UC Santa Cruz 2008-09 salary database

[palmspringsbum]

Grease wrote:

<quoted text>
PSB, It isn't personal even though you think it is. Do you think anyone actually says, "Oh PSB is posting we must delete it?" Doubt it, the reality is that you have alienated enough people who don't care for your comments and just click the "Abuse" button and TOPIX will delete it, not because it is you but because they delete comments that have numerous complaints. Just simple logic, not your own paranoia is why posts are being deleted.

My posts aren't being deleted because they are offensive but because they are what the Sentinel and the City Council don't want to hear.

[critical thinker]

downtowner wrote:

What I've read here is a lot of complaning without any real, feasible solutions being offered by those doing the complaning. Of course raising these fees alone will not solve the myraid of issues facing the city related to crime, but it is one step out of many that the city council has taken recently to try and address crime downtown, and as a resident of the downtown neighborhood, I applaud them for taking this step along with the others: funding for better lighting on Pacific, more police, juvinelle diversion programs, and looking into how to address the problem properties downtown-like Bonsio Liquors and other establishments. The fact is these establishments-the liquor stores and clubs cause a lot of problems and cost the city taxpayers a lot of money. They may not be directly responsible for some of the horrific crimes that have taken place recently but what happens is these esablishments and all the service calls they generate take away resources from the SCPD that could be better spent solving crimes and patrolling neighborhoods. I think it is only fair that these esablishments pay more to cover those costs that they help generate. And since it's been 10 years since they have had an increase, I don't think it's unjustified.

I have an idea we could carpet bomb the beach flats, the levee, and watsonville... critical missle strikes in key areas along and near ocean st, live oak, eastside. and maybe get local law enforcement to change their attitude about it being a sactuary city. Aswell as getting a few tougher judges in our court house, I swear they give so many chances to these total criminals... for gawds sake throw the book at em, ship em off to mexico, tie a weight to em and throw em in the ocean for all i care... Just make it bad so you can make an example to the next guy that wants to try it.

we could also try to get the bars to offer lower cover charges to locals and higher charge to people who come here from seaside and san jose... i know i would go out to clubs more at night if i didnt see so many meatheads that come here from out of town to get into fights. What happened to the deeprooted locals only attitude SC used to have. Back in the days those kinda guys got taken care of one way by either teh cops or the locals.

i swear this fukedup liberal university i ruining SC

[Scruzme]

Hey Let's tax small businesses to pay for the domestic problems of the community! I am NOT a Conservative in any way but ****? This is stupid. How charging the taverns and clubs with the most domestic violence calls? Why should 'The 515" pay as much as "The Avenue"?(and if you have been to these places you KNOW what I mean!)

[John Galt]

If I understand this correctly, the idea is that more officers are needed to respond to situations and provide for public safety downtown.

From the article, "Those issues, on many weekends, require most if not all of the approximately 12 officers on duty around Santa Cruz to report downtown."

I do not understand how adding just ONE additional officer, 1 in 13, an 8 percent increase, is going to be an effective answer to the situation.

I hope that I am wrong, and that this solution fits the need. May we have more information? Can someone tell me how adding ONE officer is going to resolve the problems?

[Joe]

John Galt wrote:

If I understand this correctly, the idea is that more officers are needed to respond to situations and provide for public safety downtown.
From the article, "Those issues, on many weekends, require most if not all of the approximately 12 officers on duty around Santa Cruz to report downtown."
I do not understand how adding just ONE additional officer, 1 in 13, an 8 percent increase, is going to be an effective answer to the situation.
I hope that I am wrong, and that this solution fits the need. May we have more information? Can someone tell me how adding ONE officer is going to resolve the problems?

Well they need the 13th to get coffee and doughnuts while the other 12 bust cigarette smokers and pan handlers.

[scruzerman]

John Galt wrote:

Can someone tell me how adding ONE officer is going to resolve the problems?

It won't. Not one bit of difference. Meanwhile it will hurt small businesses

[blah blah blah]

funny... I was the 2nd one on here this morning... Now not on at all... WE NEED A NEW POLICE ADMIN. WHICH INCLUDES A NEW CHIEF... A NEW CITY COUNCIL TOO! It is that simple folks...

[nick]

wow! another tax on businesses in CA .... why would anyone open a biz here?

[Justin Hale]

This sounds great. Maybe patrons, after finding they are paying higher prices, will beat the barf out of troublemakers themselves at the first sign of trouble in order to reduce the police workload. We could call it the New Intolerance.

[westside]

Xanthippe wrote:

<quoted text>
Agreed. Looking at the police media release logs, it's apparent that late night Santa Cruz downtown requires a lot of police resources. Those businesses that help to create the problems ought to pay more. Why should the rest of us have to subsidize it?

The police manipulate those logs by omission. It's pretty obvious if you follow them regularly.

[peter A]

blah blah blah wrote:

funny... I was the 2nd one on here this morning... Now not on at all... WE NEED A NEW POLICE ADMIN. WHICH INCLUDES A NEW CHIEF... A NEW CITY COUNCIL TOO! It is that simple folks...

I think the city manager is who is running the show. He's got to be a Republican to figure a way to capitalize due to public fear. He looks the part complete with his shifty eyes. He's the highest paid fool in the city. The police and every other department is supervised by him. He needs to go, he is what's wrong with Santa Cruz. He's a tricky Dick!

[peter A]

John Galt wrote:

If I understand this correctly, the idea is that more officers are needed to respond to situations and provide for public safety downtown.
From the article, "Those issues, on many weekends, require most if not all of the approximately 12 officers on duty around Santa Cruz to report downtown."
I do not understand how adding just ONE additional officer, 1 in 13, an 8 percent increase, is going to be an effective answer to the situation.
I hope that I am wrong, and that this solution fits the need. May we have more information? Can someone tell me how adding ONE officer is going to resolve the problems?

Oh they won't add an officer. Notice how it's worded "to pay for officer services." The new money will go into the general fund, and we will not see additional officers.

[I_ dont_ think_ so]

5genSC wrote:

It seems to me that it would make more sense to tax late-night alcohol sales to raise money for increase public transportation in the early morning hours to avert drunk driving than to add one extra police officer. As previously stated, many of these crimes did not originate from clubs on the mall. Also, why only tax the clubs? Why not tax anyone selling alcohol in the city? I wonder how many of these calls originate from Bonesio's?

Public transportation at night is great for sober people, but the bus drivers won't pick up people who have been drinking, unless of course there is a police officer or two on the bus, oh back to square one, plus most intoxicated folks would just say fudge it and get into their car anyways..

[Frankie]

palmspringsbum wrote:

<quoted text>
My posts aren't being deleted because they are offensive but because they are what the Sentinel and the City Council don't want to hear.

PSB ... ya gots to remember that "offensive" is a word used to describe speech that challenges the power of your owners.

[palmspringsbum]

NINE comments have been deleted from this thread.

[Grease]

palmspringsbum wrote:

<quoted text>
They removed everything I posted about marijuana, post traumatic stress disorder, and SSRIs and suicide.
You're full of it.

You still don't get it. ANYONE on Topix can hit the "abuse" button and pretty quickly those comments will be removed. I'm not full of it in the least, you think everyone is out to get you and they aren't.

BTW, I think you are very intelligent and make some excellent posts....

[Grease]

Xanthippe wrote:

<quoted text>
How about a redevelopment plan for lower Ocean and Beach Flats, since those areas have been blighted for so very long.
I think that businesses that help to create problems (like nightclubs) should have to pony up to pay for a larger share for public safety. What is the problem with that, specifically, and if they shouldn't have to pay more, why not?

There has been a redevelopment idea for the Lower Ocean/Beach Area but ALWAYS gets denied by the unprogressive progressives in this town. So, I agree with you but the political wind for change in the Lower Ocean is non existent.

I think there is a problem in continuing to pile on costs for businesses. ALL Businesses that sell alcohol in this town ALREADY pay a fee!! Years ago there wasn't a fee and we didn't have anywhere near the problems we have now, so the $$$ didn't solve jack! Throwing money at the problem won't help, start enforcing the rules that are in place and stop wasting money. It didn't work last time, it won't work this time either.