Page 1 of 7
Posted on April 9 at 2:10 p.m.
It would be interesting to see what cap rate this traded at. Hard to make a profit with such high purchase prices unless you are paying cash. Then again, if you have that kind of cash to put somewhere, you might as well buy property in SB where you have consistently low vacancy and high rental rates.
On REI Building Sells for More Than $21 Million
Posted on May 22 at 9:53 a.m.
The Funk Zone sits on some terrific real estate, but it will only survive if the businesses that occupy the new developments are profitable. They can only be profitable with solid business plans, reasonable rents, and good management. There is no magic formula. I can't see those businesses lasting with the high rents I heard they are paying. The novelty of paying a premium to be "hip" wears off eventually. But I do enjoy all of the new tasting room options without driving over the hill to the SYV.
On Funk Zone Artist Village
Posted on February 20 at 10:34 a.m.
I'm pretty sure one former SIMA bookkeeper went on to become a bookkeeper for Cappello several years back. This town is too small. Choose your investment partners wisely...make sure they are people you wouldn't mind suing or being sued by sooner or later.
On Cappello Disqualified for Conflict of Interest
Posted on January 7 at 3:47 p.m.
Wow...what a bunch of haters. The buildings many Santa Barbarians love today were the greedy developer's dreams of yester-year. That 1960's track house you might live in out in Goleta was some other developer's "monstrosity" from 50 years ago. I understand that "enough is enough" at some point, but you can't realistically think that these projects are fast tracked with little or no oversight or scrutiny. Everything has to be Title 24 compliant. Anything along the coast is subject to increased Coastal Commission oversight. The big bully seems to be UCSB and their ever-increasing enrollment. Supply and demand follows from there. Or maybe it should be demand and then supply follow...
On Good Land for Development
Posted on January 11 at 12:54 p.m.
So who are the crazies, @edmanski? Those that wish to focus on the 0.5% crimes and then push for more nanny laws or those that chose to argue with real numbers?
In real life, violent crime is down over 40% since 1993, but when you survey people they actually think it is getting worse. That mental incongruity is due to the media. Fear is a powerful motivator and the powers that be play it well.
On On Guns and Safety
Posted on January 10 at 11:54 a.m.
@Evol: Limiting magazine size is not going to really deter a crazy person bent on taking out a large number of people. 10 round magazines can be swapped out in seconds and a person can easily carry 10 or 15 magazines on their person. A large percentage of the "mass killings" casualties were from pistols.
Wait...again I'm getting sucked into the 1/2 percent argument. Man, you almost got me.
Posted on January 10 at 10:49 a.m.
Thankfully Fina isn't the last word. If the proliferation of fire arms makes us less safe, then shouldn't Chicago be very safe? Wouldn't DC be very safe? Wouldn't Mexico be very safe? Our focus should be on gangs. Our focus should be on poverty. These are the overwhelming factors in our relatively high rate of gun violence. If we want to get our gun-violence rate down, why are we talking about random "mass killings", which, as I pointed out, represent a little over half of one percent of the gun related homicides in 2012? Let's have a discussion about the policies that have created poor and dangerous ghettos where young people have little choice but to join gangs or sell drugs to get by. Why are young African American men 7 times more likely to commit murder than young white men? Why are their victims also black 82% of the time? Let's talk about the fact that the violent crime rate in the US has DROPPED every year since 1993 until last year. Was there a sudden rush of guns that flooded the market in just one year to account for this change? No.
Posted on January 10 at 9:19 a.m.
I'll say this...Congrats to whomever is pulling the strings for effectively instilling fear in the hearts of citizens based on an infinitesimally small likelihood of events in an effort to further legislate away our constitutional freedoms. You win.
Some seemingly bright people on this board have been hoodwinked.
Posted on January 9 at 4:15 p.m.
DrDan- To be worried about being a victim of a mass killing by an "assault weapon" is about as rational as living in constant fear of being struck by lightning.
And yet we Citizens risk losing our rights when these tragic, yet extremely rare events occur.
We are the most spied upon group of people in the history of the world, and the government is doing the spying. The President sign the NDAA 2013 allowing for indefinite military detention without due process? Why?
The Government is cataloging each piece of communication and storing it until it finally has the computing power to break the encryption. Why?http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/
I'm sure I'm already on a special list somewhere...
Posted on January 9 at 12:42 p.m.
I did read the essay and I gave Mr. Fina his due respect because he has served our country and his communities for the better part of his life. I was not saying it flippantly. I did try to provide some context for the birth of the 2nd Amendment by providing the quotes in my first reply (@EastBeach) from some people that were actually there.
I agree wholeheartedly with @edukder that simply accepting the military as all powerful and therefore we might-as-well give up any possible means of resistance is cringe-worthy. If and when the time comes, the military and police will have mass defections and join sides with the people.
The fact is that the Supreme Court has ruled, in 2008 and in 2010 (recent enough for you?) that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals.
The fact is that concealed-carry permit owners commit less crime per capita than actual police officers.
The fact is that roughly 62% of the gun deaths per year are suicide.
The fact is that the remaining gun deaths are overwhelmingly gang-related and happen in areas of concentrated poverty.
The fact is that "Mass Shootings" accounted for a total of 76 deaths in 2011. This translates to 0.0068% of the total gun related homicides. Should we legislated based on this information? If so, why don't we legislate the violent movies and video games as well as the mind-altering SSRI drugs with the known violent and suicidal side effects?
The fact is that poverty is a great predictor of actual homicide rates. http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/...
Should we make it illegal to be poor and African American or Latino? I guess it is easier for politicians to just grab the guns than to actually try to fix the real problems. And most of you follow along blindly.