Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: stories: Opinion: Commentaries

Re: “Historical narrative

Hear, Hear, Erik Huber! The Fonz is a nutty as a fruitcake.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Jenna Lovejoy on 08/13/2018 at 12:54 PM

Re: “Historical narrative

The world we live in is undergoing great changes.
Not just climate change but also parts of the world just beginning to catch up with us.
To think the developed world can stave off the developing world with legislation and/or Agreements to cut carbons released into the air in an organized fashion is conceit of the highest order.
Yes, things can be done but like all changes in human behavior, it takes education right down to the individual living off the land. Change follows understanding, not the other way around.
So, write those article pitched to the average reader and watch them ask for fuel efficient cars and the many new products just beginning to be available. End some EPA rule. The people will pay attention and make choices that retain the rule's effect.
It is the choices of individuals that run the world and it's economy.
When individuals ask for it, the market supplies it.

0 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Gail Lightfoot on 08/12/2018 at 9:50 AM

Re: “No public benefits

Quote"What we know now from the expert panel of wastewater professionals and the memorandum of understanding between the city and Tri W Enterprises Inc. is: 1) Costs can be reduced by using another site; 2) There are no benefits to ratepayers to using the South Bay Boulevard site; and 3) The unnecessarily higher cost of building at the South Bay Boulevard site is for the purpose of subsidizing private interests. Under Proposition 218, money spent on building at the South Bay Boulevard site above what would be spent at another site is not money spent on providing water and sewer services to rate payers and is unconstitutional." Unquote

Number 1: It's true the City Council chose a site that was analyzed to cost more. But, that was after the "Not in my back yard" folks drove up the cost of the project by threatening to sue if the Righetti site was chosen instead. By choosing a site outside of city limits, the council demonstrated that it was worth the investment to reduce long-term exposure to NIMBY-ism. There's nothing unconstitutional about that!

Number 2: There are many benefits... Such as, getting the project done on the most favored site, the most analyzed site, the site outside the coastal zone with lots of separation from neighbors is a sound, long-term investment. Investing in a site that RWQCB and the Coastal Commission Staff have said is favorable is beneficial and sound policy. There's nothing unconstitutional about that!

Number 3: Yes, buying property anywhere else except the existing site could be seen as "subsidizing private interests"... They might also be subsidizing private interests by shuttering the existing plant in the coastal zone on Atascadero Road. Think of how the properties near Morro Rock and High School students could benefit, and there's nothing unconstitutional about that!

1 like, 5 dislikes
Posted by Brad Snook on 08/09/2018 at 4:00 PM

Re: “Historical narrative

Eric, Col. Fonzi is a former North County Republican Party official and his energetic efforts to discredit the wide scientific consensus on climate change/global warming and their symptoms are par for the course. Since the 1990s and Al Gore's first book on the environmental crisis, Republicans have allied with the petroleum industry to fabricate a counter-narrative to climate science. They first failed with the discrediting of their handful of select "expert" scientists, euphemistically called "skeptics," and have shifted their arguments to create doubt in the general public.

One such tactic that Col. Fonzi employed was the de-contextualized and potted histories of past conflagrations, as if the kinds of fires we are seeing in recent years are "normal." Or that the fires are primarily due to unthinned forests. In the former instance, the fires are happening with greater intensity and frequency due to the increase in the unprecedented factors caused by the burning of fossil fuels that create the atmospheric conditions for the kind of destruction we see in the Carr Fire. In the second instance, a great deal of the land destroyed is not in forests at all, but rather low-lying and scattered chaparral that has become extremely dry due to the effects of global warming and related drought.

6 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Gordon Fuglie on 08/09/2018 at 7:53 AM

Re: “Chorro and Marsh

$1250 for a studio apartment?? Affordable housing in San Luis Obispo has become an oxymoron.
The average service industry wage earner and fixed income retirees cannot afford that - period - no matter how high you build .

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Pamela Wittenbrook McKiernan on 08/05/2018 at 10:15 AM

Re: “Chorro and Marsh

I am saddened by what is happening in our town...way too big building popping up all over the place. What is the difference between two and seven stories? Seriously? The closed in imposing feeling--blotting out the sky and the views of our beautiful mountains, to name a few. The 'thing' at Chorro and Foothill being the worst most 'overgrown, mountain view blocking, pushed to the street thing ever'. The too large hotel projects ---the overall reduction of parking when we already have a bad lack of parking. Rents are off the charts. I would like all of that to just stop. Hello Mayor? City Council? Somebody??

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by James Scoolis on 08/05/2018 at 9:40 AM

Re: “Chorro and Marsh

Not too long ago SLO was on lists as the happiest place to live. But, with all the building going on w/o any thought to how bringing in all the new residents is going to impact everything about SLO, it will be anything but happy. We need to look to other areas to see what happens when thoughtful planning is not in place.

Ive seen developers find ways to try to convince the current community that what they are doing (in this case provide affodable housing) is to benefit the community ... but really, what is their real agenda? A developers job is to make a profit. The community really needs to look at the long-term impact.

A 7 story building downtown is going to impact way more than the view while walking down the sidewalk down town as a previous person commented. I dont understand how dense housing downtown allows people to live close to where they work - are there really that many jobs downtown?

I never understand why people move to an area because they like it, but then they change it. Look back at the history of San Jose which was beautiful at one time. Same with Santa Cruz.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Denise Fitzgerald on 08/05/2018 at 5:23 AM

Re: “Chorro and Marsh

The problem I see is this is not affordable at all.
"$1,214 per month for an "affordable" studio unit, and a single person can earn up to $69,900 to qualify for it. "
A wage of $12/hr is about $2,000/mo. Half your income for rent? A studio you cannot really share with another individual?
It is a bare bones struggle to barely survive these days.

7 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Gail Lightfoot on 08/03/2018 at 12:01 PM

Re: “Chorro and Marsh

I can't figure out why so many people are afraid of tall buildings. While walking down the sidewalk, what is the difference between a 2 story building and a 7?

7 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Ian Tanner on 08/02/2018 at 1:46 PM

Re: “Chorro and Marsh

Building dense housing is an environmentally sound way to build that can allow people to live close to where they work, and reduce traffic as a result. We've led ourselves into this housing crisis by blocking housing, and our community has become one of "haves" and "have nots." I hope readers will stop to consider where Ms. Kinney's NIMBY arguments have gotten us so far.

4 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by ra237 on 08/02/2018 at 12:31 PM

Re: “Those were the days: Cayucos in the '60s

Never built hot rods all by myself. Owned a number of them when I was younger.

Posted by Dave Stevens on 07/22/2018 at 3:47 PM

Re: “Pick your side


Posted by on 07/13/2018 at 1:04 PM

Re: “Worth fighting for

Where O Where is my Churchill?

Posted by on 07/13/2018 at 12:58 PM

Re: “Pick your side

I read the L.A. Times article on Judge Brack. He wrote letter after letter to Barack Obama, about the issues which were troubling him, and got no response. Which seems, at least on its face, to implicate previous administrations. But now the issue is presented as entirely new, without precedent, when this has been occurring for a long time. Can we stop with the manufactured outrage and clearly partisan histrionics, and discuss this issue in its complete historical context? What immigration policies shall we have? Open borders? What do you propose, Mr. Cuddy? Are we to be a nation with discrete borders, or not? And if not, how will that work? Inane, shopworn (and entirely inappropriate) references to the Holocaust get us exactly nowhere.

2 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Matthew Giuffrida on 07/07/2018 at 4:54 AM

Re: “Pick your side

Good points here. One thing to remember is that a lot of cops, ICE types, border guards & so on are just sadists, in the true clinical sense.They get off on terrorizing, tormenting, abusing & sometimes killing innocent, vulnerable people. ICE is AmurKKKa's gestapo & most functionaries thoroughly enjoy their cruel work. After all, no compassionate decent, moral person would want to take a job where one's responsibilities include tearing families apart & locking children in dog kennels.

3 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Jay Bonestell on 07/05/2018 at 9:32 PM

Re: “Trump supporters not welcome


1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Jon K on 07/01/2018 at 9:39 PM

Re: “American gun culture

You are so right, Mr. Slater.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Jenna Lovejoy on 06/21/2018 at 4:44 PM

Re: “Hat's off to you, Vlad

Great letter, Mr. Schiffer. Chilling.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Jenna Lovejoy on 06/21/2018 at 4:37 PM

Re: “Unhappy SLO

The constant rise in housing costs are in part due to rising building costs and regulations. Land increases in value as open land becomes scarce.

Adding lots of safety features to homes, limited density rules, costs of permits and inspections as wages rise, need to provide water and other city and county services since SLO is no longer entirely a rural retreat. The list is nearly endless and includes all of California.

Providing services to residents, tourists and transients is expensive. Taxes and the cost of services hurt the low income families the most. It is, again, up to those who can to dig deep into our pockets to help fund private charities. No money? Give time.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Gail Katherine Lightfoot on 06/21/2018 at 12:16 PM

Re: “Unhappy SLO

The only way SLO will ever have any class is to rid itself of Cal Poly in the altogether. SLO was once a cow town with real people now it's nothing more than a communist think tank; a town of progressives who imagine rampant racism where there is none. This will soon be remedied by the hordes moving up from Sothern California, many of them, real people. SLO will become a sprawling metropolis with all the excitement that working people bring. Hedi Harman will be relegated to ASH where indeed she belongs.

4 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Mike Morgan on 06/16/2018 at 10:31 AM

© 2018 New Times San Luis Obispo
Powered by Foundation