Developing Santa Cruz...and Lighthouse Field
Tim May
In article <34c5796a...@snews.zippo.com>, mmel...@cruzio.com
(mmel...@cruzio.com) wrote:
> According to today's Mercury, the Santa Cruz Museum of Natural History
> is looking for a new site upon which to build a 5,000 sq. ft.
> $6,000,000 building. The favorite locations for the new museum are
> Lighthouse Field, the old depot site, and Third Street (near Beach
> Street, down in Beach Flats). Other possible sites are Natural
> Bridges state park, and city greenbelt lands at Pogonip or Arana
> Gulch.
>
> While I understand the need for and support building a new museum, I'm
> strongly opposed to building it at Lighthouse Field. Parking is
> already a scarce commodity near Lighthouse Field, and Santa Cruz
> certainly doesn't need more traffic along West Cliff. Why build a
> museum building on the premier location of the city? Who wants to
> look at a museum (and more parking lot space) which obstructs the view
> of the ocean? The only development I'd consider for Lighthouse Field
> would be groomed lawns/open expanse so that it would be a more
> "friendly" picnicking area (softer on the feet, nicer to sit/walk
> upon).
While I have great respect for Mel, having met her in person, I strongly
disagree.
The coalition which stopped development of Lighthouse Field 25 years ago
has ruled Santa Cruz since, but has, in my view, done great damage to the
economic foundations of the city.
I'm not talking about mere housing development of that site, as that would
have added essentially nothing to the city. I'm talking about the intended
development at that time, a series of luxury hotels.
No, I'm not joking. And I'm not trolling.
What Santa Cruz has lacked are classy, luxury hotels, comparable to what
Monterey has in its waterfront areas. Almost every such attempt to develop
such properties has been shot down, from Lighthouse Field to Wingspread.
(I volunteered my time to lobby for the defeat of the anti-Wingspread
forces. Now, a decade later, there is no "people's park" at that site,
between Seacliff and Capitola, just another empty field used by no one.
The Wingspread plan, which was not funded by taxpayers, would have made
that land usable, to be visited by convention goers, restaurant strollers,
and athletic event goers.)
Santa Cruz has too many day-trippers and too many cheapskate hotel rooms,
all those trashy rooms down near the Boardwalk. What it is lacking are
first-class convention facilities, able to bring in the convention
dollars, and thus to raise the wages of all those who work in that
industry.
Citing the mantra of "no growth," we _still_ get growth---just growth of the
sort seen when markets are interfered with. Like the proliferation of
schlocky, overdense, "affordable housing" in the "Shelter Point" area, and
the City-mandated "affordable housing" ghettos which litter the downtown
area...like the mandated "Mercado" atrocity, with its empty ground floor
restaurant area. Or like the Bums and Winos and Unwed Mothers Apartment
Complex out near the drive-in on Soquel Avenue.
The "best use" of land is almost always what the market would use the land
for, not what some die-hard liberals think is "needed for the community."
Anyway, I see Lighthouse Field as an underused empty field, criss-crossed
with some bike trails and whatnot. As a wildlife area, it's not especially
ecologically sensitive OR interesting (having neither a slough nor a
flyway). What it _does_ have is a spectacular view of the ocean, the
Monterey Peninsula, the seals, the breaking waves, and a great view back
to Santa Cruz.
So, why isn't it used for purposes which would enhance these uses? Like a
museum with wonderful outdoor walkways. Like perhaps even a convention
center and hotel, which could "jumpstart" Santa Cruz into again being the
resort jewel it once was? Visit coastal resorts like Santa Barbara, La
Jolla, and Monterey for some glimpses of what Santa Cruz could be.
(As for issues of parking...I don't imagine the existing museum generates
so much traffic as to make a hill of beans difference in the "cruising"
traffic which flows down West Cliff Drive. Parking is needed anyway, to
allow walkers to use the trails along Cliff Drive. A parking lot could
easily be
tucked in along the back boundary, near where the houses begin. (Hint: It
will be _these_ residents who scream "NIMBY!")
I expect there's zero chance my view will prevail in my lifetime.
Which gives me the solace of schadenfreude. I smirk when I read about how the
UCSC liberal arts grads are working for $6.25 an hour as waitresses at
Zachary's, about how visitors to Santa Cruz don't spend enough, about how
Santa Cruz can't get any conventions to come to town, and about how empty
fields have to be "preserved," when their current ecological state is
wholly artificial since the coming of the white man anyway.
--Tim May
--
The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
mmel...@cruzio.com
On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:51:07 -0800, tc...@got.net (Tim May) wrote:
[snipped my post this was in response to]
>While I have great respect for Mel, having met her in person, I strongly
>disagree.
Thank you, but you disagree with me. Now I hate your guts.
Seriously, though, I appreciate your response (and have great respect
for you, also).
>The coalition which stopped development of Lighthouse Field 25 years ago
>has ruled Santa Cruz since, but has, in my view, done great damage to the
>economic foundations of the city.
>
>I'm not talking about mere housing development of that site, as that would
>have added essentially nothing to the city. I'm talking about the intended
>development at that time, a series of luxury hotels.
>
>No, I'm not joking. And I'm not trolling.
>
>What Santa Cruz has lacked are classy, luxury hotels, comparable to what
>Monterey has in its waterfront areas. Almost every such attempt to develop
>such properties has been shot down, from Lighthouse Field to Wingspread.
I agree with your contention that the powers that be have done damage
to the economic climate of Santa Cruz. I also agree that Santa Cruz
lacks a classy, luxury hotel, and I think it needs one.
(I haven't been to Seascape, but that is too far from Santa Cruz to be
of much use to the city. Likewise, Pajaro Dunes. Chaminade is not
very big.)
>(I volunteered my time to lobby for the defeat of the anti-Wingspread
>forces. Now, a decade later, there is no "people's park" at that site,
>between Seacliff and Capitola, just another empty field used by no one.
>The Wingspread plan, which was not funded by taxpayers, would have made
>that land usable, to be visited by convention goers, restaurant strollers,
>and athletic event goers.)
>
>Santa Cruz has too many day-trippers and too many cheapskate hotel rooms,
>all those trashy rooms down near the Boardwalk. What it is lacking are
>first-class convention facilities, able to bring in the convention
>dollars, and thus to raise the wages of all those who work in that
>industry.
What's holding back the Seaside Company from developing Beach Flats?
(I imagine the City of Santa Cruz is). Don't they own most of the
trash hotels down there? That, to me, seems like the best location for
such a development. Yes, it would lead to "gentrifying" the area, but
I see this as a Good Thing.
Beach Flats has cheap rent only because the housing is substandard,
with many renters crowded into a single house or apartment. If the
area is upgraded, I imagine the low-income folks in Beach Flats will
go live in other substandard slum-lord housing elsewhere in the county
where they can crowd too many renters into one house. There's plenty
of landlords in this town who are willing to trade money in exchange
for overcrowded, unimproved property.
I believe the city is working with the Seaside Company now for a plan
to revitalize Beach Flats, and part of the plan is to build a
hotel/convention center at the La Bahia site. I don't know if this is
supposed to be a luxury hotel, however, but I believe so.
(I don't have high hopes for the project to be a success, given the
City's track record. It seems the City politicians are more
interested in maintaining the status quo of Beach Flats than actually
improving it).
>Citing the mantra of "no growth," we _still_ get growth---just growth of the
>sort seen when markets are interfered with. Like the proliferation of
>schlocky, overdense, "affordable housing" in the "Shelter Point" area, and
>the City-mandated "affordable housing" ghettos which litter the downtown
>area...like the mandated "Mercado" atrocity, with its empty ground floor
>restaurant area. Or like the Bums and Winos and Unwed Mothers Apartment
>Complex out near the drive-in on Soquel Avenue.
As housing projects go, the place out near the drive-in is pretty nice
(compared to say, Cabrini Green in Chicago, or any of the projects in
NYC). My spouse (who's from NY) thought I was joking when I pointed
out Santa Cruz's housing projects. He was also amazed that Beach
Flats, which ought to be prime real estate, is The Slums of Santa
Cruz.
>The "best use" of land is almost always what the market would use the land
>for, not what some die-hard liberals think is "needed for the community."
The Santa Clara Valley is a good example of unbridled development (as
is Southern California and South Florida, two places I have spent time
in and would rather not return to). Personally, I prefer having some
open space around me -- and I'm willing to pay for it, since the idea
of government taking of the land fills me with revulsion.
>Anyway, I see Lighthouse Field as an underused empty field, criss-crossed
>with some bike trails and whatnot. As a wildlife area, it's not especially
>ecologically sensitive OR interesting (having neither a slough nor a
>flyway). What it _does_ have is a spectacular view of the ocean, the
>Monterey Peninsula, the seals, the breaking waves, and a great view back
>to Santa Cruz.
Which is precisely why it ought to remain a picnicking area
(preferably with groomed lawns) -- or they could put in a much-needed
ball field at the west end.
>So, why isn't it used for purposes which would enhance these uses? Like a
>museum with wonderful outdoor walkways. Like perhaps even a convention
>center and hotel, which could "jumpstart" Santa Cruz into again being the
>resort jewel it once was? Visit coastal resorts like Santa Barbara, La
>Jolla, and Monterey for some glimpses of what Santa Cruz could be.
I think this could be done with a convention center and hotel in Beach
Flats, leaving the space at Lighthouse Field wide-open (maybe
landscaped, but wide-open so as not to interfere with the view).
>(As for issues of parking...I don't imagine the existing museum generates
>so much traffic as to make a hill of beans difference in the "cruising"
>traffic which flows down West Cliff Drive. Parking is needed anyway, to
>allow walkers to use the trails along Cliff Drive. A parking lot could
>easily be
>tucked in along the back boundary, near where the houses begin. (Hint: It
>will be _these_ residents who scream "NIMBY!")
I imagine if a museum and parking lot were built at Lighthouse Field,
the parking lot would mostly be filled with people wanting to go to
West Cliff.
An alternate site for parking near the beach and West Cliff could be
the depot site. (I'd bet somebody could make some dough shuttling
those folks around, particularly if they installed something cute,
like trolley cars to ride in).
>I expect there's zero chance my view will prevail in my lifetime.
Don't be too sure. As the population grows, open space will shrink -
even in Santa Cruz, I bet.
>Which gives me the solace of schadenfreude. I smirk when I read about how the
>UCSC liberal arts grads are working for $6.25 an hour as waitresses at
>Zachary's, about how visitors to Santa Cruz don't spend enough, about how
>Santa Cruz can't get any conventions to come to town, and about how empty
>fields have to be "preserved," when their current ecological state is
>wholly artificial since the coming of the white man anyway.
I bet Seascape and Pajaro Dunes are pretty busy with the convention
crowds -- I can't imagine that one in Santa Cruz wouldn't succeed,
even if it was in Beach Flats, even if Beach Flats still has slums.
(There's also Chaminade, although I don't know how much business they
have).
By the way, don't visitors to Santa Cruz spend a lot now since
downtown is mostly rebuilt? Downtown is certainly crowded during the
weekends.
Out on the west side, it seems there are many vacant industrial
buildings -- and open space in the industrial area. I imagine this is
because the cost of doing business in Santa Cruz is too high, although
whether that is due to rent or politics, I don't know. Does anyone
have any information about this?
--Mel
(remove first m for email)
mmel...@cruzio.com
Tim May
In article <34c6505e...@snews.zippo.com>, mmel...@cruzio.com
(mmel...@cruzio.com) wrote:
> What's holding back the Seaside Company from developing Beach Flats?
> (I imagine the City of Santa Cruz is). Don't they own most of the
> trash hotels down there? That, to me, seems like the best location for
> such a development. Yes, it would lead to "gentrifying" the area, but
> I see this as a Good Thing.
Indeed, Seaside has been held back in many, many ways by the City. One has
only to read the weekly freebie rags, or the daily rag, to read about the
various "demands" placed on Seaside by various groups. (Including local
deserter-turned-city-savior Erik Larsen and his group(s).)
Leveling the many residences in Beach Flats would not be easy to do, and
libertarians and other respecters of private property could not
countenance the massive imminent domain (for a private company!!) which
would be needed to clear the necessary amount of land.
Further, Beach Flats is not nearly as ideal as Mel suggests. The presence
of a sleazy Boardwalk, despite its own charms, is not exactly consistent
with a luxury resort hotel. I can elaborate on this, maybe, but I think
it's an obvious point.
> The Santa Clara Valley is a good example of unbridled development (as
> is Southern California and South Florida, two places I have spent time
> in and would rather not return to). Personally, I prefer having some
> open space around me -- and I'm willing to pay for it, since the idea
> of government taking of the land fills me with revulsion.
Speaking of Santa Clara Valley....some of the worst aspects of the Valley
were _caused_ by the Master Plan laid out several decades ago. Read the
excellent book, "Blue Sky Dreams," written by a child of the aerospace
program who grew up in Cupertino, to learn how the plan was to confine
commercial devlopment to north of Central Expressway, with residences to
the south.
Hence the explosion of "tilt-ups" and major north-south "expressways" like
Lawrence Expressway, San Tomas Expressway, Almaden Expressway, and
horrific traffic jams.
Not that any reasonable planning could have stopped the explosion that was
Silicon Valley (without adopting Castro-like controls on the economy).
The issue for the Valley is not "open space," as there are numerous parks
scattered around the Valley. The issue of course is that it is _flat land_
for a region that is 10 miles wide by 40 or more mile wide...it is
inconceivable that it would not be "developed." No plan consistent with
the Constitution could have stopped this development, just as development
has not been stopped in dozens or even hundreds of similar locations.
> Which is precisely why it ought to remain a picnicking area
> (preferably with groomed lawns) -- or they could put in a much-needed
> ball field at the west end.
It is neither of these things now. It's just an empty lot.
Surprise, surprise, such developments cost real money. They don't just
materialize by a will of the City Council.
Had Lighthouse Field been developed as planned, Santa Cruz would now have
a considerable flow of tax dollars. But the Field was "given back" to the
Pampas grass and the weeds. Hallelujah.
....
> I think this could be done with a convention center and hotel in Beach
> Flats, leaving the space at Lighthouse Field wide-open (maybe
> landscaped, but wide-open so as not to interfere with the view).
Perhaps, but I am leery of donating the Seaside Company's land for them.
Or to take away private residences and businesses now in Beach Flats.
And so long as the Boardwalk is there, it's too close to Beach Flats to
let Beach Flats ever be any kind of desirable seaside resort (maybe in
1910, but not in 1998).
Heather Madrone
From: Tim May <tc...@got.net>
> Anyway, I see Lighthouse Field as an underused empty field, criss-crossed
> with some bike trails and whatnot. As a wildlife area, it's not especially
> ecologically sensitive OR interesting (having neither a slough nor a
> flyway). What it _does_ have is a spectacular view of the ocean, the
> Monterey Peninsula, the seals, the breaking waves, and a great view back
> to Santa Cruz.
Not only that, but it's covered with wild radish and European grasses
(aCHOO) not with some sort of pristine, native California flora. People
talk about preserving Lighthouse field, but they're talking about
preserving something that was already destroyed by grazing.
Open spaces *are* part of what makes an area liveable, but it would
take a lot of work to turn Lighthouse field into a pleasant space
or even one that makes a good habitat for native birds.
Heather Madrone (hea...@madrone.com) http://www.madrone.com
The Goddess moves mountains -- bring a shovel.
Tim May
In article <Forum.885489700.8858.heather@prosperity>, Heather Madrone
<hea...@madrone.com> wrote:
> From: Tim May <tc...@got.net>
> > Anyway, I see Lighthouse Field as an underused empty field, criss-crossed
> > with some bike trails and whatnot. As a wildlife area, it's not especially
> > ecologically sensitive OR interesting (having neither a slough nor a
> > flyway). What it _does_ have is a spectacular view of the ocean, the
> > Monterey Peninsula, the seals, the breaking waves, and a great view back
> > to Santa Cruz.
>
> Not only that, but it's covered with wild radish and European grasses
> (aCHOO) not with some sort of pristine, native California flora. People
> talk about preserving Lighthouse field, but they're talking about
> preserving something that was already destroyed by grazing.
>
> Open spaces *are* part of what makes an area liveable, but it would
> take a lot of work to turn Lighthouse field into a pleasant space
> or even one that makes a good habitat for native birds.
Heather is exactly right on all of these points.
The beauty of Lighthouse Field lies in its scenic location, not in its
ho-hum, imported vegetation (hance my comment about Pampas grass, one of
the common invaders imported over the years). As it is today, and has been
for the past 25 years of "preservation," it's just an empty lot, cluttered
with trash and uninteresting ecology.
My contention is that some sort of development of Lighthouse Field, a la a
luxury hotel (with plenty of outdoor walking spaces), or restaurants, or a
museum/visitor's complex, would be the best way to fund the development
and maintenance of a nice park.
(Imagine a nice park, such as the long oceanfront one in Santa Monica,
used by numerous hikers, strollers, cyclists, and picnickers. Would that
stretch of Santa Monica be nicer if it were left in its "natural" state,
meaning, weeds, foreign grasses, beer bottles, trash, and used condoms?)
mmel...@cruzio.com
On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 18:56:28 -0800, tc...@got.net (Tim May) wrote (in
part):
>Leveling the many residences in Beach Flats would not be easy to do, and
>libertarians and other respecters of private property could not
>countenance the massive imminent domain (for a private company!!) which
>would be needed to clear the necessary amount of land.
I was under the impression that the Seaside Company owns many of the
private residences as well as many of the hotels in Beach Flats.
However, you are correct - there's probably not enough contiguous
available space upon which to build a large convention/hotel center.
>Further, Beach Flats is not nearly as ideal as Mel suggests. The presence
>of a sleazy Boardwalk, despite its own charms, is not exactly consistent
>with a luxury resort hotel. I can elaborate on this, maybe, but I think
>it's an obvious point.
Point taken.
>Speaking of Santa Clara Valley....some of the worst aspects of the Valley
>were _caused_ by the Master Plan laid out several decades ago. Read the
>excellent book, "Blue Sky Dreams," written by a child of the aerospace
>program who grew up in Cupertino, to learn how the plan was to confine
>commercial devlopment to north of Central Expressway, with residences to
>the south.
Unfortunately, once a Plan goes into effect, it is rarely revisited to
see if it still works.
[I wrote]
>> Which is precisely why it ought to remain a picnicking area
>> (preferably with groomed lawns) -- or they could put in a much-needed
>> ball field at the west end.
>
>It is neither of these things now. It's just an empty lot.
>
>Surprise, surprise, such developments cost real money. They don't just
>materialize by a will of the City Council.
I doubt that either of these developments will occur, and not because
of a lack of funding, but because of a lack of will. Santa Cruz is
surrounded by plenty of state parks (mostly undeveloped, aside from
camping areas and picnic tables), but lacks green-lawn/playground
parks. The ones we have are awfully crowded. It seems, though, that
developed parks are not high on the city's agenda.
>Had Lighthouse Field been developed as planned, Santa Cruz would now have
>a considerable flow of tax dollars. But the Field was "given back" to the
>Pampas grass and the weeds. Hallelujah.
Still, I find that preferable to a convention center/hotel on that
particular site, even though it probably is the best location (or only
location) for such use.
>....
>> I think this could be done with a convention center and hotel in Beach
>> Flats, leaving the space at Lighthouse Field wide-open (maybe
>> landscaped, but wide-open so as not to interfere with the view).
>
>Perhaps, but I am leery of donating the Seaside Company's land for them.
>Or to take away private residences and businesses now in Beach Flats.
>
>And so long as the Boardwalk is there, it's too close to Beach Flats to
>let Beach Flats ever be any kind of desirable seaside resort (maybe in
>1910, but not in 1998).
I suspect you're right.
Tim May
In article <34c7af4...@snews.zippo.com>, mmel...@cruzio.com
(mmel...@cruzio.com) wrote:
...
> I was under the impression that the Seaside Company owns many of the
> private residences as well as many of the hotels in Beach Flats.
> However, you are correct - there's probably not enough contiguous
> available space upon which to build a large convention/hotel center.
Yes, this was my point. Seaside Company could own 90% of the plots and
still not be able to acquire the needed contiguous blocks. (This was
possible to do in, for example, Atlantic City because of the extremely
high prices paid to owners, the need for casino/hotels to be close to
other casino/hotels, and, of course, to the use of the state in condemning
property, in supporting the Mob in their "an offer you can't refuse"
approaches, etc.)
> >Speaking of Santa Clara Valley....some of the worst aspects of the Valley
> >were _caused_ by the Master Plan laid out several decades ago. Read the
> >excellent book, "Blue Sky Dreams," written by a child of the aerospace
> >program who grew up in Cupertino, to learn how the plan was to confine
> >commercial devlopment to north of Central Expressway, with residences to
> >the south.
>
> Unfortunately, once a Plan goes into effect, it is rarely revisited to
> see if it still works.
My point is much more basic than that: "plans" are an illegal "taking,"
forbidden by the United States Constitution. Imagine that Alice owns a
cherry orchard in Sunnyvale, circa 1960. Her orchard generates perhaps
$500 a year in revenue from cherries, or whatever. Lockheed wishes to
build new factories, or Fairchild, or whatever. The going rate, the market
price, for the land, established by supply and demand, is $100,000 an
acre, in those 1960 dollars. (These numbers taken from page 53 of David
Beers' "Blue Sky Dream," 1996).
Suppose a vote of the herd is taken. "I've got mine, now let's stop anyone
else from selling their orchards." The herd, and/or its elected chief
cows, vote to put a "Plan" in place which forbids Alice from selling her
orchard.
This is a "taking." The Supreme Court has recently woken up to these
issues and is beginning to roll back such "no growth" zoning laws.
(I admit this is not likely to prevail as much as I would like it to.)
I have no problem with the herd using its own money (though not my money,
unless I choose to donate) to buy Alice's orchard at the price she agrees
to (presumably $100K an acre, back in 1960). Then the herd can leave it as
an orchard, or return it to its "natural" state, or turn it into a
midnight basketball facility for inner city youth, or whatever.
Of course, multiply Alice's orchard by the tens of thousands of acres
folks would have liked to have seen left "pastoral," and one is talking
about truly large amounts of money.
> [I wrote]
> >> Which is precisely why it ought to remain a picnicking area
> >> (preferably with groomed lawns) -- or they could put in a much-needed
> >> ball field at the west end.
> >
> >It is neither of these things now. It's just an empty lot.
> >
> >Surprise, surprise, such developments cost real money. They don't just
> >materialize by a will of the City Council.
>
> I doubt that either of these developments will occur, and not because
> of a lack of funding, but because of a lack of will. Santa Cruz is
> surrounded by plenty of state parks (mostly undeveloped, aside from
> camping areas and picnic tables), but lacks green-lawn/playground
> parks. The ones we have are awfully crowded. It seems, though, that
> developed parks are not high on the city's agenda.
Partly because the city has a poor supply of revenues, which comes from
its actions to leave Santa Cruz as a kind of low-rent, trailer park sort
of culture.
(And speaking of trailer parks, the one out near Natural Bridges would be
another perfect site for a large hotel and convention center complex. I
don't know the particulars of who owns the land, but I suspect they'd jump
at the chance to sell out to a hotel developer--the "best use" of that
land is almost certainly more than just a trailer park (though not as
tacky as many trailer parks are). Ah, but no hotel developer could jump
through the hoops set by Prop. 20 and the City of Santa Cruz--no hotel
would be permitted. Just look at the nonsense surrounding the new marine
lab facilities out near there.)
>
> >Had Lighthouse Field been developed as planned, Santa Cruz would now have
> >a considerable flow of tax dollars. But the Field was "given back" to the
> >Pampas grass and the weeds. Hallelujah.
>
> Still, I find that preferable to a convention center/hotel on that
> particular site, even though it probably is the best location (or only
> location) for such use.
I'm quite sure that many people share your view. The problem is that you
and others don't have to _pay_ for this view. The takings issue again.
(BTW, I'm quite aware that many such parcels in Santa Cruz are now owned
by the City, or the State. In many cases the parcels were eventually sold
to the city or state for depressed prices because no other use for the
land would be permitted. Arana Gulch, the Pogonip, Grey Whale Ranch, etc.
I don't consider this to be consistent with a free society, though it _is_
consistent with a democratic rule society. As might be imagined, I am
opposed to democracy, and fight it when I can.)
Don Steiny
tc...@got.net (Tim May) writes:
>Which gives me the solace of schadenfreude. I smirk when I read about how the
>UCSC liberal arts grads are working for $6.25 an hour as waitresses at
>Zachary's, about how visitors to Santa Cruz don't spend enough, about how
>Santa Cruz can't get any conventions to come to town, and about how empty
>fields have to be "preserved," when their current ecological state is
>wholly artificial since the coming of the white man anyway.
Well you will be happy to know that we have a new head of the
Chamber of Commerce (a fairly worthless organization in the best of worlds).
I heard him speak and he thinks that we could do major economic development
in Santa Cruz by, guess what: keeping the Boardwalk open year around,
straightening out 17 and widening 1. Also, "low income housing."
I asked him what he thought about high-tech and he said that the
high tech companies around could not hire people fast enough and part of
the reason was the housing shortage. I asked him if he was too busy to
read the newspapers, he said this on the day that Seagate laid of 11,000
people. I asked him if he was aware of the housing situation in
Silicon Valley relative to Santa Cruz. On the plus side, he is much
smarter than the last head of the Chamber of Commerce. You get what
you pay for, of course. Top managers are not beating down the doors
for $30,000.00 per year jobs.
-Don
--
Don Steiny - ste...@infopoint.com - http://www.infopoint.com/
InfoPoint, Inc. - voice 1+(408) 471-1671 - fax: 1+(408) 471-1670
Don Steiny
tc...@got.net (Tim May) writes:
>In article <34c6505e...@snews.zippo.com>, mmel...@cruzio.com
>(mmel...@cruzio.com) wrote:
>Further, Beach Flats is not nearly as ideal as Mel suggests. The presence
>of a sleazy Boardwalk, despite its own charms, is not exactly consistent
>with a luxury resort hotel. I can elaborate on this, maybe, but I think
>it's an obvious point.
No efforts to restore Venice Beach were ever successful until
they tore down POP. Atlantic City was a slum until they build
casinos, now it is a slum with casinos. I think the Boardwalk is a
big zero in Santa Cruz and beach flats will be a slum as long as it
is there.
Tim May
> tc...@got.net (Tim May) writes:
>
> >In article <34c6505e...@snews.zippo.com>, mmel...@cruzio.com
> >(mmel...@cruzio.com) wrote:
>
> >Further, Beach Flats is not nearly as ideal as Mel suggests. The presence
> >of a sleazy Boardwalk, despite its own charms, is not exactly consistent
> >with a luxury resort hotel. I can elaborate on this, maybe, but I think
> >it's an obvious point.
>
> No efforts to restore Venice Beach were ever successful until
> they tore down POP. Atlantic City was a slum until they build
> casinos, now it is a slum with casinos. I think the Boardwalk is a
> big zero in Santa Cruz and beach flats will be a slum as long as it
> is there.
I've never been to Atlantic City, but Venice Beach is, in my opinion,
still a slum. Though, in some areas, a high-rent slum.
The tiny, dilapidated buildings of Beach Flats pretty much ensure that it
will remain a slum, even if the rents go way up.
I am not advocating tearing down the whole area, though that is almost
surely what would be needed to make it into a kind of Newport Beach or the
like. (Not necessarily desirable, either.)
Were I a Fabian socialist with dreams of Redevelopment (and private
property rights be damned...), I would think in terms of a massive public
works and private development effort to:
* remove or drastically alter the Boardwalk
* develop the San Lorenzo River waterfront area, by altering the hideous
dikes built to turn the River into an LA-style sluiceway. (The San Antonio
experience is an obvious example...)
* connect the banks of the SL River to Beach Flats in a continuous
promenade of shops, offices, and residences.
* conversion of the Beach Flats area into hotels and convention centers,
expensive condominiums, etc.
But none of this will happen. And property rights being what they are,
fortunately, it's not possible to seize property for such purposes.
An even better idea, and one which would not dislocate anyone, is to let
coastal development extend up the coast. Where the City now artificially
ends at Western Drive, the benchlands up along Highway One would make for
some spectacular developments.
I appreciate "open vistas," but, Jeez, there's a *lot* of oceanfront land
up there....this could be a major revenue unit for the City, and for
"programs," and could give Monterey a run for its money. And, interesting,
with good walkways and trails along the bluffs, even more people could
enjoy the ocean thn are now enjoying it.
Allan N. Hessenflow
>An even better idea, and one which would not dislocate anyone, is to let
>coastal development extend up the coast.
I haven't researched this myself, but I've been told that this isn't up
to the city or county - in California all beaches are public land.
allan
--
Allan N. Hessenflow all...@kallisti.com
Finger all...@gate1.kallisti.com for PGP key
Tim May
In article <6a8qcf$3...@hsi.handmadesw.com>, all...@handmadesw.com (Allan
N. Hessenflow) wrote:
> >An even better idea, and one which would not dislocate anyone, is to let
> >coastal development extend up the coast.
>
> I haven't researched this myself, but I've been told that this isn't up
> to the city or county - in California all beaches are public land.
You're missing something really central.
The _beaches_ are, in theory, but, obviously, not the land above the high
water mark. Specifically, the land above the bluffs which make up most of
the CA coastline.
Or did you think all those agricultural fields near the beach were "public
land"?
The non-development of those lands has mostly to do with Prop. 20.
Allan N. Hessenflow
In article <tcmay-22019...@tcmay.got.net>,
Tim May <tc...@got.net> wrote:
>The _beaches_ are, in theory, but, obviously, not the land above the high
>water mark. Specifically, the land above the bluffs which make up most of
>the CA coastline.
Okay, I misunderstood which land you were talking about.
>Or did you think all those agricultural fields near the beach were "public
>land"?
>
>The non-development of those lands has mostly to do with Prop. 20.
Actually I didn't have any idea why those agricultural fields are still
agricultural. I assumed the county just wouldn't re-zone them. What was
Prop. 20?
Tim May
In article <6a90mv$5...@hsi.handmadesw.com>, all...@handmadesw.com (Allan
N. Hessenflow) wrote:
> In article <tcmay-22019...@tcmay.got.net>,
> Tim May <tc...@got.net> wrote:
> >The _beaches_ are, in theory, but, obviously, not the land above the high
> >water mark. Specifically, the land above the bluffs which make up most of
> >the CA coastline.
>
> Okay, I misunderstood which land you were talking about.
>
> >Or did you think all those agricultural fields near the beach were "public
> >land"?
> >
> >The non-development of those lands has mostly to do with Prop. 20.
>
> Actually I didn't have any idea why those agricultural fields are still
> agricultural. I assumed the county just wouldn't re-zone them. What was
> Prop. 20?
Proposition 20, the "Coastal Initiative," was passed by the voters around
1972-74...I forget the precise year. It placed severe restrictions on
development within some distance (on the order of half a mile, as I
recall) of the coast.
It's one of the 3 or 4 most important California ballot initiatives.
It effectively halted coastal development. What little has occurred since
then has been much more expensive, due to the court and procedural steps
needed.
The Coastal Commission, created by Prop. 20 of course, has more say in
coastal development than local agencies have.
This has been in the news recently, as you may recall, re the proposed
development of the San Simeon lands owned by the Hearst family. They want
to build a golf course and resort on their lands. The Coastal Commission
made a trip up from hearings in SLO to visit the San Simeon area last
week.
Daniel Veditz
Tim May wrote:
>
> (Imagine a nice park, such as the long oceanfront one in Santa Monica,
> used by numerous hikers, strollers, cyclists, and picnickers. Would that
> stretch of Santa Monica be nicer if it were left in its "natural" state,
> meaning, weeds, foreign grasses, beer bottles, trash, and used condoms?)
Geez, when was the last time you visited Santa Monica? Palisades Park
has been "homeless central" since the early 80's and most people in the
area avoid it. If you don't mind being panhandled (think Pacific
Avenue, only more panhandlers and there aren't any crowds to hide in)
it's safe enough to visit during daylight hours.
Now that I think about it I haven't seen the park in a few years so
maybe they've cleaned it up. In the past Santa Monica has been about as
effective as Santa Cruz in dealing with its homeless problem, so I tend
to doubt it.
-Dan Veditz
john r pierce
ste...@infopoint.com (Don Steiny) wrote:
>I asked him if he was too busy to
>read the newspapers, he said this on the day that Seagate laid of 11,000
>people.
Only ~40 of those layoffs were here in Scotts Valley. Around 800 total state
wide, I believe (I think 120 of which were in San Jose). The vast majority of
these are in overseas manufactoring plants such as the Clomel, Ireland plant
that had already been announced for closure.
the Disk drive industry has done this before, its a rather nasty business, and
right now we have a huge capacity glut, and rock bottom prices (geez, 6.4GB IDE
drives are selling below $300 on every street corner in silicon valley... 9GB
10000 rpm scsi server drives are under $1000).
-jrp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This posting has a invalid email address to discourage bulk emailers
Due to the ever increasing volumes of spam, I do not mix mail and news
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim May
In article <34C82153...@netscape.com>, Daniel Veditz
<dve...@netscape.com> wrote:
> Tim May wrote:
> >
> > (Imagine a nice park, such as the long oceanfront one in Santa Monica,
> > used by numerous hikers, strollers, cyclists, and picnickers. Would that
> > stretch of Santa Monica be nicer if it were left in its "natural" state,
> > meaning, weeds, foreign grasses, beer bottles, trash, and used condoms?)
>
> Geez, when was the last time you visited Santa Monica? Palisades Park
> has been "homeless central" since the early 80's and most people in the
> area avoid it. If you don't mind being panhandled (think Pacific
> Avenue, only more panhandlers and there aren't any crowds to hide in)
> it's safe enough to visit during daylight hours.
The panhandlers are present in nearly every park in the country, more so
in warmer climes like coastal California. Golden Gate Park, for example,
has the same problem.
Short of privatizing the parks, there is not much that can be done about
them. (Oh, one ploy is to replace the park with a "native habitat--keep
off" kind of park, such as is seen in the little triangular park in the
center of the intersection between Water Street, Soquel Avenue, and
Morrissey, near the Burger King and Safeway. Not exactly an overall
solution.)
I wasn't assuming that any of the various proposals for Santa Cruz could
solve a problem other cities have also failed to solve.
> Now that I think about it I haven't seen the park in a few years so
> maybe they've cleaned it up. In the past Santa Monica has been about as
> effective as Santa Cruz in dealing with its homeless problem, so I tend
> to doubt it.
My brother, who lived there during the worst of the homeless camping days,
says it's gotten better. He used to find bums and winos passed out in
nearly all shop alcoves...now, he says, they're rousted from sleeping and
living in storefronts. He says the park issue has also gotten better.
Maybe a lot of them migrated north, where the handouts are better.
geo...@cruzio.com
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 19:25:45 -0800, tc...@got.net (Tim May) wrote:
>Proposition 20, the "Coastal Initiative," was passed by the voters around
>1972-74...I forget the precise year. It placed severe restrictions on
>development within some distance (on the order of half a mile, as I
>recall) of the coast.
Unless that particular development was deemed a "negative impact",
such as the Monterey Bay Aquarium, or Long Marine Lab.
But for the ordinary farmer/landowner, the commission decided that the
coastal bluffs were destined to remain "agricultural". This put those
people in quite a spot, as the potential for farm profit had dropped
dramatically. Forced to farm at a loss, many had to take the land
out of production.
Also, Don't forget that the definition of "coast" was also expanded
to include jurisdiction of adjoining wetlands and feeding "riparian
paths". This pushed 'coastal' regulation far inland in many cases.
--Geoffrey Wells
--geo...@cruzio.com
Dirt Devil
In article <tcmay-22019...@tcmay.got.net>,
>
>(And speaking of trailer parks, the one out near Natural Bridges would be
>another perfect site for a large hotel and convention center complex. I
>don't know the particulars of who owns the land, but I suspect they'd jump
>at the chance to sell out to a hotel developer--the "best use" of that
>land is almost certainly more than just a trailer park (though not as
>tacky as many trailer parks are). Ah, but no hotel developer could jump
>through the hoops set by Prop. 20 and the City of Santa Cruz--no hotel
>would be permitted. Just look at the nonsense surrounding the new marine
>lab facilities out near there.)
If this is the park that I think that it is, it is owned by the
residents of the park. It is kind of a high end trailer park.
One of Kathy's clients owns, there -- well, sort of. She was
conserved by the county. When that happened, the county just closed
the trailer doors and left. They did nothing to maintain the mobile
home. The roof started leaking and rain came in through all of the
windows that were left opened.
The park management demanded that the mobile home be moved out of the
park.
--
Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss's job.
It is your job to find ways around your boss's roadblocks.
______________________________________________________________
Glen Appleby gl...@armory.com HTTP://www.armory.com/~glena/
cbi...@scruznet.com
> tc...@got.net (Tim May) writes:
>
> >In article <34c6505e...@snews.zippo.com>, mmel...@cruzio.com
> >(mmel...@cruzio.com) wrote:
>
> >Further, Beach Flats is not nearly as ideal as Mel suggests. The presence
> >of a sleazy Boardwalk, despite its own charms, is not exactly consistent
> >with a luxury resort hotel. I can elaborate on this, maybe, but I think
> >it's an obvious point.
>
> No efforts to restore Venice Beach were ever successful until
> they tore down POP. Atlantic City was a slum until they build
> casinos, now it is a slum with casinos. I think the Boardwalk is a
> big zero in Santa Cruz and beach flats will be a slum as long as it
> is there.
For Don and Tim-
Why is this? Is this because it is used by day trippers and so the
surrounding area does not gentrify if you might have strangers in your
yard or environs? The people who attend the BW are not as civilized as
those who attend a more upscale event/locale? Or because if you have 10's
of thousands of people anywhere, pecentages mean than some will do damage
to the surrounding area?
My own feelings are that people who own property should be allowed to
develop it to their satisfaction, but I have no idea of the entanglements
between the boardwalk, Beach Flats (which from the news have a high crime
rate) and the various govts.
Charles
Tim May
In article <cbishop-2601...@cbishop.sc.scruznet.com>,
cbi...@scruznet.com wrote:
> In article <6a8lj5$d...@news.scruz.net>, ste...@infopoint.com (Don
Steiny) wrote:
(about the Boardwalk having an effect on property values near it, and
about the implications for a resort being located nearby)
> For Don and Tim-
>
> Why is this? Is this because it is used by day trippers and so the
> surrounding area does not gentrify if you might have strangers in your
> yard or environs? The people who attend the BW are not as civilized as
> those who attend a more upscale event/locale? Or because if you have 10's
> of thousands of people anywhere, pecentages mean than some will do damage
> to the surrounding area?
"Why is this?" Well, it just _is_, historically and statistically. Not a
lot of luxury resorts are located next to blue collar, day tripper, video
game parlor, or shooting gallery amusement parks.
One can speculate on many reasons:
- the noise of roller coasters and honking horns
- the joy of finding one's BMW or Mercedes has been scratched by the keys
of some passing louts
- the tendency of one's rich friends to visit exactly _once_
- the morning ritual of picking up beer cans and spent condoms tossed into
one's yard
- finding that street parking is impossible, that the amusement park crowd
fills up all available street parking (makes it real hard to invite
friends over...)
- the mix of commercial and luxury residential tends to only work with
higher-class commercial developments (restaurants and boutiques)
Whatever the reasons, there is little chance that the roller coaster will
find itself next to the Ritz-Carlton's new Santa Cruz hotel.
Don Steiny
cbi...@scruznet.com writes:
Don Steiny writes:
>> I think the Boardwalk is a
>> big zero in Santa Cruz and beach flats will be a slum as long as it
>> is there.
>For Don and Tim-
>Why is this? Is this because it is used by day trippers and so the
>surrounding area does not gentrify if you might have strangers in your
>yard or environs? The people who attend the BW are not as civilized as
>those who attend a more upscale event/locale? Or because if you have 10's
>of thousands of people anywhere, pecentages mean than some will do damage
>to the surrounding area?
It is noisy down there and would not be a great place to live.
I know, because I lived on Beach Hill for a few years when I was
in in college. Every night you are treated to people with stereos that
would make your ears blead, people who take mufflers off their cars for
their self estime problems, whatever. So it is a mix of things I think.
The people that it attracts are genrally day trippers and don't care about
the area. It is hard to want to locate there because any business that
had free parking so people could come the business would find it gobbled
up by folks going to the boardwalk. There is little privacy because of
the mobs. I think all of the things you suggested are part of the problems.
>My own feelings are that people who own property should be allowed to
>develop it to their satisfaction, but I have no idea of the entanglements
>between the boardwalk, Beach Flats (which from the news have a high crime
>rate) and the various govts.
The current property owners have old houses, hotels and such
that they do not have to put much money into and they collect rent.
In some senses it is not that horrible because it is an area of "affordable
housing." I never had any problems with the locals there.
David Friedman
>On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:51:07 -0800, tc...@got.net (Tim May) wrote:
>>Visit coastal resorts like Santa Barbara, La
>>Jolla, and Monterey for some glimpses of what Santa Cruz could be.
Aaah, but there's another kind of free market going on as well.
Freedom of choice of where to live. If I wanted to live in a place
like La Jolla, Santa Barbara, or Monterey, I'd be there.
But gee, a Marriot would be so pretty....
-Dave
john r pierce
thu...@mail.cruzio.com (David Friedman) wrote:
>>On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:51:07 -0800, tc...@got.net (Tim May) wrote:
>>>Visit coastal resorts like Santa Barbara, La
>>>Jolla, and Monterey for some glimpses of what Santa Cruz could be.
>
>Aaah, but there's another kind of free market going on as well.
>Freedom of choice of where to live. If I wanted to live in a place
>like La Jolla, Santa Barbara, or Monterey, I'd be there.
>
>But gee, a Marriot would be so pretty....
Hey, lets put that Marriot in Scenic picturesque downtown CORRALITOS! We'll see
who changes his tune.
Tim May
In article <34d01377...@news.scruz.net>, anti...@here.not (john r
pierce) wrote:
> Hey, lets put that Marriot in Scenic picturesque downtown CORRALITOS!
We'll see
> who changes his tune.
Nonsense. My political views are not based on NIMBY considerations.
This kind of casual insinuation that my arguments are based on this kind
of disingenuous reasoning is despicable.
As I pointed out a while back, I volunteered my time to try to defeat the
Anti-Wingspread initiative. Wingspread was in Aptos. I lived in Aptos,
specifically, in Rio del Mar, at that time.
(And, no, I had no financial interest in Wingspread...that was private
property, owned by Ryland Kelly. As it turned out, of course, the herd's
democratic vote that the property he had paid so much for, and that he was
told must be left in pastoral state, helped wipe him out financially.
Ain't Amerika grand?)
Dirt Devil
In article <tcmay-27019...@tcmay.got.net>,
Tim May <tc...@got.net> wrote:
>
>This kind of casual insinuation that my arguments are based on this kind
>of disingenuous reasoning is despicable.
Is somebody taking themself just a *bit* too seriously?
Not making any accusations -- just asking.
ste...@mendel.ucsc.edu
In article <cbishop-2601...@cbishop.sc.scruznet.com> cbi...@scruznet.com writes:
>In article <6a8lj5$d...@news.scruz.net>, ste...@infopoint.com (Don Steiny) wrote:
>
>>
>> >In article <34c6505e...@snews.zippo.com>, mmel...@cruzio.com
>> >(mmel...@cruzio.com) wrote:
>>
>> >Further, Beach Flats is not nearly as ideal as Mel suggests. The presence
>> >of a sleazy Boardwalk, despite its own charms, is not exactly consistent
>> >with a luxury resort hotel. I can elaborate on this, maybe, but I think
>> >it's an obvious point.
>>
>> No efforts to restore Venice Beach were ever successful until
>> they tore down POP. Atlantic City was a slum until they build
>> big zero in Santa Cruz and beach flats will be a slum as long as it
>> is there.
>
>For Don and Tim-
>
>Why is this? Is this because it is used by day trippers and so the
>surrounding area does not gentrify if you might have strangers in your
>yard or environs? The people who attend the BW are not as civilized as
>those who attend a more upscale event/locale? Or because if you have 10's
>of thousands of people anywhere, pecentages mean than some will do damage
>to the surrounding area?
Hmmm I think the old saying (or fact) "water seeks its own level" works
here. I use to live across from the BW on East Cliff, and I can tell
you one thing, it does spill over the river from there... that is people
who come and park on East Cliff, drop trash, piss everywhere and yes
come back at midnight yelling and screaming up and down the streets...
hanging out in the dark doing who knows what. Oh, so I lasted one year
and moved away from all that 'fun'.
I have also on several occasion visited the BW during the day and night
and believe there is a 'day and night difference'... but still it is
at best an interesting place to go and view strange social behaviors,
as half drunk people guzzle beer down while pushing the kids onto a
creaking ride that in the end cost 4 tickets too much.
In the end I would much rather see the BW become a set of nice shops
resturants, and other more educational/entertaining places, ie. aquarium
Now I am not sure it is a good comparison but have you been to Santa
Barbara? Now there's a place to call a beach resort.
>
>My own feelings are that people who own property should be allowed to
>develop it to their satisfaction, but I have no idea of the entanglements
>between the boardwalk, Beach Flats (which from the news have a high crime
>rate) and the various govts.
>
>Charles
--
Stephen Hauskins
Kimberly Rufer-Bach
ste...@mendel.UCSC.EDU wrote:
>
> Hmmm I think the old saying (or fact) "water seeks its own level" works
> here. I use to live across from the BW on East Cliff, and I can tell
> you one thing, it does spill over the river from there... that is people
> who come and park on East Cliff, drop trash, piss everywhere and yes
> come back at midnight yelling and screaming up and down the streets...
> hanging out in the dark doing who knows what. Oh, so I lasted one year
> and moved away from all that 'fun'.
For some time I dated a guy who lived in that East Cliff neighborhood
(he lived about a block from the train bridge), and pretty much lived
there myself. I didn't notice such a problem, and I really enjoyed
being able to hear people screaming in the distance on the Dipper.
> In the end I would much rather see the BW become a set of nice shops
> resturants, and other more educational/entertaining places, ie. aquarium
>
> Now I am not sure it is a good comparison but have you been to Santa
> Barbara? Now there's a place to call a beach resort.
Santa Barbara is boring and overpriced. What is there to do for fun?
Golf? Sit around and stare at the view? Overpriced gourmet dining
experiences? Shopping?
If anyone tried to rip out the Boardwalk and put in a bunch of shops and
restaurants (as if there aren't already some in the area, particularly
on the Wharf), I'd be pretty upset. Maybe I'm just not old enough to
hate the BW yet?
I like to play air hockey and pinball and the latest video games at
Neptune's Kingdom. I'm trying to round up some folks for miniature
golf. I ride the rides on the Boardwalk. I love to eat the corndogs
and churros and all of that other crap. I like the selection of shops
-- not classy, but fun. I'm looking forward to the free concerts in the
summer.
On the nicest Valentine's Day I ever celebrated, we rode the Dipper,
played air hockey, walked on the beach to the Wharf, had dinner at Riva,
and looked out at the view from the end of the Wharf before walking
home.
I like seeing all of the folks drinking their beer and pushing kids in
strollers and wandering around in swimwuits while eating taffy. I like
the midway-type games. The caveman ride is funny. I love the history
of the Boardwalk, and I wish there were a more extensive display of
historical artifacts and photos.
I love looking at the Boardwalk when it's lit up at night.
Maybe I'm just not old yet. I like running around in a bathing suit
with a cup of french fries and looking at the diverse folks out doing
the same thing. I like the noise and the tackiness and the carnival
atmosphere. Then again, I also like carnivals and fairs.
I'd rather go to the Boardwalk than to Santa Barbara.
-- Kim
ste...@mendel.ucsc.edu
Ok I can't resist and it is just fun....
In article <34CF85...@mtnweb.com> Kimberly Rufer-Bach <k...@mtnweb.com> writes:
>ste...@mendel.UCSC.EDU wrote:
>>
>> Hmmm I think the old saying (or fact) "water seeks its own level" works
o>> here. I use to live across from the BW on East Cliff, and I can tell
1
>(he lived about a block from the train bridge), and pretty much lived
>there myself. I didn't notice such a problem, and I really enjoyed
>being able to hear people screaming in the distance on the Dipper.
Hmm maybe he was one of the people screaming and peeing in the bushes.
>
>> In the end I would much rather see the BW become a set of nice shops
>> resturants, and other more educational/entertaining places, ie. aquarium
>>
>> Now I am not sure it is a good comparison but have you been to Santa
>> Barbara? Now there's a place to call a beach resort.
>
>Santa Barbara is boring and overpriced. What is there to do for fun?
>Golf? Sit around and stare at the view? Overpriced gourmet dining
>experiences? Shopping?
Better go back, it has a lot of interesting places to visit. Try the
Botanical Gardens.. it is great!
>
>If anyone tried to rip out the Boardwalk and put in a bunch of shops and
>restaurants (as if there aren't already some in the area, particularly
>on the Wharf), I'd be pretty upset. Maybe I'm just not old enough to
>hate the BW yet?
Would you stamp your feet?
>
>I like to play air hockey and pinball and the latest video games at
>Neptune's Kingdom. I'm trying to round up some folks for miniature
>golf. I ride the rides on the Boardwalk. I love to eat the corndogs
>and churros and all of that other crap. I like the selection of shops
Hmmm my fav - nothin like a fat corndog and a great big greasy churros
to help the beer go down.
>-- not classy, but fun. I'm looking forward to the free concerts in the
>summer.
Oh yes... unless the beach boys and the rest are dead by then, or
can't get their walkers up the stage.
>
>On the nicest Valentine's Day I ever celebrated, we rode the Dipper,
>played air hockey, walked on the beach to the Wharf, had dinner at Riva,
>and looked out at the view from the end of the Wharf before walking
>home.
Wow!! Exciting aren't we???
At least it was cheap!
>
>I like seeing all of the folks drinking their beer and pushing kids in
>strollers and wandering around in swimwuits while eating taffy. I like
>the midway-type games. The caveman ride is funny. I love the history
>of the Boardwalk, and I wish there were a more extensive display of
>historical artifacts and photos.
Then get into their cars drunk with the kids and head home or to
the mortuary.
>
>I love looking at the Boardwalk when it's lit up at night.
Yes it would be even prettier if it were on fire...
>
>Maybe I'm just not old yet. I like running around in a bathing suit
>with a cup of french fries and looking at the diverse folks out doing
>the same thing. I like the noise and the tackiness and the carnival
>atmosphere. Then again, I also like carnivals and fairs.
>
>I'd rather go to the Boardwalk than to Santa Barbara.
That's Good! So I won't have to see you there strolling around in a
bathing suit with a cup of french fries in one hand and a half
a can a beer in the other.
>
>-- Kim
--
Stephen Hauskins
Dirt Devil
In article <6ao1rp$l...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, <ste...@mendel.UCSC.EDU> wrote:
>In article <34CF85...@mtnweb.com>
>Kimberly Rufer-Bach <k...@mtnweb.com> writes:
>>ste...@mendel.UCSC.EDU wrote:
>
>>-- not classy, but fun. I'm looking forward to the free concerts in the
>>summer.
>
>Oh yes... unless the beach boys and the rest are dead by then, or
>can't get their walkers up the stage.
HEY! Exactly what is wrong with walkers? It keeps us old folk from
falling down and getting under foot.
Besides, it's kinda fun to go to the concerts and keep time with the
music by tapping our false teeth against the walkers.
Dirt Devil
In article <34CF85...@mtnweb.com>,
Kimberly Rufer-Bach <k...@mtnweb.com> wrote:
>
>Santa Barbara is boring and overpriced. What is there to do for fun?
>Golf? Sit around and stare at the view? Overpriced gourmet dining
>experiences? Shopping?
Well, how about *watching* golf?
Golf has *got* to be about the biggest waste of time that I can
imagine. My idea of Hell is having to spend eternity watching the
damned game.
>If anyone tried to rip out the Boardwalk and put in a bunch of shops and
>restaurants (as if there aren't already some in the area, particularly
>on the Wharf), I'd be pretty upset. Maybe I'm just not old enough to
>hate the BW yet?
Well, let me tell you, it will take a lof of years to get that old. I
still haven't gotten to that point and, as Vinnie says, I fart dust.
>I like to play air hockey and pinball and the latest video games at
>Neptune's Kingdom. I'm trying to round up some folks for miniature
>golf. I ride the rides on the Boardwalk. I love to eat the corndogs
>and churros and all of that other crap. I like the selection of shops
>-- not classy, but fun. I'm looking forward to the free concerts in the
>summer.
I always look forward to the concerts -- except that some of the old
groups are quite dismal. The others have actually, in some cases,
gotten better. The Association comes to mind right off. I hope that
they come back, this year.
Even when the groups suck, we still have fun just watching people.
>On the nicest Valentine's Day I ever celebrated, we rode the Dipper,
Now here is where we differ. You'll never get me on those rides. The
Dipper and the log ride are right out. My idea of fun is *not*
pissing my pants. This becomes increasingly more important with age.
There is that one thing that is 3 or 4 concentric rings and a person
is strapped into the middle and spins in all kinds of directions. The
idea of making a fool of myself while people look on is not, though,
my idea of fun .... except on the net.
On the net, nobody can see when I piss my pants.
>Maybe I'm just not old yet. I like running around in a bathing suit
>with a cup of french fries and looking at the diverse folks out doing
>the same thing.
I like seeing the babes in skimpy suits, too. Reminds me of the good
old days when I could actually think fond thoughts about what I would
like to do with them.
At this point, I have mostly forgotten.
Kimberly Rufer-Bach
Yeah, a little flaming's good to keep the blood pressure up. ;-)
> In article <34CF85...@mtnweb.com> Kimberly Rufer-Bach <k...@mtnweb.com> writes:
> >ste...@mendel.UCSC.EDU wrote:
> >>
> >> Hmmm I think the old saying (or fact) "water seeks its own level" works
> o>> here. I use to live across from the BW on East Cliff, and I can tell
> 1
> >(he lived about a block from the train bridge), and pretty much lived
> >there myself. I didn't notice such a problem, and I really enjoyed
> >being able to hear people screaming in the distance on the Dipper.
>
> Hmm maybe he was one of the people screaming and peeing in the bushes.
Screaming ... possibly. That'd be my fault. ;-) Never noticed him
watering shrubbery, though.
> >> In the end I would much rather see the BW become a set of nice shops
> >> resturants, and other more educational/entertaining places, ie. aquarium
> >>
> >> Now I am not sure it is a good comparison but have you been to Santa
> >> Barbara? Now there's a place to call a beach resort.
> >
> >Santa Barbara is boring and overpriced. What is there to do for fun?
> >Golf? Sit around and stare at the view? Overpriced gourmet dining
> >experiences? Shopping?
>
> Better go back, it has a lot of interesting places to visit. Try the
> Botanical Gardens.. it is great!
I missed that when I was in S.B. Botanical gardens are good, but I
don't think the Boardwalk site would be appropriate. Flamebait: Hey,
let's put botanical gardens in place of Lighthouse Field! ;-)
> >If anyone tried to rip out the Boardwalk and put in a bunch of shops and
> >restaurants (as if there aren't already some in the area, particularly
> >on the Wharf), I'd be pretty upset. Maybe I'm just not old enough to
> >hate the BW yet?
>
> Would you stamp your feet?
Yep. And I'd cry, and hold my breath 'til I turned blue. But only
after trying to organize a group to save the Boardwalk, sending out
plenty of press releases, going to some Council meetings, and generally
creating a more grown-up kind of ruckus. I bet the historical landmark
angle would be a good approach.
> >I like to play air hockey and pinball and the latest video games at
> >Neptune's Kingdom. I'm trying to round up some folks for miniature
> >golf. I ride the rides on the Boardwalk. I love to eat the corndogs
> >and churros and all of that other crap. I like the selection of shops
>
> Hmmm my fav - nothin like a fat corndog and a great big greasy churros
> to help the beer go down.
Yep!
> >-- not classy, but fun. I'm looking forward to the free concerts in the
> >summer.
>
> Oh yes... unless the beach boys and the rest are dead by then, or
> can't get their walkers up the stage.
I guess you aren't a fan of surf music and 50s/60s rock. I wish they'd
get Dick Dale (King of the Surf Guitar) to play at the Boardwalk some
time.
> >On the nicest Valentine's Day I ever celebrated, we rode the Dipper,
> >played air hockey, walked on the beach to the Wharf, had dinner at Riva,
> >and looked out at the view from the end of the Wharf before walking
> >home.
>
> Wow!! Exciting aren't we???
>
> At least it was cheap!
I thought it was pretty exciting, holding hands on the big drop on the
Dipper and all of that. I guess it probably didn't cost an arm, but I
don't think expense is the way to measure a romantic experience. I've
been to some special dinners at Theo's and Pearl Alley that, although
they were very impressive, couldn't compare to that night at Riva's.
> >I like seeing all of the folks drinking their beer and pushing kids in
> >strollers and wandering around in swimwuits while eating taffy. I like
> >the midway-type games. The caveman ride is funny. I love the history
> >of the Boardwalk, and I wish there were a more extensive display of
> >historical artifacts and photos.
>
> Then get into their cars drunk with the kids and head home or to
> the mortuary.
That's why it's good to have a designated driver if you aren't able to
walk home. Also, Deluxe Cab is a nice option -- only way to improve
being driven home in one of those leather-lined Caddies (listening to
the radio station of your choice) would be if they had pink paintjobs.
> >I love looking at the Boardwalk when it's lit up at night.
>
> Yes it would be even prettier if it were on fire...
It'd be exciting, anyway. Probably hear some particularly good screams
that night ....
> >Maybe I'm just not old yet. I like running around in a bathing suit
> >with a cup of french fries and looking at the diverse folks out doing
> >the same thing. I like the noise and the tackiness and the carnival
> >atmosphere. Then again, I also like carnivals and fairs.
> >
> >I'd rather go to the Boardwalk than to Santa Barbara.
>
> That's Good! So I won't have to see you there strolling around in a
> bathing suit with a cup of french fries in one hand and a half
> a can a beer in the other.
Your loss. ;-)
-- Kim
Steve Premo
Good ol' ste...@mendel.UCSC.EDU () wrote:
>In article <34CF85...@mtnweb.com> Kimberly Rufer-Bach <k...@mtnweb.com> writes:
>>ste...@mendel.UCSC.EDU wrote:
>>>
>>> Now I am not sure it is a good comparison but have you been to Santa
>>> Barbara? Now there's a place to call a beach resort.
It's a nice town, but Santa Cruz has better live music, reasonable
access to San Francisco, and redwood forest.
Santa Barbara probably has better beaches. Better beach weather, for
sure.
>>I like seeing all of the folks drinking their beer and pushing kids in
>>strollers and wandering around in swimwuits while eating taffy. I like
>>the midway-type games. The caveman ride is funny. I love the history
>>of the Boardwalk, and I wish there were a more extensive display of
>>historical artifacts and photos.
>
>Then get into their cars drunk with the kids and head home or to
>the mortuary.
Yeah? How many people have you seen with kids, visibly drunk, at the
Boardwalk? I haven't seen any, myself.
Say, you aren't just *assuming* that Boardwalk patrons drive drunk
just because the Boardwalk is a blue-collar kind of place, are you?
>>-- not classy, but fun. I'm looking forward to the free concerts in the
>>summer.
>
>Oh yes... unless the beach boys and the rest are dead by then, or
>can't get their walkers up the stage.
Beach Boys? The Boardwalk can't afford the Beach Boys, but they do
get some pretty good acts from the "oldies" circuit. And it's free.
>>I'd rather go to the Boardwalk than to Santa Barbara.
>
>That's Good! So I won't have to see you there strolling around in a
>bathing suit with a cup of french fries in one hand and a half
>a can a beer in the other.
You mean you live in Santa Barbara, but you go to school at UCSC, and
just hang out in this newsgroup to complain about it? Hey, transfers
are easy.
Steve Premo
"They ain't got no karma nowhere else in the United States any more.
They got guilt. Santa Cruz still got karma." --David Bromberg
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
Heather Madrone
From: Dirt Devil <gl...@armory.com>
> Golf has *got* to be about the biggest waste of time that I can
> imagine. My idea of Hell is having to spend eternity watching the
> damned game.
Golf is lots of fun after a real Hawaiian mai tai on a lush tropical
golf course under swaying palm trees. I play every single time I go
to Hawaii.
> >Maybe I'm just not old yet. I like running around in a bathing suit
> >with a cup of french fries and looking at the diverse folks out doing
> >the same thing.
>
> I like seeing the babes in skimpy suits, too. Reminds me of the good
> old days when I could actually think fond thoughts about what I would
> like to do with them.
It bugs me to see all the beer bellies walking around without their
shirts. They might think they're comfortable, but I can see the
skin damage happening.
Heather Madrone (hea...@madrone.com) http://www.madrone.com
The Goddess moves mountains -- bring a shovel.
Heather Madrone
From: Steve Premo <pr...@cruzio.com>
> Santa Barbara probably has better beaches.
With those oil derricks right offshore?
For great beaches, fly 4 hours southwest to Hawaii.
Tim May
In article <Forum.886043651.7421.heather@prosperity>, Heather Madrone
<hea...@madrone.com> wrote:
> It bugs me to see all the beer bellies walking around without their
> shirts. They might think they're comfortable, but I can see the
> skin damage happening.
The aesthetic damage is much worse.
Me, I never worry too much about other people damaging themselves.
I also think the dangers of UV damage are generally overstated, part of
our whole "scary" era. People throughout history have been outside a lot
(yes, I know most of them are now dead, so we can skip the comebacks), and
UV of course plays an important evolutionary role in making vitamin D.
Furthermore, Heather should tread carefully on criticizing sun exposure in
Santa Cruz. Just as Texas and 12 other states have laws banning criticism
of meat products, so, too, are many resort areas adopting laws banning
criticism of sun exposure.
Kimberly Rufer-Bach
Dirt Devil wrote:
>
> In article <34CF85...@mtnweb.com>,
> Kimberly Rufer-Bach <k...@mtnweb.com> wrote:
> >
> >Golf? Sit around and stare at the view? Overpriced gourmet dining
> >experiences? Shopping?
>
>
> imagine. My idea of Hell is having to spend eternity watching the
> damned game.
Y'know, for years I never understood how my grandfather could spend
hours and hours watching golf on t.v. Then, one day, an old flame of
mine was channel surfing, and he stopped on GOLF. I was horrified, but
he said to give it a chance. After the amazing experience of learning
to enjoy watching football with him, I decided to see why he'd watch
golf. Well, it was fun. The different golfers, and their golfing
outfits, are pretty funny. The whole thing is pretty funny. I don't
think I'll ever get into the game itself, but watching it as an
anthropological study is amusing. The pinnacle of my golf viewing
experience was finally settling down in a big recliner to watch golf
with my Gramps, my flame, and some cheap Mexican beer on a Sunday
afternoon.
Wouldn't want to do it on a regular basis, though.
-- Kim
ste...@mendel.ucsc.edu
In article <tcmay-28019...@tcmay.got.net> tc...@got.net (Tim May) writes:
>In article <Forum.886043651.7421.heather@prosperity>, Heather Madrone
><hea...@madrone.com> wrote:
>
>
>> It bugs me to see all the beer bellies walking around without their
>> shirts. They might think they're comfortable, but I can see the
>> skin damage happening.
>
>The aesthetic damage is much worse.
>
>Me, I never worry too much about other people damaging themselves.
I do because in the end it will cost me in taxes or whatever
in order to support their medical needs. We need to be proactive
and educational so that people (some) may avoid these situations.
>
>I also think the dangers of UV damage are generally overstated, part of
>our whole "scary" era. People throughout history have been outside a lot
Interesting that skin cancer cases keep going up amongst those who
1) over expose to the sun 2) have very light (low melanin) skin.
>(yes, I know most of them are now dead, so we can skip the comebacks), and
>UV of course plays an important evolutionary role in making vitamin D.
Yes dead and we have no long term epidemological data - I think people
who live longer and are exposed more to UV radiation have a higher
and higher risk of skin cancer. Remember UV radiation is a high
energy photon that tears cells apart.
>
>Furthermore, Heather should tread carefully on criticizing sun exposure in
>Santa Cruz. Just as Texas and 12 other states have laws banning criticism
>of meat products, so, too, are many resort areas adopting laws banning
>criticism of sun exposure.
Hmm, yes and my first response is Texas et al laws are stupid, if
you can't protect yourself from criticism thean who cares.
>
>--Tim May
>
>--
>The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
>---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
>Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
>ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
>W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
>Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments.
>"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
--
Stephen Hauskins
Dirt Devil
>> Golf has *got* to be about the biggest waste of time that I can
>> imagine. My idea of Hell is having to spend eternity watching the
>> damned game.
>
>golf course under swaying palm trees. I play every single time I go
>to Hawaii.
After a mai tai, *anything* might be fun.
>> I like seeing the babes in skimpy suits, too. Reminds me of the good
>> old days when I could actually think fond thoughts about what I would
>> like to do with them.
>
>It bugs me to see all the beer bellies walking around without their
>shirts. They might think they're comfortable, but I can see the
>skin damage happening.
So, yer saying that when I go to the boardwalk, I should wear a shirt
... just in case you might be there to see my belly?
Not a problem. I am usually fully dressed when I go out.
That didn't used to be the case, though. When I was a toddler, living
in Pacifica (known, then, as Sharp Park), my mom would put me out in
the driveway in a playpen, fully dressed to keep me warm in the fog.
By the time that she was back in the house, I was stripped down to
fighting weight.
Fortunately, I got over that little quirk.
Saves people from getting snow blindness from looking at my pastey
white skin.
Dirt Devil
In article <6ap1rg$1...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, <ste...@mendel.UCSC.EDU> wrote:
>
>I do because in the end it will cost me in taxes or whatever
>in order to support their medical needs. We need to be proactive
>and educational so that people (some) may avoid these situations.
Hummm. If you are concerned about your tax dollars going to support
what you feel is stupidity, might it be a better approach to fight
paying taxes?
As soon as we start agreeing to pay taxes, that seems to give us the
right to complain about how the taxes are used. That seems to lead to
complaints about how people live their lives in a way that might cause
additional expendatures.
Bad road.
Now, me? On the very few occasions when I get sick enough to see a
doctor, I'll go to a doctor and simply pay *my* money.
Should *this* allow me (should I be so inclined) to go out in the sun
and scar my skin with burns and gather all of the UV that my tired old
body can possibly hold?
>Yes dead and we have no long term epidemological data - I think people
>who live longer and are exposed more to UV radiation have a higher
>and higher risk of skin cancer. Remember UV radiation is a high
>energy photon that tears cells apart.
This would seem to indicate that all old people (say, over 80?) who
have light skin and had lots of exposure to UV should have skin
cancer. Is this the case?
ste...@mendel.ucsc.edu
In article <6aq7hm$o...@news.scruz.net> gl...@armory.com (Dirt Devil) writes:
>In article <6ap1rg$1...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, <ste...@mendel.UCSC.EDU> wrote:
>>
>>I do because in the end it will cost me in taxes or whatever
>>in order to support their medical needs. We need to be proactive
>>and educational so that people (some) may avoid these situations.
>
>Hummm. If you are concerned about your tax dollars going to support
>what you feel is stupidity, might it be a better approach to fight
>paying taxes?
Or perhaps be allowed more freedom in how taxes are spend and/or
distributed.
>
>As soon as we start agreeing to pay taxes, that seems to give us the
>right to complain about how the taxes are used. That seems to lead to
>complaints about how people live their lives in a way that might cause
>additional expendatures.
>
>Bad road.
>
>Now, me? On the very few occasions when I get sick enough to see a
>doctor, I'll go to a doctor and simply pay *my* money.
>
>Should *this* allow me (should I be so inclined) to go out in the sun
>and scar my skin with burns and gather all of the UV that my tired old
>body can possibly hold?
Well one benefit might be that you become a good experiment!
>
>>Yes dead and we have no long term epidemological data - I think people
>>who live longer and are exposed more to UV radiation have a higher
>>and higher risk of skin cancer. Remember UV radiation is a high
>>energy photon that tears cells apart.
>
>This would seem to indicate that all old people (say, over 80?) who
>have light skin and had lots of exposure to UV should have skin
>cancer. Is this the case?
I stated higher risk in my original passage above. All we really
know is that if you do certain things over and over you are more
likely to cause something else... come to think of it, that just
about covers everything good and bad.
>
>--
>Do not underestimate your abilities. That is your boss's job.
>It is your job to find ways around your boss's roadblocks.
>______________________________________________________________
>Glen Appleby gl...@armory.com HTTP://www.armory.com/~glena/
--
Stephen Hauskins
Dirt Devil
In article <6aqdep$7...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, <ste...@mendel.UCSC.EDU> wrote:
>In article <6aq7hm$o...@news.scruz.net> gl...@armory.com (Dirt Devil) writes:
>>
>>Hummm. If you are concerned about your tax dollars going to support
>>what you feel is stupidity, might it be a better approach to fight
>>paying taxes?
>
>Or perhaps be allowed more freedom in how taxes are spend and/or
>distributed.
Commie!
>>Should *this* allow me (should I be so inclined) to go out in the sun
>>and scar my skin with burns and gather all of the UV that my tired old
>>body can possibly hold?
>
>Well one benefit might be that you become a good experiment!
Oh, kool! Who's paying?
>>>Yes dead and we have no long term epidemological data - I think people
>>>who live longer and are exposed more to UV radiation have a higher
>>>and higher risk of skin cancer. Remember UV radiation is a high
>>>energy photon that tears cells apart.
>>
>>This would seem to indicate that all old people (say, over 80?) who
>>have light skin and had lots of exposure to UV should have skin
>>cancer. Is this the case?
>
>I stated higher risk in my original passage above. All we really
>know is that if you do certain things over and over you are more
>likely to cause something else... come to think of it, that just
>about covers everything good and bad.
Well, now that we have it narrowed down to *higher* risk, I'm a bit
more comfortable. I was just testing the waters, here.
At the same time, though, when I see people talk about risk factors,
they are often using statistics with no idea of what actually causes
the problems. They just look at the numbers. If, below some
threshold, there is a 1 in 1,000,000 chance and over that threshold,
it rises to a whopping 2 in 1,000,000, they will get quite upset and
say "SEE! A 2:1 ratio! There is *clearly* a correlation, here."[1]
I just find it a bit more important to understand exactly how and why
it happens.
[1] Just arbitrary numbers.
mmel...@cruzio.com
On 29 Jan 1998 15:34:14 GMT, gl...@armory.com (Dirt Devil) wrote (in
response to <ste...@mendel.UCSC.EDU>):
>>I do because in the end it will cost me in taxes or whatever
>>in order to support their medical needs. We need to be proactive
>>and educational so that people (some) may avoid these situations.
>
>Hummm. If you are concerned about your tax dollars going to support
>what you feel is stupidity, might it be a better approach to fight
>paying taxes?
>
>As soon as we start agreeing to pay taxes, that seems to give us the
>right to complain about how the taxes are used. That seems to lead to
>complaints about how people live their lives in a way that might cause
>additional expendatures.
>
>Bad road.
Glen, I think this is the most sensible post you've ever written.
--Mel
(remove first m for email)
mmel...@cruzio.com
Don Steiny
gl...@armory.com (Dirt Devil) writes:
>This would seem to indicate that all old people (say, over 80?) who
>have light skin and had lots of exposure to UV should have skin
>cancer. Is this the case?
I have a friend with light skin that is over 80 and she has had
numerous skin cancers removed. I know many people who have had
skin cancer, including my brother and my wife. It is super common.
Dirt Devil
In article <6aqpoc$p...@news.scruz.net>,
Don Steiny <ste...@infopoint.com> wrote:
>gl...@armory.com (Dirt Devil) writes:
>
>>This would seem to indicate that all old people (say, over 80?) who
>>have light skin and had lots of exposure to UV should have skin
>>cancer. Is this the case?
>
> I have a friend with light skin that is over 80 and she has had
>numerous skin cancers removed. I know many people who have had
>skin cancer, including my brother and my wife. It is super common.
Well, that decides it then. I'm pastey white and in a very few years,
I'm gonna be just one big melanoma.
Hey -- melanomas have color, right? So .... this may not be a Bad
Thing.
Dirt Devil
In article <34d0c1b4...@snews.zippo.com>,
mmel...@cruzio.com <mmel...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>Glen, I think this is the most sensible post you've ever written.
Gawrsh, I'm sorry. I'll never do it again. I promise that it was a
mistake.
Forgive me?
Notorious P.I.G.
In article <34cfb1f0...@snews.zippo.com> pr...@cruzio.com writes:
>Yeah? How many people have you seen with kids, visibly drunk, at the
>Boardwalk? I haven't seen any, myself.
Are you referring to people with visibly drunk children, counselor?
>Beach Boys? The Boardwalk can't afford the Beach Boys, but they do
>get some pretty good acts from the "oldies" circuit. And it's free.
Saw the Starship there last year, but it wasn't the same, without the
original members. Kinda like one of those 'tribute' bands that play
the Catalyst way too often.
ObBwahaha! During the halftime show at the SuperBowl last Sunday, they
did a tribute to Motown. One of the featured acts was the Temptations,
but this little piggie knows that four of the five original members are
scratching at the lids of their coffins. It was a batch of 30something
young bloods, attempting to create a sound they don't even understand.
A nice touch would have been for them to come out with their baseball
caps on sideways, but, lo, it was not to be.
Truth be told, the only original Dee-Troit brother I could identify was
William Robinson, known to the general public as 'Smokey.' With the
extravagant amounts of cash they throw away on those exhibitions, though,
he damned sure might have been a fake, also.
Martha Reeves came out and made a travesty of the hits that made her famous,
due to her overacting and lack of recent stage experience.
There were five guys on the Four Tops segment.
The only thing missing was a boxing match between Stevie Wonder and
Brother Ray Charles.
VJ
Dirt Devil
In article <pigfaceE...@netcom.com>,
Notorious P.I.G. <pig...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <34cfb1f0...@snews.zippo.com> pr...@cruzio.com writes:
>
>>Beach Boys? The Boardwalk can't afford the Beach Boys, but they do
>>get some pretty good acts from the "oldies" circuit. And it's free.
>
>did a tribute to Motown. One of the featured acts was the Temptations,
>but this little piggie knows that four of the five original members are
>scratching at the lids of their coffins. It was a batch of 30something
>young bloods, attempting to create a sound they don't even understand.
>A nice touch would have been for them to come out with their baseball
>caps on sideways, but, lo, it was not to be.
Speaking of both the Stupid Bowl and of the Beached Boys, I coulda
sworn that they played there, too -- but at the begining -- before the
game.
It was something akin to a concert put on by some old folks home, by
the residents.
They were doing little snippets from various of their hits -- their
lips seemed not to be moving in time to the music or the words (though
that could have simply been bad mike placement). The worst part was
that, every time it came time to start another tune, I could see
various of them looking at cheat sheets to see what they were supposed
to fake next.
On the good side, though, this was the first time that I had seen or
heard Jewel. She did the anthym. I was pretty impressed with her
voice (although I did notice that she started "singing" just after her
voice started -- although I understand that they usually pre-record
this, because it is a difficult song and sometimes the singers can
forget the words). She has quite a cute face, too (although I admit
that I was watching it on an old 13" B&W, so maybe much of what I saw
was imagination).
All quite a nice package.
Art
Kimberly Rufer-Bach wrote:
<buncha good comments snipped>
> Maybe I'm just not old yet. I like running around in a bathing suit
> with a cup of french fries and looking at the diverse folks out doing
> the same thing. I like the noise and the tackiness and the carnival
> atmosphere. Then again, I also like carnivals and fairs.
Kim has touched on points that no one else seems to care about. OK,
granted, the Boardwalk is schmaltzy and corny and its presence may
preclude any sort of upscale development, but, hey! It's fun!
I've been to the Boardwalk three times in the last year or so, Great
America once, and to one other amusement park once. The first
roller coaster I ever rode was the Dipper and it scared the crap outta
me then, and it's still a classic today. The dipper and the carousel
are both national landmarks. Ya gotta love the carousel's music maker!
I ride the carousel, then go watch the band play. Oh, and the last
time I rode the carousel, I *finally* nailed that ol' clown's mouth
with a ring!
So, anyway, to make a long story short, if the Boardwalk went away,
I would miss it sorely. It's a bit of irreplacable Americana.
Who needs more shops and restaurants? Who needs another overpriced,
stuffy resort/hotel? Heck, I went to Hawaii and deliberately avoided
those kinda places like the dime-a-dozen plague they are. I like the
unique and the funky, and to me the Boardwalk is the epitome of
uniqueness and funkiness.
My two cents... and it's probably worth every penny.