GOLETA'S LATEST 'CRISIS': PROTECTING SENIORS FROM... THE YOUTH?

Noozhawk, ever vigilant in reporting on the pressing issues of our age, breathlessly informed us this week that Goleta's Planning Commission has unanimously decided to safeguard the city's *only* seniors mobile home park. Apparently, the sky was falling, or perhaps a boisterous teenager might accidentally wander onto a shuffleboard court. This groundbreaking decision, which will now lumber its way to the City Council for official rubber-stamping, proposes a city-wide 'senior mobile park overlay district' to prevent these sacred enclaves from being 'converted' into – gasp! – all-ages communities.

One can only imagine the grave dangers averted. Think of the horror: a grandchild visiting grandma without a special permit! A young family, seeking affordable housing in an increasingly unaffordable California, accidentally stumbling into a community designed for those who actually built this country! The sheer audacity of young people daring to exist near their elders, potentially exposing them to... *optimism* or *new ideas*! It's a miracle these enlightened commissioners acted before the very fabric of Goleta's age-segregated society unraveled.

While real crises like skyrocketing property taxes, decaying infrastructure, and the general exodus of productive citizens from this state continue unabated, Goleta's planning apparatus is laser-focused on ensuring that senior mobile home parks remain pristine, youth-free zones. This isn't about property rights or market forces; it's about control, plain and simple. It's the ultimate bureaucratic solution to a problem that exists only in the minds of those who believe government must manage every aspect of our lives, right down to the age demographic of who can live where.

Perhaps the commissioners, with their boundless wisdom, could next address the pressing issue of whether seniors should be allowed to use mobile phones made after 2005. Or better yet, they could focus on why so many young people can't afford *any* housing, rather than micromanaging the existing housing stock to preserve someone's preferred demographic bubble. But that might require actual solutions, not just more ordinances.