October 2, 2009 – Daily Brief *

Former eBay chief and California Gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman to speak in Santa Clarita today, no details on where/when DAILY NEWS
Good, balanced LA Times article on lack of Castaic High School LA TIMES
61 year old Man arrested at park in Canyon Country after Deputy spots him unloading a handgun. Investigation reveals another two guns in the van. KHTS
The 13 year old boy killed in an I-5 crash on Wednesday was from Oregon and was traveling down here to meet with family. SIGNAL
October Chamber newsletter includes advice on Enterprise Zone benefits, Bryan Koegle on non-compete agreements (he’s running for COC board btw), Joe Messina on technology (he’s running for Hart Board) and CEO Mankin on the Expo OCTOBER NEWSLETTER (PDF)
Manny Santana, owner of ye olde weste jail house in Newhall, is worried that demolition of the nearby CarQuest store will damage his property SIGNAL
McKeon channels Rumsfeld in comments on Iranian missile defense: “Does this certainty account for uncertainty?” Also calls Obama’s plan “abrupt and sloppy” SF CHRONICLE
US Forest Service instructed firefighters to not use local fire resources (like LA County) to fight fires just three weeks before Station Fire. LATIMES
Rideshare week ahead: Pledge to use alternate transportation and get entered to win a PS3 CITY BRIEFS
Reminder: Memorial bike ride tomorrow. Sheriff’s Escort included. Come on out!
Newhall letter writer complains about neighbors leaving their trash in the street. SIGNAL
West Ranch Beacon on a roll, gets Patti Rasmussen to cover annexation/incorporation debate WRB
Also next week: 25th SCV Chamber Expo at the Sports Complex. Will include a COC Job Fair, Taste of Expo food event on Friday night, and more. SCVCHAMBER.COM

Comments (15)

cashOctober 2, 2009 at 8:47 am

Is it Dove season?

Scott ErvinOctober 2, 2009 at 9:21 am

Naw, not dove season. It was probably a Northbridge resident getting ready to take shots at passing cyclists tomorrow. Target rich environment: Furnace Creek, Novotny ride, etc.

CCOctober 2, 2009 at 10:00 am

You’re right Scott. Likely a Northbridge resident who as run out of coots. As for trash in the street. I have noticed that my pristine neighborhood in Valencia has trash in the street that is tossed out of cars from visiting Saugus residents. Can we resurrect the great wall Jeff?

PetzOctober 2, 2009 at 10:39 am

What is the fee for the bike ride?

Timothy MyersOctober 2, 2009 at 1:05 pm

According to Meg Whitman’s website she will be in town between 2 and 3 and it looks like it is at Rasmussen’s office in Centre Pointe. Probably an invitation only thing. Meg Whitman is a nice lady to use her personal wealth to fund the salaries of Republican campaign people who would otherwise be unemployed, but the whole purpose of the Republican primary is just to nominate some well meaning person to get smoked by Jerry Brown.

The Hill PeopleOctober 2, 2009 at 2:55 pm

Gotta love the Trashy neighbors letter. My favorite quote: ” I’ve approached many offering phone numbers, pamphlets and information on alternatives. The response is consistent and irritating. “No, Thanks. This is easier.”

Scott ErvinOctober 2, 2009 at 4:20 pm

Petz: It’s free.

NickelDimeOctober 2, 2009 at 9:39 pm

Who can argue that this state is in dire need of fiscal discipline? I don’t care what side you’re on, that’s the issue, plain and simple. We’re in a bankrupt state managing payables like a roofer or a pawn shop. Let’s get this house in order and make the tough decisions. Thus far, Poizner has my vote.

cashOctober 3, 2009 at 9:18 am

“Chamber events has historically been the organization’s annual Home and Business Expo. This October 9-11 event will bring thousands of businesses and consumers to the Santa Clarita Sports Complex”. What no tent this year? Is this another city give away to business or does the Chamber have to pay to rent the Sports Complex. Has the 21 point plan be expanded to allow for free use of the facility? Is this another misuse of taxpayer money?

IndyOctober 3, 2009 at 1:00 pm

NickelDime says: Who can argue that this state is in dire need of fiscal discipline? I understand the dilemma . . . but politicians of both parties refuse to address the ‘demand’ issue starting with the number of people in play. More people require more taxes. Is that such a hard concept to grasp? Yet, it drives our taxing issue . . . and the public is left in a pissing context based on ideology from the left and right that solves nothing and doesn’t address reality. Likewise, the issue of ‘waste and fraud’ is really no issue at all. We have the best schools of management on earth here in the US, have had these for decades and yet I still hear political recitals saying we can’t management government. Bullshit. But this plays well with the more motivated citizens that participate in forums like this and you’d think the ‘folks’ would have figured out the ‘pandering’ . . . but they haven’t. When I talk to folks they simply recite the slogans . . . and if you ask them a question of demands, cost of same, or taxes, they again, retreat to slogans . . . which we’ve seen don’t solve anything. Until this situation changes, there will be no resolution on taxes or why we’re running such large national deficits. The leadership in this nation is what stinks and it stinks on the left and the right

NickelDimeOctober 3, 2009 at 9:19 pm

“More people require more taxes. Is that such a hard concept to grasp?” First, even if that were true, our population has decreased over the past few years. Our school-age population, in particular, is down nearly 10% over the past 8 years — and education is a huge share of our expenditures. Second, I ask you to explain your own slogan. The tax percentages should scale with the populous. Since businesses aren’t doing so well (and fewer are employed), the tax revenue is way off. Why penalize productive pockets? We’re driving them away.

NickelDimeOctober 3, 2009 at 9:20 pm

BTW – my definition of fiscal discipline is limiting spending to the extend of our means. I know it sounds novel…

IndyOctober 4, 2009 at 12:24 pm

NickelDime: First, even if that were true, our population has decreased over the past few years. Our school-age population, in particular, is down nearly 10% over the past 8 years — and education is a huge share of our expenditures. From the 2009 FACT BOOK among other sources that the k-12 student population over the last 15 years has ‘expanded’ by about 800,000 net new students bring the state’s k-12 total population to about 6.3 million kids ( http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/pn/fb/documents/factbook2009.pdf ) (page 24). If you multiply the ‘average cost per student’ at about $12,000 per year times the 6.3 million you get ‘huge share’ of the budget. Thus, if you continue on with a ‘tax code’ that encourage large families then you’ll continue to see the taxing issue get worse . . .not better and most parents don’t even know the cost and Runner/Smyth for reasons unknown to me won’t tell them. Why is that?

IndyOctober 4, 2009 at 12:33 pm

NickelDime: Second, I ask you to explain your own slogan. The tax percentages should scale with the populous. Since businesses aren’t doing so well (and fewer are employed), the tax revenue is way off. Why penalize productive pockets? We’re driving them away. The ‘demand’ issue of the public is based on what they ‘see’ as cost drivers. If they see the cost as lower, they demand more and vice versa. Our tax codes are set up with ‘fixed’ rates independent of demand. How can that be? ‘Scaling up’ the populous without recognition of this very basic economic principle, the foundation of free market capitalism, of demand creates the issues you see today with ‘higher taxes’. And keep in mind that it’s the whole range of government services in play here . . . more people require more health care . . . As far as the productive pockets are concerned, ‘goods and services’ demanded by the public for their use will indeed ‘compete’ for the same resources that businesses want to expand. In the short run of a given year, something has to ‘give’ for the other to ‘take’. That’s why the slogans being used by our politicians fail us . . . they only tell ‘half the story’ like the business issue but fail to address the ‘demand’ issue of the public both for private and public goods and services. At the end of the day, the usual political response from politicians’ of either party is that we’ll just simply ‘grow ourselves out of the ‘trade off’ dilemma’ but this violates the concept of ‘scarcity’ in economics thus we’re right back into the decades on pissing contest of taxes that most of the public simply doesn’t ‘see’ both sides. It matters little how productive a business is if the resources it consumes go up in price from the demands of the public including the ‘trade off’ of cutting k-12 school funding as we’ve seen done by Runner/Smyth which only hurts businesses in that future employees on average will be ‘less productive’. That’s the trade off ‘half’ this doesn’t get a lot of political play . . . the cost if you will of taking a vow not to increase taxes for ‘any reason’ including the lost productivity of the business community.

IndyOctober 4, 2009 at 12:35 pm

NickelDime says: my definition of fiscal discipline is limiting spending to the extent of our means. I know it sounds novel… Not at all to me . . . I’m just explaining why your legislators ‘actions’ don’t map to this and why the public remains confused. My post to you use this statement as their foundation . . . the only difference from what you normally hear is that I’m actually ‘practicing’ fiscal conservatism not just reciting the slogan for political purposes.

cashOctober 2, 2009 at 8:47 am
Is it Dove season?
Scott ErvinOctober 2, 2009 at 9:21 am
Naw, not dove season. It was probably a Northbridge resident getting ready to take shots at passing cyclists tomorrow. Target rich environment: Furnace Creek, Novotny ride, etc.
CCOctober 2, 2009 at 10:00 am
You’re right Scott. Likely a Northbridge resident who as run out of coots. As for trash in the street. I have noticed that my pristine neighborhood in Valencia has trash in the street that is tossed out of cars from visiting Saugus residents. Can we resurrect the great wall Jeff?
PetzOctober 2, 2009 at 10:39 am
What is the fee for the bike ride?
Timothy MyersOctober 2, 2009 at 1:05 pm
According to Meg Whitman’s website she will be in town between 2 and 3 and it looks like it is at Rasmussen’s office in Centre Pointe. Probably an invitation only thing. Meg Whitman is a nice lady to use her personal wealth to fund the salaries of Republican campaign people who would otherwise be unemployed, but the whole purpose of the Republican primary is just to nominate some well meaning person to get smoked by Jerry Brown.
The Hill PeopleOctober 2, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Gotta love the Trashy neighbors letter. My favorite quote: ” I’ve approached many offering phone numbers, pamphlets and information on alternatives. The response is consistent and irritating. “No, Thanks. This is easier.”
Scott ErvinOctober 2, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Petz: It’s free.
NickelDimeOctober 2, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Who can argue that this state is in dire need of fiscal discipline? I don’t care what side you’re on, that’s the issue, plain and simple. We’re in a bankrupt state managing payables like a roofer or a pawn shop. Let’s get this house in order and make the tough decisions. Thus far, Poizner has my vote.
cashOctober 3, 2009 at 9:18 am
“Chamber events has historically been the organization’s annual Home and Business Expo. This October 9-11 event will bring thousands of businesses and consumers to the Santa Clarita Sports Complex”. What no tent this year? Is this another city give away to business or does the Chamber have to pay to rent the Sports Complex. Has the 21 point plan be expanded to allow for free use of the facility? Is this another misuse of taxpayer money?
IndyOctober 3, 2009 at 1:00 pm
NickelDime says: Who can argue that this state is in dire need of fiscal discipline? I understand the dilemma . . . but politicians of both parties refuse to address the ‘demand’ issue starting with the number of people in play. More people require more taxes. Is that such a hard concept to grasp? Yet, it drives our taxing issue . . . and the public is left in a pissing context based on ideology from the left and right that solves nothing and doesn’t address reality. Likewise, the issue of ‘waste and fraud’ is really no issue at all. We have the best schools of management on earth here in the US, have had these for decades and yet I still hear political recitals saying we can’t management government. Bullshit. But this plays well with the more motivated citizens that participate in forums like this and you’d think the ‘folks’ would have figured out the ‘pandering’ . . . but they haven’t. When I talk to folks they simply recite the slogans . . . and if you ask them a question of demands, cost of same, or taxes, they again, retreat to slogans . . . which we’ve seen don’t solve anything. Until this situation changes, there will be no resolution on taxes or why we’re running such large national deficits. The leadership in this nation is what stinks and it stinks on the left and the right
NickelDimeOctober 3, 2009 at 9:19 pm
“More people require more taxes. Is that such a hard concept to grasp?” First, even if that were true, our population has decreased over the past few years. Our school-age population, in particular, is down nearly 10% over the past 8 years — and education is a huge share of our expenditures. Second, I ask you to explain your own slogan. The tax percentages should scale with the populous. Since businesses aren’t doing so well (and fewer are employed), the tax revenue is way off. Why penalize productive pockets? We’re driving them away.
NickelDimeOctober 3, 2009 at 9:20 pm
BTW – my definition of fiscal discipline is limiting spending to the extend of our means. I know it sounds novel…
IndyOctober 4, 2009 at 12:24 pm
NickelDime: First, even if that were true, our population has decreased over the past few years. Our school-age population, in particular, is down nearly 10% over the past 8 years — and education is a huge share of our expenditures. From the 2009 FACT BOOK among other sources that the k-12 student population over the last 15 years has ‘expanded’ by about 800,000 net new students bring the state’s k-12 total population to about 6.3 million kids ( http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/pn/fb/documents/factbook2009.pdf ) (page 24). If you multiply the ‘average cost per student’ at about $12,000 per year times the 6.3 million you get ‘huge share’ of the budget. Thus, if you continue on with a ‘tax code’ that encourage large families then you’ll continue to see the taxing issue get worse . . .not better and most parents don’t even know the cost and Runner/Smyth for reasons unknown to me won’t tell them. Why is that?
IndyOctober 4, 2009 at 12:33 pm
NickelDime: Second, I ask you to explain your own slogan. The tax percentages should scale with the populous. Since businesses aren’t doing so well (and fewer are employed), the tax revenue is way off. Why penalize productive pockets? We’re driving them away. The ‘demand’ issue of the public is based on what they ‘see’ as cost drivers. If they see the cost as lower, they demand more and vice versa. Our tax codes are set up with ‘fixed’ rates independent of demand. How can that be? ‘Scaling up’ the populous without recognition of this very basic economic principle, the foundation of free market capitalism, of demand creates the issues you see today with ‘higher taxes’. And keep in mind that it’s the whole range of government services in play here . . . more people require more health care . . . As far as the productive pockets are concerned, ‘goods and services’ demanded by the public for their use will indeed ‘compete’ for the same resources that businesses want to expand. In the short run of a given year, something has to ‘give’ for the other to ‘take’. That’s why the slogans being used by our politicians fail us . . . they only tell ‘half the story’ like the business issue but fail to address the ‘demand’ issue of the public both for private and public goods and services. At the end of the day, the usual political response from politicians’ of either party is that we’ll just simply ‘grow ourselves out of the ‘trade off’ dilemma’ but this violates the concept of ‘scarcity’ in economics thus we’re right back into the decades on pissing contest of taxes that most of the public simply doesn’t ‘see’ both sides. It matters little how productive a business is if the resources it consumes go up in price from the demands of the public including the ‘trade off’ of cutting k-12 school funding as we’ve seen done by Runner/Smyth which only hurts businesses in that future employees on average will be ‘less productive’. That’s the trade off ‘half’ this doesn’t get a lot of political play . . . the cost if you will of taking a vow not to increase taxes for ‘any reason’ including the lost productivity of the business community.
IndyOctober 4, 2009 at 12:35 pm
NickelDime says: my definition of fiscal discipline is limiting spending to the extent of our means. I know it sounds novel… Not at all to me . . . I’m just explaining why your legislators ‘actions’ don’t map to this and why the public remains confused. My post to you use this statement as their foundation . . . the only difference from what you normally hear is that I’m actually ‘practicing’ fiscal conservatism not just reciting the slogan for political purposes.