Page 1 of 53
Posted on March 17 at 10:29 p.m.
Well, the Storke corridor has an awful lot of walkers, bikers, and skaters on it, so no, I don't agree that UCSB students *always* drive. The statistics of UCSB students non-car transportation were gathered and used by Camino Real Marketplace to reduce fees for traffic mitigation by $1 million... real money.
Absolute proof that UCSB students are not much of a traffic issue.
When UCSB students drive, it generally isn't at peak periods, like morning and evening commute. Bars, supermarkets, friend visits... they don't cluster during the commute. And the commute periods are when Storke & Hollister are most impacted.
In contrast, the hotels on Storke have or will have lots of business travellers who clog the commutes.
On Housing and Growth in Goleta
Posted on March 17 at 7:27 p.m.
How in the devil we are content with one neighbor, who inherited their home from the grandparents, paying $1,000/year in property tax, right next to a second neighbor, who pays $10,000/year in property tax for an identical home right next door.
Actually it is Proposition 158 that allows that. Landed aristocracy... too bad Prop 158 didn't also require grandchild inheritors to get a title `Don' or `Sir'. That little change would have made Prop 158 unconstitutional.
Posted on March 17 at 11:54 a.m.
z28racergirl demonstrates a huge problem... older people with lower mortgages live in abject fear that somehow their situation (including traffic, etc) will collapse, and also have the leisure to focus on the `big problems' like overdevelopment.
Younger people are working like dogs to get any kind of place to sleep at night, and get mostly antagonism from the `get off my lawn' oldsters.
Illegal immigrants rush into the gap, because they work incredibly hard and are willing to live in quite crowded conditions. We all avert our eyes.
At least Connell is trying to do a bit better. But there has been pure mendacity on the part of the Goleta City Council concerning transportation issues... Camino Real Marketplace escaped with no rational upgrades to our mass transit system.
If we don't address & improve mass transit, Connell's idealism will lead to Orange County traffic here. Goleta (& the County) messed up big time long ago with Camino Real Marketplace and continue to mess up with all the hotels and apartments along the Hollister/Storke area. Pre-installing lot of mass transit upgrades should have been a condition for all the development.
Unfortunately, we are now destined to Storke & Hollister looking like Orange County. Thank Margaret Connell.
Posted on March 16 at 7:13 a.m.
Yes, I remember the original Goleta council members harshly criticizing UCSB growth for allegedly adding congestion to Storke/Hollister.
The actual fact: UCSB students largely ride bikes & take public transit, and don't clog Storke/Hollister. In fact, because of all the non-auto transportation of the UCSB/IV community, Camino Real Marketplace got a $1 million reduction in its traffic mitigation fees.
Connell makes no mention of the two huge holels (one completed, and one to be built) on the Storke corridor. They have a huge traffic impact, offer mostly minimum wage jobs, which drives housing problems in our region. But the City of Goleta wants the transit occupancy tax, and doesn't care about all the other impacts.
And where is the transit station that was supposed to be at Camino Real Marketplace? Where is the pedestrian/bike bridge long promised across the 101 where 2 young people have died running across the 101?
Mendacity, that is the tradition of the Goleta City Council, unfortunately.
Posted on March 11 at 2:38 p.m.
Search city-data.com... Neushul owns 8 IV properties. Of course he is upset that UCSB is driving down his rents.
Peter Neushul knows darned well that there were exhausting meeting concerning UCSB's LRDP plan, which was agreed to by the Goleta Water District and the Goleta West Sanitary District. Whoops, Peter missed the many hearings where the Water & San scrutinized the resource requirements of UCSB's building.
Peter is taking cheap shots and not manning up to declare his own irresponsibility in not following excruciating process UCSB went through for its approvals.
MRDA... Mandy Rice Davis Applies.
On UCSB: The Elephant in the Room
Posted on March 10 at 12:13 p.m.
All the bluff top parks in IV are great for whale watching this time of year. Great spots for picnics. There is pretty good food in IV these days... Freebird's has been fantastic for the last 10 years, schwerma at the IV deli, cookies at IV drip, etc.
I'm sure IV haters will make crude remarks. Who cares, stupid is as stupid trolls. They are likely getting kickbacks from the whale watching boats, which charge an awful lot more for the privilege of whale watching.
If you don't want to get seasick and want good food a lot cheaper, head for the IV bluff top parks.
On Scene in S.B.: Whale Counters
Posted on March 6 at 6:01 p.m.
Jeez, below the Cliff Drive loop on Ladera, and at Loma Alta & Cliff, those apartments are clearly for SBCC students.
IV had very few students between 1925 and 1959. Students were a minority in IV until the 1970's.
My point: things change. The economic power of SBCC students will force others out of the apartments downtown. Sorry, this is America, and the $ wins, just as it did in IV.
Doesn't mean music at 120dB or killing the neighbor's cat with a BB gun is OK, things that my student neighbors have done in IV...
On Good Laws Make Good SBCC Neighbors
Posted on March 6 at 1:48 p.m.
With District elections, why shouldn't IV/UCSB join the City of Santa Barbara? Boundary along the airport.
On Democracy Alive in Isla Vista
Posted on March 6 at 12:09 p.m.
According to the 2001 IV fiscal analysis done in conjunction with Goleta Cityhood, IV generates $5.3 million a year in general fund revenue. (in current year dollars)
IV general fund revenue easily pays for the Sheriff's costs of $3.3 million a year. Remember UCSB kicks in $2 million/year for law enforcement in IV.
The 2001 fiscal analysis said IV would lose money as a City. Doreen Farr's office released recently a summary of *actual costs* that were spent by the County in IV over the last 5 years, and it allows some comparisons with what was said in 2001.
Second biggest cost as estimated in 2001 for an IV city was Planning and Development, at $1.45 million/year. County, according to Farr, actually spends $0.005 million/year.
Third biggest cost estimated in 2001 for an IV city was the City attorney, at $0.95 million/year. County, according to Farr, actually spends $0.000 million/year.
Third biggest cost estimated in 2001 for an IV city was the City finance, at $0.63 million/year. County, according to Farr, actually spends $0.000 million/year.
It is quite obvious that IV turns a general fund profit for the County at the level of $2 million/year.
In the *Road Fund*, the 2001 fiscal analysis said IV generates $1.89 million a year. The County, according to Farr, spent $0.43 million a year.
So you can add a Road Fund profit of $1.5 million a year to the County's take from Isla Vista.
Bottom line: IV makes a net profit of $3.5 million a year for Santa Barbara County.
And that doesn't include all the money that IV residents spend (and the sales tax they generate) in Goleta and other places.
It is quite noteworthy: SB County conservatives don't give a damn if the tax money provided by IV residents is wasted. In fact SB County conservatives *want to tax IV even more*. Shows how phony they are.
Posted on March 5 at 9:09 a.m.
7,000 City College students reside in Isla Vista. That is almost 1/2 of the 15,000 residents in the County-administered portion of IV. (UCSB surrounding IV houses 8,000 UCSB students).
Has SBCC hosted a single meeting in Isla Vista about the impacts of its expansion into IV? Nope, not one meeting. That is why Gaskin should simply resign.