Okay, this one is NOT in SLO, bit I gotta start somewhere:
http://charitieshousing.org/archer-street/
Thursday, March 27, 2014
SLO: County Needs Affordable Housing - Part II
Yep - starting another blog page on affordable housing for San Luis Obispo (SLO) county. Think of this as more of a resource page.
No Where To Go: Transitional Food and Shelter.
Post Office Box 4471
Paso Robles, CA 93447
www.NoWhereToGo.com
I got a fund-raising letter from them with no phone number or email address - only the above web site. No further information on them yet. If somebody out there is aware of the efficacy of this organization, please let me know so that I can help support their mission.
No Where To Go: Transitional Food and Shelter.
Post Office Box 4471
Paso Robles, CA 93447
www.NoWhereToGo.com
I got a fund-raising letter from them with no phone number or email address - only the above web site. No further information on them yet. If somebody out there is aware of the efficacy of this organization, please let me know so that I can help support their mission.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
NATION: Fact or Fantasy - You Decide (Toyota)
On 3/25/2014, I was struck by 2 separate articles about the $1,200,000,000 (yes, that's $1.2 Billion) fine by the US Justice Department against Toyota, plus federal oversight for 3 years. Not that I am particularly incensed that the world's best maker of safe cars (statistically) has to pony up $1,200,000,000 for a nonexistent safety flaw in their cars. With our government, these unjust intrusions on private enterprise are increasingly common. This is a chance for those who claim media bias does not exist to defend their position.
One article is filled with facts (those are the things that journalists used to report), and another is filled with inaccurate and misleading statements. Again, you decide which one!
The Tribune (our local San Luis Obispo paper) ran this article, attributed to an editorial in the Sacramento Bee ("Carmakers will pay high price for hiding flaws"), which you can read by clicking here.
The Wall Street Journal wrote an article on the same day on the same topic. You can read this editorial ("The Justice Department's Unjust Toyota Fine") by clicking here. I'll let you be the judge. How can we get 2 such diametrically opposing views? Indeed.
One article is filled with facts (those are the things that journalists used to report), and another is filled with inaccurate and misleading statements. Again, you decide which one!
The Tribune (our local San Luis Obispo paper) ran this article, attributed to an editorial in the Sacramento Bee ("Carmakers will pay high price for hiding flaws"), which you can read by clicking here.
The Wall Street Journal wrote an article on the same day on the same topic. You can read this editorial ("The Justice Department's Unjust Toyota Fine") by clicking here. I'll let you be the judge. How can we get 2 such diametrically opposing views? Indeed.
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Tim's Ten!
Introduction: I just don't have as much time to write on topics as I'd like, so I'm going with quick 1 or 2 sentence summaries of my take on the issues of the day. When I hit 10 separate topics, I will close this blog page and start another one. Here goes! [Okay, I added a photo because this page is so boring!]. Hail the Cheap Jeep crew - locked and loaded!
Unfortunately, that Sunday morning editorial has not been posted yet, but you can read about some of the proposed new dorm controversy by clicking here. When we moved to SLO in 1992, we soon figured out 2 things:
1) we wanted to live in SLO (after considering Morro Bay, Los Osos, and Baywood Park first) and
2) we wanted to live as far away from Cal Poly as possible - the reasons should be obvious: College life was fun for Sue and I, but it was over and we didn't want to re-live it by living close to campus. Period. Yes, we'd pay more for the same home, but it was worth being away from the assumed chaos of college students "just wanting to have fun!".
Fast forward to 2014: Cal Poly built massive new dorms some years back, to the benefit of both the students (on-campus housing) and the SLO residents (less students living among us and lower rents for us non-students). Those who bought next to campus, just like those purchasing a home next to an airport, surely got the "near campus" discount. Houses closer to Cal Poly went for less $$$ for obvious reasons (just like houses near a noisy airport). And just like those owners living near airports, its hard to justify buying nearby and then complaining about the noise AND demanding quieter jets and different runway configurations. I would know: I grew up in El Segundo just feet from one of the busiest airports of them all: LAX!
Similarly, those who bought in SLO next to Cal Poly knew what they were getting: a lower priced home, and student craziness (more than average number of parties, beer cans on the lawn, noise, burning rubber tires, etc.). I suppose those who never went to college or never saw "Animal House" might be excused for being confused.
Should the dorms built to house 1,475 more Cal Poly be built at the location proposed? Yes. Should the city of SLO and Cal Poly do all they can to mitigate whatever additional "damage" may occur? Yes again.
TEN! - 3/30/2014 SLO:
Wow! I agree with a Tribune Editorial! "...we support Cal Poly's new dorms"!
1) we wanted to live in SLO (after considering Morro Bay, Los Osos, and Baywood Park first) and
2) we wanted to live as far away from Cal Poly as possible - the reasons should be obvious: College life was fun for Sue and I, but it was over and we didn't want to re-live it by living close to campus. Period. Yes, we'd pay more for the same home, but it was worth being away from the assumed chaos of college students "just wanting to have fun!".
Fast forward to 2014: Cal Poly built massive new dorms some years back, to the benefit of both the students (on-campus housing) and the SLO residents (less students living among us and lower rents for us non-students). Those who bought next to campus, just like those purchasing a home next to an airport, surely got the "near campus" discount. Houses closer to Cal Poly went for less $$$ for obvious reasons (just like houses near a noisy airport). And just like those owners living near airports, its hard to justify buying nearby and then complaining about the noise AND demanding quieter jets and different runway configurations. I would know: I grew up in El Segundo just feet from one of the busiest airports of them all: LAX!
Similarly, those who bought in SLO next to Cal Poly knew what they were getting: a lower priced home, and student craziness (more than average number of parties, beer cans on the lawn, noise, burning rubber tires, etc.). I suppose those who never went to college or never saw "Animal House" might be excused for being confused.
Should the dorms built to house 1,475 more Cal Poly be built at the location proposed? Yes. Should the city of SLO and Cal Poly do all they can to mitigate whatever additional "damage" may occur? Yes again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)