Oh, yes, Jill, it is never their fault. It was so unreasonable of the state legislature to require the building to meet the current building codes regarding efficiency and energy use.
]]>Yeah…truly emphasis on the HOG in the case of the TajCourt. I love how the greedy (when caught with their hand in the proverbial cookie jar) always seem to blame environmentalists…or unions.
]]>Jill, they are putting nearly of forest of mahogany [with the accent on “hog”] in the stupid building, and they are an appeals court. They don’t have trials, they have hearings with a few judges and some attorneys. They need an office building with some conference rooms, not a temple. The only people who will see the inside are the judges and their staff, as most of the work is reading written briefs and writing opinions.
I might go along with good wall paper, but a bathroom and kitchenette for every judge is wretched excess. If they want these kinds of perqs they should have learned to coach football or gone into divorce law.
Hmmm… 1929, must have been completed just before the bottom fell out, because it is too early for the WPA.
]]>http://www.santabarbaraview.com/index.php/2010/10/courthouse-night-360-in-the-garden/
But it has been around since 1929.
]]>