Dear Mrs. Crawford-Hall:

Each week I think of thanking you for the Santa Ynez Valley Journal.

My subscription began because the varied articles about horses were so interesting.

Your “On the Ranch” brims with huge descriptions of what is important to you.

Some day, when awards for the best weekly newspaper are announced, lots of us will say, “of course, we saw that coming.”

Congratulations and thank you,

Carol Smith

 

Dear Editor,

Are the Indian gaming compacts, Props 94, 95, 96 and 97, good for California? The answer to that depends on what the voter wants for the future of this state.

Although these four Indian compacts allowing 17,000 more slot machines are for Indian casinos in Riverside and San Diego Counties, if they pass, all Indian casinos probably will be allowed the same. This is because there is a provision in Indian compacts that if one casino gets a new and improved deal, they all get it (section 15.4). This means tens of thousands more slot machines, given that there are 57 casinos and many of those casino tribes may be able to have two casinos.

Do we want to become the Golden Slot State? Do we want to become a state that forces communities to accept gambling expansion regardless of the negative impact? Do we want to become a state that takes advantage of the poor and the addicted to balance its budget?

It is hard for me to believe that this governor can promote this method of money collecting when his own departments have said that gambling actually costs the state. In 2006, the Attorney General’s office released their report, “Gambling in the Golden State,” saying that out-of-control gambling addicts cost Californians an estimated $1 billion every year in thefts, lost work time and other expenses. An outside 1999 report found that 80 percent of gamblers earn $40,000 a year or less.

The estimated revenue from props 94, 95, 96 and 97 is $675 million a year to the state...if the state can collect it.

Cost $1 billion and get $675 million, maybe? Take advantage of the poor and the addicted?  Are you as confused as I am?

Slot machine revenue is not free money, as Schwarzenegger makes it appear. It comes with a heavy price. What do you want for the future of California?

Kathy Cleary, Los Olivos

 

Dear Editor,

Just a clarification, and a comment, on your recent article on the Santa Barbara County departments of planning and development meeting regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed Mountainview Homes Project on the former Foss Mobile Home Park site. 

Neither Joe DuVall nor Gary Skippon is a resident of the park; they are concerned neighbors. This project doesn’t just affect the remaining residents of the park, but the entire area.

I would estimate almost half of the attendees at the meeting were not residents of the park, but homeowners who will be affected by the increased traffic dumping out onto Refugio Road via an access to be constructed on the southern section of the current Santa Ynez Valley Christian Academy property backing up to existing residences on Homestead Trail.

News to us, revealed at the meeting, was that there would be no legal left turn access onto Highway 246 from the egress point of the property, but instead all westbound traffic would be funneled via that new driveway to Refugio, competing with current Christian Academy and Santa Ynez Valley Union High School traffic, as well as future Christian Academy High School traffic on the former Corner Farm property. I understand that future traffic issues aren’t solely the current development’s problem, but they should all be considered and planned for now. Why not line up the new driveway with El Rancho’s access and the westerly high school driveway and put in a new traffic signal? This would provide for safer crossings for automobiles and high school students — many of whom are charged with jaywalkiing (not to mention risking their lives) when trying to take a shortcut to get lunch or an after school snack.

There was some talk of required distances between stoplights; I believe the measurement between the lights in Buellton in front of the old Nielsen’s shopping center and Thumbelina is much shorter than what might be proposed between the light at Refugio and 246 and the entrance to El Rancho. If that one worked, so can this one, and the safety factor seems to me to be comparable, if not greater.

The safety of the high school’s students, equestrians, residents, recreational and fitness walkers and my own children is at stake. I hope some options are considered before this project is finalized.

Best regards,

Beth DuVall, Santa Ynez