SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
October 6, 2010· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

October 6, 2010 – Daily Brief

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

  • One Valley, One Vision front and center: Last night the City’s planners unveiled their portion of the One Valley One Vision general plan, a sweeping planning document that looks at development, land usage, circulation and open space issues over the next 25-50 years. I HEART has the best report followed by the SIGNAL
  • County Librarian accepts via letter City of Santa Clarita’s seizure of three SCV libraries, says there are three outstanding issues to be addressed: 1) the City must pay “fair market value” for the Old Newhall and Valencia libraries, 2) the city must pay fair market value for the collections of those libraries and discussion about that “will include the Canyon Country library renovation issue,” and 3) the County of Los Angeles will stop collecting the special SCV 1997 library tax valued at $1.4 million. Not sure what the last statement means, but it sounds like Santa Clarita residents will no longer pay that tax, and the City may have to make alternate arrangements. No big deal. We’ve got a project plan with contingency and scenario planning. Right? LETTER
  • Meanwhile, up north, San Joaquin County supervisors say they won’t decide “for several months” whether to outsource the operation of their libraries to LSSI. LODI NEWS
  • Dumb kid(s) shoot out back of Sheriff’s patrol car at Santa Clarita Skatepark. Deputies later found a handgun-shaped BB gun at the park. Money quote comes from a Deputy: “This is considered assault with a deadly weapon, so when we find him, he’ll be in big trouble.” SIGNAL
  • Newhall School District board officially rejects Albert Einstein Academy charter school application, citing multiple errors throughout the application and the school’s overestimation (by $500,000) of its funding SIGNAL
  • Sheriff’s Deputies find and arrest Canyon Country transient man for the June 2010 burglary and theft of a Senior Center meal delivery truck SIGNAL
  • Josh Premako, the longtime reporter, City Editor and Opinion Editor, is out at the Signal. I first met Josh at a murder scene in Stevenson Ranch in 2006 as a young cub blogger, eager to write, the SCV blogging world my oyster. I wanted to blog about the murder of Eddie Politelli so I peppered Josh with questions, to which he replied, “You can read about it in the Signal tomorrow.” Oh Snap! Best of luck to Josh, he will be missed.
  • SCV Summer in 2010 was the second coolest on average since record keeping began says KHTS
  • Henry Mayo Hospital wants you to Think/Birth SCV and have your babies here in town so it’s building a NICU SIGNAL
  • Assemblyman Cameron Smyth tells VeCo Star that once he is termed out of the Assembly in 2012, he will run for state Senate, if redistricting creates a district he can run in. “I want to continue serving, but as a conservative, I’m not afraid of life outside the Legislature.” VECO STAR
  • Buck McKeon and three other Republicans want to stop the sale of a uranium mining operation in Wyoming to a Russian company. WASHINGTON TIMES
  • When you and I listen to Glenn Beck, we just hear the crazy. But he’s actually talking in code to a very specific group of people: LDS members. Blogger Dana Millbank says Beck’s constant talk of the “Constitution hanging by a thread” relates to a well-known Mormon prophecy in which Mormons save the Constitution from some threat HUFF PO
  • Morons on Fox News’ Fox & Friends morning show buy hook, line and sinker fake tabloid news story that LAPD & LAFD were investing $1 billion in jetpacks for police officers and firefighters. “Co-host Gretchen Carlson said that while she was “all for buying stuff up and helping the capitalism and all that” she wondered whether the costs would be prohibitive in a bad economy.” LA TIMES
  • Gary Horton looks back to the election of Barack Obama in 2008 and how things have changed SIGNAL
  • Roger Gitlin picking on reporter Jonathan Randles again, doesn’t like Randles recent story about a family visit program hosted at Pitchess Detention Center, also says local Christian church should “help those in real need, rather than 56-year-old career criminals.”LTE

Comments (63)

  1. Tim MyersOctober 6, 2010 at 7:52 am
    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.
  2. cashOctober 6, 2010 at 8:03 am
    “supermarket” So Timmy, you believe it is the building that makes the Church legit? Did Grace not have a humble beginning?
  3. cashOctober 6, 2010 at 8:13 am
    Never mind Timmy, the answer is yes! The BeginningOn April 25, 1961, eight believers met in a home to seek God’s will regarding the formation of a new evangelical church in the Newhall area of the Santa Clarita Valley. After meeting in homes for a time, the first Sunday School and Morning Worship Service were held on July 9th. There were 35 people in attendance at a hall rented from the Moose Lodge. Rev Harry Gay served the church as its first pastor. The First Move Moving from one rented building to another, the church continued to minister to the community. In 1963, Grace purchased it’s first land including a small building. Rev. Robert Spence came to serve as Pastor in 1964. Attendance grew to the point where Sunday School classes were forced to meet outside and soon the small building was outgrown…………..
  4. NateOctober 6, 2010 at 9:20 am
    Supermarket in this sense is an adjective not a noun. I am not really sure what Tim means by it… but I know he is not talking about the building.
  5. cashOctober 6, 2010 at 9:33 am
    Understood. My take is the he thinks Grace is in someway special when compared to other legitimate churches. To suggest that Grace is not about growing the attendance of the church is disingenuous.
  6. NateOctober 6, 2010 at 9:55 am
    Tim is on Grace’s side and wasn’t making any stab at them, he was more making a stab at the main stream of Christianity and Gitlin’s brand of Judaism. I have been impressed with Grace Baptist as of late with this move and taking part in the open letter to Santa Clarita Muslims. They seem to be living in the rational, practical side of Christianity.
  7. Tim MyersOctober 6, 2010 at 10:38 am
    Cash: The term “supermarket” Christian refers to the fact that 80% of a supermarket’s business comes from people who live close by, meaning that the primary factor in their decision to patronize is being close by. A “supermarket” Christian is someone who attends a Church that is close by their home, but never really develops a deep understanding of Christian theology. In the Protestant world they tend to “roll their own” theology which ends up being a cross between Glenn Beck, the sayings of Benjamin Franklin, and the Republican Party National platform. I suspect the best example of a “supermarket” Christian today is the President (I voted for him and will vote for him again unless Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee.) He never attended church growing up and joined the Church in his neighborhood in Chicago that was an important political networking spot, and then seemed to find ways not to go there. Now Roger G. is not going against Jewish theology, since Judaism (and, ironically, Islam) also would have segments that believe one should only help the “deserving.”
  8. cashOctober 6, 2010 at 1:54 pm
    I understand the term. My example of a supermarket Christian would be 95% of all church goers in this country. Church is often a place for one to be seen and for one to feel better about oneself, not much more, if the true were told. This includes those that enjoy the 1400 seat stadium at Grace.
  9. cashOctober 6, 2010 at 8:00 am
    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?
  10. CCOctober 6, 2010 at 8:22 am
    Yep, they do
  11. Daddy Joe GOctober 6, 2010 at 9:50 am
    Mr. Kellar was dead wrong. The council had plenty of information to make an informed decision. We spent 3 hours telling them that the informed decision was “no”.
  12. Tired of my way or the highwayOctober 6, 2010 at 10:12 am
    A mass of people does not constitute the right thing to do. They should have taken more time with the issue though.
  13. Daddy Joe GOctober 6, 2010 at 11:42 am
    A mass of people does not constitute the right thing to do? It’s called Democracy.
  14. DamageincOctober 6, 2010 at 12:04 pm
    Actually it is called a direct democracy, the United States is a Representative democracy on most things. The point still stands, the majority can be wrong or make the wrong decision.
  15. Daddy Joe GOctober 6, 2010 at 1:26 pm
    Nothing is guaranteed, but the majority has a better chance of being right then 5. Especially that 5.
  16. tired of my way or the highwayOctober 6, 2010 at 2:18 pm
    voting to deny same sex marriages, voting Buck McKeon, voting for the City Councilmembers. The majority gets it wrong most of the time!
  17. NickelDimeOctober 6, 2010 at 2:40 pm
    Madison had it right with Federalist Number 10. Thank God we live in a constitutional republic and not a pure democracy.
  18. NateOctober 6, 2010 at 2:40 pm
    Yes the Majority does get it wrong most of the time. People’s collective IQ gets lower the bigger the group. Asking an uneducated mass how the “feel” about something is the surest way to get disastrous results. This is why we have representative government, who SHOULD be qualified, intelligent, and can educate themselves and make informed decisions on our behalf. If they do a bad job we vote them out.
  19. gregory molineriOctober 6, 2010 at 4:52 pm
    People’s IQ gets lower the more we ditch the common moral principles that we all know are true and replace them with a freedom of speech which wholly lacks responsibility or value. The nation got a lot dumber when we promoted rap music and Tia Tequila as an example of cool. Now we have a glut of 20-something idiots who crave Prada and social acceptance with no idea how to obtain either. For adults, we offered Fox News and MSNBC. Both offer small digestible bites of nonsense and hate. The issues themselves are way too far out of reach of the common man.
  20. Daddy Joe GOctober 6, 2010 at 4:56 pm
    Right on! Freedom of speech for anyone who agrees with me.
  21. Coastal SageOctober 6, 2010 at 11:54 am
    The interesting nuance in the County’s letter which SCVTALK has posted, concerning the libraries, is that the County is saying the City has to buy the OLD Newhall Library building, i.e. the building the City does not want. Obviously that position may simply be a starting point for negotiations, especially in light of the content of Education Code Section 19116(c): “(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.” The interesting term in the law is “any or all” which the City Attorney and City staff had obviously interpreted to mean it could pick and choose which library buildings it wanted to buy, i.e. leaving the old Newhall building behind. However, the City Attorney and City staff possibly missed the balance of the quoted sentence “each facility to be acquired and the personal property therein related to the provision of library services” which seemingly forecloses the ability to buy library materials without the building surrounding them, as the City apparently decided to do with respect to the old Newhall library. Has the City made a significant error in its notice to the County, which will either derail the sale or force the City to spend its preciously sparse dollars to buy an unwanted building? Only time will tell, as the City negotiates with the County.
  22. Daddy Joe GOctober 6, 2010 at 12:24 pm
    Sage, I have checked with the county library site, and all that is required to get a county library card and use the county libraries is a California address. It doesn’t even need to be in Los Angeles County, it doesn’t even need to be a preeminent address. So I think the city really needs to consider itself in competition with the county. And plenty of copies of the hottest new tittles ain’t gonna get it.
  23. gregOctober 6, 2010 at 3:22 pm
    Thats because the County is a member of the Southern California Library Cooperative. As I mentioned this to you in a previous thread, if a library is a member of the SCLC, a requirement is to allow any CA resident to get a library card/check out privleges.
  24. Daddy Joe GOctober 6, 2010 at 3:40 pm
    Yeah, I remember. Didn’t understand it then, now I do. I wonder if the city council understands.
  25. Daddy Joe GOctober 6, 2010 at 1:02 pm
    Since everyone is so concerned about saving the city’s money, here’s an idea. Stop televising council meetings. If fact, we should stop having council meetings, since they do what they want, regardless of what we say. Heck, why not sell off city hall. Decisions are not made there anyway.
  26. ToddOctober 6, 2010 at 1:31 pm
    Anyone else wondering what this guy’s deal is???? Newcomer who is quick to start stirring the pot… and not just with a spoon, but a whole damn industrial blender…. Whats your beef…. because you sure do raise a lot of hell for (if I recall correctly) only having lived in SCV a short time.
  27. Berta González-HarperOctober 6, 2010 at 1:49 pm
    @Todd just one more person who MOVES here because this City is clean, safe, and residents enjoy a great quality of life and then proceeds to do nothing but slam that very same City.
  28. Daddy Joe GOctober 6, 2010 at 2:02 pm
    I moved to Newhall, not to “this city”. Didn’t even know there was a “city” until this library deal. I find your “quality of life” boring. But I’ll make you a deal. Leave my libraries alone and I’ll leave you alone.
  29. Berta González-HarperOctober 6, 2010 at 2:37 pm
    @Daddy Joe G well now, there is part of the problem. They are not your libraries. They are OUR libraries so I will not leave them alone. If you find it boring in Santa Clarita, you are free to go elsewhere. Perhaps where libraries are still COLA libraries? Nearby you have Castaic, Acton/Agua Dulce and a planned new library in Stevenson Ranch too.
  30. gregOctober 6, 2010 at 3:34 pm
    I find it sad that you dont realize who represents you. Its a sad state of affairs and unfortunately there are many out there just like you.
  31. Daddy Joe GOctober 6, 2010 at 3:44 pm
    Yeah, well, I know now because they pushed to hard. I won’t forget soon.
  32. ToddOctober 6, 2010 at 6:59 pm
    Exactly my point… I dunno, something in my gut tells me this guy is some hired gun operative for SEIU. I’m not trying to say that he shouldn’t have a voice, or that his opinion is not valid… but its all rather suspect to me.
  33. Daddy Joe GOctober 6, 2010 at 7:38 pm
    What’s an SEIU?
  34. Whiskey Tango FoxtrotOctober 6, 2010 at 8:04 pm
    Yup. My B.S. meter went off awhile ago with my man Daddy Joe.
  35. Dr. Von MonsterOctober 6, 2010 at 2:06 pm
    Yeah! Make room for us residents that have lived here decades and want to complain about the local corruption! Damn newcomers.
  36. Daddy Joe GOctober 6, 2010 at 3:00 pm
    At last! Actual logic!
  37. Dr. Von MonsterOctober 6, 2010 at 8:51 am
    The Signal = sinking ship?
  38. NateOctober 6, 2010 at 9:13 am
    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.
  39. IHeartSCVOctober 6, 2010 at 9:37 am
    Can you be more specific about “what the Signal did”?
  40. NateOctober 6, 2010 at 10:04 am
    Out of respect for Josh. I won’t. But I will say that this will end up being a great move for him. He is going to find a kick ass job. I would say good luck but he doesn’t need it. The Signal however will never find anyone more dedicated and capable of handling all that his job entailed. Good Luck Signal and Yes you will need it.
  41. SCVFanOctober 6, 2010 at 2:02 pm
    I am blown away at their absolutely RETARDNESS. Josh was dedicated to our community, had excellent work ethic, was an actual journalist and kicked ass. They are beyond stupid.
  42. mikeOctober 6, 2010 at 10:02 am
    Agree on all three parts. I get Gitlin’s emails and they are filled with race-baiting and urban legends, frequently meant to put Arabs and Muslims in the worst possible light. He’s never apologized nor retracted any of these, to my memory. I’m just about done with the Signal. I’ve known too many good people that have been spit out by them. And yet garbage like lists of people attending a rubber chicken dinner make it to print.
  43. NateOctober 6, 2010 at 10:05 am
    “rubber chicken dinner” – HAHA
  44. NickelDimeOctober 6, 2010 at 8:52 pm
    Hey – TMS goes out of their way to bold certain names that attend those dinners. That’s news, friend. When the powerbrokers of this valley (and benefactors of the ads) meet for a meal, the ones with the Botox ‘d faces on the pages of the SCV spamazines, that’s news. Real, raw SCV news.
  45. Berta González-HarperOctober 6, 2010 at 9:58 pm
    @ NickelDime speaking of spamazines and rubber chicken dinners, I finally had time to read the SCV Business Journal today. It was a nice surprise to find pictures of Jeff, NickelDime, and mike with their lovely families at the 40 over 40 celebration. You guys clean up pretty good. Nice pic’s!!!
  46. NickelDimeOctober 7, 2010 at 7:15 am
    BUSTED! Thanks Berta.
  47. mikeOctober 7, 2010 at 7:38 am
    Thanks Berta. If the term “rubber chicken” hadn’t existed, I would have invented it that night.
  48. Josh PremakoOctober 6, 2010 at 9:23 am
    For the record, before any potential discussion here proceeds, I resigned from The Signal.
  49. NateOctober 6, 2010 at 10:06 am
    Next beer is on me.
  50. Dr. Von MonsterOctober 6, 2010 at 11:27 am
    Their loss.
  51. ToddOctober 6, 2010 at 1:32 pm
    Indeed. Josh, your work was good. The Burbank Leader could use your help…..
  52. SCVFanOctober 6, 2010 at 2:03 pm
    You did amazing work and they are still RETARDED.
  53. Coastal SageOctober 6, 2010 at 10:19 am
    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.
  54. Coastal SageOctober 6, 2010 at 11:38 am
    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.
  55. Berta González-HarperOctober 6, 2010 at 11:46 am
    @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”?
  56. DamageincOctober 6, 2010 at 12:06 pm
    “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 actually think all of the attorneys are on retainer, because cities are lawsuit magnets.
  57. Daddy Joe GOctober 6, 2010 at 12:30 pm
    Without access to the county system, “our” libraries are multi-million dollar door stops.
  58. Coastal SageOctober 6, 2010 at 1:13 pm
    Berta: I am not involved in the first library lawsuit. I will not be involved in any future library lawsuit. However, since you raised a few questions, I’d like to answer them because there are common misconceptions about how public interest litigation is paid for. Our dear pal Tim Myers raised the same question many years ago in a Signal editorial. The rhetorical word “bankrolled” is hardly applicable. It costs $355 to file a Complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court. Each subsequent motion by the plaintiff costs $40 to file. In public interest litigation, the lawyer fronts the litigation costs and then if he wins he recovers them from the defendant by filing a “Memorandum of Costs” at the end of the case. In structuring a case such as Attorney Ricketts described in the press release SCVTALK posted, the only other “costs” of the litigation are the court reporter’s fees (probably $2000 for the two deponents Ricketts mentioned) and the process server’s fees which at most were $80 per defendant, if a professional process server was used (an uncommon step in Santa Clarita public interest litigation). In a typical public interest case, the attorney is working on a contingency, meaning he doesn’t get paid unless he wins. In this library case, assuming that a judgment was entered against the City, enjoining them from violating Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution (privacy rights) and from violating the two Government Code sections cited in the complaint, the plaintiff’s attorney then makes a motion asking the judge to award “private attorney general’s fees.” The basis for awarding those attorneys fees to the plaintiff’s lawyer is more than 30 years of California appellate case law. Those prevailing plaintiff’s attorneys fees are calculated by the judge based on hourly time sheets maintained by the attorney, multiplied by an hourly rate the judge believes is the market rate for attorneys doing this type of work on a contingency basis. The private attorney general’s fees are paid by the “real defendant” in the case, in this case the City, but in most cases a project’s developer. Thus, in public interest cases, there is no “bankrolling” of litigation by third parties, because a lawyer’s time is his own to waste, on contingency matters. In some public interest cases, lawyers litigate them with no expectation of ever recovering a dime in attorneys fees. Those are the types of lawyers public agency officials love to hate. As to the identity of members of “Save Our Libraries” you simply need to ask Mr. Ricketts. He has indicated that the plaintiff group does not intend to keep their membership list a secret, though they have a right to do so under well established California case law arising out of the First Amendment right of free association. The bottom line is that California has a long history of litigation by ad-hoc public interest groups, represented by attorneys working on a contingency fee or for no fee at all. Frankly, there is far more wrongdoing by public agencies and public officials in California than there are attorneys who are economically capable of litigating without payment of hour fees, on a monthly basis, on cases where the public agencies’ lawyers have an infinite budget to defend the public employees and elected officials’ conduct. I’ve often joked that city attorneys have an economic incentive to allow public agencies, their employees and elected decision makers to make mistakes, because city attorneys get paid monthly, win or lose, and there is no top stop on what they charge. So if you want to talk about “bankrolls”, pick any subject where the City of Santa Clarita has been sued, and make a public records act request for the total dollar amount Burke Williams & Sorensen has been paid on any particular case. You will see a clear pattern of the city’s taxpayers bankrolling the defense of what the city’s employees and elected officials do.
  59. Berta González-HarperOctober 6, 2010 at 1:40 pm
    @J, thank you for your insight into this legal process.
  60. SterlingOctober 6, 2010 at 12:26 pm
    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
  61. JeffOctober 6, 2010 at 12:44 pm
    So it’s confirmed Sterling? LDS members who listen to Beck hear something very different -and very specific- when Glenn mentions “hanging by a thread?” This is awesome. I love secret messages, innuendo and coded communiques. So who will ride the horse? Please tell me it’s not Glenn Beck. Could it please be Donny or Marie Osmond or like a BYU quarterback or something?
  62. SterlingOctober 6, 2010 at 12:48 pm
    Steve young- didn’t you hear?
  63. SterlingOctober 6, 2010 at 1:26 pm
    On a more serious note, no, lds members don’t hear Glen say these things and feel he is championing some prophetic call to save the people. He uses this terminology yes, but I don’t think he nor those of the LDS faith in general think he is lighting some Joseph Smith prophetic flame. It’s a descriptive way of saying that some things are on the ropes (or threads if you will) but I know he is not saying we’re going into Kevin Costner’s “The Postman” era. Those who think they know what JS meant don’t believe it’s all Morons to the rescue either. You know that as well. He said this yes. Is it something controversial? No, not at all.

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