WEATHER »

Comments by cartoonz

Previous | Page 3 of 18 | Next

Posted on August 24 at 2 p.m.

It is not the function of the ABR to make any decisions for reasons other than visual aesthetics / design / function of a project. No personal or political beliefs of the owner of the project can have any bearing on the decision.

The valid grounds for recusal are simple : an actual existing relationship with the applicant & board member. Not a "feeling, judgement, political difference, or belief" about the applicant, but a real bonified relationship of some kind that would present a conflict.

Abstaining for pure political posturing / pandering is not an acceptable option either.

On When Abstinence Is Not the Best Policy

Posted on August 22 at 8:25 p.m.

the irony of all of this nonsense is that it us discrimination, plain and simple. While certain communities are outraged that an owner of a company could possibly have philosophical or political views contrary to their own, there is not one single instance where it has been shown that that BUSINESS ever discriminated against anybody. You can't find a single complaint from workers or patrons to support such a claim.

Yet, those same communities, grandstanding and pandering to certain agendas, are now blatantly discriminating against a BUSINESS that is guilty of nothing. Denying a permit because you don't agree with the owner's beliefs? WTF? When all of this is said and done, the communities that did this are going to get sued for discrimination - big time, and it is going to be a slam dunk win for the attorneys representing the BUSINESS.

You very likely don't truly know what philosophical beliefs the owner of any business holds, yet as long as they do not discriminate in their hiring practices or with the public, it makes no difference. Which is exactly how it should be.

What kind of world do you want to live in? Should you have to submit to a test of your own personal beliefs to get a business license, or to build a store? Who decides that criteria? Nonsense.

On It's Not Only About Gay Marriage

Posted on August 20 at 11:58 a.m.

...and yet it should be noted that not implementing the fees is not an option on the agenda, only what form the fees will take.

The commission seems to already have decided that fees will be implemented, which is obviously not popular with the residents. I hope that they do pay attention to our position of "no fees" and scrap the whole thing, but the fact that is not one of the "options" they have up for consideration would seem to indicate that's just that - not an option.

On Major Resistance to Beach Parking Fees

Posted on July 25 at 12:45 a.m.

How many people read this headline and thought that Mrs. Maldonado *caused* this accident and was somehow responsible for killing the man?

On Abel Maldonado's Wife Involved in Traffic Accident That Kills Man

Posted on July 9 at 12:19 a.m.

What's the point of soliciting sealed bids if all that's going to happen is those in the room can then outbid them?

That's absurd.

On City Putting Parking Lot Up for Auction

Posted on April 18 at 2:09 p.m.

Please cite your source for "the official studies".

On Gas Pods Save Money, Maybe Planet

Posted on March 22 at 4:13 p.m.

"David Thurman, the project rep from BonDrak (an L.A.-based development firm pegged by CrossHarbor to potentially build the project), asked that his team be “treated a little bit more fairly” the next time they meet with the county."

He must be new to this party, huh?

On New Owners at Naples?

Posted on March 14 at 2:30 a.m.

They're going to lose on the lawsuit though... stupid to force inclusion of restaurants in this.

On Carpinteria Officially Adopts Single-Use Bag Ban

Posted on March 6 at 11:31 p.m.

WTF is the County smoking?
if it will cost $1.5 million to scrape the property, tell my WHY the County should rebate Caruso $18 million? Explain that?

Also, what this deal really amounts to is fraud, perpetrated on each and every occupant of the finished hotel. Every guest WILL be charged the "tax", yet it isn't really a tax... it is going directly to the hotelier, no matter what twisted game of 3 card Monte they use. That is fraud.

Hey.. better idea: Let the County condemn the buildings and remove them. Then, after Caruso get's his sh*t together, he can pay that bill too. Even if the county forgave the costs, they'd still be ahead $16.5 million... is this really Rocket Science?

On Trading Miramar Bed Tax for Buildings

Posted on February 9 at 11:14 p.m.

most of this is window dressing.
when you take a peek under the hood, you find stuff like this:

"$3.5 billion will be dedicated to relieving 32,000 homeowners of unpaid balances remaining when their homes are foreclosed."

So, basically, the banks won't try to collect any amounts owed over what the banks sold the properties for, something they typically don't bother to go after anyway.

On Attorney General Announces Settlement With Mortgage Lenders

Previous | Page 3 of 18 | Next

event calendar sponsored by: