Page 2 of 9
Posted on February 5 at 5:29 p.m.
BTW You should identify yourself, that is "Andrew Rice, family spokesman" to one of the plaintiffs.
You may win this, and you will probably end up with some town homes, a public park, and a Motel 6 on the property. A Pyrrhic victory.
On Caruso and Neighbors Make Strange Bedfellows
Posted on February 4 at 9:48 p.m.
I said nothing about the Miramar not being required to provide parking. It just seems that some of the neighbors, who bought homes with no parking next to a hotel/hotel site seem to want guaranteed street parking.
Posted on February 2 at 12:48 p.m.
Humprey? It isn't even adjacent to the Miramar site. But you didn't answer the question. Does property owner have a guaranteed right to on street parking?
Posted on February 2 at 11:36 a.m.
JJ, Why should we kowtow to people who bought a vacation home with no parking? Do they have a guaranteed right to on street parking?
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 club3. smaller restaurants, and4. no beach functions
If that means that Mr. Caruso can't make money...so 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?
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.
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