Page 1 of 63
Posted on December 20 at 1:50 p.m.
14 kitty-kat, I do all of that already, and feed their noses to the fish.
On The Shunning of Helene Schneider
Posted on December 19 at 11:21 p.m.
You're a very nosy fellow, kitty cat. Huh? You know what happens to nosy fellows? Huh? No? Wanna guess? Huh? No? Okay. They lose their noses. [flicks knife, cutting open Jake's nostril] Next time you lose the whole thing. Cut it off and feed it to my goldfish. Understand? Understand!?
Posted on December 19 at 5:58 p.m.
Forget it Jake, it is SantaBarbaraTown.
I doubt I'll ever understand this whole thing. Seems to me CalTrans & Measure A (our County) want the extra lanes, while the City of Santa Barbara was pulling a Boehner and trying to go nuclear (or cause a shutdown or file suit) because the new lanes might bring new cars to Santa Barbara, and the City thinks the County & Measure A should pay for local City capacity upgrades to handle those new cars that arrive on the widened 101.
Most cities want more business and then channel the bed tax or sales tax increments to the new capacity enhancements.
But here, Forget it Jake, it's SantaBarbaraTown.
Posted on October 23 at 1:25 p.m.
Property tax revenue always goes up in SB County due to the ongoing process of homes covered by Prop. 13 getting sold, with a huge increment in property tax provided from the new assessment based on the new sales price. Outstrips inflation by a lot. Meanwhile the oil industry strongly pushes for depreciation of their equipment, driving their contribution ever downward.
Unless, as Luyendyk says, the oil industry wants substantial expansion in Santa Barbara County. If they are comparing a vast expansion in tax assessment due to new oil equipment to none of that, the oil industry has a point.
But do you really want the North County to look like Taft so we can get the property tax?
I've lived next to Platform Holly and the Ellwood Onshore Facility for 30 years. They are a mess... that direct experience leads me to a Yes on P.
On Measure P: Can We See the Future Without It?
Posted on October 17 at 11 a.m.
Many fewer understand local government… County, City, Special District. Frankly local issues influence people a lot more and are much more poorly understood.
On Dimwit Democracy
Posted on October 17 at 10:03 a.m.
Venoco, a major bankroller of `No on P', has no credibility: they have prevaricated repeatedly about the sulfurous emissions from Platform Holly and the Ellwood Onshore Facility.
They take $0.83 of every $1.00 of the taxpayer's oil, and pay themselves $millions in yearly salary, and also use the taxpayer's money to agitate in political campaigns. All with a no-bid sweetheart contract.
Injection quite likely caused the 1973 Coal Oil Point Upwelling.
Good facts to consider as you vote Yes on P.
On More Dough for Districts?
Posted on October 17 at 8:19 a.m.
The blowout in 1969 at Platform A which fouled beaches and led Union Oil president Fred Hartley to say `I am amazed at the publicity for the loss of a few birds.' is why petroleum production is relatively low in Santa Barbara County.
If the oil industry were forthright and responsible, and not secretive and untrustable, there could be a lot more oil production here.
Lately it has been Venoco that prevaricates over their sulfurous emissions from the Ellwood Onshore Facility and Platform Holly. They are big donors to the No-on-P campaign, and they take $0.83 of the $1.00 in taxpayer assets they get under their no-bid contract to donate to the No-on-P effort and pay there brass millions in yearly salary.
Nice work if you can get it, but a slam-dunk for Yes on Measure P.
On Oil and Water and Measure P
Posted on October 16 at 9:48 p.m.
As the Indy wrote:
``What possible principled argument against Measure P would end up on the same side as an industry with one of the most disastrous, deceitful, polluting records in modern history?''
Well, the Indy has lined up those who fouled our channel in 1969, and who continue to prevaricate about sulfurous emissions from Platform Holly.
It is quite likely that steam injection caused the 1973 Coal Oil Point upwelling, a fact the Indy ignores.
Well, nobody bats 1000, even the Indy.
On Endorsements 2014
Posted on October 16 at 9:11 a.m.
Boles starts his clock conveniently after the biggest eruption of new seepage that has been measured… the 1973 Coal Oil Point upwelling. That upwelling occurred 5 months after the start of reinjection at Holly. Boles is a smart guy, smart enough to knowingly start his clock just after the major incident that concerns serious people; he knows that most readers are ignorant of the 1973 Coal Oil Point upwelling and won't perceive how he put is thumb on the scale.
Luyendyk: he specifically emphasizes that correlation is not causation. He *never* claims that the seep reduction observed lately is definitely caused by oil extraction.
Note his careful language: locations ***MOSTLY*** unchanged (huge upwelling in 1973 at Coal Oil Point is a new seep that he does not reject through careful language)…. *locations* mostly unchanged… leaves unexamined the fact that the **VOLUME*** appears to be way, way lower in the 1946 report.
Skepticism is not just to be applied to climate change allegations...
On The Naked Truth
Posted on October 15 at 4:20 p.m.
? I'm OK with drilling **if the local oil industry earnestly acknowledges they messed up in 1969 and also at Platform Holly**, and then changes behavior into a more responsive, honest, and earnest group.
That is the root problem. Their denial is the deep unresolved issue.