Comments by treedom
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on August 22 at 3:21 p.m.
DJ Palladino: thanks for a great article w/ a thought-provoking perspective.
Deejaykate: thanks for your suggestions, and your terrific show on KCSB.
sbmusick: you're the tool... D.J. is Mr. Palladino's name, not his job description, and he's a long-time promoter of the arts in this city.
Posted on May 5 at 11:22 p.m.
Correction: you said it's a triplex, which makes your landlord and your neighbor's landlord the same person. I apologize for the oversight.
Posted on May 5 at 11:20 p.m.
Who is ultimately at fault in your situation, Hank? Your neighbor's landlord is, for renting to those morons, despite the negative impacts that his irresponsible decision to do so has on you and your landlord.
The kid with the website is concerned about landlords engaging in criminal behavior against good tenants. You are concerned about landlords enabling criminal behavior by renting to bad tenants. Either way, THE BUCK STOPS WITH THE LANDLORD.
Speaking of which: you say you have destroyed peoples' bicycles because you don't like where they are parked -- multiple times, no less. A responsible landlord would evict your neighbors --- and also evict you, because a tenant who destroys other peoples' property for petty reasons (or any reasons) is an unacceptable liability.
Posted on March 21 at 9:55 p.m.
Following which, Justin Michael will anonymously promote himself in the third person.
2 of 2 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on March 12 at 6:30 p.m.
I wish the partisan trolls on both sides would give it a rest with the dimwitted finger-pointing, already. We are NOT in a unique situation here. Almost every household, every state, every county and local government in the country is feeling the effect of a nationwide near-depression brought on by the banking crisis. And in California, it is grossly compunded by a state budget train-wreck brought on by dysfunctional budget processes.
Here is the cruel irony. Demand for government services increases when unemployment rises, as people lose their jobs, houses, cars, health insurance, etc. But without a robust rainy-day fund, public services are least available when the public most needs them!
You work hard, you pay your taxes, you deserve to be able to count on help if and when you need it, and you deserve safe streets and decent schools in any economy.
Trouble is, to buy votes, state politicians like to cut taxes and raise spending when times are good -- and since state governments aren't allowed to run deficits, they're consequently forced to raise taxes and cut services when times are bad. This is the exact OPPOSITE of sound macroeconomic policy. It inflates ominous bubbles in boom times, and magnifies peoples' pain in bust times.
Good rainy-day legislation would require that surpluses be set aside for bad times. It would limit irresponsible tax cuts and spending expansions, and reduce the need for painful tax hikes and service cuts. It's common sense and good economics. Up in the Legislature, it would make liberals and conservatives alike behave like responsible adults.
Of course, first we, the voters, would have to act like responsible adults and pass such a thing. I am not optimistic.
Posted on March 12 at 5:04 p.m.
Thank you for a terrific piece, Rob. We loved Lou and miss him terribly.
0 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on February 20 at 1:04 a.m.
SIMA! I remember when my boss signed a new lease with SIMA. They brought down a photocopy for his file, and he realized they had WHITED-OUT AND CHANGED THE DOCUMENT HE HAD SIGNED. Their new management is missing the point here. Younger employees won't change the company's bad reputation -- ethical behavior will.
Posted on February 20 at 12:01 a.m.
To me, they pretty much broadcast "Guess what! We're even bigger [colloquialism for rectal orifice]s than you thought!"
On REALLY!?! Does Greka think these TV ads are effective? (SB Public Affairs)
Posted on January 30 at 10:10 a.m.
The law treats corporations like individuals in most ways save one -- there is no three strikes law for corporations. There should be. Greka is a repeat offender -- we can't get through a month without an oil spill from these nitwits. They drip with contempt for the environment, the law, and people of our county. Greka should be shut down for good, their assets liquidated for the benefit of the taxpayer (who has repeatedly been burdened responding to their mess), and their managers sentenced to a nice long jail term, during which they can ponder whether their sick and twisted business philosophy really is the best way to go.
P.S. Have you seen the PR ad Greka is running on TV? They come off like first-class scumbags even when they're trying make nice for the camera.
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Previous Month
Posted on August 28 at 1:19 a.m.
To the poster "Revisionist" -- your creative use of ellipses in quoting the article takes you well beyond "Revisionist". Perhaps you should upgrade your moniker to something more accurate, like "Shameless Liar."
Nowhere does the story say 60,000 illegal immigrants are covered.
The study goes on to find that it has NOT caused the feared job losses.
You seem to assume that screening and excluding illegal immigrants would reduce the cost. But it is also possible that the cost to build processes and bureaucracies to do so, and a DA squad and court and jail costs to prosecute the inevitable attempts to foil that bureaucracy, plus the public health cost to others who get diseases spread by untreated immigrants, would in fact be far higher than just covering everyone without asking. In fact, I'd wager they ran the numbers and determined as much before they made the decision not to ask.
Newsom is a mayor trying to protect public health and spend city money efficiently; immigration is a federal responsibility beyond his pay grade.
On Rx for Gavin Newsom