Page 2 of 14
Posted on November 16 at 11:21 a.m.
Under the proposed EBID plan - and it's still just a proposal that depends on community buy-in to move forward - control rests with the licensed businesses that would be impacted by the annual fee. That ranges from a couple hundred bucks to about $750 tops for the handful of big operations. Members would select boards and committees from among themselves to set priorities. True, the big businesses would get two votes, whereas the smaller entrepreneurs only one. So, for example, it would take two one-man auto repair shops to tie the Fess Parker, three to out-vote - assuming they even disagreed on something. It's actually a very democratic approach.
Many of the little Milpas merchants struggle to hang on as the city evolves. Some don't even have Internet access. Yet they are the traditional heart and soul of the area; many live and work in the neighborhood. The BID is a chance for them to pull together to get promotion they need, marketing assistance, learning opportunities, and neighborhood services like sidewalk cleaning and holiday decorations that the city doesn't provide, even to purchase the liability insurance the city requires for events that pull in customers.
If the existing businesses are strong, Milpas has a better chance of maintaining its character and holding off dreaded cookie-cutter "gentrification" because shops and restaurants in good shape can hold on, new local businesses can afford to start up, and landlords of those which don't own their spaces might feel less pressure to sell out if the existing tenants are prospering. Yes, there's a risk: raising the profile and becoming more attractive makes for a development target, more visitors, and even incursions by that dreaded species, the cruise ship passenger. But what's the choice? Stagnation? Leaving the future up to outsiders? An Eastside BID will give the neighborhood a stronger voice and a way to proactively manage some of those inevitable changes from within. Milpas can continue to be Milpas.
On Doubling Down on Milpas Street
Posted on November 15 at 11:28 a.m.
Small correction: Denton, TX, considers itself in North Central Texas, not West Texas. As apex of "the golden triangle" - Dallas, Ft. Worth, and Denton - it is where I35 splits into east and west branches to pass through the D/FW Metroplex, then reconnects south at Hillsboro. It does sit on the edge of the Barnett Shale where there has been historic dry gas production, as well as underground high pressure gas storage for winter use located just east of town. There has been some limited oil production in the county which increases as you go west.
The fear is that dirty and destabilizing enhanced extraction operations will be imposed to wring oil out of the shale which has thus far surrendered gas benignly. Recent unprecedented earthquakes in adjacent Tarrant and Parker counties where fracking has been expanded have raised alarm bells, along with water quality concerns from high pressure injection wells. However, as we've seen, the "awl bidness" tends to get its way and will spend whatever it takes to do so because oil knows it has the U.S. addicted.
Denton, which began as a farming and and then university town, is not the home hydraulic fracturing. Fracking was first tried in Kansas (other explosive means had been attempted in the 19th century), then developed further in Stephens County, OK, home of Halliburton which built a huge business around the technologies from the late forties on. (Oklahoma is also experiencing very unusual earthquake activity where fracking has been widespread.) However, there was early experimentation in Archer County, TX, which is only two counties west and north of Denton and on the same formation.
On Don't Frack with Denton, Texas
Posted on October 16 at 2:56 p.m.
An "anti-fracking and high-intensity extraction initiative" - the Indy's heading on the analysis that ultimately surrenders environmental principles to petro-intimidation and fear mongering in the name of governance - is not the same as the headline on this story: "...to Stop Drilling Ban". Drilling ban? How many ads did the oil companies have to buy to get that one? Way to go with accurate, courageous, hard-hitting journalism, folks.
On Two Cents and More with Measure P
Posted on October 16 at 9:50 a.m.
Where are the carpenters union's sign holders when we actually need them? "Shame on San Ysidro Ranch" and other estate-owning fat cats who just eat fines as a cost of making sure they and VIP guests have a nice verdant view, even if it damages the commons. Irresponsible neighbors.
On Turning Whine into Water
Posted on October 16 at 8:48 a.m.
The more petro-dollar propaganda gets pumped out to defeat the measure, the more resounding the YES on P to protect limited Santa Barbara County water supplies for the future.
Posted on October 12 at 12:03 p.m.
The opponents of (the admittedly poorly crafted) Measure P, mostly the big oil industry and those who stand to benefit directly and immediately by poking a few thousand more holes and blowing high pressure steam through the north county aquifers, want us all to join them at the Chumash Casino for a big gambling party. They say, "Trust us...we understand the risks, our sophisticated technologies can manage them, and the windfall benefits of massive expansion outweigh it all. Let us buy you off. Besides, 1969 was long ago. We've got it covered,"
The public safety unions shamefully tossed their threat-to-your-safety card in the pot to hang onto benefits. The construction trades like the SRCC carpenters want their cut of building new facilities: "Shame on Measure P". The opponents have already tried to bully the county and the voters with threats of endless lawsuits along with claims that Measure P would curtail existing operations, which almost any reading, much less legal interpretation, indicates it could not.
Honestly, why should we trust the well-funded opponents more than the people who want to mitigate the risks and take a more conservative course? Developers always want to gamble the future so they can make big bucks doing what they want to now. Does it really make sense to risk the aquifers and mess up more ground to pump a little more oil here when Texas, the Dakotas, and the filthy Canadian oil sands operations are already going crazy and fouling the atmosphere? Do we have the right to play our children's cards for them and burn their resources? The tar isn't going anywhere.
Despite its linguistic flaws, implementing Measure P to put the brakes on fracking and free-for-all expansion of more high intensity extraction methods like steam and acid makes more sense than gambling on the honorable intentions of big oil to put the long-term health of Santa Barbara County ahead of their shareholders' profits. It will be complicated to work out, and probably mean some litigation; but it's time for the people to think through resource management rather than leaving it in the hands of a few self-interested operators who talk big and leave a mess behind, and out of sight.
On Dodging Measure P Oil Slicks
Posted on October 10 at 4:19 p.m.
Thanks to both of these supervisors who put the long term well-being of the county that today's children and grandchildren will inherit - aquifers, healthy environment - ahead of windfall profits the oil companies want to reap today. If it's desperately needed later, the oil won't go away and future technologies should be less harmful.
People under stress rarely accept that just because industry can do something doesn't mean it should, and Santa Barbara county is under stress. Deniers of climate change and deniers that fracking, steam injection, and acidizing for oil production are risky and ecologically destructive live in the same place - denial. No wonder the opposition has spent so much trying to hoodwink the voters into joining them using scare tactics and threats. If the "Shame On..." Carpenters Union is against it, that alone is grounds for a YES vote - on a banner.
On Wolf and Carbajal Endorse Measure P
Posted on October 9 at 12:09 p.m.
Before asking the voters for big money, SBCC needs to acknowledge the problems its growth-oriented "y'all come" approach has already caused in the neighborhood of the main campus and in I.V. Then detail a plan to fix things and act on it; show some results. Studies and task forces aren't enough; give them two years to help restore the level of civilization that the permanent residents of S.B. and I.V. deserve. Catering too much to transients - whether students, bums, or tourists - is a mistake. And frankly, a political endorsement by the current leadership of the Democratic party only reinforces an emphatic NO - not yet - vote, just like the high dollar propagandizing by oil companies against Measure P suggests a YES on that one.
On City College's Sprawling Impact
Posted on October 7 at 10:51 a.m.
Good piece. The ambitious SBCC leaders seem to envision SBWC - Santa Barbara World College. SBCC is already over-inflated, and the influx of more out of town-county-state-country students with near 0% interest in Santa Barbara, and who see the town as little more that a drunken playground for their entertainment is a serious problem. Before asking for more funding, SBCC needs to show they recognize the concerns and explain how they intend to address them. While school administrators might say that "in loco parentis" is long dead and deny responsibility for students, voters can tell them otherwise - that they do have a role in the off-campus behavior of the people participating in their programs. So long as the neighbors are miserable and I.V. is such a mess, no on Measure S.
On Don't Reward the Wayward College
Posted on October 6 at 10:26 a.m.
We attended the East Side meeting and found Ms. Johnson's presentation very informative. Behind Santa Barbara's sparkly veneer there's a lot of crumbling going on. Upkeep on some facilities hasn't been great, and some has been downright negligent. The design of others (like the police HQ) are substandard and dangerous. Streets are cracked; sidewalks are choppy. For a beach town, our beachfront services are sorely lacking. On and on.Jerry Brown's state government took away redevelopment funds that had been earmarked for local repairs to balance the books in Sacramento. That was a big hit. The council is now asking for input on how to prioritize what we can do without those funds - what to replace, what to repair, and what to defer for later. Mayor Schneider and Councilman Rowse were at the East Side meeting to gather input and respond to questions. Overall, a very useful and well-run process, but one inevitably leading to some hard choices.
On City Faces Massive Repair Backlog