SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
October 5, 2010· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

October 5, 2010 – Daily Brief

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

  • City sued over library takeover: If you’ve read SCVTalk, you knew this was coming. The Signal says there’s a chance, if the suit makes it to trial, that Ken Pulskamp and Darren Hernandez could be called to testify. Don Ricketts, the attorney behind the suit, said in his press release he would try to depose Councilwoman Laurie Ender as well. The City says the lawsuit is without merit and that it would hold LSSI to high privacy standards. SIGNAL, PRESS RELEASE
  • Details on the 29 year old woman who was killed in a motorcycle accident Friday night in the Commerce Center are trickling out. KHTS and the Signal report the motorcyle driver was Jennifer Sehenuk. She was driving around 75 miles per hour when she lost control of her bike and slammed into a curve. A quick search on Google shows she may have been an SCV life coach, a stuntwoman, and Valencia high grad. Sad.
  • Albert Einstein Charter school suffers big setback, with Newhall School District calling its charter school application “Haphazard” and “incomplete.” The Hebrew/Chinese language school had hoped to open a K-6 school by fall 2011. SIGNAL
  • Nearly 200 Los Angeles County employees make at least $250,000 or more, according to an investigation by the LA Times. The list includes physicians and helicopter pilots who got overtime fighting the Station Fire last year. LA TIMES
  • The three month delay (and counting) of a budget deal in Sacramento is making low-income child care providers in the SCV/SFV/AV very fearful that they will lose all funding. “People are afraid of losing their child care funding, and if they lose that, they’ll have no one to take care of their children. They’ll have to stay home, and they’ll lose their jobs, and we’ll be closing down,” one said. In addition, the state is behind some $800 million in funds it owes to community colleges DAILY NEWS
  • Democratic activist Carole Lutness gets endorsed by the League of Conservation Voters in her bid for CLWA seat division #3. I haven’t been following the CLWA race very closely, does she have a chance? SIGNAL
  • Radio Adventures: A Finnish radio hobbyist, operating at night above the Arctic circle, some 5,000 miles from the SCV, was able to tune into KHTS’ tiny 1,000 watt signal recently. He contacted the station and KHTS wrote a big story. That’s quite a catch- I’ve tuned into Radio North Korea and several other shortwave stations; medium wave (AM) is even harder to catch at such distances. 73s Mr. Niilekselä. KHTS
  • Last Monday the temperature hit 113 in downtown LA and at least 109 in the SCV. Today’s high is forecast to be 66 with clouds and rain possible. Whatever, I’m just glad we don’t have Santa Anas yet SIGNAL
  • Interesting article asks why entertainment companies are so eager to leave places like LA and move to places like Santa Clarita- “Entertainment entities exist in clusters. Production offices crew up, gear gets moved, hotels fill up, offices and restaurants host meetings, post production takes place, film gets developed, screenings are held, gifts are given, parties are held, nothing happens in a vacuum. Yet when one or two elements disappear, the entire cluster is in danger and LA is losing its entertainment base.” Disney Studios at the Ranch anyone? LA BLOG
  • Bell scandal continues: the police chief reportedly gets disability checks, but is well enough to run 5k events, and last night, four out of five City Councilmembers failed to show up for their own Council meeting LA TIMES
  • CBS’ Marketwatch publishes a sympathetic portrayal of Antelope Valley Tea Party Patriot members. The reporter talked to several Tea Party attendees at a recent AV protest and says staff from Buck McKeon and George Runner’s office were on hand. MARKETWATCH. For balance, read Matt Taibi’s not-so-sympathetic portrayal of the Tea Party movement. ROLLING STONE
  • Speaking of Buck McKeon, OpenSecrets.org says he has raised $879,375 this election season, some 342 times the amount his paper opponent Jackie Conaway has raised. OPEN SECRETS
  • Sierra Club gives a “Zero” to California Republican Assemblyman and Senators, including our own Cameron Smyth SIERRA CLUB
  • Frank Pezzanite, CEO of LSSI and Letter Writer to the New York Times, says last week’s NYT Story on Santa Clarita’s library outsourcing portrayed LSSI as “hostile toward library staff.” Actually, the only thing that was hostile to library staff was Mr. Pezzanite, who basically called them lazy and shiftless. Anyway read what he and other Letter Writers had to say to the NYT LTE SECTION
  • This Signal LTE writer summarizes the confusion and anger of so many voters this season. “I am now a “registered” anti-incumbent. If you’re in office, you need to be gone, from top dog on down. If there’s been any leadership shown by any of them, I haven’t been able to see it.” SIGNAL

Comments (45)

  1. Daddy Joe GOctober 5, 2010 at 6:35 am
    Except for one speaker who said turning the libraries over to a Maryland corporation was a good idea because local control is always best, the entire 3 hours of public discussion was against. The conclusion that the city councils yes vote immediately after the public hearing was not based on the hearing, but was based on a decision that was made before the hearing is not only reasonable, it’s unavoidable.
  2. gregOctober 5, 2010 at 9:29 am
    I think the Council made a hasty vote and should have taken more time to make a decision after looking at things more compehensively. At the same time, I have issue with everyone saying since 200 people showed up against it the Council made the wrong decision. A mass of people does not constitute the right thing to do. The people elected these Councilmembers to make decisions that are in the best interest of the City. To me, the Council made the wrong decision because they did not take the time to research and do a comprehensive analysis that looked at the best interests of the City. But in the end, will having LSSI operate the libraries a bad one? I’m not sure. Only time will tell. Ultimately
  3. ScottOctober 5, 2010 at 6:58 am
    Just came across this study on the Riverside county library system: http://www.rivlib.net/downloads/whitepaper2010.pdf
  4. CCOctober 5, 2010 at 7:26 am
    Interesting report. Too bad the City didn’t bother to share it with the citizens of Santa Clarita. If they had spent the time for open public debate, they might have at least had the appearance of caring.
  5. Library User MichaelOctober 5, 2010 at 9:34 am
    That whitepaper was referenced in the resolution passed by the Council on August 24th. (I downloaded it from the City’s web site. It was more or less available, but However, the date of it was interesting, June 17 2010, only four days after the Response to the RFP (almost identical to the response to SCV 2 months later) for San Joaquin County was due. At whose prodding was this whitepaper put together? LSSI’s? Is this perhaps a puff piece paid for by LSSI? It could be valid for what was going on in Riverside, but does it apply to the needs of the SCV? The library issues run deep, wide and through uncompletely explored territory. They are inadequately cover by LSSI’s boilerplate response that you can find here http://scvtalk.com/2010/09/30/lssi-santa-clarita-library-document-dump-and-more-comments/ .
  6. Daddy Joe GOctober 5, 2010 at 12:09 pm
    You cannot compare LSSI in Riverside with LSSI in Santa Clarita. LSSI controls the library system in Riverside. Maybe someone else could do a better job, maybe not. There is no way to tell. But the situation here is a little different. COLA has the biggest library system in the country. Somewhere around 90 libraries available on a unified web site 24/7. 3 of those libraries are in the city of Santa Clarita. The city is not taking them back, as the Signal claims, they never belonged to the city. And they are not taking them over, which makes me think of the Pirates of the Caribbean or the Texas revolution or something. No, the city will have to buy the 3 libraries from the county, and when they do, COLA WIILL STILL HAVE THE BIGGEST LIBRARY SYSTEM IN THE COUNTRY AND WE WILL STILL BE PART OF IT. The city will have to compete with the county and LSSI’s success or failure will depend on as much on what the county does as on what they do. I know it isn’t fair, Marsha. But since the city libraries will have plenty of copies of the hottest new titles (Weste), as long as your reading is just a diversion from screwing the people you’re paid to serve there should be no problem. I doubt that I will bother to get a city library card. It’s Castaic once a week for me.
  7. Coastal SageOctober 5, 2010 at 1:19 pm
    @ DaddyJoeG: I don’t want to burst your bubble, but there is text in the law under which the City of Santa Clarita seceded from the Los Angeles County Library System, Cal. Education Code Section 19116, which an attorney for the County, who has ill will against the City, could use to order the County Library System to deny services to City of Santa Clarita residents. See the second sentence from Sec. 19116(b): “(b) When a city or library district files a notice pursuant to subdivision (a), it shall remain a member of the county free library until July 1 of the base year or the date on which property is transferred pursuant to subdivision (c), whichever date is later. Upon ceasing to be a member of the county free library system, the city or library district shall not participate in any benefits of the county free library system, and shall assume the responsibility for the provision of library services within its jurisdiction.” That text “the city…shall not participate in any benefits of the county free library system” bothers me, in terms of City resident’s ability to use the County Library Systems’ services after 7/1/11. So, too, there is other text in Sec. 19116, pasted below, which seems to allow the City to deny County residents the ability to use the City Libraries’ services if the County has not given the City the right to receive the library related taxes from the adjoining County territory. I’ve pasted “the relevant law” below because it has lots of nuances, and its simply foolish for anyone to assume anything about the library situation, in terms of who has the right to do what, unless one has read and parsed the relevant code system. Similarly, there is the L.A. County Board of Supervisors Resolution TEXT, the Sample Ballot TEXT, and the actual text on the punch card ballots going back to when the Supervisors put the measure on the ballot, pursuant to Proposition 218, asking the voters to approve collection of the tax by the County to support the County Library System. (I believe Jeff has pdfs of them.) Those documents determine WHERE the County can spend the Library Special Tax NOW (anywhere they want) and along with Education Code Section 19116 determine who, if anyone, will be able to receive that Special Library Tax after July 1, 2011. At present, the rights of County vs. City in terms of tax revenues and duties to various classes of library users (County vs. City), are very much in flux, and given the stoppage of construction on the improvements to the Canyon Country Library, it looks like some litigation between the City and County could occur. Similarly, City or County residents might not like the policies ultimately adopted by the City or County with respect to who is entitled to use library services, and litigation could occur over those as-yet undisclosed policies. As a result, only an idiot would try to predict how the tax revenues and rights-of-use issues will be resolved. There is no reported Appellate Court litigation to “test” the meaning of Section 19116, let alone the County resolution which enacted the Special Library Tax. Bottom line, the City’s, County’s and library users’ rights may ultimately be decided based on the views of an L.A. Superior Court judge or three Court of Appeal judges. Bottom line, don’t assume anything on the library issues, because you are likely to end up being disappointed. Here is the relevant Education Code section. Read it and learn ! 19116. (a) Sections 19104 and 19105 are not applicable to the withdrawal of a city or library district from the county free library system in Los Angeles County or Riverside County. The legislative body of any city or the board of trustees of any library district, whose jurisdiction is within the County of Los Angeles or the County of Riverside, may notify the board of supervisors for Los Angeles County or Riverside County, as appropriate, that the city or library district no longer desires to be a part of the county free library system. The notice shall state whether the city or library district intends to acquire property pursuant to subdivision (c). The board of supervisors shall transmit a copy of the notice to the Los Angeles County Assessor or Riverside County Assessor, as appropriate, the Los Angeles County Auditor or Riverside County Auditor, as appropriate, and the State Board of Equalization. (b) When a city or library district files a notice pursuant to subdivision (a), it shall remain a member of the county free library system until July 1 of the base year or the date on which property is transferred pursuant to subdivision (c), whichever date is later. Upon ceasing to be a member of the county free library system, the city or library district shall not participate in any benefits of the county free library system, and shall assume the responsibility for the provision of library services within its jurisdiction. Unless otherwise agreed by July 1 of the base year in writing by the Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County or the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County, as appropriate, and the withdrawing city or library district, an amount of property tax revenue equal to the property tax revenues allocated to the county free library pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 96) of Chapter 6 of Part 0.5 of Division 1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code in the fiscal year prior to the base year and that were derived from property situated within the boundaries of the withdrawing entity shall be allocated to and used to maintain library services by the withdrawing entity in the base year and, adjusted forward, in each fiscal year thereafter at the same time allocations are made pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 96) of Chapter 6 of Part 0.5 of Division 1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. This subdivision shall not apply to property tax revenues that have been pledged to repay bonded indebtedness of the county free library. (c) If there are one or more county library facilities within the territorial boundaries of the withdrawing entity at the time the withdrawing entity provides notice pursuant to subdivision (a), the withdrawing entity shall have the right to acquire any or all of those facilities from the county and the county shall, no later than July 1 of the base year, transfer to the withdrawing entity each facility to be acquired and the personal property therein related to the provision of library services. If the facility or personal property was purchased with bond proceeds or other forms of indebtedness, acquisition shall only take place if the withdrawing entity assumes any remaining indebtedness and in no way impairs the repayment thereof. If the withdrawing entity opts not to acquire any facilities or personal property, the county at its discretion may dispose of the facilities or personal property or convert the use of those facilities or personal property, including transferring collections and other personal property to other sites and converting facilities to other purposes. If the withdrawing entity opts to acquire any facilities or personal property, the acquisition prices shall be as follows unless otherwise provided for by statute or contract: (1) Each county library facility which, for the purposes of this section, shall include the real property upon which the facility is located and any fixtures therein and shall not include computer systems and software, shall be transferred for the lesser of: (A) No cost, if the facility was donated to the county by the withdrawing entity. (B) The price paid to the withdrawing entity by the county for the facility, if the county bought the facility from the withdrawing entity. However, if the county constructed capital improvements to the facility after it was bought from the withdrawing entity, the county’s total out-of-pocket costs for the capital improvement excluding any costs for routine repairs, restoration or maintenance, shall be added to the price. (C)
  8. Daddy Joe GOctober 5, 2010 at 2:06 pm
    Wow! Thanks sage. Looks like I might have to move out of the city after all.
  9. gregOctober 5, 2010 at 2:36 pm
    I think the issue of access becomes a moot point if the City library joins the Southern California Library Cooperative. I believe a requirement of joining is that all libraries that are a part of it (LA County Library is a member too) have to give access and the ability to check out books if one is a resident in the State of California since it is a state-funded program.
  10. Library User MichaelOctober 5, 2010 at 2:57 pm
    Right: IF. On the other hand IF NOT? And IF there is no charge, and IF the waiting time for an article is as short or shorter, and IF online download access is as good or better, and IF… And IF Ender et al actually make sure all the other not discussed IF’s are covered, THEN it may be moot. IF this all had been discussed publicly over several months, THEN we would have as many upset folks as we have.
  11. Daddy Joe GOctober 5, 2010 at 3:33 pm
    That seems to be the issue here. Nobody really knows, including the city High Command Council.
  12. GregOctober 5, 2010 at 3:51 pm
    Your’e right. There are a lot of IF’s even if they join the Southern California Library Cooperative (SCLC). I agree with most in that they should have taken more time and done more research before a vote. My post was directed at Coastal Sage in that she was saying that there is a potential of the County closing off access to City residents and vice versa. I was trying to say if both libraries are part of the SCLC then this scenario wouldnt play out because access could not be denied.
  13. Library User MichaelOctober 5, 2010 at 3:56 pm
    Greg, I knew where you were coming from. My response was more for those who do not know the true meaning of “IF”…
  14. Dr. Von MonsterOctober 5, 2010 at 7:44 am
    I’m going to publish a children’s book called, “Where Do Incumbents Come From?” The purpose of the book will be to explain the silliness of just firing politicians across the board in the hopes things will get better. Once upon a time, many current incumbents were challengers running on some sort of anti-incumbent platform. Let’s apply a little critical thinking shall we? That said, with our local representatives (city, assembly, state senate, and congress.) I’ve been hoping to ‘fire’ them for years. My point is that the kneejerk, reactionary ‘death to incumbents’ crowd should be careful not to simply reinstall new versions of the same problems. Firing is good, as long as we replace the old garbage with something better.
  15. Daddy Joe GOctober 5, 2010 at 8:13 am
    There is no such thing as a good politician. The idea of “no incumbents” is to change out the crooks frequently so they don’t get too good at it.
  16. Dr. Von MonsterOctober 5, 2010 at 8:16 am
    Then you get weak representation for your district as the politicians will fail to ever grasp the system well enough to get anything good done in their first (and only) term and will never begin to climb the ranks in committees.
  17. gregOctober 5, 2010 at 9:13 am
    Agree. No incumbents mean someone new is always coming in. A single term is really not enough time to get any major projects done and leads to instability to that agency or government. At the same time, I dont think holding on to a political position for 20+ years is great either. I think somewhere in the middle is best.
  18. CastaicClayOctober 5, 2010 at 9:25 am
    The incumbents want to keep us believing that so they can continue on with their “system”. The cream always rises to the top. If it sits there to long it spoils. At that point, vote them out.
  19. Daddy Joe GOctober 5, 2010 at 11:43 am
    Yep
  20. Daddy Joe GOctober 5, 2010 at 1:24 pm
    The politicians will fair to grasp the system. Glad to see you got the point.
  21. CastaicClayOctober 5, 2010 at 10:40 am
    When did Commerce Center Dr. become part of Valencia? The Signal really is a TOOL for NL&F and the City of S.C. isn’t it?
  22. Need for Involved CitizenryOctober 5, 2010 at 10:48 am
    Just figured that out did ya?
  23. CastaicClayOctober 5, 2010 at 12:19 pm
    No, but thanks for the snark.
  24. lindasOctober 5, 2010 at 2:41 pm
    Not sure how long you’ve been here CastaicClay but here’s a little lesson. The name Valencia encompasses the entire Newhall Land and Farming Company’s master planned community of Valencia. It has nothing to do with the City of Santa Clarita. The area is even called Valencia Commerce Center. Portions of Valencia fall within the City of Santa Clarita or in unincorporated areas such as Valencia Commerce Center and even the Valencia Marketplace along The Old Road is technically Valencia as well as West Ranch and West Creek which are outside the City as well. The Valencia community has been here longer than the City of Santa Clarita. Its a development name such as Stevenson Ranch or Fair Oaks Ranch. It just happens that those developments are entirely outside the City.
  25. Tim MyersOctober 5, 2010 at 10:49 am
    The Commerce Center was developed by Newhall Land, so it is “Valencia” despite the scent poles the the County put out proclaiming it “Castaic.”
  26. cashOctober 5, 2010 at 11:52 am
    Newhall Land developed property in the central valley, does that make those properties Valencia? However, the once mighty Newhall Land does control the CC&Rs for the Commerce Center , of cource you know this since your office is in the center.
  27. NickelDimeOctober 5, 2010 at 12:07 pm
    If Newhall Land says it’s Valencia, then it is so. You of all people know that, Cash.
  28. CCOctober 5, 2010 at 12:30 pm
    Yes, but is it Awesome?
  29. Coastal SageOctober 5, 2010 at 1:26 pm
    Yes, Valencia is a “trade name”, like Coca Cola, nothing more. The owner of the trade name can slap it on whatever product they want. If the name Valencia continues to have marketing appeal, hypothetically some day you may see the name “Valencia” on real estate in Ventura County, since Newhall Land’s real estate holdings extend westward past the county line.
  30. cashOctober 5, 2010 at 7:10 pm
    It will be a tough sell to use the Valencia trade past the LA/ Ventura county line. Ventura County seems to be a bit more aware of what it means to allow development to run a muck just to keep developers happy.
  31. cashOctober 5, 2010 at 7:04 pm
    Newhall land is a skeleton of what it once was. In fact, the company is no longer called Newhall Land. It is a once bankrupt company enough cash on hand to keep it afloat for a few years. If the real estate market does not improve relatively soon, the company and its five investors are toast.
  32. SamOctober 5, 2010 at 11:12 am
    The new homes in River Village are also being advertised as Valencia but have the 91350 zip.
  33. NickelDimeOctober 5, 2010 at 12:06 pm
    It doesn’t matter. It is Valencia because Newhall Land says it is (despite the zip and the fact that the homes feed Saugus High).
  34. CastaicClayOctober 5, 2010 at 12:18 pm
    Selective Awesomeness?
  35. SamOctober 5, 2010 at 12:20 pm
    Yes Valencia. Awesometown now has a Burger King.
  36. NickelDimeOctober 5, 2010 at 12:55 pm
    Tesoro del Valle has a 91354 zip and isn’t Valencia. And the Valencia Marketplace is west of the 5. It’s a developer’s trademark brand, not a city – not exclusive to a given zip code or even clean dividing boundaries.
  37. lindasOctober 5, 2010 at 2:46 pm
    I’m glad one person gets it!
  38. lindasOctober 5, 2010 at 2:45 pm
    Its because it is Valencia. It has nothing to do with zip codes. River Village is a subset of the master planned area of Valencia by Newhall Land. Newhall Land can put the name Valencia anywhere they want on their land since they have a trademark on it I believe.
  39. Daddy Joe GOctober 5, 2010 at 2:07 pm
    What difference does it make? OVOV, right?
  40. Dr. Von MonsterOctober 5, 2010 at 11:47 am
    Thank god NLF hasn’t laid claim to Elayon.
  41. mikeOctober 5, 2010 at 1:15 pm
    Elayon is safe, as is Takuymam. Oberg is in a gray area.
  42. Daddy Joe GOctober 5, 2010 at 1:20 pm
    Nothing is safe from the Santa Clarita High Command.
  43. Coastal SageOctober 5, 2010 at 1:34 pm
    Nor from the relatives of Frank Pezzanite, the controlling owner of LSSI. I am betting that when the City/LSSI management takes over, library customers will have to get a “new library card” because your old L.A. County library card probably will not be honored. Think about what you had to disclose when you got your library card: Driver’s license? Social Security Number? Email address? Pop quiz: Under Section 19116, does the City have to buy the County’s software and its data load? Can they split out City residents’ data, and buy it? What will the licensor of the software have to say about such purchases, especially if the software was customized for the County? My bet is that it will be easier for City/LSSI to use LSSI’s software and require everyone to apply for a new library card.
  44. Daddy Joe GOctober 5, 2010 at 2:19 pm
    Of the last 10 books I’ve read, COLA has a total of 71 copies. The Velencia library has none, the Newhall library has none. A city library card is of no use to me what so ever. I need a solution the gives me access to COLA. If that means I have to move, I’ll move.
  45. NickelDimeOctober 5, 2010 at 7:54 pm
    Castaic is an easy drive.

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support