May 27, 2010· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

May 27, 2010 – Daily Brief

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

Supervisor Antonovich held a State of the County luncheon yesterday and spoke about the failings of state government, the colossal budget deficit, the need for a Castaic High School, illegal aliens, crime and more. Antonovich says the state should go to a part-time legislature SIGNAL, KHTS
Also, Supe Antonovich released a statement yesterday calling Supervisor Gloria Molina’s proposal to boycott Arizona stupid. “To boycott a state for enforcing our federal laws is in direct violation of that oath,” he wrote SIGNAL, LA TIMES
LA County auditors have found 101 substantiated cases of fraud in County bureaucracy, including a social worker who used welfare recipient’s info to file fraudulent tax returns as well as Fire Department officials who played golf during work hours LA TIMES
Sanitation district meeting delayed until next week so Supervisor Antonovich can attend SIGNAL. Also, KHTS has a really good article on the sanitation issue KHTS
There’s a new multi-agency, inter-governmental group for Marsha McLean to sink her teeth into:The San Fernando Valley Council of Governments is comprised of Santa Clarita, Burbank, Glendale, and San Fernando. SFVCOG will “would focus on issues such as planning, transportation and economic development, while giving the Valley a unified voice in Sacramento and Washington,” according to the DAILY NEWS, SFVBJ
Damaged gulf oil well head actually leaking 12,000 to 19,000 barrels a day says the LA TIMES. But the Coast Guard is saying BP has plugged the leak.
One of Santa Clarita’s sister cities, Tena Ecuador, is experiencing heavy flooding and is in need of help says CITY BRIEFS
CITY BRIEFS previews this summer’s Concerts in the Park
Failbook: a new blog chronicling facepalming moments on Facebook FAILBOOK
TimBen Boydston posts guest editorial on WRB calling sanitation increase a “boondoggle”, “tax scam” based on “junk science.” WRB
Cam Noltemeyer says her neighborhood is at risk of “mansionization” and all the consequences that entails: “noise and traffic will become unbearable, not to mention the air pollution.” She wonders what the value of Newhall Land’s “Master Plan” really is if new office buildings can be built on McBean. SIGNAL

Comments

23 · as published

Your Web GuruMay 27, 2010 at 8:05 am
Regarding Antonovich and Gloria Molina: Whether boycotting is necessary is up for debate and subject to individual discretion. But this quote: “The propaganda by both the media and others is intentionally misleading because Arizona’s law mirrors federal law.” Is not completely factual. SB1070 has issues in that it adds the element of unfounded presumption on the part of law enforcement to ‘guess’ who is illegal or not and allows them to act on so-called probable cause. It puts prosecutorial discretion into the hands of those who are supposed to keep the peace, rather than in the hands of the judiciary. It also allows ANYONE to file a lawsuit if they feel any official or agency isn’t doing enough to enforce the law. I don’t think those aspects are on the Federal books, but feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. The two items in this law listed above give cause for concern in that court-clogging arguments can be made on both sides with regard to civil rights, arrests based on guesswork (defense attorneys LOVE to challenge traffic stops for validity), and the potential for overall oppression of legal immigrants who reside in Arizona. It’s a bad law and at the very least, those loopholes should be challenged and amended. Arizona was one of the southwest states who achieved impressive economic growth during the puffed up housing boom a few years ago when property values were exponentially increasing up to 50% per year, and was also one of the hardest hit in the crash. Yet it seems we’re overlooking any of those aspects for a rise in local crime, a rise in drug trafficking, and a dent in their economy and instead focusing on those damn dirty illegals crossing over and taking all the good jobs and supplying the world with those dirty drugs. The fact is that illegals who cross over and find work are helping certain free enterprise types avoid paying taxes and reducing their bottom line while increasing their profits. And since those ‘examples of capitalism’ aren’t contributing their fair share of taxes, it hurts our economy when those same illegals are injured on the job with no insurance (thus clogging up our emergency rooms), or putting their kids in school (believe me, I’d rather have an educated illegal who might grow up to contribute to society as opposed to an uneducated one who won’t). SB1070 does address penalties for hiring illegals, but will it be enough? If it is effective will we find out just how much our economy is dependent upon foreign (and cheap) labor? The profitability of hiring illegal labor has been our dirty little secret since we took the southwest region from Mexico, and the hypocrisy of convenient scapegoating simply amazes me.
Berta González-HarperMay 27, 2010 at 10:43 am
As a first generation American born citizen, the child of legal immigrants, I have always understood the requirement to produce proper identification to any law enforcement entity upon request and do not consider this requirement “racial profiling”. Most of us carry our driver’s license on us when we are not within our abodes and if we are here legally are not concerned with being asked to produce identification. We recognize this is our responsibility and a lawful requirement. I am Hispanic and can personally attest to never having been stopped by law enforcement without cause, but then again I do not go around flipping off the cops either. I can also personally attest to young blue-eyed blond Anglo males being pulled over and asked to provide proper identification and justification for why they are out after 10 pm, have spray paint cans, etc. Is that then also racial profiling? On the other hand, is it law enforcement keeping us safe and deterring crime etc? Arizona is attempting to do what our elected Federal officials have failed to do. Protect our citizens from drug dealers, gang members, and other criminal elements who have made border states their hunting grounds for easy prey. In my opinion, you are way off base here. Give me a break…
Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogMay 27, 2010 at 11:24 am
A) I agree with Web Guru 100% B) Your example would be profiling based on age rather than race. C) I think your actions during the past election of sending that bogus email off to the signal without even ATTEMPTING to fact check it or give the person it was about an opportunity to respond tells us all we need to know about your “guilty until proven innocent” stance on things, which you are entitled to feel, but thank god that’s not the way it is supposed to be. And BTW, your racial reality does not automatically trump anyone else’s argument “just because.” I appreciate the context but being a child of legal immigrants does not make you more knowledgeable about illegal immigration simply by default.
Berta González-HarperMay 27, 2010 at 12:07 pm
You are entitled to your opinion flawed, as I believe your reasoning is. I will not address your comments regarding my actions during the campaign as I have addressed that issue multiple times on this blog already. Again, I believe your assumptions are incorrect but your have every right in this country to make your own mistakes. I stand by my statements and would personally prefer California follow Arizona’s example than to continue allowing the current untenable situation to continue unabated in California and elsewhere within the United States of America. As I have suggested to many others who agree with your position, you are welcome to legally sponsor as many illegal immigrants as immigration authorities will allow based upon your financial situation to accommodate and sponsor these immigrants. You put your own assets, credit, and reputation on the line to guarantee they will not become burdens to society for the required 5 years of sponsorship and they must pass all scrutiny required. What gives you the right to force me and others to subsidize millions of people who entered this country without permission and provide them with benefits they are not even entitled to in their country of origin? Or force law-abiding citizens to endure the actions perpetrated upon them by criminals here illegally? We don’t have enough homegrown criminals that we need to import some more? Your choice to allow this to continue, you pay. The current system for legal immigration provides for a proper criminal background check, medical screening, financial requirements in place to ensure they do not collect public benefits they have not earned, and have job skills needed to find gainful employment, etc. If you feel current immigration law should be changed, then work with your elected officials to change these laws. Many of us believe immigration laws are in place to provide safeguards for those residents here legally and these laws must be upheld and enforced. Period…
GangFangMay 27, 2010 at 12:14 pm
“Period” followed by ellipsis?
mikeMay 27, 2010 at 12:30 pm
ROFL!
NateMay 27, 2010 at 2:54 pm
HAHAHA. No actual period followed by the word “Period” followed by Ellipsis.
Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogMay 27, 2010 at 1:23 pm
A) I read your responses to that issue and I don’t buy it. You had a bone to pick and got some weaponry in your arsenal to do so, then you went with the “guilty until proven innocent” philosophy which explains your approval of Arizona’s misguided attempt at a badn aid to some symptoms as opposed to dealing with the cause. B) I am disregarding 90% of your post because it rambles incessantly and assumes that either myself or Guru are arguing in favor of Illegal immigration, we are not… sorry to disappoint and waste a good diatribe, I know how much that can sting. C) One can be opposed to continued illegal immigration and still have reason to be against a particular law even if the claims of those who support said law is to curb illegal immigration. You know what else would curb illegal immigration? Shooting illegal immigrants on sight, but I would be opposed to that as well. I could use the same logic that you did to act as though I were in favor of unfettered illegal immigration to say that you would be in favor of shooting illegal immigrants on sight, the link would be just as valid, but I’m not that petty, and I’m also not this Petty http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0JvF9vpqx8 Have a nice day
Berta González-HarperMay 27, 2010 at 2:29 pm
If I were charged with patrolling the USA border and it were up to me to decide the course of action, if I asked a suspected illegal to halt and produce identification/documentation and he/she did not stop, I would shoot to stop them but not kill them and turn them over to the proper authorities. All bets are off however if I were actually afraid for my life as many “immigrants” crossing the border are armed, in which case I would shoot to kill. For perspective, I would also have no problem fatally wounding a legal resident attempting to harm my loved ones or me if I had no law enforcement personnel to stop him/her. Does that answer your question? I also understand that if law enforcement told me to pull over and get out of my car, lay down on the floor at the bank, etc I must comply or face the consequences. My parents taught us to respect the law and the authorities. They also taught us the difference between an invited guest and someone who simply takes advantage. Mexican soldiers on the border between Mexico and Guatemala shoot those who do not halt on first command, so the Mexican government is very hypocritical on this and many other issues. Mexico is serious about protecting their southern border but provides maps for illegals to cross our deserts safely. Those caught for any crime and incarcerated in Mexico are not provided three square meals, medical/dental care, conjugal visits, and color TV. Why don’t you relocate to Mexico? Or go and ask the Mexican, Guatemalan, Honduran, Salvadoran, etc government for food stamps, free education in English,all government materials translated into English, subsidized housing, free medical care, cash payments etc. After watching a brief portion of the video you provided the link for, I better understand what you consider “reality”. It is pointless to continue to try to reason with someone with your mindset. Have a nice day in la la land.
NateMay 27, 2010 at 2:38 pm
“I would shoot to stop them but not kill them and turn them over to the proper authorities.” Wait you would just say stop? You could just throw the gun on the ground and talk them to death they probably would be happy to shoot themselves.
Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogMay 27, 2010 at 2:55 pm
“Does that answer your question?” Ummm, no, no not at all. I never asked the “question” that you appear to be answering, not sure where that discussion even sprouted up from but while it did not answer my question it did provide some laughter. Also sorry that you weren’t able to get the Tom Petty reference as the joke it was intended to be and somehow instead decided to distort that as well into me saying that was what I consider “reality.” Actually see Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers did a music video where they were channeling Alice in… Oh never mind, it will just be lost on you. Also not sure how you get to the point of telling me to “…relocate to Mexico,” not sure how that has anything to do with our discussion either. Using the way other countries do things can be fun on many levels… hmmm let’s see, we could say that shooting first and asking questions later would be better than they have it in the Middle East and therefore justified. We could argue that Demonstrators in China are killed by the military so as long as we don’t quite cross that threshold we are OK… All irrelevant to the discussion but somehow just as pertinent as your suggesting I relocate to Mexico. After seeing how quickly you become confused and disoriented in a discussion as straight forward as this one was I can completely understand why you think someone is guilty until proven innocent, I get that there is a good deal of confusion and difficulty on your part and I’m 100% compassionate towards that.
Alan FerdmanMay 27, 2010 at 11:25 am
YWG By intimating that the concept of “probable cause” is invalid, reduces the ability of law enforcement to only act on a situation when they have been witness to the act itself. The negative implications of eliminating a peace officers ability to act on “reasonable cause” are far reaching and devastating to law enforcement’s ability to keep us safe. I find it odd that you do not trust law enforcement to obey the law while at the same time trust lawbreakers to be good citizens.
Your Web GuruMay 27, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Alan, you might want to re-read my post as I don’t think there’s any verbiage regarding me stating the invalidity of probable cause or anything about me not trusting law enforcement. I actually was in law enforcement in the military and do understand the ideals and virtues of probable cause and discretionary enforcement of the law. However, when laws are written to provide a broad interpretation of the actions to enforce them, it has the potential to clog courts with arguments from both sides (Something I DID say in my post). If you actually read the law the two items I described that I have issues with are given brief descriptions with no true interpretation of their intent. Police are allowed ‘probable cause’ but there are no guidelines, so we have to trust their judgement. What tactics will they use in their enforcement, based on how the law is written, that won’t be considered oppressive by civil rights groups, or even citizens who may be accidentally targeted? And as for the average Joe Citizen now being given broad powers to police the police, that scares me. I can understand officials and agencies being held accountable to their communities, but to allow ANYONE to file a lawsuit (not just a complaint, but a freakin’ LAWSUIT) because they THINK an offical or agency isn’t doing enough to enforce the law will cause another round of court-clogging crap. Those aspects of the law are just not well written. Just for the record, I predict a sweeping of the Arizona streets of illegals and understand that law enforcement now has probable cause on their side to pick up known illegals. I know they already know the ones who are kiting the system and flaunting the fact that, up to this point, the cops could do nothing to them based solely on their status. I’m sure there will be a wonderful honeymoon period for Arizonans who support the law. I don’t see it solving the problem in the long run, and the cost of enforcing this law, along with its poorly written elements, won’t do anything in the long run to cure the issue. If we REALLY want to solve the problem, let’s lock up the borders and reconsider our economic basis. Let’s get rid of minimum wage and allow Americans to bid for jobs that will go to the lowest bidder. Let’s rewrite the tax codes to loosen the paperwork so that businesses can pay their workers under the table and reduce their bottom line. If you want to keep the crap jobs for legal citizens and Americans, then let’s play the same game legally that businesses have been playing illegally with illegal immigrants.
Your Web GuruMay 27, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Actually to clarify, AZ SB 1070 Section 8 Paragraph E: A law enforcement officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States. 4th amendment issues notwithstanding, probable cause by definition is defined as ‘a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime’. So what is reasonable belief? How, based on the verbiage of the law and the definition of probable cause, is it not possible to even by accident target a group of people based on how they look, their economic status or even what part of the steet they might be standing during any given day? How, using ‘probable cause’ do you tell illegal immigrants from migrant workers, legal immigrants, or American citizens? Hell, combine that with the assumption that AZ law enforcement will be ‘trained’ to not use racial profiling in their job and either we’re all at risk of being targeted, or the enforcement of the law will be ineffective.
Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogMay 27, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Well heck Guru, we could pin some sort of insignia on the legal ones… say stars?
mikeMay 27, 2010 at 8:07 am
There’s no easier way for a local to lose credibility in my eyes than to write for the Beacon.
DamageincMay 27, 2010 at 11:28 am
TBB in bed with bossert… Figures I always knew he was a snake in the grass.
DubiousMay 28, 2010 at 8:27 am
To Mike and Damageinc. I find it curious that you choose to make insulting and denigrating statements rather than comment on the issues that Boydston covers regarding the Sanitation District’s proposed fee increases. Isn’t it important to get as many facts out to as many people as possible, in as many venues as possible?
mikeMay 28, 2010 at 8:41 am
I largely agree with Boydston on the issue. and I get his motivation, but some discretion is in order. Plus, I doubt that the Beacon gets a single reader that doesn’t already read SCVtalk. My problem with Bossert isn’t that he’s a conservative. It’s that he doesn’t have the interests of our valley, much less his own neighborhood at heart.
lvogelMay 28, 2010 at 9:41 am
I agree, Dubious. Does it really matter where this issue gets discussed, as long as it is out there for the people to hear/read about it. It sounds rather petty that Mr. Boydston is getting such comments made about him, when he is probably doing more than others in regards to getting the facts and concerns out there. Getting people more aware of this, regardless of which blog, paper, magazine, etc., is the goal afterall.
DamageincMay 28, 2010 at 9:49 am
You are still ignore the fact that Boydston teamed up with Bossert. Talk about Dumb and Dumber, its a non-start and an issue in and of itself. TBB like Bossert just likes to hear himself jibber jabber.
TimBen BoydstonMay 28, 2010 at 8:36 am
At least I write under my real name. Oh… and yes I was honored to be endorsed by both Dave Bossert of the West Ranch Beacon (from the right) and Jeff Wilson from SCV Talk (from the left) in our City Council race. They also write under their real names. PS. My commentary also appeared on SCV Talk…and a commentary on the same subject appeared in the Signal last year.
DamageincMay 28, 2010 at 9:06 am
–”At least I write under my real name.” That all really depends if you consider “TIMBEN” a real name. PS I don’t know what your commentary was about because only a great idiot would read Bossert’s blog which he attempt to pass off as a legitimate news source.