Goleta Council Approves Westar Mixed-Use Project

» AN50 on 10.04.12 @ 07:39 AM

Are you kidding me? This is exactly the kind of development this city of no-nothing-nevers wanted. High density mixed use packing an already over used, unimproved and now lane dieted Hollister Avenue. Good friggen grief, it never ceases to amaze me how you people dodge reality and logic to come up with this stuff.

We live in a fractured, hodge podge valley that was the left over development arena for the growth years in California. It did not turn out well, though it could have been a lot worse. Then along came the house wife brigade of stay at home moms who wanted to “preserve” our suburban heaven against the tide of two dimensional sprawling growth shared by our neighbors to the south. These people didn’t have a clue but hey they had passion and the new model development became “no”.

Thus our valley has endured 4 decades of urban development by “no” and until we became a city that’s all there was, no with a few absurd yeses thrown in to avoid the litigation.

But that almighty remedy for dealing with what you are clueless about is still very strong here, “no”, no, nothing, never.

This site should be a mixed commercial and industrial development. Putting homes on the narrow strip of land between Hollister and the railroad is the stupidest idea in a long line of really stupid urban planning ideas on the south coast, like down zoning the central core of SB, taking huge areas of inter urban land out of development while in filling small parcels with overly high density apartments and condos. Oh and my favorite, scuttling our surface street circulation system so we can pretend we are half our size while choking on grid lock twice a day. But needless to say this development is exactly what my neighbors went for so they could keep More mesa and Bishop ranch as their private view corridors.

Now suck it up before I get pissed off and tell you what I really think.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» LookingWest on 10.04.12 @ 08:59 AM

LOL - and, please, do “tell (us) what (you) really think”.

I completely agree with this: “This site should be a mixed commercial and industrial development” and loathe the placing of “villages” in cities, especially devoting needed job-producing, commercial-industrial areas to housing. It’s absurd to think there won’t be serious traffic impacts on plunking an mid/upper income middle class “village” in an already quite often congested commerical area. And there should be a public right to viewscapes. Westar and Goleta would have done much better had they bought up the downtown, the ridiculously-named “old(e?) town”, leveled it and built the “village” there.

signed: one of “you people”

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 10.04.12 @ 11:28 AM

The traffic problems we suffer are self inflicted. At the very time the city approves this project they are in the process of reducing Hollister capacity to the west. The effect will be to funnel more traffic toward the Glen Annie interchange, away from the newly completed Winchester interchange. I am positive the big mouthed squeaky wheels in the SB Shores area had something to do with that, just as they made sure Phelps road would never be completed and Storke left with that stupid narrow section by the golf course.

At every intersection, every turn, the pseudo traffic engineers are there to serve the idiots who actually believe if you make your streets small and low capacity traffic will somehow go away and all will ride bikes everywhere.

As a bicycle commuter I can tell you that is pure poppycock along with the notion that roundabouts that are designed to restrict traffic flow will make traffic flow better and are “safe” for pedestrians.

As Goleta Guy exemplifies, a lack of understanding in simple physics results in the kind of crap we have today.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 10.06.12 @ 02:31 PM

Right, another no-nothing-never preservationista surfaces. What exactly are we preserving? Half finished roads, crap half finished everything for that matter and yes a university that keeps on growing and using the preservationists to get out of doing anything about it? Yep, that’s right, if UCSB were to actually build the infrastructure just to mitigate the last 40 years of growth you preservationists would have an absolute melt down. They have done a great job convincing you dunder heads that any improvement to infrastructure capacity would allow more growth, all the while they continue to grow.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.