Comments by dontoasthecoast

Previous | Page 2 of 5 | Next

Posted on April 15 at 10:45 a.m.

This is Jerry Brown's Coastal Commission. I seriously doubt this travesty would have occurred under the Schwarzenegger Coastal Commission. Something is very wrong with this picture.

On CA Coastal Commission Approves Paradiso del Mare Project

Posted on March 26 at 8:33 a.m.

The Goleta Water District has gone from an agency that protected the public it serves to an agency that promotes unlimited growth at the expensive of the public. One has to ask, why no moratorium? Why the approval of a 12 inch water main out on the Gaviota Coast to a two mansion development with 10 more on the drawing board? The lust for growth has infected our County decision makers including the Goleta Water Board.

On Speed of Drought Confounds Water Planners

Posted on February 20 at 10:12 a.m.

It is sad to see EDC sink to this low point in journalism. Anything to keep donations coming in I guess.

On Questions Remain Over Offshore Acidizing

Posted on February 17 at 7:08 p.m.

The law dictates that on a legal lot one can build a home. These two homes are on legal lots. But the law also says that if there are options as to where on the lot the home should, it must be on the site that has the least environmental impacts. And there is no law that says the County had to approve sprawling one acre plus home sites. Unfortunately demanding 'NO DEVELOPMENT' was never going to work. In the next round I am confident that the focus will be on location and home size. It ain't over folks!!!

On The Math on Paradiso del Mare

Posted on February 17 at 9:57 a.m.

The 'fumes' mentioned by bimboteskie are naturally occurring from methane leaks, aka, Coal Oil Point. It's the geology that is responsible for the oil and gas leaks, not Venoco. In fact Venoco has installed collection caps to collect some of the leakage. EDC never misses a change to hammer on the oil companies. Crying 'Wolf!' all the time may help their bottom line, but it hurts their image in the long run. When their staff stop putting gas in their guzzling Subaru 4WD cars and get on a bike maybe they will have some credibility.

On Venoco Denies Acidizing Off Goleta Coast

Posted on February 12 at 2:45 p.m.

The real issues is not 'two homes, yes or no' but rather the location of the homes. Put where they belong on the East end of the two parcels no seal or white Tail Kite problems. No mile long road or water line. Why are they on the far West end? Because that opens the door for development of some or all of their 25 Naples Township lots. A moron could see this coming. So what does that say about the Board Of Supervisors?

On Gaviota Homes Approved

Posted on February 4 at 4:23 p.m.

Just so everyone knows, our Board of Supervisors approved today a two mansion project on the Gaviota Coast that has permission to use 30 acre feet of Goleta water a year. Of course the LA developer promises to use drought tolerant plants and low flow toilets. Sure, wink, wink. Is it time to recall our pro-growth Supervisors?

On 'Mega-Drought' Looms

Posted on February 3 at 9:36 a.m.

The issue here is not 'property rights'. Rather it is the obligation of the property owners to comply with the law. Accordingly, by law, the owners can build two homes, but they must be in a place on the parcels that have the least effect on the environment. The chosen place does not meet this requirement. Instead the County has falsified the EIR to support the owners desires. Why? Because, like the Trails Council, they have been bribed. The owners have 'offered' trails and easements but ONLY if their project is approved. Should the County determine that the homes should be in another location on the properties then the 'offers' go away. Pure and simple, it is bribery.

On Trails Council Reaches Agreement With Paradiso Developers

Posted on November 14 at 1:55 p.m.

How about a hypothetical? Say one of these floating hotels rotates in every time one leaves. Essentially they can and may do this. Well suppose someone just acquires an older one for cheap and just anchors it permanently out there. Is there any real difference? Say they contract with a barge company to haul away their *hit and trash. They would have primo view parking spot, pay no property taxes, pay no bed taxes. Sweet deal, no? And we get a big ugly in our beautiful ocean vista forever. One more question. Do people have to pass a stupid test to be on City Council?

On The Cruise Ship Question

Posted on August 26 at 7:48 a.m.

Leaving aside the controversial issue of "return" of Chumash to land they previously owned there is another issue not being discussed. That is the issue of County land use controls. To be honest navigating through Planning and Development is a nightmare. It is a bureaucracy that can drive a person to tear their hair out. It is especially intolerant to those wanting something "original" on their land. Say a Chumash wanted to live in a traditional Chumash dwelling. Nope, not permitted. Say a Chumash wanted to compost their own waste to return it to the soil. Nope. Planning and Development has a rule book that must be two feet thick. It is designed to make everyone live the lifestyle the planners think is "normal". Think tiki tac. Take a drive around the Santa Ynez Valley. That is P&D at work.

On Chumash Reach Out to County Planning

Previous | Page 2 of 5 | Next

event calendar sponsored by: