Page 2 of 30
Posted on October 29 at 11:09 a.m.
Could we actually vote Capps out? That would be a great reason for celebration! I'm not holding my breath, but it would certainly make me smile.
On Mitchum’s Biggest Role Yet?
Posted on October 29 at 11:07 a.m.
14noscams - There are a few loopholes that should be closed, looking at the numbers I would bet the "affordable/workforce" housing scam is the biggest drain on school and community services. I have mixed fees on prop 13. When you buy a painting and pay sales tax, if the value of the painting goes up you are not asked to pay more, when you die your heirs are not asked to pay more (unless of the $5M limit). In many respects I think the prop 13 tax based on purchase price is fair. How can someone budget an expense that is tied to an unknown value of future property values.
On The High Price of Renting in Generic Terms
Posted on October 28 at 5:34 p.m.
I have no issue with "workforce housing" being sold at below market prices but I do take great issue with the properties paying property tax on below market values.The result is huge strain on our schools and community services.This goes for the city and county affordable housing as well as workforce housing such as cottage hospital and Westmont College.
Posted on October 25 at 6:20 p.m.
having been a graduate of the engineering department at UCSB and lived in IV -- somehow I did not see the party scene. I think it is the occasional halloween type party that gives it the reputation, but it certainly there is not a daily party.
On Charles Munger Donates $65 Million to UCSB
Posted on October 19 at 3:26 a.m.
Isn't anyone going to mention it is time for Capps to retire! Please...
On Endorsements 2014
Posted on October 6 at 6:06 p.m.
The whole Redevelopment argument is ridiculous! Redevelopment diverted property taxes away from schools, safety and even the general fund to spend on affordable housing and infrastructure (but only in the downtown corridor). 60%of the redevelopment funds were diverted from the schools and 40% from the city (police, fire, Health and human services, the general fund, and the executive salaries).
The city is now getting the 40% of the the approx $16m redevelopment fund (approx $4.6M a year). It seems logical that the city would now spend it on infrastructure. Add $4.6M to the $5M allocated for infrasture and we are done with $9.6M to spend.
The City has the money for infrastructure, they are spending it elsewhere and they want MORE money.
Please ask the Mayor to explain where the money from terminating the redevelopment went and how much went right back into the city coffers.
On City Faces Massive Repair Backlog
Posted on October 5 at 8:22 p.m.
Santa Barbara is not different than most cities and counties in the liberal California, they only think of the next pay raise and benefits they want to approve and not about balancing the whole budget. Balancing the budget on a cash basis is not a balanced budget, it is kicking the can down the street which is a long distance from balanced.
The SB financial situation both in both the city and county need a major overhaul and it will take a new slate of leaders to do the required work.
Posted on October 5 at 7:43 a.m.
The city has plenty of income to take care of infrastructure, their priorities are misplaced. The number of staff and the salaries and pensions need to be reduced.
Posted on September 28 at 1:26 p.m.
What about not patronizing the casino? I do not know the statistics but certainly many of the patrons are from SB County. I've never been there and never plan on going. Can we start a grassroots campaign to boycott the casino?
WIthout customers there would not be a casino!
On 12-Story Hotel by 2016?
Posted on August 7 at 6:28 p.m.
We need a real fix.. Not just more money to Das's union friends.
On Funding Our Future