October 6, 2010 – Daily Brief

Roger Gitlin’s letter points up the difference between the theologies of Christianity and Judaism (and for that matter Islam). Jesus instructed that since God saved all even though all were unworthy the best way to reflect God’s grace temporally is to go out and help and love the people MOST reviled by society (and arguably the least “deserving”), just like Jesus did in the extremely diverse Palestine of 30 to 35 CE. Grace Baptist is certainly attempting to live up to that example with their prison ministry programs. I break the speed limit EVERY day on my long commute. The prisoner in the story did something that requires a higher earthly punishment while I receive none, but the Christian believes we are equally sinful from the point of view of God. I applaud Grace Baptist that they are not just practicing “supermarket” Christianity that might come closer to Mr. Gitlin’s view.

Well, it appears Mr. Kellar was right when he indicated the council did not have enough information to make a informed decision about the library. Mr. Kellar is the only member of the council that views issues from a businessman’s perspective. The others have no business background to speak of (unless you count window washing as a business) and they make their decisions on emotion. Hernandez needs to be challenged for his lack of proper research before submitting the item to the council. The city looks rather foolish at this point, do they not?

The Signal = sinking ship?

What the Signal did to Josh was despicable, and sent a clear message that everyone working there should follow Brian Charles’ example and leave quick. On Gitlin, 1. The guy has no business questioning anyones facts. He was caught sending out a decade old urban myth just last week. Roger Gitlin is incapable of telling the truth in any capacity just like his buddies at fox and friends.

For the record, before any potential discussion here proceeds, I resigned from The Signal.

Sorry to hear Josh Premako has left The Signal. He did a good job trying to inform the community, and a good job from a technical point of view as an editor.

I want to comment IHeartSCV for an excellent, terse summary of what occurred at the recent Planning Commission meeting concerning One Valley One Vision. IHeartSCV reported on one concept which was raised at the meeting: An overall numerical cap on the population of SCV, as a means of making the community sustainable in terms of air quality, water availability, road use etc. As to that numerical cap concept, it is important to note that within the last 12 months, after a full blown trial, an Alameda Superior Court judge invalidated the City of Pleasanton’s longstanding numerical cap on the number of housing units to be allowed within its boundaries. That numerical cap had been adopted by voter initiative a long time ago, and had quietly operated without objection by the Building Industry Association (the usual anti-growth control plaintiff) for many years. However, as housing construction in Pleasanton approached the magic number, several groups of poor people’s rights advocates from San Francisco went out and found a low income single mother who lived in Pleasanton, and used her as a plaintiff to successfully attack the numerical cap as being exclusionary of the region’s poor. Because Pleasanton’s numerical limitation on housing construction had been adopted long ago, by initiative, without any public health/public services impact rationale, the Pleasanton housing cap did not withstand judicial challenge. The trial judge invalidated the cap and ordered the Pleasanton City Council to rezone a certain quantity of land in the City to allow low income housing. Had Pleasanton’s housing unit cap been established on a rational basis, tied to air quality, water availability, sewer capacity, etc. the cap may have had a chance of sustaining court challenge. Logic dictates that Santa Clarita Valley’s future growth as described in its General Plan Update should be tied to rational limitations outside of the City and County’s decision making power, particularly air quality and water availability. When I say air quality I do not mean greenhouse gases and global warming, but instead the more traditional issues of particulate matter, ozone and other air contaminants which affect public health locally. When I say water availability, I mean the fact that CLWA and the 3 local water retailers have searched high and low to find additional cost effective means of supplying water to Santa Claritans, and they haven’t found it. The Santa Clarita Valley is limited to (a) its actual water allocation from the State Water Project (i.e. ignoring paper water which will never be delivered and (b) the finite quantity of not-contaminated ground water it can safely pump from wells without destroying the riparian habitat protected under Federal and State law. In short, the Santa Clarita Valley has a limited budget in terms of water availability and bad air quality. There is no rational political reason for the City’s planners or the County’s planners to want to exceed it. Any proposed “plan” to exceed that budget has no legitimacy, in terms of City or County employees’ actions. A factually unsupported numerical cap on new housing construction may not be the answer. But that doesn’t mean Santa Clarita should not try to rationally tie population growth to air quality and water availability budgets. One way to balance that budget is to limit the density of housing on each “not-entitled” parcel of land so that the valley as a whole stays within budget, or to change the land use designations of not-entitled properties to something which uses less of that budget. Current residents of the Santa Clarita Valley should NOT have to pay for new growth, in terms of costly and ridiculous schemes to obtain more potable water (e.g. desalination plants in Ventura County) or in terms of sacrificing the health of child and adult populations by accepting increased air contaminants leading to asthma and other respiratory diseases. “Unavoidable adverse impacts” of significant air pollution diminishing the health of the valley’s residents, or of pushing water demand beyond the finite availability of well water and State Water Project water for use by the Valley’s residents are politically unacceptable. Santa Claritans have already loudly indicated their unwillingness to pay for the Sanitation District’s plan to build upgrades to the local sewer plants. More unsustainable population growth will create more chlorides (salt) in the river, and all the greater pressure to build those sewer plant upgrades, even if Santa Claritans escape paying for the Christmas tree of goodies “some idiots” employed by the Sanitation Districts and local water agencies agreed to give Ventura County. Assume for argument’s sake that the City really did want to make rational planning decisions about “living within the Valley’s budget” on air and water quality. If that were the case, the City’s planning staff would be using the General Plan Update process to carefully document factual findings supporting a General Plan which allowed growth in the City to live within that budget. A rational planning staff would be creating documents forming a bulkward against judicial attack on “living within the City’s environmental budget”. However, for whatever reasons, in drafting the General Plan Update the City’s planning staff is going off in a completely different direction, not “living within the Valley’s budget”, and instead promoting a General Plan which grossly overspends the Valley’s air quality and water availability budget. In those circumstances, the planning staff’s work does nothing to protect the quality of life interests of the Valley’s existing residents. Instead, the planning staff’s work merely aids the coterie of out-of-town land owners who benefit from over-expenditure of the Valley’s air quality and water budget. As a result, in the General Plan Update Santa Claritans are not protected by any top stop on the diminution of their quality of life, let alone the science to back-up the top stop. If there were no water availability limitations, if the air in Santa Clarita was clean, if the sewer plants had capacity to accept thousands of more people without adding “more salt to the river” and if the local street network could accommodate additional population growth, the City staff’s desire to create high density housing on vacant/under used land in Santa Clarita might be rational. But those conditions do not exist. Promoting a General Plan Update which exceeds Santa Clarita’s water, air quality, sewer and traffic budgets (a) would lead to the planners involved receiving an F on their project if they were in university level planning courses, (b) is politically tone deaf, and (c) creates suspicion of forward-looking nest feathering by the planning staff which advocates the increased population plan. No one should forget that Paul Brotzman’s predecessor, Jeff Lambert, left the City’s employ in an “up market” to work as a facilitator and lobbyist for land owners who had benefited from his years of work upzoning land in Santa Clarita. Though the real estate market has crashed, and Jeff is now Planning Director in Ventura (God help them), as soon as the real estate market turns around, I fully expect those who were the architects of this General Plan Update to leave the City’s employ in the manner Jeff did. There is no other rational reason, in city planning trade craft, for these planners to design an “F” quality General Plan Update which exceeds the Valley’s water, air quality, sewer and traffic budget.

@Jeff Items 1 and 2 in the letter from COLA, which states, “the City is REQUIRED to pay fair market value…” is misleading. Ms. Donellan-Todd fails to mention that the City has THE OPTION to buy …at fair market value and this has already been mentioned numerous times by Darren Hérnandez. The City already owns the Jo Anne Darcy Canyon Country Library and will own the NEW Newhall Library facility when completed as these sites are built with our City money. We have the OPTION of purchasing (or not) the Valencia site and the materials within all three current libraries we do not already own. We are not OBLIGATED to purchase any of it. As I have previously mentioned, WE have already paid for the renovations to the Canyon Country library and the County needs to stop holding up the process with bogus excuses. COLA is OBLIGATED to return it to us in usable condition. COLA also will continue to collect OUR money through June 30, 2011 and are saving MILLIONS of OUR dollars by currently keeping the Canyon Country library closed. You should all be outraged over that simple fact. Canyon Country is without a functioning library because the County is using it as a pretext to hold onto more of OUR already collected money. I spoke with Tony Bell and Lori Glasgow, Supervisor Antonovich’s representatives, yesterday afternoon and both indicated they would complete the Canyon Country library renovations but not until they “meet with City representatives and look at the money issue since we can’t use Bell’s money on your library.” I pressed both of them on these issues and the upshot is they claim WE have not been sending enough money to cover our own expenses so not only are WE not a donor City but we are a drain on the system. Right…and I am Raquel Welch in disguise. Do the math folks. As to the issue of the Special Assessment, the CA Constitution makes mention of what happens when a majority of voters approve a Special Assessment. In any event, even without the Special Assessment money, our other tax money and developer fees are still enough to run our Municipal libraries. I will remind you that money used to defend the City (us) against Mr. Ricketts’ “clients” who have not been publicly identified yet, is more taxpayer money. I would like to know who is bankrolling his “clients”. He had no problem naming all defendants. Who are his “clients”?

CONSTITUTION HANGING BY A THREAD STATEMENTS The Historians Corner, BYU Studies, Vol. 19, No. 3, p. 390 An occasional theme among Latter-day Saints during times of political crisis has been the prediction attributed to Joseph Smith that the U.S. Constitution would one day hang by a thread and that the elders of the Church would at some critical juncture be instrumental in saving it. The source of this statement is thought to be an unpublished address titled, “A Few Items from a Discourse Delivered by Joseph Smith, July 19, 1840,” filed in the Joseph Smith Papers in the LDS Church Archives. Written neatly on 8”x12” paper, the document is obviously a copy since it shows none of the usual characteristics of an original report. The paper appears to be of post-Nauvoo vintage, and the handwriting does not correspond to that of any of Joseph Smith’s known clerks. Nor is there reference in the Prophet’s History to his having delivered a discourse on 19 July 1840. Furthermore, at two points in the text, there appears to be a serious problem of continuity, suggesting copyist’s errors or some other flaw in the manuscript. Consequently, in the absence of an original text, and without information about its origin and authorship, the reliability of this document has remained somewhat tenuous. CONSTITUTION TO HANG BY A THREAD. The statement has been made that the Prophet said the time would come when this Constitution would hang as by a thread, and this is true. There has been some confusion, however, as to just what he said following this. I think that Elder Orson Hyde has given us a correct interpretation wherein he says that the Prophet said the Constitution would be in danger. Said Orson Hyde: “I believe he said something like this—that the time would come when the Constitution and the country would be in danger of an overthrow; and said he: ‘If the Constitution be saved at all, it will be by the elders of this Church.’ I believe this is about the language, as nearly as I can recollect it.” Now I tell you it is time the people of the United States were waking up with the understanding that if they don’t save the Constitution from the dangers that threaten it, we will have a change of government. Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 3, p. 326 Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 1, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. LDS attachment to the Constitution has been further encouraged by an important oral tradition deriving from a statement attributed to Joseph Smith, according to which the Constitution would “hang by a thread” and be rescued, if at all, only with the help of the Saints. Church President John Taylor seemed to go further when he prophesied, “When the people shall have torn to shreds the Constitution of the United States the Elders of Israel will be found holding it up to the nations of the earth and proclaiming liberty and equal rights to all men” (JD 21:8). To defend the principles of the Constitution under circumstances where the “iniquity,” or moral decay, of the people has torn it to shreds might well require wisdom at least equal to that of the men raised up to found it. In particular, it would require great insight into the relationship between freedom and virtue in a political embodiment of moral agency. Charles W. Nibley, Conference Report, October 1922, p. 40 My brethren and sisters, I hope that we will go home from this conference determined as a great body of people, to stand for law, order, righteousness, justice and peace on earth and good will among all men. I believe as the Prophet Joseph has written, that the day would come when there would be so much of disorder, of secret combinations taking the law into their own hands, tramping upon Constitutional rights and the liberties of the people, that the Constitution would hang as by a thread. Yes, but it will still hang, and there will be enough of good people, many who may not belong to our Church at all, people who have respect for law and for order, and for Constitutional rights, who will rally around with us and save the Constitution. I have never read that that thread would be cut. It will hang; the Constitution will abide and this civilization, that the Lord has caused to be built up, will stand fortified through the power of God, by putting from our hearts all that is evil, or that is wrong in the sight of God, by our living as we should live, acceptable to him. Charles W. Nibley, Conference Report, October 1923, p. 62 Brethren and sisters, let me say in closing that we have it of record, that the prophet Joseph Smith said the time will come when, through secret organizations taking the law into their own hands, not being governed by law or by due process of law, but becoming a law unto themselves, when, by those disintegrating activities, the Constitution of the United States would be so torn and rent asunder, and life and property and peace and security would be held of so little value, that the Constitution would, as it were, hang by a thread. But he never said, so far as I have heard, that that thread would be cut. I believe, with Elder Richards, that this Constitution will be preserved, but it will be preserved very largely in consequence of what the Lord has revealed and what this people, through listening to the Lord and being obedient, will help to bring about, to stabilize and give permanency and effect to the Constitution itself. Melvin J. Ballard, Conference Report, October 1928, p. 108 The Prophet Joseph told us that he saw the day when even the Constitution of the United States would be torn and hang as by a thread. But, thank the Lord, the thread did not break. He saw the day when this people would be a balance of power to come to its defense. The Book of Mormon prophecies concerning the future of America have been referred to in our hearing during this conference, wherein it is stated that this nation, though it becomes a mighty nation, still it can stand in security here only as it serves the God of this land who was in the hearts of the men who founded America. Melvin J. Ballard, Conference Report, April 1933, p. 127 I believe that it is the destiny of the Latter-day Saints to support the Constitution of the United States. The Prophet Joseph Smith is alleged to have said—and I believe he did say it—that the day would come when the Constitution would hang as by a thread. But he saw that the thread did not break, thank the Lord, and that the Latter-day Saints would become a balance of power, with others in the country, to preserve that Constitution. If there is—and there is one part of the Constitution hanging as by a thread today—where do the Latter-day Saints belong? Their place is to rally to the support of that Constitution, and maintain it and defend it and support it by their lives and by their vote. Let us not disappoint God nor his prophet. Our place is fixed. J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Conference Report, October 1942, p. 58 You and I have heard all our lives that the time may come when the Constitution may hang by a thread. I do not know whether it is a thread, or a small rope by which it now hangs, but I do know that whether it shall live or die is now in the balance. Ezra Taft Benson, Conference Report, April 1948, p. 85 It is no wonder that the Prophet Joseph said—even though he knew he would suffer martyrdom in this land—“The Constitution of the United States is a glorious standard; it is founded in the wisdom of God. It is a heavenly banner.” Yet, according to his contemporaries, he foresaw the time when the destiny of the nation would be in danger and would hang as by a thread. Thank God he did not see the thread break. He also indicated the important part that this people should yet play in standing for the principles embodied in these sacred documents—the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Harold B. Lee, Conference Report, October 1952, p. 18 It was Joseph Smith who has been quoted as having said that the time would