Editor's Note

Steve Palopoli Profile Photo

When the news broke last fall (via GT) that Nina Simon was going to be leaving the Museum of Art and History, it was one of the biggest stories of the year. That fact in itself says something about Simon’s tenure at MAH—there are not a lot of cities where the changing of the guard at the local museum would even be a newsworthy item, let alone the talk of the town.

But since she took over that position eight years ago, Simon has attracted lots of attention, and not just here. She brought big ideas about the future and purpose of museums that were debated on a national level. The idea that Santa Cruz would ever be a focus of that discussion would have been dismissed as crazy before Simon got here.

Since Geoffrey Dunn did a story at the beginning of Simon’s MAH tenure about her goals for the museum, it seems a fitting bookend that he would write her GT “exit interview,” if you will. As his story explains, she’s moving on to try to bring the same ideas she implemented at MAH to the museum world at large, so I’m sure we haven’t heard the last of her in these pages.

Letters to the Editor

Focus of Study

The Good Times’ Nuz (GT, 5/29) suggests that because parking consultant Patrick Siegman was laid off from his job at NelsonNygaard, we might discount his credibility: “Let’s maybe lay off trying to oversell his policy-wonk cred.” Siegman has worked on parking studies for cities including Berkeley, Chico, Glendale, Hayward, Hercules, Napa, Oakland, Oceanside, Oxnard, Palo Alto, Pasadena, Petaluma, San Francisco, Union City, Ventura and Watsonville.

Siegman studied Downtown Santa Cruz parking while at NelsonNygaard. His study concludes that future parking demand will remain flat, in spite of new development Downtown. Hence no new garage is necessary. Discounting Siegman’s conclusions could lead to a costly mistake. A presentation to the City Council by UCSC Professor and parking expert Adam Millard Ball also explains how pricing parking to create desired levels of availability for visitors Downtown can resolve spot-shortages.

Rick Longinotti
Santa Cruz

Slow Their Roll

As many us have seen over the last few years the accidents and delayed traffic have only gotten worse on curvy Highway 17.  Over the hill, speeders still don’t care in the rain or a sunny day as they go over 70 mph on this very dangerous winding road that needed to be replaced many years ago. One crazy driver can cause a big pile up with all the cars behind him. This winter has seen the worse of delayed and stopped traffic on the devil’s highway. The tow trucks and ambulance drivers are called daily to pick up the mess. It’s time for the CHP and the state of California to lower the speed limit to 35 mph rain or shine on 17, with speed radar cameras put in. You never see many police out these days—only when they are called when a tragic event happens. The summer beach crowd won’t like it, but I think this slow down and ticket fines will keep the disasters that happen every day, especially in wet weather, to a low level.

Terry Monohan
Felton

Re: Scotts Valley Development

The issue is that SV wants a town center, a downtown if you will. Current plan was basically an apartment complex with very very little retail … about half the size of a typical Safeway. I think many in SV are fine with building … the issue is the design

— Mark

Re: Scotts Valley Development

The NIMBY imbeciles strike again. At least Santa Cruz and the University are finally addressing the issue and approving more housing to be built. Nimby clowns here are finally giving up and are getting drowned by the Yimby crowd because their arguments against housing are asinine and only serve to stifle housing from being built. Expect a lot more younger individuals to be coming out in droves in support of these housing initiatives.

Jago Gonzalez

Re: KSCO Hosts

Glad Georgia is finally gone. She not only regularly engaged in race-baiting and hate speech, she spread misinformation and conspiracy theories about vaccines (which is dangerous to public health) and lied about documented crimes of gun violence (claiming they were “false flags”). The last time I heard her and her buddy Sam mention a shooting that had just happened that day, while details were still coming out about the crime, Sam was opining it was a false flag because of the timing—he was saying obviously the Democrats were talking about this story to distract the public from whatever serious business Trump was working on, that’s why he was suspicious. Shame on them both, and good riddance.

Alexia Worsham

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Are you an earthling? Prove it with logic: *

To Top