WEATHER »

Comments by silvercloud

Page 1 of 1

Posted on May 2 at 10:49 p.m.

I am distressed by many of the projects that the Santa Barbara Botanical Garden is proposing. Many of them would change the nature and quality of Mission Canyon. They would increase traffic and noise in our canyon. The proposed projects will change the garden from a nature preserve to a commercial tourist destination. The structures being built and associated paving will remove the irreplaceable natural areas that the Santa Barbara Botanical Garden should be preserving and that we all value.

Has the Santa Barbara Botanical Garden explored alternatives for many of the structures it is proposing to build? Wouldn’t the garden and community be better served if many of the proposed facilities were located off site? There are many fine buildings currently for lease and sale in the Santa Barbara area. Because these buildings are available now the garden could better use and protect its holdings immediately. Leasing or buying vacant buildings would also help the Santa Barbara economy in the current downturn.

The many rare books would be better protected in a less fire prone area. Why put these valuable books at risk? If the library were located downtown, the library would have easer access for the public and scholars with out adding traffic to Mission Canyon. The seed and plant collections would also be better protected from fire if they were located in a safer part of Santa Barbara.

Why does the Santa Barbara Botanical Garden need to remove our natural areas to provide housing for its employees? In the current recession there are many fine homes and condos in Santa Barbara for sale and lease at ever more affordable prices.

Why remove our natural areas for classrooms. The natural outdoor areas of the garden are the best classrooms our children could have.

At a recent public meeting given by a Garden employee regarding the Gardens expansion plans. She stated “the Garden employees deserved” these new facilities. This is an example of the Gardens faulty point of view. The Garden and its employees should be serving the community. The community and natural areas should not suffer in order to enhance the position of those who work for the garden.

There is no justification to remove our valuable and irreplaceable natural areas especially when doing so will adversely affect all of the Gardens neighbors and when alternative locations and solutions are available.

On Botanic Garden Propaganda Wars

Posted on November 24 at 11:41 p.m.

Has the Santa Barbara Botanical Garden explored alternatives for many of the structures it is proposing to build? Wouldn't the garden and community be better served if many of the proposed facilities were located off site? There are many fine buildings currently for lease and sale in the Santa Barbara area. Because these buildings are available now the garden could better use and protect its holdings immediately. Leasing or buying vacant buildings would also help the Santa Barbara economy in the current downturn.

The many rare books would be better protected in a less fire prone area. Why put these valuable books at risk? If the library were located downtown, the library would have easer access for the public and scholars with out adding traffic to Mission Canyon. The seed and plant collections would also be better protected from fire if they were located in a safer part of Santa Barbara.

Why does the Santa Barbara Botanical Garden need to remove our natural areas to provide housing for its employees? In the current recession there are many fine homes and condos in Santa Barbara for sale and lease at ever more affordable prices.

Why remove our natural areas for classrooms. The natural outdoor areas of the garden are the best classrooms our children could have.

At a recent public meeting given by a Garden employee regarding the Gardens expansion plans. She stated "the Garden employees deserved" these new facilities. This is an example of the Gardens faulty point of view. The Garden and its employees should be serving the community. The community and natural areas should not suffer in order to enhance the position of those who work for the garden.

There is no justification to remove our valuable and irreplaceable natural areas especially when doing so will adversely affect all of the Gardens neighbors and when alternative locations and solutions are available.

On High Noon in the Garden of Controversy

Posted on September 11 at 8:18 a.m.

The Botanic Gardens "board's chair, Fife Symington III, the former Republican governor of Arizona who resigned after being convicted for bank fraud in 1997. (His case was appealed, his conviction overturned due to an improper juror dismissal, and he was later pardoned by President Bill Clinton"
SANTA BARBARA INDEPENDENT

Why does anyone give any credibility to this organization that is headed by a man with this reputation?

On Botanic Garden Plan Closer to Reality

Posted on August 8 at 3:14 p.m.

It is impressive all the responses in favor of more construction at the Garden, very professional. I wish my neighbors in Mission Canyon had a paid public relations person just like the Garden has.

On Botanic Garden Plan Presented to County

Posted on August 7 at 12:21 p.m.

Many of the proposed facilities could be located in existing buildings, in safer parts of the Santa Barbara area. The valuable library, seed and plant collections would be better protected from the inevitable fire somewhere else. By not building these buildings less of our natural areas would have to be removed. There would be less traffic and noise in the canyon. By using existing buildings our local economy would be helped by using some of the many vacant buildings we have in our community. It would probably even be wiser financially to lease and not have to make a major capital expenditure.

On Botanic Garden Plan Presented to County

Page 1 of 1

event calendar sponsored by: