Comments by UCCU
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on October 25 at 11:11 a.m.
I never said that all people who drive nice cars are a**holes. I understand that some people might own them for business reasons, etc. But, as Jesus said, "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the house of God." (I am a pantheist Quaker and not a religious zealot, by the way.) People who care about other people and about the environment use at least some of their time and money toward the communal good. They do not build houses directly above seal rookeries and disrupt one of the few remaining wildlife coastal areas left in southern California. They do not spend 100K on a gas-guzzling vehicle, ignoring that people are starving in the world, that our education is in shambles, and that their children will have a compromised lifestyle if they don't curve their self-centered over-consumption. The whole problem with southern California (and some other places too) is that it's too-often characterized by the mentality of "I can build wherever I want and drive whatever I want as long as I'm willing to pay for it, and scr*w anyone who interferes with my 'rights.'" People with less money -- and some of us have made choices to pursue careers that would help people rather than making us rich -- still have the right to ocean access, clean air, clean water, and a future where we're not cleaning up these people's messes. It's not that all people in southern California are like this, but too often these are the people who can purchase the most political clout. Anyone who's driven through Newport lately, where everything is perfectly manicured but fenced and gated, can see what this mentality will bring to our town if we allow it to go unchecked.
Posted on October 22 at 10:53 a.m.
Last week I parked in some metered parking at UCSB to unload some items for my advisor. Some of the things had shifted, so I had to open my back passenger side door to move them so that I could reach them from the back of the car. As I was loading things onto a cart, a woman came up behind me and said, "Excuse me," in a very irritated tone. I realized that my passenger side door was still open, and figured I must be in her way, so I quickly went to shut it. She still looked irritated, so I said, "I'm sorry, I'd forgotten my car door was open." As I continued to load the cart, she began examining where my car door had *touched* her spotless Lexus/Mercedes/luxury sedan thing. Then she said, "You F---ed up my car." This was patently ridiculous, so I said calmly, "No, I did not F--- up your car." She said, "Yes you did. It's brand new." I mumbled, "Well, if you're ever planning on parking it. . ." She said "I would expect you to at least be civilized." I explained that I was trying to be, and that a simple "please" and "thank you" (not to mention not cussing people out) wouldn't hurt for her either. This was lost on her. She glared at me and then nearly careened into the bike path when she was trying to exit the parking lot.
I am SO looking forward to more people like this moving into town once the Naples houses get built. It's really a travesty that we currently have such a mansion shortage in this town. This town is also currently lacking all the "culture" that the residents of mansions like this would provide.
0 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on October 13 at 12:50 p.m.
I didn't see anything about illegal immigrants in the article. Let's keep our discussion on the topic and not bring in spurious and racist hot-button issues.
2 of 2 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on October 8 at 2:01 p.m.
Let's be clear: "Entitlement" is wanting to build a dwelling for one's personal use on one of the last remaining undeveloped coastal areas and seal rookeries on the southern California Coast. Fighting to preserve those areas, even thought doing so would have no direct personal benefit, is the opposite of entitlement. Surfrider and other people fighting to "preserve" Naples mainly would like Osgood to build his houses on the north side of the freeway, or at the very least on the north side of the railroad tracks. This would allow Osgood to make money developing his property, but would leave the bluffs, which are too unsafe and erosion-prone to build on anyway, as preserved habitat for other species. I guess I've always been brought up to believe that we aren't "entitled" to use our property in ways that hurt others, and that we aren't "entitled" to pave over and withdraw from the earth until it collapses.
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on September 1 at 9:47 a.m.
I was surprised by the commenters who felt that this demonstrates the risks of cycling or running in the bike lane of a road. To me this tragedy all too starkly demonstrates the risks of unsafe driving practices. If people took responsibility for the one (or more) ton vehicles they drove, cyclists and pedestrians would be able to use the roads they help pay for without risk.
In any case, it seems crass that some people have twisted a pointless loss of someone's life into yet another rant against cyclists and pedestrians.
2 of 2 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on August 28 at 11:07 p.m.
I agree with sevendolphins. People who propose drilling are not thinking in terms of fiscal responsibility or military strategy, which ironic since many proponents of drilling seem to claim to be Republicans, and these used to be core Republican values. If we drill now, we won't have our reserves in the event of a war or an embargo from the middle east oil cartels.
And anyway, our coastlines already have more than enough drilling platforms. The safest option in terms of public safety and environmental health would be for oil companies to focus on maintaining the platforms they have. The companies could also use slant drilling techniques to access oil using the platforms they already have.
Posted on July 18 at 11:20 a.m.
I hope the Gaviota Coast Conservancy considers filing a legal appeal. How much compassion are we supposed to have for someone who clearly has no compassion for the communities he lives and does business in?
And we all need to step up in the next board of supervisors elections to get these short-sited and most likely corrupt council members as far away as possible from public decision-making.
Posted on July 12 at 10:19 a.m.
It seems to me that this property would be ideal for condos and apartments, given that it is within city limits, is near transportation corridors such as the 101, and given that it doesn't seem to have the water rights for farming. This would be a much more ideal tract of land to develop for housing than the Naples site.
The cities of Goleta and Santa Barbara need to address the issues of housing for their residents, the question is only where they should zone housing developments, and what types of housing they should zone. We already have plenty of housing for those who can afford to pay a million, or even millions, for their homes. What we don't have are denser, more affordable dwellings such as townhomes, apartments, or condos, that working residents could afford, and that have a smaller ecological footprint than a McMansion. We also don't need more sprawl up the freeway -- we need residences that can access public transportation, bike routes, or that at least won't bring high auto commuting costs. I've often wondered why properties such as Bishop Ranch lie vacant, even while people discuss developing the coast.
Posted on July 3 at 9:39 p.m.
Dear Newbee,
Growth is NOT inevitable. Many people in this country, and in other cultures, know how to live sustainably. There is no edict or axiom that states that the population needs to grow -- people could choose to have 2 children and the population would not (Google Zero Population Growth to find more on this). Similarly, it says nothing in the Bible, Constitution, or any other source of "truth" that people need to have houses larger than their parents' and neighbors', or buy larger cars, or consume more gas driving from a distant development into a city. Population growth and consumer growth is a choice, and I have been brought up to understand that people must be responsible for their choices. Given that we are all seeing what happens to houses in the hills and in dry grasslands, we must all question the responsibility of building more houses in such locations.
P.S. I'm not sure how rc251 defines "reason," but this argument has both a sound premise (i.e. houses in the hills and in open space are at increased risk of burning) and sound conclusion (i.e. therefore we should avoid building more of them). This is the way that logic (and its related concept "reason") are generally defined.
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Previous Month
Posted on November 3 at 3:37 p.m.
Why not just add a tax surcharge to all residential addresses in IV? That way city services will be funded for them and they can have their fun.
On Big Crowds Descend Upon I.V.