Page 2 of 57
Posted on October 9 at 4:12 p.m.
This is what’s on the ballot: - there's not one word about building housing:“To repair, construct, acquire and seismically upgrade facilities, sites and equipment at City College, maintain access to quality, affordable education for students, including local high school graduates and returning veterans, prepare students for careers and transfer to four-year universities by upgrading academic, science, engineering, healthcare and vocational classrooms and improving technology and energy efficiency, shall Santa Barbara Community College District issue $288 million in bonds, at legal rates, requiring citizens’ oversight, audits and no money for administrators’ salaries?”
Isn’t a “specific” and “concrete” promise a violation of the elections code that promises "protection by law from deception in political campaigns":
For instance, Elections Code section 20001(4) The voting public is entitled to protection by law fromdeception in political campaigns in the same manner and for the same reasons that it is entitled to protection from deception by advertisers of commercial products.
If in fact Ms. Gaskin DID make those promises, the Trustees should demand her resignation. (NB: Four of the Trustees have donated towards this bond measure.)
On City College's Sprawling Impact
Posted on October 9 at 3:59 p.m.
So the pres of SBCC promised the Democrats, led by Larimore-Hall, student housing. "Most of the members shifted their vote because Gaskin gave a “specific” and “concrete” statement about how Measure S funds would be used to tackle the housing crisis, according to chair Daraka Larimore-Hall."
--So, what's she telling the taxpayers who will be on the hook for this Measure S and the (nothing "specific", nothing "concrete" in the ballot measure) housing? "Oh, sorry, we forgot to add that to the ballot description." Aren't the ballot statements required to be accurate?
--And if she doesn't deliver, what then? Will Larimore-Hall's Democrats then sob, "Oh, but you promised"?
Are there new classrooms needed? Hiring teachers, having classes on Fridays would help and even having more online classes. (SBCC keeps quiet how many cheaper-for-SBCC online classes it already has.) Even during the four days it operates, there are many classrooms empty. As for how to eliminate the problems in the lower westside, cut back on the enrollment of out-of-district students. Enough is enough.
Posted on October 7 at 9:48 p.m.
You're right, hodgmo; I should have left it at the last paragraph of my first post on this. "As for that LA cop, charge him with manslaughter. It won't bring back to life his victim, but it will set a example of punishing egregious behavior."
I also agree with billclausen on how cops protect their own. It's wrong.
On Failing to Share the Road
Posted on October 7 at 11:58 a.m.
I appreciate your point, snugspout, but the end result is what's more important than the nuisance of licensing. Carelessness (of both bicyclist and driver) and roadrage are big issues; if bicyclists were treated equally and followed the rules of the road re stop signs, for an instance, the latter would be less of an issue.
Posted on October 7 at 7:15 a.m.
Agree with all the points here: bicycling is dangerous, even in Santa Barbara. It's infuriating to not use my bike to go downtown because I am afraid -- all of us regularly see cellphone usage by drivers, see careless driving, and never read of tickets given for such usage.
BUT also a big issue for drivers is the question of fairness. Bicycles need to be licensed just as visibly as are cars. The numbers of bicyclists who run red lights, who ride on sidewalks, even when there are bike lanes, are immense and this nose-thumbing, along with the 'give me three', give rise to a dangerous level of road rage.
Start by increasing the visibility of bikers by requiring all street bikes be licensed, with a license plate.
As for that LA cop, charge him with manslaughter. It won't bring back to life his victim, but it will set a example of punishing egregious behavior.
Posted on October 6 at 7:08 a.m.
Sam_Tababa - troll is both a noun and a verb, check it out.
On Freeway Widening All Jammed Up
Posted on October 6 at 6:47 a.m.
Notable that the same people in favor of an increased sales tax are those also in favor of the $$$ half million SBCC bond that will be paid for by property taxpayers AND renters.
An increase in the sales tax will drive more to Goleta; an increase in rents will mean fewer dollars spent on purchases anywhere, but especially within the city.
Vote NO! On S and deal with an increased sales tax when that is demanded.
On City Faces Massive Repair Backlog
Posted on October 5 at 2:46 p.m.
I am glad these locals have a chance to play, but with all respect it should not be the role of a community college to have an extensive competitive sports program. In addition, SBCC is also recruiting water polo players from outside the SB District!
Sure, the administration has officially dropped the Aquatic Center ... for the moment, but if this monstrosity of a bond measure passes, it'll sneak right back in.
On SBCC Gets Water Polo Team
Posted on October 3 at 7:29 a.m.
Find out, expose and punish with whatever penalties are available whoever is/are leakers. Although I support openness it does not do the public any good to have such rogue actions.
Or, alternatively, do away with closed sessions: what has the council been talking about at the recent closed sessions concerning the district election litigation? And when will there be a report on that?
On Regarding 101 Widening Project
Posted on September 26 at 8:56 a.m.
There is no groundwater contamination, nativegeo, because there is no fracking. The aim is to keep it that way. And, Eckermann, thanks for reminding of the hysteria that has greeted any effort to regulate and protect people and environment. The sky has remained firmly (or as firmly as ozone holes and greenhouse gases permit) in place.
On Robert Redford Endorses Measure P