October 19, 2009 – Daily Brief

Nice to see TimBen help residents to rein in someone overstepping their bounds. Getting him on the council would give the residents someone who will listen and help more than the incumbents.

LaRouche – why is it this is a country of free speech until someone has an alternative viewpoint? I don’t agree with these folks, but they do have a right to their viewpoint.

I saw the LaRouche group in front of Whole Foods last week. WF said that they were on public property and couldn’t do anything about them. I was a bit surprised as they were camped out within 10 feet of the door. While I am a big advocate of freedom of speech, I find their attempt to compare Obama to Hitler insulting to the millions who died under Hitler’s regime. These clowns are ignorant and they have the sign to prove it.

Re The Signal’s endorsement of Berger and Moberg. As per usual, they got it half right. They have obviously never heard the phrase “if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it.”

CLWA chief says earthquake along Delta would be Santa Clarita’s Katrina It’s about time. SCOPE has been saying this for over five years… to deaf ears at CLWA. SCOPE is looking smarter every day!

I would like to comment on the Bonelli tract issue. While I respect TimBen and appreciate his interest, I think the City is being put in an impossible position. If residents of the Bonelli tract are allowed to have code violations which they do not have to address, the City will have problems enforcing existing ordinances in the rest of the City. I know I very much appreciate the City’s reactive and proactive efforts to get my neighborhood cleaned up and am very concerned that because of the complaints in Saugus, Canyon Country neighborhoods will be much harder to clean up. This needs to be looked at very carefully before a much larger problem is created. If the Community Preservation Officer was rude, he needs to apologize but the Bonelli tract should not be given a free pass. This will set a precedent that opens the City, and our tax dollars, to lawsuits from others who have had to or are in the process of complying. Proceed very carefully and enforce equally. If necessary, change codes but again be very careful that you do not create an even bigger problem.

The idea that a driveway of a particular width needs to be “cleaned up” is ridiculous. Those homes were there 30+ years before the City even existed, but now they are threatened with fines and leins for leaving it as-is? For those west-siders voting in November on the annex/incorporate question, watch out what you ask for… you may be fined and face leins just because someone redrew a boundary. What is legal today might make you an outlaw tomorrow.

I think the main issue regarding cod enforcement…are items being “grandfathered” in. Alot of cities allow have a grandfather clause of some sort and usually require new development to comply with any sort of new development…ie, new roof homes now have to be either ceramic or cement, can you imagine living in a house for 25 years and along comes gov’t saying you need to put on a new roof? Also, the city employee stepped over the line, if he in fact threatened people with jail time and placing liens against their homes.

Spineflower, driveway widths are set to correspond to garage and/or carport widths. The definition of a driveway is that it leads to either a garage or carport in order to park your vehicle. Why are these vehicles not parked in their garages? Could it be they have illegaly converted them into living space? Or is it that they are full of junk. You would not appreciate being the neighbor of the person who places or widens their driveway right alongside your windows or patio where it was never designed to accomodate a driveway so you can hear the noise and smell the fumes all day and night. Most houses, even older ones, were designed with the driveway in a specific spot and size for a reason. There is also a requirement that your have landscaping in your front yard which is precluded by cementing it over to make your driveway larger than allowed. Besides, driveways are not the only things they want left alone. Do you want to live in Pacoima? I say again, then what happens in the rest of the City? Can I then have a driveway as wide as I choose and cement most of my front yard or have chipping paint, weeds, etc?

I find it very interesting to see the folks who don’t want to “set a precedent that opens the City, and our tax dollars, to lawsuits” …. Very interesting indeed.

Well said Berta. The fellow with the “too wide driveway” most likely repoured his driveway past what was originally put in. Now he’s been caught.

Thanks Navigator for your comments. I would like to clarify one other point for Mikec. In order for something to be “grandfathered” in, it has to have been legal and permitted at the time it was constructed. There have been standards for driveways since the 1920′s, long before the Bonelli Tract was built. The wider driveways and/or double driveways were never legally allowed and therefore would never be grandfathered in. The roofing elements mentioned most likely were legal when put on so would not encounter these problems.

Wow, a driveway is the wrong width, and you are talking “Pacioma?” If the Signal story is correct, one resident was told to widen the old driveway, did so, and then was told it was too wide. There is no law requiring you to park in your garage. CC&Rs can make a demand, but there are no CC&Rs in Bonelli.

Spineflower, I can see that you are not reading the entire text of what I am writing. You appear to be entrenched in your position so I will not try to reason further with you. You are entitled to your opinion.