Comments by Tigershark

Page 1 of 7 | Next

Posted on January 26 at 11:44 a.m.


I have great affinity for the Miramar, but your proposal

"1. fewer rooms,
2. a smaller club
3. smaller restaurants, and
4. no beach functions

If that means that Mr. Caruso can't make be it...he won't be the first person to have to dump a project at a loss, but note that would clear the way for an economically viable, scaled down Miramar, consistent with what was there before."

just doesn't pencil out. If it did, we probably would have seen it in the last 15 years. The high land costs dictates either a large number of rooms at a lower price or a smaller number of rooms at a higher price. And if you want "5 Star" you have to convince your guests that trains running thought the property 24/7 are quiet, and not an issue.

It may be that the Miramar's window of opportunity as a hotel has passed. Might be a good location for a storage yard during 101 construction, and desal plant.

On Miramar Approved, but Not So Fast

Posted on January 9 at 1:51 p.m.

Don, would you support a tax increase to pay for you goals?

On Wake Up

Posted on January 2 at 9:12 p.m.


The Chunnel cost 12 billion. Pounds, not dollars. So about 18 billion dollars. With an 80% cost overrun. And it was privately funded. And it is a train tunnel, not a vehicle tunnel.

So it has about a much in common with a 101 bypass road as the Dodgers have in common with a championship baseball team.

On Scarlet Schneider?

Posted on January 2 at 8:18 p.m.


You are always worried about money. Do you know how much a 101 bypass will cost? How will you pay for it? And where would you route it? Ventura to Santa Ynez?

On Scarlet Schneider?

Posted on January 2 at 2:20 p.m.

Philip, Light rail will not work in SB. Not enough riders or population density. And where would you put the lines?

And while extending Metrolink from Ventura to SB and Goleta is probably a good idea, how do you get the riders from the stations to their workplaces?

Finally, do you think the people in Montecito opposing a third lane will be happy with 2 or 3 times the number of trains every day? I think they will be just as unhappy as they are now.

Second finally. Show me the money. Light rail or Metrolink will cost tons of money, maybe as much as a third lane.

On Scarlet Schneider?

Posted on January 1 at 3:44 p.m.

JJ, Like I said, one trick pony. You receive no benefits from government. Right.

On Debt Crises

Posted on January 1 at 12:54 p.m.

JJ, you are a one trick pony. Cut taxes, size of government, pensions, etc. Same answer for everything. Let's start with you. What government services or benefits that you receive are you willing to do without?

P.S. The Democrats? Seems to me that the President at the time was a Republican.

On Debt Crises

Posted on January 1 at 12:24 p.m.

Well, we could always stop cutting taxes. And we could pay for the wars we get into on a pay as you go basis, instead of kicking the can down the road.

On Debt Crises

Posted on December 18 at 9:18 p.m.


A public park with the mainline coastal train line running through it! Great idea. Especially if the number of trains increases to provide commuter or Metrolink service.

Of course, those are reasons a 5 star resort won't work there, either. "$500 a night and you can't do anything about the train?" says the customer.

On Miramar Languishes in Limbo Amid Parking Concerns

Posted on December 18 at 10:21 a.m.

Native: Because there are not enough riders in Santa Barbara. For transit rail to work you need "high density." Thems fighting words in SB!

While there are lots of good reasons to extend Metrolink to Santa Barbara and speed up the LOSAN corridor, neither will help with commuter traffic. How will you get passengers from the train station to their place of work?

On Highway Project Promises to Ruin City Traffic

Page 1 of 7 | Next

event calendar sponsored by: