WEATHER »

Comments by ewoldson

Page 1 of 1

Posted on November 22 at 5:42 p.m.

@sez, I actually sez, "The gov't doesn't control growth, it controls development" Population growth is happening and we can't make a law against that. But, there is a difference between uncontrollable growth and well-planned development. I'm a fan of the latter.

I think we're saying the same thing essentially. Good planning for future populations is really important to determine what, how, and where things get built. We get to choose. Given population growth, do we fill in the already built places? Do we sprawl out into open spaces? Or do we decide to prohibit development of any new places to live/work and deal with the social, economic, and environmental ramifications of not doing anything?

In SB, the city could choose any of these scenarios for the new General Plan. I personally would prefer the infill approach to future development. Others prefer sprawl. Others are okay with saying no more people here in SB, make them live in Oxnard or Santa Maria or something. That's cool, but the day is so much better when you work where you live, not just for the individual, but for the community as well.

Santa Barbara should never consider development that is incompatible or ugly (read: Oxnard towers...yikes), but it seems clear to me that redevelopment of already developed properties within appropriate locations in the city is a great tool for this little beach town to accommodate State-mandated housing development without losing our regional open spaces or farmlands. It's just one opinion, and...well... opinions are like...

On Tempers Boil in Density Debate

Posted on November 22 at 9:13 a.m.

The gov't doesn't control growth, it controls development. The general plan is about accommodating population growth, planning for the type and location of appropriate development to make sure future populations have decent places to live and work. Until population growth suddenly stops or *gasp reverses, we are obligated to plan stuff for people, less we want quality of life to go down: highways clogged with out of town commuters, crowded bedrooms, and fewer local residents participating (and paying sales tax) in our community. I personally am sick of all my middle class friends moving away because "we can't settle down here". This mentality destroys our human capital and our REAL community.

Also, all the homeowners here know how good it feels to own a place of your own, how it empowers you to work on it and care for it. This happens whether you own a 900 sq ft condo near your office downtown, or a 20,000 sq ft mansion on the upper east. Home ownership is so valuable for the morale of this country. Here, it's a point of pride to say you own property in Santa Barbara, even just a little bit.

Housing development has always been determined by gov't bodies. You're probably living in a tract home, right? Those subdivisions were the result of the affordable housing policy of the day, allowing developers to build cheap "high density" subdivisions to give the middle class a piece of the American Pie. Population growth happens, what type of development do we want to accommodate it?

On Tempers Boil in Density Debate

Posted on November 3 at 9:03 a.m.

Super fun show this SATURDAY, Nov 6th in the evening! Reds is the place to be in SB! I'll be there.

On Reds Bar and Tapas

Posted on October 20 at 8:45 a.m.

@Jonny, thank you for your thoughtful contribution.

On Could The 100,000 Homes Campaign Work In S.B.?

Posted on August 18 at 10:51 a.m.

That's a great idea to include guest rooms! I've never heard of that before and love the idea. Young single people who only want to pay for a studio or one bedroom can have a nice space for their parents or friends to stay when they visit. Sleeping on the floor of a rental unit is no way to welcome your family! What a creative solution! I really appreciate this customized consideration of the needs of future occupants.

On New Vision for Old Vons Lot

Posted on July 30 at 9:55 a.m.

Love being able to walk and ride bikes to the businesses on State and De la Vina, and, from experience, BevMo would be just another excellent destination, one of many along these corridors that make the area desirable, more thriving. For vibrant commercial areas, the more activity, the better for everyone involved. Variety is the spice of life.

De la Vina Liquor, San Roque Liquor, fear not, we Santa Barbarians love your craft beers, fine wines, snacks, and excellent service, and have plenty of love to go around.

On BevMo! A Go-Go

Posted on February 19 at 1:40 p.m.

Word, McDermott. If "no", then what? What are the other ideas people have for the future? It's so tiring always hearing 'no' to every proposal, big or small, in this city. At least Plan Santa Barbara is proposing some ideas and some solutions to these issues. What's the alternative if this body of ideas is not "the one"?

On Only Consensus is No Consensus

Posted on November 25 at 8:54 a.m.

Man, against trees? Trees are the answer! Trees are beautiful, they provide needed roosts and habitat, they cool down the hot spots of the built environment, they increase property value, and they instill civic pride for a community. Goleta needs all of these things. A little public investment and support will go a long way to recreate the valley as its former self:tree-covered. And, since it's proving to be difficult to get people to drive less and stop polluting the air locally, trees seem like the next best option to attempt to offset our impacts on the climate and air quality. I mean, why not, right? From this local gal: More trees please!

On Goleta's Urban Forest on Horizon

Page 1 of 1

event calendar sponsored by: