Comments by wingnut
Page 1 of 1
Posted on March 27 at 10:54 a.m.
... duh, sbreader. Margaret Connell covered the story a week or two ago. I figure the more housing UCSB builds the more IV slum lords will complain.
Posted on March 19 at 10:03 a.m.
If Goleta doesn't live up to its agreements why should anyone else live up to their agreements?
If it wasn't fair the City, and the voters, should not have approved it in the first place.
Sour grapes is poor public policy.
Posted on March 14 at 8:48 a.m.
... my, an uncommonly thoughtful and fact-filled reminder that governance is more than incorporation. Well done.
Posted on November 21 at 12:49 p.m.
... I liked Goleta better when I was a kid and there was just fields and trees and far fewer people who paved over the valley to complain about others even thinking about doing what they already did.
A pox on all of your subdivisions, especially the self-righteous.
Posted on October 11 at 10:30 a.m.
Local bumper sticker:
Bertrando for Water Board
FUK YOU
... and this guy's running the water district. Along with McCaw how many egomaniacs can a community tolerate?
Posted on October 5 at 9:53 a.m.
Charming story. Thanks.
BTW ... I prefer the continual and unabated lying approach. I simply create an excuse and story for every question. "The Fairy was on vacation." "Mall Santa's aren't real like the on in the North Pole." After decades of myth-making, er lying, kids figure it out. After all children get pretty skilled at not believing what their parents tell them--my kids in particular. Gotta work every angle you get. And when they have kids of their own, well, telling white lies to make people happy is a good technique for making more kids.
Posted on September 28 at 8:55 a.m.
District financials make it perfectly obvious that residential water rates need to increase to subsidize lower rates and increasing use for agricultural interests. This works-out pretty-well with environmental, no-growth interests as well as neighborhood groups, who want want to prevent agricultural conversion to urban uses anyway. Hence, the District will return to torquing allocation strategies, shifting costs, and amping the politics.
As the comments make clear, a fine approach so long as residential ratepayers remain confused, upset, or a sleep. Which one are you?
Posted on September 28 at 8:51 a.m.
District financials make it perfectly obvious that residential water rates need to increase to subsidize lower rates and increasing use for agricultural interests. This works-out pretty-well with environmental, no-growth interests as well as neighborhood groups, who want want to prevent agricultural conversion to urban uses anyway. Hence, the District will return to torquing allocation strategies, shifting costs, and amping the politics.
As the comments make clear, a fine approach so long as residential ratepayers remain confused, upset, or a sleep. Which one are you?
Posted on August 15 at 4:02 p.m.
I loath publications who think their readers are stupid.
If the NP actions were just "good management" then why trash their principal asset (credibility), initiate a harmful labor dispute, reduce readership and subscriptions, decrease earnings, and refuse selling at any price? That's either bad management or managing for other than business purposes.
If it was because of bias then what's up with the perfectly obvious bias in reporting the labor dispute and the lack of reporting of local issues? At best that's just a different bias, not more balance.
If it was disloyalty then why not own up to dismissing employees because they think unionizing is disloyal? That's illegal.
It's perfectly clear that the owner just wants to be left alone to run the paper whatever way she wants. Fine; but they still should obey the law, disclose their biases, and manage well. The NP fails to follow their own reasoning, however self-serving and contrived. So it's logical to conclude, regardless of the positions of the parties in the dispute, that the NP is simply not telling the truth, which we generally calling lying.
Newspapers that are badly managed, don't disclose their bias, don't obey labor laws, and lie shouldn't be purchased, read, or regarded as credible. Mrs. McCaw can continue to publish her paper her way (though lawfully) and the rest of us can continue to regard the NP simply as a vanity press.
Page 1 of 1
Previous Month
Posted on April 3 at 11:42 a.m.
7dophins, I understand the plan's just released but the complaint was that Connell should have covered the story so the piece would be more critical. She did cover it.
I thought most were worried about UCSB effects on the community not that it was too segregated from the community. I get "integrate the good stuff and segregate the bad stuff" but it seems more balanced to expect both the yin and the Wang.
I don't know about the figures you mentioned, or how appropriate the comparison is of University vs. market housing. But, again, I thought the problem was that university folks were buying local real estate and driving the prices up and the locals out. Then when the university proposes to build its own, they're too segregated, too remote, and should buy or rent local market housing. It's no wonder to me why they don't seem to listen to the "community." Folks just want it both ways, all good, just for them.
On UCSB Looks to 2025