Tuesday, September 1 , 2015, 8:46 am | Fog/Mist 66.0º




Measure J on Carpinteria Ballot a Source of Heated Debate

Arguments for and against Venoco's drilling plan center on the initiative process, safety, revenues

Measure J on Carpinteria’s ballot would allow Venoco Inc. to erect a drilling rig at its onshore processing facility near the Carpinteria Bluffs.

Measure J on Carpinteria’s ballot would allow Venoco Inc. to erect a drilling rig at its onshore processing facility near the Carpinteria Bluffs.  (Giana Magnoli / Noozhawk photo)

By Giana Magnoli, Noozhawk Staff Writer |

The South Coast is a focal point for the oil drilling debate this election season, and the controversy surrounding Carpinteria’s ballot initiative proposing an onshore drilling rig continues to produce impassioned supporters and opponents.

Venoco Inc.’s Measure J, or the Paredon Oil & Gas Development Initiative, proposes building an onshore drilling rig to access the untapped oil field just off the coast of Carpinteria. The wells would be drilled down and out under the ocean floor using slant-drilling technology, since none of Venoco’s three offshore platforms can reach the Paredon field.

The drilling rig would be located at the company’s onshore processing facility off Dump Road, near Carpinteria City Hall and the Carpinteria Bluffs Nature Preserve and seal rookery. Venoco has onshore drilling facilities in Ventura County, Beverly Hills and the Sacramento Basin, as well as platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel.

Arguments for and against the project have centered on the initiative process, safety and revenues to the city and county of Santa Barbara.

The Paredon field lease, which Venoco purchased from Chevron in the late 1990s, along with several oil platforms and its Carpinteria processing facility, has the potential to produce 22 million barrels of oil, according to Venoco community relations manager Lisa Rivas.

South Coast towns have had oil platforms off their coasts for decades, and the country’s first offshore platform was near Summerland. While the recent Gulf of Mexico spill may have raised some awareness to the issue of oil drilling, and politicians have released moratoriums on new leases, Rivas said the moratoriums have no effect on the Paredon project.

However, she said she does expect the entire industry to feel the impact of the disaster.

“After events like this,” Rivas said, “we see impacts to regulations, response and safety practices.”

The quest for project approval through the ballot measure process has been questioned by the opposition because a yes vote would both approve the project and make the necessary amendments to the city’s general and coastal plans, since they don’t currently allow for what the project includes. A no vote wouldn’t stop Venoco from developing the oil field, but it would eliminate the option of drilling from its onshore facility.

“We’re not anti-oil, and we’re not anti-Paredon,” said Donna Jordan, co-chair of Citizens Committee Against Paredon Initiative and a former Carpinteria mayor. “It’s not the drilling that bothers me; it’s the way they’re doing it.”

The initiative calls for amendments and would give the project’s specific plan governing power over the city’s municipal code for the city zoning ordinance, according to the full text of the initiative.

“If you know what’s in there,” Jordan said, “I’m not worried about how you’re going to vote.”

According to the initiative, “to the extent that any provision of the Carpinteria Municipal Code or any rule, regulation or official policy of the city frustrates the purpose or intent of this specific plan, those inconsistent provisions of the Carpinteria Municipal Code or rules, regulations or official policies of the city shall be superseded by this specific plan.”

Jordan calls Venoco’s campaign the perfect metaphor for a company buying its way into a small town, and said she worries about the precedent it would set if Measure J passes.

The pro-Measure J campaign, funded almost entirely by Venoco, has far outspent the opposition, and signs for either side adorn many a yard and corner.

Rivas said that if the project is approved, it still would have to be reviewed by regulatory agencies, led by the California State Lands Commission.

“No action by the city or people will remove the right to regulate our facility,” she said.

Onshore facilities are a safer and cheaper way to produce oil, as any backup problems most likely would push oil back to the well head on land, where any spilled oil would be easier to capture. Any amount of oil that falls into the ocean — from leaks, blown by the wind or anything else — has to be reported and is difficult to capture, according to Rivas.

“We literally have to report drops,” she said.

The impacts of the project on the environment and neighbors has been a concern for some residents, citing vibrations from drilling, noise, traffic congestion from the additional trucks, and the risks of blowouts, explosion or leaks, especially since the area is near residential areas.

“If it (a blowout) happens in the sticks, it’s only Venoco gambling with its own assets,” Jordan said, referring to the company’s gas well blowout in late April in Glenn County. “Here, they’re asking us to gamble with them. We have too much to lose.”

Many organizations have supported the initiative, including many South Coast chambers of commerce, because of the potential millions of dollars in revenue.

While only the state, county and city would get royalty revenues if a commercial amount of oil is found, past studies have shown the likelihood of millions of barrels in the Paredon field, Rivas said.

“Why not get their paycheck?” she said of the city’s residents.

Venoco said it also would donate a portion of its Dump Road parcel land as open space and millions of dollars to the Carpinteria Education Foundation if the drilling project goes forward. If commercial amounts are not found, all equipment would be removed, and the land and money would not be donated.

As it works now, gas would come into the processing facility through pipes and be compressed, have odorant added and be distributed. Oil comes into the facility’s tanks, water is moved out and the oil goes to refineries in Los Angeles through a series of pipelines.

Click here to view more information about the initiative on the city of Carpinteria’s Web site.

Noozhawk staff writer Giana Magnoli can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).




comments powered by Disqus

» on 05.27.10 @ 09:16 AM

Why do the sides have to make up slogans to try and make their position sound good?

“Save Our town?”  I don’t think so.

“For the Environment?”  Not really.

“For our Kids?”  You’ve got to be kidding.

“For Safety?”  Please….

Let’s just have an honest conversation about the Proposition “J” issues.

Oil Is a basic resource like lumber, honey, vegetables, sandstone and any number of thousands of items.

A guy who owns a company (Venoco) is willing put his money up to try and drill for some oil.  No cost to you and me.

If he’s successful, he’ll make some money, he will pay Carpinteria some money, he’ll create some jobs that will last for decades and there will be a new supply of oil for all of America.

That’s it.

It’s not MY oil.  It’s not even OUR oil.  It’s a natural resource that’s sitting there waiting to be made available.

The way things are set up, there is a process that a vote gives permission to tap that resource.

To “deny” that permission would be pure selfishness.  A no vote denies all America a source of oil.  A no vote denies all of Carpinteria a source of income.  A no vote denies jobs that are sorely needed.

Yes, I know about the Gulf of Mexico blowout.  Very sad.  Sad things happen.  I was here in Santa Barbara in 1969 for the blowout that year.  I cleaned up birds and beaches for 3 weeks.

Since the earliest oil well drilled in Summerland in the late 1800’s, cagillions barrels of oil have been successfully drilled and transported worldwide.  Of that amount, not a portion of one percent has been spilled.

If some portion of one percent of oil ever spills in Carpinteria, you can count on me to help clean it up.

Do the right thing..,VOTE Y E S on “J”.

Mark King

» on 05.27.10 @ 03:00 PM

And now for the rest of the story…………

In Oil, the legendary muckraker Upton Sinclair revealed the true mother’s milk of
Southern California. Joy Horowitz’s courageous and riveting Parts Per Million:
The Poisoning of Beverly Hills High School, 2007, drills even deeper and brings
to the surface a sump of greed, death and corruption that makes Chinatown seem
like chump change.

Might I suggest to your readers, in response to the mantra that the Venoco facilities
at Beverly Hills High School have been a great win-win success story, that they
read Joy Horowitz’s book Go to “Half.Com”and you can order the book for
just a few dollars.

CLICK HERE http://www.flickr.com/photos/32520523@N04/sets/72157624013715491/

» on 05.27.10 @ 03:09 PM

I disagree with the previous comment with the exception of where it says let’s have an honest conversation about this issue…
The comment and the analogy is overly simplistic and, while maybe honest to the previous author’s FEELINGS, are not true to the FACTS.

First, identifying and measuring the direct cost associated with this guy, Venoco’s, willingness to drill for oil (or any development project for that matter) is the very intent of the reviews associated with the normal development permitting process within every city including Carpinteria.  But, unlike all other ‘guys’ and companies doing business and living in Carpinteria, this review will not be conducted on Venoco’s project by the very entity responsible to the welfare of its citizens - the City itself - because Venoco is bypassing the normal permitting process with the initiative.

That said, the incomplete environmental review that was being conducted on Venoco’s original oil development project had already found 11 unavoidable impacts or “costs” to our communty’s welfare and environment.  An additional fact is that the development project now being proposed by Venoco in Measure J is so significantly different then the original project that it is expected to pose more than a dozen impacts that are significantly greater than the original project.  (City of Carpinteria Staff Report 9212)

Oddly, the author of the previous comment believes voicing concerns about these “costs” and opposing them is “purely selfish.”  It would be a tragic day when a community ever became ambivalent about these “costs” to its welfare and environment.

Finally, the previous comment and the article make a very significant error when they say “a no vote denies” Carpinteria anything or a no vote would “eliminate the option of drilling from its onshore facility.”  These are not factual statements.  If the citizens of Carpinteria do not pass Measure J, Venoco is still welcome to return to the City’s normal development and permitting process for its project.  If it is truly a very responsible project that has no cost to you and me, then it should have no trouble being approved through the normal channels that are intended to safeguard and prioritize the health and safety of our town.

» on 05.27.10 @ 03:49 PM

There shouldn’t even be cause for debate, this is so lopsidedly easy. Just vote No!

» on 05.27.10 @ 03:56 PM

In response to Mark King’s comments:

>>>“For the Environment?”  Not really.

No, really. Oil drilling in the ocean has catastrophic consequences when things go wrong.

“For our Kids?”  You’ve got to be kidding.

No, they are not kidding. I have kids, and I want their future to be full of clean energy, not oil energy. We cannot afford the possibility of an oil spill. I was here in 1969. To remember, look at old newspaper photos. The beaches were blackened with oil. Full black, thick oil; not like that brownish stuff we are seeing in the photos from the Gulf.

“For Safety?”  Please….

Once again, yes. For the safety of the environment, it is important to think of future generations and vote “no” on Venoco’s proposal. Let you environmentalism and love for the Earth shine for a change! We know it is in you!

» on 05.27.10 @ 05:01 PM

I disagree with the previous comment with the exception of where it says let’s have an honest conversation about this issue…
The comment and the analogy is overly simplistic and, while maybe honest to the previous author’s FEELINGS, are not true to the FACTS.

First, identifying and measuring the direct cost associated with this guy, Venoco’s, willingness to drill for oil (or any development project for that matter) is the very intent of the reviews associated with the normal development permitting process within every city including Carpinteria.  But, unlike all other ‘guys’ and companies doing business and living in Carpinteria, this review will not be conducted on Venoco’s project by the very entity responsible to the welfare of its citizens - the City itself - because Venoco is bypassing the normal permitting process with the initiative.

That said, the incomplete environmental review that was being conducted on Venoco’s original oil development project had already found 11 unavoidable impacts or “costs” to our communty’s welfare and environment.  An additional fact is that the development project now being proposed by Venoco in Measure J is so significantly different then the original project that it is expected to pose more than a dozen impacts that are significantly greater than the original project.  (City of Carpinteria Staff Report 9212)

Oddly, the author of the previous comment believes voicing concerns about these “costs” and opposing them is “purely selfish.”  It would be a tragic day when a community ever became ambivalent about these “costs” to its welfare and environment.

Finally, the previous comment and the article make a very significant error when they say “a no vote denies” Carpinteria anything or a no vote would “eliminate the option of drilling from its onshore facility.”  These are not factual statements.  If the citizens of Carpinteria do not pass Measure J, Venoco is still welcome to return to the City’s normal development and permitting process for its project.  If it is truly a very responsible project that has no cost to you and me, then it should have no trouble being approved through the normal channels that are intended to safeguard and prioritize the health and safety of our town.

» on 05.27.10 @ 05:48 PM

Seatizen…Feelings and Facts?!
The whole No on J is completely about feelings and lying about the facts.  Multiple agencies will be reviewing this project.  The city has kicked the can down the road for years.  The common sense people of Carpinteria will vote in a few weeks despite all the emotional rhetoric and lies.  Just this week someone told me that the drilling rig will be there for thirty years drilling!  I informed him that it would be there for 9 months drilling 35 wells a couple of feet apart and would eventually be a lighthouse structure that is sound proofed and have gas detectors, both which goes beyond a set decibal or point would shut down operation.  A lie, he says.  Never read it anywhere.  They choose to ignore the facts and get everyone emotionally riled up for their idealogical agenda.  They even try to make people think that it will sound like a piledriver for thirty years!  I guess the biggest polluter of our county which is natural seepage is okay, since the methane and other gases have the word “natural”.  When people start losing their freedom to go on vacation, drive, boat, jetski, turn on their heater or stove, maybe they will realize that gas and oil will not go away for many years.  What’s their solution?  Windmills in Cape Cod?...can’t, don’t want to see them.  Sound familiar?  Solar panels in the desert?...can’t, desert tortoise or flat tail lizard.  Nuclear?.....can’t, didn’t you see China Syndrome.  The agenda castigated and drove out the founder of GreenPeace for….how dare he suggest nuclear for clean energy?!?  I just hope there are enough common sense people to vote for this project.  Save our town…from what…a lighthouse?

» on 05.27.10 @ 06:37 PM

Coastal Local, you seem to suggest that my comments are not factual.  I invite you to comment on the validity of any of my points.  If you are going to suggest that my point about environmental reviews is in error because other entities will conduct their own reviews, perhaps you should more carefully re-read my comment - I only state the fact that the City of Carpinteria will not get an opportunity to conduct its normal reviews.  This might seem minor to someone who is not familiar with the permitting and oversight of projects but this is huge when you consider that this means the City of Carpinteria will not be the ‘lead agency’ even though it is the most relevant and significant entity to best know and oversee the safety and welfare of its community and the “costs” of a development to its citizens - one of the very reasons Carpinteria became a self-governing entity in the first place.
If you are going to comment on the validity of my comments, please actually direct your accusations to my comments.

» on 05.27.10 @ 08:29 PM

If you drive a car, eat food you purchased, live in a house you bought or bought the clothes you wear then you are part of the oil civilization. If JustBobF really wants to live in an oil free world then why does he drive a car and buy stuff dependant on oil? He could try and at least make an attempt at living off the grid. He does not though and neither does anyone living in Carpentaria. We all consume, at a voracious rate, oil. If you don’t want its extraction done in your back yard then stop using it. As bad as the 1969 oil spill was or the Exxon and BP spills we are the ones driving the cause.

People like to talk about oil addiction and then they go and buy a Prius and think “well at least I’m doing something about it.” No you are not. Though fuel makes up 70% of oil’s use that other 30% goes into just about everything you use today. Further, only 16% of the fuel produced from oil goes to private automobile use. The rest is used by ground and air transport of goods and public transit and electrical generation. So even if you ride a bike where ever you go you are still using oil every time you make a purchase at a store or turn a light on in your house.

That is no excuse for wasting oil and just being frugal and conservative would help a great deal. But in the end, unless you stop living life the way you do now you are part of the oil civilization and there ain’t no way of gettin around it folks. You can hate oil and want it gone, but it’s the reason you are alive today and the reason you have what you do. So either learn to live an oil free life (completely off the grid) or learn to accept the cost of your life style.

» on 05.27.10 @ 08:29 PM

Dear “seatizen”

I wouldn’t trust the Carpinteria City Council with deciding the outcome of my business and I can certainly understand why Venoco wouldn’t either.  The Carpinteria City Council is clearly and pointedly prejudiced against anything to do with oil.

Venoco is going directly to the Carpinteria people for THEIR input and decision.  I have far more trust in the citizens o Carpinteria than I have in the Carpinteria City Council.  Sad but true.

» on 05.27.10 @ 08:39 PM

Dear “seatizen”

Two more points I have to make.  The business about “unavoidable impacts” is a political gimmic.  It’s a way of exaggerating an impact by making it sound “dire”.  An example is the construction of ANY structure has an “unavoidable impact” because you can see it.  Yes, seeing a structure is what is called an “univoidable impact”.

Nonsense.

The other point about “selfishness” I mean completely.  If we were living in the Yosemite area it might be tempting to pass a law limiting the tourists that came to the area as a “selfish” way of feathering our own nest.  Sorry, Yosemite is a national treasure and should be shared unselfishly with all.  The oil in the Santa Barbara Channel is, likewise, a national treasure and should be shared with all.

I stand by my “selfish” comment and beg you to be more generous than you have been willing to be so far.

Mark King

» on 05.28.10 @ 10:24 AM

According to Jordan, if the only issue is the Initiative process, then why does the opposition continue to print false information on noise, odor, vibration, etc.  The California Initiative process has been in place for a very long time. It gives citizens the right to place an issue on the ballot and vote for it.

» on 05.28.10 @ 10:57 AM

Normal review is NO review.  They don’t have the authority or expertise to review facility.  Experts do, and they will review it.

» on 05.28.10 @ 11:40 AM

Take a look around you folks, we use oil in almost every aspect of our daily lives. Do we want and need to develop new energy sources?yes. Will this take time? Yes.
We need to become self sufficient in our energy to bridge this gag until we can switch over to alternative sources of energy. This switch over takes time. For those of you who are against oil I suggest you take the following steps.
1.  stop driving a car 2. stop using natural gas to heat your homes and cook your food-may I suggest a camp fire, oh wait, just try getting a permit for that!3. stop using petroleum based products-the list is endless.

Vote YES on J
coastpharm

» on 05.28.10 @ 11:47 AM

If you truly believe that Venoco would have, or will be, given a fair and impartial process from the City of Carpinteria, then you mut not live here. Everyone here knows that even before the project came before the City that a majority of the City Council campaigned against it. Venoco and the Citizens had no other choice. The mono focused enviromentalist and NIMBY’s of this area won’t be satisfied until we are all pushed back to horse and buggy. But how will your granola get delivered to the Trader Joes?

» on 05.28.10 @ 12:06 PM

JustBobF…Where is your clean energy and how are you going to pay for it?  Tax more?  Everyone wants clean energy for the future, but your side doesn’t offer any common sense solutions.  You ignore organizations like soscalifornia.org which promotes the oil and gas industry to clean up our seeps (biggest polluter) and using oil revenue not only for the money that could come in to cut our deficit, but also create all the clean energy alternatives within 5 years, if we went after our own resources.  That would be the best and most efficient route to clean energy for everyone.  Algae is still years away and you can’t even build clean energy installations to produce enough energy for us.  You’ve rejected nuclear, and now are rejecting windmills all because you don’t want them in your backyards.  Pelosi says she wants solar…but not in our desert.  Maybe if she pulled her head out far enough, she could see where the sun “does” shine!

» on 05.28.10 @ 12:26 PM

I find it interesting that a City that encourages tourism (visitors driving long distances in gas guzzling vehicles) does not feel obligated to some extent to support an industry that makes tourism possible.  Oh, the hypocrisy of environmentalism.  It should also be noted that the “NO” folk have jumped into bed with the EDC, the organization who tried to strike a deal with PXP, allowing offshore slant drilling at the lucrative Tranquillon Ridge in exchange for the closing of three platforms over 9 years.  The three platforms are nearing the end of their production life cyle while Tranquillon is much more lucrative and may have greater greater environmental impacts.  The EDC’s claim that this would be done to shut down offshore entirely is misleading to say the very least.  MMS is not part of the PXP deal and there is not guarantee that this deal would hold together in the many years to come.  Yet, the EDC/No folk criticize those who support J for even considering the financial benefits.  It seems that EDC has a price point?

» on 05.28.10 @ 12:40 PM

And just what does this “by passing the city process” mean? Does it mean that the four opposed city council members will not be able to oppose every aspect of its operation according to their bias against Venoco?  Gee, going through the process like every other “guy” in town.I hardly think you can compare this business to something like say a t- shirt store. Imagine if the city decided the T shirt store now had to go through an elaborate maze of regulation to determine if the ink in the t shirts are environmentally safe, where were the actual shirts produced, are the designs on the shirts offensive to someone? Venoco goes through environmental agencies set up by your government .

» on 05.28.10 @ 03:13 PM

“Venoco goes through environmental agencies set up by your government.”

No, not if Measure J is approved. In that case Venoco circumvents the primary review procedure.

It will be interesting to see the results of this election. The 4 city council members who oppose J were all elected by locals in Carp. It seems bizarre for people like King and others who have been active in Carp public life for years to propose that they are all at odds with the citizens in the town where they were elected. And, to propose that local government should not have fundamental responsibility for local issues.

Venoco has poured mega-bucks into selling the project to voters but my hunch is that J will be rejected and we’ll see who is out of touch with the community.

» on 05.28.10 @ 06:58 PM

A very sad thing, when someone who should know better just demonstrates how partisan and narrow minded they have become. So this guy spent three weeks helping to clean up the mess back in 69? And he volunteers to help again after Venoco creates a disaster that he encourages us to invite?  He shows a callous disregard for what is happening right now in the coast of Louisiana. Has he not seen the death and devastation now shown on TV. Has he not seen the senator crying for the irreparable loss of life and ways to make a living. He, a former City Councilman, tells us several times that he does not trust the City Council to give a fair hearing to Venoco. He a former Librarian, has not bothered to read the many studies that City has produced. He a former/current? real estate person does not acknowledge that studies show that real estate prices will drop between 10 to 15 percent in the Concha Loma Neighborhood.  What happened!  Maybe he soured and became vindictive after he got caught by the City trying to cut corners by faking an official document.  Who knows.  Sad things do happen.

» on 05.28.10 @ 08:57 PM

Dear Mark King,
Your line of reasoning in order to argue a pro-Venoco’s Measure J position is making my head spin.

Let me try to highlight your regulatory and political philosophy.
You challenge the validity of California Environmental Quality Act’s established impact review and call it a “political gimmick,”
You advocate that any “guy” or corporation has a public duty to unhindered resource exploitation,
You claim the democratic philosophy of citizen representation through elected officials is flawed because Carpinteria representatives still stand on the platforms that they ran on,
And you conclude that the only just platform to decide this issue is through a vote of the people while at the same time frustratingly condemning the inherent political campaign model.

I’d stop and say I couldn’t be more bewildered, but actually your statement that oil exploitation is analogous to protecting the majestic Yosemite FROM exploitation takes my confusion to all new levels.  In your view, both are an ethical responsibility to the world at large for all of our enjoyment?!  With this philosophy, you must be convinced BP’s month long spill is one of the most “generous” public services this nation has ever seen!

Don’t let rational thought get in the way when you think you might have a lucrative agenda, my mom’s son always says.

» on 05.28.10 @ 08:59 PM

And for those other comments that profess that it is irrational and a contradiction (and, let me guess, un-American, as well) to be both dependent on oil and opposed to Measure J, this is a nonsensical argument and against our very evolutionary instinct as a society to better our lives and our children’s lives.

I hope you all appreciate that living in the USA affords us the process in which any activity is scrutinized, monitored and potentially remedied for its threats to our health and safety.  It is this process that helps inform the decision as to whether a development or project should occur or go back to the drawing board.  Should monetary value or demand take priority over our or our next-door neighbors’ health and safety?  If you follow your own line of reasoning, then it is more correct to state that you have no justification to desire clean water or air if you eat food, drink water or turn on a light.

Come on- we as a society supposedly pride ourselves on being more civilized, egalitarian, and forward thinking than our civilization’s opportunistic neanderthal or tyrannic past.

Those that are spewing this propaganda should be ashamed.

» on 05.28.10 @ 09:10 PM

To Coast…

Going through the process does not mean “the four council members”  It means the Environmental Review Committee, the Planning Commission and all the interested residents, not only of Carpinteria, but of the County and beyond.  It means that the community can shape the project to be more environmentally friendly. It means the planning commission, with the help of consultants and volunteer experts can ask for reasonable mitigations to the adverse effects of the project.  It means that the vision of the community, as expressed in its policy documents will be respected and not just amended.  It means that the project, if approved, will have binding conditions of that approval.  It means that Venoco does not get a blank check that they can fill in themselves. (Like they are able to under the initiative)  It means a lot actually.  Please vote no on Measure J and send Venoco through the proper planning process.

» on 05.29.10 @ 11:39 AM

Sea
So let me see if I got this right? You and the anti oil folks admit that we still need fossil Fuel. It has to be extracted. Just don’t do it in your back yard. Do it in someone, or some other country’s back yard. While it seeps up underneath your feet. Seems a little elitest to me. Your the one who should be ashamed.

» on 05.29.10 @ 03:04 PM

Dear Mick
Again, the campaign approach of ignoring anything someone says and insert your agenda.
To twist the opposition’s position to be “anti-oil” is ignoring all the real and valid points that someone who disagrees with you has.  Even worse is if you are doing it as an intentional pro-Venoco tactic.
How dare you assert that a citizen has no place to expect a development (what ever it is, oil or otherwise) to be done responsibly, sent back to the drawing board to be done responsibly, or not done at all.
That is shameful.

» on 05.30.10 @ 04:50 PM

All the pro J folks are trying to tell you anti oil types is, that if you use the stuff then you have to pay the piper. And you not only use the stuff, you use more than anyone else on the planet. You owe your very existence on oil. Your very survival as a human being DEPENDS on it. It isn’t a matter of replacing an oil well with a wind mill and then you can go on living the way you do guilt free. You can not. Until such a day comes when we have effectively replaced oil and or all fossil fuels with an alternative that is as easily available and as cheap as petroleum then we had better get all we can right now, because the second biggest user, China, does not share your myopic view toward oil extraction or use and they will get it, right up to our sovereign 12 mile limit. Imagine that, you chronic whiners and complainers, China, drilling into the same pools of oil you so do not want extracted off our coast, doing it anyway and telling you put up or shut up and oh by the way you owe us a trillion dollars so do as we say or pay up! Got the picture geniuses? You gave up all rights to complain when you drummed wealth creation off shore with your legalism and decided to go on living like you still made wealth only borrowing to make up the difference.
Argue those points my pointy headed little NIMBY’s. Justify your actions while your biggest creditor waits offshore.

» on 05.30.10 @ 08:39 PM

AND50

Long ago I identified And50 as a shill for the oil industry, probably paid 50c a word for posting his opinions here, he seems to go on and on about our dependence on oil. He obviously does not understand that measure J is more about the avoidance of the correct process than about oil extraction. He is not from Carpinteria, so he needs to go try to get an oil project approved near his neighborhood. unfortunately the profit motive is strong in him and we will just have to put up with his rants. Meanwhile, all you Carpinteria Voters, whether you are pro or against oil, please vote no on Measure J. Don’t sell out your town, don’t sell out your soul to a soul-less corporation.

» on 05.30.10 @ 09:44 PM

Dear “Proudincarp”

You spoke as if you know who I am.  You don’t.

I checked with Noozhawk and confirmed that their policy is that all submissions are anonymous and that all identities are protected.

That is as it should be.

I picked my user name, “Mark King” because I like the sound of that as a username.

Why you chose “Proudincarp” may have been for a similar reason but, frankly, I don’t care why you call yourself “Proudincarp”.

Equally frankly, I don’t care WHO you are.

I have responded to writers to Noozhawk based on WHAT THEY SAY…Not who they are.

I notice that you go on to justify you positions based on who you thought I, as the author, was.

Typical of emotional, left leaning progressives to go after the person and the personalitids with greater zeal than defend their own arguments.

I apologize to whoever the “Mark King” that “Proudincarp” was referring to.

“Proundincarp” demonstrates that he (or she) can be very nasty when they want to be.

Mark King

» on 05.31.10 @ 12:26 AM

Yeah that’s right, a paid shill. What an idiot. What you don’t like is facing your own demons so you demonize anyone forcing you to face them. For you it’s all about the “process”, what a load of “nuanced” BS. Process indeed! That’s how you ignoramuses have done it for 40 years now, gum everything up with “process” (that’s liberal speak for legalism or obstructionism, born out of whole cloth from lawyers).
Face the facts, you use oil and therefore you have to pay for it. That cost comes in one of three ways, at the pump which is the most regressive and hurtful to the poorest of us all, sacrificing your stupid view you paid too much for and live next to it or both. Funny how you shills for the great white, racist, liberal elites want everything nice and expensive because it separates you from the great unwashed masses. I can hardly contain my contempt for you big phonies. BTW nice that you have no real argument for what I wrote, just another load of cooked baloney.

» on 05.31.10 @ 01:28 AM

Dear Mark King:

Pretending you are not who we know you are would work if you had not published the same letter using your real name “Mark King” on the Coastal View News this week.  What happened to you man? you had potential… Sad things happen.

» on 05.31.10 @ 01:38 AM

Measure J isn’t an issue of oil vs. no oil.  It’s a matter of who gets to do our city planning:  Venoco (who wrote Measure J) or our professional city planners (whose job it really is).

Let’s see…Venoco has paid people to gather signatures to put the measure on the ballot, paid people to do their precinct walking, paid people to do their phone calling, paid people to stand on street corners with signs, paid people to draft letters to newspapers, paid people to take “opinion polls”...anyone care to hazard a guess whether they’re paying people to post on internet bulletin boards?

» on 06.01.10 @ 11:20 AM

by the way Mr. King

In my first letter I never mentioned your name!!! hahahaha

» on 06.01.10 @ 02:38 PM

Dear “proudincarp”

ALL letters to the editor at any newpaper need to be signed.  I didn’t mind at all using my “Mark King” user name.  And I don’t need to hide whoever I am…because this is not a personal chat posting.  I’m not looking for new friends.  I AM interested in the serious discussion of matters affecting each of us in or daily lives.

You completely ignore my principal point…it doesn’t matter who you are or who I am…what do you have to say to defend your positions.

What a shame you waste two more letters on who you think I am rather than what you or I have to say.

I imagine that is clever strategy #5 in your prgressive handbook.

Not very impressive.

Still Mark King

» on 06.01.10 @ 03:45 PM

I’ve read everything about this issue, looked at both sides again and again, and I still come up with the same thing. No one has ever tried to uphold the Maddy bill and reap royalties from it…“grandfathering” it makes it even a longer shot. Would you still want a drill here if there were no possible royalties for the city? Just because we say it’s not the right place for a drill, doesn’t mean we don’t appreciate the value oil brings to our lives. We have how many rigs in the SB channel already? Hello! And if you look at the latest oil news, we are using less of it, not more! Ever heard of peak oil? Anyway, I’m still eagerly awaiting Mark King/alias Mark King to respond.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.

 

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.