Water Team Action Alerts Mickey Flacks Journalism Fund Youth Arts Alive "Making History/Making Blintzes" NC Awards Dinner 2023 SBCAN RoundtablesBoard of Directors & Staff Celebrating 20+ Years Contact Us Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Land Acknowledgement Testimonials
- Sign in
This "Forward View" op-ed piece by Jeanne Sparks was published in the Lompoc Record on January 22, 2015: http://lompocrecord.com/news/opinion/editorial/commentary/forward-view/use-transit-funds-for-transit-in-lompoc/article_279b94a5-f39a-5abb-a890-0024073a7a02.html. Note: The version below is our original version. The version that ran in the Lompoc Record contains some edits by the paper's editorial writer.
The City of Lompoc Transit (COLT) system is failing. Service has declined dramatically, causing annual ridership to drop from 320,009 in 2006 to 134,171 in 2013, a loss of 58 percent of riders.
During those years, most of the Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds intended for transit in Lompoc have been diverted to repairing roads. In fiscal year 2006-07, only $497,000 out of $1.5 million was used for transit. In 2013-14, only $170,000, or 12 percent, of nearly $1.6 million went to transit. The bulk of the funds went to repair roads.
Sure, roads need to be fixed, but these funds come from TDA, a state civil rights and environmental justice statute, which funds public transportation and transit systems (including facilities for bicycles and pedestrians) that “provide an essential public service,” especially to the “elderly, handicapped, youth, and citizens of limited means.” Public Utilities Code § 99220(a).
These funds are only allowed to be diverted to roads if a jurisdiction can demonstrate that it has met all public transportation needs. Unfortunately, each year when the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments holds an “Unmet Transit Needs” hearing, it seems it is just trying to find ways to spend those monies on roads instead of transit. It tries to prove a negative—unmet needs do not exist, or they are not reasonable to meet. The jurisdiction should have to show what the needs are and how they are being met.
This "Looking Forward" op-ed piece by Ken Hough was published in the Santa Maria Times on January 9, 2015: http://santamariatimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/commentary/looking-forward/time-to-make-santa-maria-s-streets-safer/article_a3cdc261-d20b-5033-951a-b3447929f35c.html
Santa Maria Mayor Alice Patino has made pedestrian safety a top priority.
We should all be concerned, because we are all pedestrians at one time or another, even if just walking from our car to our destination. Drivers should be concerned because none of us wants to hit a pedestrian.
There are three main strategies to avoid pedestrians being hit by cars or trucks — attentiveness on the part of the pedestrian, attentiveness on the part of the driver, and the physical design of sidewalks, roads, signals and signs.
This "Looking Forward" op-ed piece by Ken Hough was published in the Santa Maria Times on December 10, 2014: http://santamariatimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/commentary/looking-forward/the-bearcat-and-transparency-in-government/article_ab95baa0-f70b-59f6-9e90-016e90039070.html
At its Nov. 18 meeting, the Santa Maria City Council was asked to approve using $94,000 of Measure U funds to purchase an armored personnel carrier for the Police Department.
The council was informed that an anonymous private donor had contributed $135,000 for the purchase of the vehicle, known as a BearCat — an acronym standing for Ballistic Engineered Armored Response Counter Attack Truck — and the Measure U money would round out the $229,000 cost. The City Council did not take specific action to accept the anonymous donation, only to augment the amount and authorize the vehicle purchase.
Who at the city has the authority to accept anonymous donations? Who at the city knows or needs to know the donor’s identity? What caused the donor to decide to give $135,000, and why anonymously?
From the staff report provided to the council, it seems the donation was made specifically to help buy a BearCat. Is a private donor setting city priorities?
This "Looking Forward" op-ed piece by Ken Hough was published in the Santa Maria Times on November 13, 2014: http://santamariatimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/commentary/looking-forward/rail-spur-hazard-for-this-county-others/article_6cff43f5-fb11-5e4b-b222-898be4c94b2b.html.
For months now, columns and letters on this page have debated the wisdom of drilling for onshore oil in Santa Barbara County. Awareness of the issues within our county is acute.
Now, just across the county boundary in San Luis Obispo County, the proposal for a rail-spur extension at the Phillips 66 Santa Maria Refinery in the Nipomo Dunes is taking center stage.
At a recent public workshop in Arroyo Grande, residents raised many concerns about the project and its draft environmental impact report (DEIR), which discusses impacts on the refinery property, as well as impacts that might occur along the Union Pacific mainline, especially between the project and two rail hubs, one in Southern California and one in Northern California.
San Luis Obispo County has the authority to require mitigations to impacts on the property as part of its project approval authority, but is likely kept from imposing mitigations for the Union Pacific mainline impacts, because those fall under federal regulations.
As confirmed at that meeting, the county can deny the project based on significant impacts that cannot be mitigated, whether on site or on the mainline.
This "Looking Forward" op-ed piece by Jeanne Sparks was published in the Santa Maria Times on Oct. 10, 2014: http://santamariatimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/commentary/looking-forward/transformative-change-to-renewable-energy/article_ad285ae2-bf76-54ff-bc3e-bfcd0341b3f8.html
Energy from fossil fuels powered economic growth in the U.S. for decades, radically changing our society.
Today, we face different challenges, especially from human-created climate change.
According to the 700-page “Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change,” a 2006 United Kingdom Treasury report, if action is not taken, the overall costs of climate change on water resources, food production, health and the environment will be equivalent to losing at least 5 percent of gross domestic product on the world economy each year, indefinitely. Including a wider range of risks and impacts could increase this to 20 percent of GDP or more each year.
On the other hand, mitigating the worst impacts could be only 1-2 percent of annual GDP — if action is taken early.
We must conserve and move quickly to renewable sources of energy such as solar, wind, wave and biomass.
This "Forward View" op-ed piece by Jeanne Sparks was published in the Lompoc Record on Sept. 24, 2014: http://lompocrecord.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnist/benefits-of-a-switch-to-renewable-energy/article_dfc5884b-f35a-5d40-8897-9c958d41bd88.html
Fossil fuels provided the energy that turned the U.S. into an economic powerhouse for many decades.
Today, we are transitioning to cleaner, renewable sources of energy that will power our future, especially solar, wind, wave and biofuels.
Scientific evidence reveals the fact that humans have brought on a change in climate that will have devastating effects if it is not reversed.
Younger people understand this. They will be living with the consequences the older generation has brought upon them for the rest of their lives. They are seeking changes that will make their world better, even though it may not be as good as the one today’s seniors remember growing up in. But they will do their best, and we owe it to them to make real changes now.
The good news is these changes don’t have to hurt. They provide environmental improvements and economic benefits.
This "Looking Forward" op-ed piece by Ken Hough was published in the Santa Maria Times on Sept. 11, 2014: http://santamariatimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnist/mapping-santa-maria-s-petroleum-ordinance/article_9e4d2070-1806-5651-ab30-765baa401f28.html
Hopefully, all of the dialog about Measure P raises awareness about risks associated with petroleum production near our water resources and cities.
Measure P would restrict high-intensity oil production in the unincorporated areas of Santa Barbara County. It would not change the rules within the boundaries of the cities.
There is an excellent map produced by Santa Barbara County’s Planning and Development Department, showing there are two cities with active, state-designated oil or gas production fields — Goleta’s Elwood field, with a couple of active wells and one or two dozen inactive wells, some on-shore, some off-shore, in Goleta; and Santa Maria, the Santa Maria Valley field, with a couple of active wells and more than 300 inactive wells within city limits.
This "Looking Forward" op-ed piece by Ken Hough was published in the Santa Maria Times on August 8, 2014: http://santamariatimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnist/measure-p-about-protecting-water-resources/article_52384a7d-6e0c-50fe-a3d2-8d6286837eff.html
At the July 29 Board of Supervisors hearing on Measure P, several speakers stated that if the measure is approved in November, the oil industry in Santa Barbara County would be shut down.
A recent guest commentary in the Santa Maria Times said the same, and on July 27 the Times expressed the belief the sponsors of Measure P want to "kill the local oil business."
To be sure, some individuals no doubt would like to see the local oil industry shuttered. But most who support the measure recognize we all use oil, and clean energy alternatives won’t be sufficiently developed for some years, in spite of our advocacy for them. Many of us support the measure because of our concerns about water resources.
Last month in this space, Jerry Connor wrote about how the rock strata on the Central Coast "are not neatly horizontal, but are instead tortuously bent, folded, rotated and faulted due to very active plate tectonics." He worries that oil, gas and produced water could therefore follow unintended paths, perhaps into our aquifers.
Most of us use all manner of petroleum products. I am grateful for the opportunities and materials provided by petroleum.
At the same time, I want to preserve our water quality and avoid the irreversible hazards that would result from contaminated water escaping from deep rock formations into the groundwater.
During intensive oil removal processes, steam or water mixed with chemicals and sand are injected deep into the ground under high pressure.
Both Santa Barbara County Action Network and the local chapter of the Sierra Club support a reasonable and safe increase of already approved oil extraction, to generate tax revenues and increase the volume of cash flow to well-paid workers and into the local economy.
Favoring caution and restraint, however, both organizations support the initiative to ban fracking, which is to be decided by the voters in the November election.
By Janet Blevins, SB CAN Board Member
for the Lompoc Record
May 29, 2014
Boosters and speculators have been heralding the potential of shale oil in California, and the jobs and tax revenues it could bring.
While federal energy authorities have just drastically reduced their estimates of recoverable oil here, there's no doubt production has been ramping up in our area, with Santa Maria Energy's 136 wells approved last fall, PetroRock's 56 wells approved in March, and investments pouring in, such as the $665 million from Beijing-based Chinese Goldleaf Jewelry Co. Thousands of potential new wells have been identified.
The downside is that this unconventional oil can only be extracted through water-intensive, high-emissions processes like fracking and steam injection.