. I'm heartened to see our elected officials finally responding to the needs of our community. Thanks to the work of Ralph Fertig, the Bicycle Coalition, and all those who made this possible. (Would it be appropriate to name this the Ralph Fertig memorial bikeway?)

On Pedaling Safely in Our Communities

Posted on August 20 at 5:24 p.m.

What's up, Goleta!?! We need some good people to step up and put the brakes on the uncontrolled development!

On Goleta Re-Appoints Four City Councilmembers

Posted on August 14 at 11:41 a.m.

Keep Target out of Goleta! Most of the people I talk to who want a Target live in Santa Barbara or Noleta. Let them have it, so they can deal with all the associated problems with infrastructure, traffic, etc. Goleta does not need or want any more BIG BOX stores! Keep it local.

On Goleta Goes Off Target?

Posted on August 14 at 8:46 a.m.

That's really too bad. Uncontested elections don't instill much confidence that our elected officials are really the best people for the job. It would be nice to replace pro-growthers like Aceves with true leaders who are committed to the preserving the interests of Goleta and its residents, and not just blindly following the $$ of new development. The out-of-control development in Goleta and the problems that it is creating will forever alter the charm and character of the community.

On Goleta City Council Incumbents Face No Challengers

Posted on August 13 at 12:54 p.m.

This same tripe -- citing the same incorrect data -- has been published in various local sources. Since you asked, Frank, I'll let you know what I think. I think you're trying to stir up anti-bicycling sentiment, but for what purpose I do not know. Our community would be better off if more people rode bikes instead of driving. It's in our collective self-interest to promote cycling and make it safer and more convenient. There would be less pollution, less road congestion, and less cost to the tax-payers. Why do you oppose this?

On Bikes and Cars

Previous | Page 2 of 9 | Next

event calendar sponsored by: