Page 1 of 1
Posted on April 20 at 8:49 p.m.
“Nothing to do with the case.” He was the “acting DA.” And as he has said, responsible for this case. You Lynn supporters can’t have it both ways. Either he was running the office then or he wasn’t. If he was, he should step up and say they messed up. If he wasn’t he should stop saying he was and admit he’s not qualified for the job.
On Jesusita Fire Defendants Win Major Victory in Court Ruling
Posted on April 20 at 1:01 p.m.
This comes a no surprise to anyone. What concerns me is that Josh Lynn, in his capacity as “acting DA,” was responsible for signing off on this type of prosecution. I think he owes the community an explanation as to why it took so long to put forth a losing legal strategy.
In my mind this really shows how inexperienced he is. No offence to Lulejian, but Lynn assigned the wrong prosecutor to the case and filled the wrong charges. And know he’s asking us to elected him DA?!
Posted on January 25 at 10:47 p.m.
@jnalls...becasue it's not up to Mrs. Stanley and never was. What she did was unprecedented and perhaps fraudulent. The BOS are the only ones legally responsible for making the determination about who is best suited to take the place in the event of a vacancy in this elected office...and it has been vacant for many months. What I would say is in the best interest of the residents of Santa Barbara County is that they are confident that for the next year the person at the helm of the DA's office is capable and qualified, not just a political appointment of Stanley's. If you remember her endorsement came one the heels of his "appointment" as her successor. So who better to make that choice than 5 folks who have been elected into office to make these decision on our behalf or the last wishes of a very ill woman to pass on her legacy to her lap dog?
On DA Stanley To Retire Within Two Weeks
Posted on September 8 at 8:28 p.m.
@ Shelia Lodge
"The Texas developer he refers to, Randall Van Wolfswinkel, grew up in Santa Barbara (he was in high school with my daughters), and he's dismayed by the changes that have taken place. He develops in Texas, not here, because "there's lots of land in Texas"."
As if that was a justification for urban sprawl anywhere?!
Please:he's a developer plane and simple. Just like all you pro-Measure B folks are saying the developers will rape and pillage our city if this measure does not pass. What does he know that you don't? Perhaps it's that in this miserable economy that making the highest building height and densities in our neighborhoods might be beneficial to an enterprising developer. That's right folks. Here's the dirty little secret, all the development opportunities will now be shifted to the neighborhoods you've been fighting for decades to preserve. Why would a Texas developer have an interest in that, when the only market in the country that is relatively healthy is in Santa Barbara?! Just say'n.
On Vote No on Measure B
Posted on September 3 at 7:51 a.m.
Posted on August 13 at 9:57 a.m.
Nice try Lanny but your arguments are so flawed it's hard to know where to begin.
1. "Opponents of the Save El Pueblo Viejo (Save EPV) initiative have a cramped view of Santa Barbara's future:Rather than supporting reasonable development in keeping with past architectural standards:" We are supporting reasonable development in keeping with the past architectural standards - standards that have been in place for decades. You are the ones trying to changes things.
2. "(t)he Save El Pueblo Viejo Committee has brought together one of the most diverse political alliances in years." As we have too:perhaps more diverse. When is the last time you saw the Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, PUEBLO, CEC, AIA, APA, SBCAN, etc. agree on anything.
3. "The committee gathered more than 11,500 signatures, because-in the words of the City of Santa Barbara's charter-"high buildings are inimical to the basic residential and historical character of the city." False:you gathered that many signatures because you were asking people to vote on an issue:It happens all the time:those signatures do not translate into support for your issue that happens at the polls.
4. "In recent years, this injunction steadily eroded. Particularly along Chapala Street, tall, dense, and congregate development:" Here I may agree with you in part but lowering building heights will do nothing but exacerbate the massing of future development. Your charter amendment neglected to address the core issues of this:set backs being one example.
5. "The Save EPV initiative would direct future development to more affordable construction and more affordable land." You claim to be an "economist" so show me some less-affordable land in Santa Barbara to provide housing and how that development wont be sprawl?
6. "Crucially, most families in Santa Barbara do not prefer to live in very congregate, dense, three- and four-story construction." If you put it in those terms then maybe some people would say that. Have you talked to every resident in SB? But it seems with the existing building heights and standards that have been in place for decades most people still want to live here. It's a very desirable place to live:again I remind you that you are the ones who want to change things.
7. "The Save EPV initiative will lead to development of more affordable housing, particularly for families." How? Your organization likes to talk in generalizations but if you really want the facts I suggest you visit www.sb4all.com or simply engage the hundreds of opponents to this flawed measure that actually understand economics and urban planning and design.
Posted on August 3 at 2 p.m.
WOW:Big bucks from an out of town developer, from Texas no less. That's gotta be worse than ones from Orange County by a mile. I wonder how folks are feeling about this. So much money given to candidates and causes that support the height initiative. Gotta wonder what's in it for him. He must know something the rest of us don't. Maybe Bill Mahan and Van Wolfswinkel are working on building high density housing developments in your neighborhoods once the building heights initiative passes and makes those types of projects profitable. There must be conspiracy in this story somewhere.
On Big Money Not Shy
Posted on July 27 at 10:17 a.m.
"It's inefficient to have two sanitary districts doing the same job."
I couldn't agree with you more. That's the point. Now there will be THREE sanitary districts serving the Goleta Valley.
On top of that, the one proposed by the City of Goleta will be giving millions of the reserves and hundreds of thousands per year to the County, per the revenue neutrality agreement. Money that will never be spent on waste water infrastructure and service. So they will have to raise our rates to provide the same service. Rate increases that will be well in excess of the minor increases projected by Goleta West.
On Saving for a Rainy Day