Architectural Board Hearing on BevMo Draws Handful of Opponents

» sbnative on 03.09.10 @ 02:20 PM

I was working Monday night or I would have been there in FULL SUPPORT of BEVMO. And I am in the MAJORITY (see comments from previous article on BevMo.)

We need competition, we need tax REVENUES, what is the problem??? Oh, I know, a few noisy, nosy NIMBYs. Come on, chill out, you “neighbors” can walk to a great liquor store with great prices now!

Lighten up and live a little. The sky is not falling…

You have already flagged this entry.

» John Locke on 03.09.10 @ 04:08 PM

This town is unbelievable.  We need tax revenue, you NIMBYs!  Government and universities (essentially the only employers of any size in SB) consume tax dollars; private enterprise creates tax dollars. Quit with the 60’s corporate greed BS already and learn something about the realities of funding all these big fat greedy government employee pensions our lefty Council loves to hand out.  According to the headline of this article only a few were protesting.  So here’s the big question:  will the tiny little loud minority prevail yet again?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» John Locke on 03.10.10 @ 10:41 AM

Nothing wrong with Margaret Meade’s comments or with showing up and voicing opposition to BevMo.  Unless, of course, your implication is that those in favor of BevMo are ipso facto not thoughtful people, a position with which I would take great issue. 

So long as our government persists in treating their employees as a privileged class they will need enormous increases in tax revenue.  Don’t forget that $155,000,000 pension obligation (about $300,000 for every man, woman, and child in the county) to the SB County workers - and that doesn’t include the city’s obligations to its workers - got your checkbook ready?. And although it should be obvious to anyone, I’ll repeat it here - the only jobs that are net generators of tax revenue are private jobs.  While it’s true that government employees pay taxes, they draw much more in salary and benefits than they pay (duh), so generating government-funded jobs hurts rather than helps.

Some people in SB have a habit of opposing virtually any change of any kind.  As long as we’re discussing “thoughtful”, let me suggest that a more thoughtful approach to protest is in order.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» John Locke on 03.10.10 @ 01:58 PM

scarface, you’re letting the real world go by, my friend.  The greedy government employee unions have far outdone the greedy corporations in their voracious appetite for the taxpayers’ cash.  There is at least some market and regulatory control over corporations while there is clearly none over the “government-government employee union” complex (currently hard at work bankrupting SB city, SB county, and the state of California.  And while the government has done a truly awful job of regulating private industry over the past decade or so, the government has completely failed in regulating itself.  And, BTW, I’m on a fixed, which is to say, declining income, so your WallStreet/Goldman vomitary, I mean commentary is so far off the mark as to be truly hilarious. 

You do understand, don’t you, that in order for there to be taxes to pay for all this government largesse, there must be a private sector?  Or are you in favor of the government owning everything and everyone (BTW even the Chinese are tacitly admitting that doesn’t work - witness the growth of capitalism in China).

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» John E. on 03.11.10 @ 06:03 PM

Its about time SB comes to the modern world. Not all of the citizens of SB and Goleta are rich so it would be nice to have a good bit of competition. When do we get a Target? Both of these stores would add much revenue and jobs to the local area both of which we need.

Bring on BEVMO and Target!!!!!!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Equalityisgood on 03.12.10 @ 07:55 AM

I am a strong supporter of BevMo. I personally travel to Valencia and/or Thousand Oaks to make most of my wine purchases already at this store already. And this will continue if the BevMo project proposed for Santa Barbara is denied.

In fact, I easily spend up to $1,000 per month (or more) on other retail and supplies outside of our community as they are so much cheaper than they are here. I would LOVE to give my own city the business and tax revenue if only it were affordable! Additionally, it will generate a few jobs as well.

I hope that this project is not denied as the Target store was years ago. (That’s another location I regularly travel out of town to make purchases at as do many other friends.)

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» John Locke on 03.12.10 @ 05:57 PM

“particularly with an onsale permit”?  Like we’ll have drunks driving and out of the parking lot?  Or do I misinterpret?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» John Locke on 03.15.10 @ 08:28 AM

Well, Zaatar19, the devil is in the details, as they say, and comments like “particularly with an on-sale permit”, implying that BevMo would some encourage drunken driving in the neighborhood, is a little detail that just might scare some folks into seeing things your way, even if laughable.

As to serious comments, all of my comments are serious.  Read the whole chain. And let’s keep the commentary on the issues and peoples’ representation of the issues, shall we?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» John Locke on 03.15.10 @ 01:48 PM

1.  Don’t understand the percentages you quote.  What are they and what is the source?  What constitutes a “significant” increase in traffic?  How do you determine the increase?

2. Having the alley access should reduce access from State Street, thereby reducing the impact on the traffic on State.  I’ve observed that alley a number of times and never seen any congestion - do you live there and therefore have better data?

3. Many driveways point out to State Street.  What’s unique about this one?

Just trying to get the discussion grounded in as much data as possible and away from generalized statements of opinion.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» John Locke on 03.15.10 @ 02:44 PM

scarface, I AM sticking to the subject at hand, simply asking Zaatar19 to clarify his comments and the sources of his data.  You, on the other hand, seem to be lost in a thicket of incorrect assumptions, ridicule, and name-calling, and have added nothing to the discussion.  I respectfully request that you read Noozhawk’s rules for posting and behave yourself accordingly.  Who, BTW is the BS Leftie to whom you refer?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.