October 19, 2010 – Daily Brief

Solar is baloney. This does not mean that they’ll burn any less fossil fuels to generate electricity. The base generators stay on no matter what. It just means workers will be put to work at $75/hour installing the panels and the owners of the company who won the bid will be that much richer and the Chinese factory owner where the panels will be manufactured will laugh and wonder at how stupid his customers are for buying this stuff. Who will pay for all of this? The stupid taxpayer.

Sounds intelligent. Why would we want to harness the sun? We should trust a comment from a guy who provides no evidence of his outlandish claims.

I agree. It is a shame to lose the Do-It center. I doubt I will go to OSH because of the nightmarish location. Sad.

What a bummer that The Do-It Center is leaving, now I won’t be able to say “Do it, do it, do it” as often. As for OSH, it’s in a great location for me as well as Lowes, both which I frequent often.

When it was Lumber City there was another large hardware store located in Canyon Country called Wickes Builders Emporium.

Was that in the same shopping center where Rattlers used to be? I have vague memories of it.

Yes. I think it used to be located where TJ Maxx is currently.

There was also Newhall Hardware, but that is in the old Old Town.

Don’t forget Valencia hardware.

Holiday hardware to be correct.

R.I.P They had the best Halloween stuff every year. Plus, you could get keys cut there.

So sad to hear about The Do It Center Closing. I have such fond memories of working there as a cashier in the early 90′s. I always knew where the party was because three guys would come in. One to buy a clasp, one to buy a funnel and one to buy the plastic tubing. Just follow the beer bong to the action! Ahhh, good times

Jim, you know I’m a charcoal guy, but propane has its place (hot dogs, vegetables, etc.). Do-It-Center is one of the last refill stations out there. You can get a brand new tank plus a fill for the price of a refill from those cages outside of the grocery store (and those guys don’t even fill it up anymore).

The AV Equipment Rental in Newhall (Railroad Ave & 15th) can refill propane tanks.

Indeed there is a place for both charcoal and gas in the BBQ/Grilling world. In my opinion when you go with gas natural is the way to go (of course I have a serious bias here). Most houses have a patio stub for gas. Most BBQs are designed for either propane or natural so it’s hard to convert but when you go with natural you never run out – It’s sweet.

If my stub were more conveniently located, I’d go natural too. #twss

@ Alan Ferdman, I repeat your financial information is incorrect. Please look at the financial documents and letters from COLA Librarian Margaret Donnellan Todd at the following link: http://www.santaclaritalibrary.com/financial.asp please be sure to go to the link at the bottom of the page to view the financial documents. In addition, it is important to note that these figures DO NOT INCLUDE the contributions paid by residents of the unincorporated areas who until very recently exclusively used libraries within the City. Those contributions to the County should also be in the tally of how much money we have donated to the County vs. what we have received back in services. The County has also saved a ton of money by not building libraries in the unincorporated areas until the very recent Castaic and Agua Dulce/Acton facilities were built. How much they have saved I do not know so cannot include any dollar amount but it would be in the several millions. Not only is it unconscionable for the County to stop the build out at the Canyon Country Library branch, it is illegal and in breach of the contract terms. I am surprised you are not making a stink about that! The City is much more genteel in its reaction than I would be. If construction does not commence and finish within 30 days, I would simply give the County a thirty-day eviction notice since they are OUR tenant, kick them out, finish the build out which is nearly done, sue them for the money it cost to finish and the money for staffing and materials through June 30, 2011. I would bring in LSSI for a trial run, AND charge non-city residents for using the facility that ALL residents County or City have used for nearly ten years and many years before that in the old library building so that those folks can go yell at Mike and staff for having caused this lock out problem. As I have said many times before, developer fees paid in to the County to fund these renovations are/were paid by developers who are now in the City or in process of annexation so the County has already received the money to pay for the build out. Even if they had not, County residents use all our library facilities too. County is also saving a whole lot of money on staffing etc while library is closed. IMHO, Supervisor Antonovich and his staff have lost a great deal of credibility over this issue and are exhibiting very little class in holding constituents hostage to their bickering. Our local homeless have nowhere to stay dry during the day in this wet weather and the shelter is not open yet either. COLA is using the “kids” to strike back at the divorcing spouse. We are left without the full use of our local library, which we already paid to build and operate. Not cool, and definitely changes my opinion of our County representatives…

Berta, the only ones who continue to lose credibility over this issue are the City Council members. Breach of contract? It’s against the law for the City to hand our private info over to LSSI and it’s also illegal for LSSI to demand such info as a condition to continued library service. The only reason we’re in this mess is because the city wants to built the downtown newhall crown jewel that it can’t afford. They screwed up and they’re willing to sacrifice the quality of library services and accessibility to fix their mistakes.

Also, to even out your veiled threat to Supervisor Antonovich and his staff- I, and others who oppose this unilateral library takeover, are thrilled with the County. The County seems to be the only reasonable involved party. You and the City are going to take a bath on this because residents have finally drawn a line in the sand. Nobody wants this takeover. Look around. How on earth are you and the rest of the City noise machine going to put lipstick on this pig?

@ Dr. Von Monster, yet another anonymous commenter, you have a right to your opinion and so do I. However, regardless of how you feel about a Municipal Library System vs. a County of Los Angeles Library System, the continued closure of the Canyon Country Library is in breach of the contract. Even if it were not, County patrons use that library too and to not finish the build out and open the facility to the community is unconscionable! I know that the City prefers to take the high road with the County and try to work things out amicably. There was no “veiled threat” to the County. I simply stated what I would do if I were in the position to do it. I have no power over the City or County to force either entity to do anything. I certainly will continue to express my outrage and unhappiness at the intentional delay by the County in completing the build out of the Canyon Country Library, which is denying us the ability to use this public facility paid for with our money. You can call me part of the “City noise machine” if you like. I have also been called many other things; you can take your pick. It does not change the fact that I believe our City will be better off with local control of our municipal libraries. I decided that on my own after doing my own research and speaking to people in several other cities. One of those cities was Camarillo, which just last week also decided to leave a county system and chose LSSI also. http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/oct/14/camarillo-council-votes-to-leave-county-library/ I do not need anyone to provide my opinions for me, but thanks for your concern.

It all depends on if and how you use the library. Personally, since I never browse and make all of my requests for materials on-line, using the library only to pick up and return, the Canyon Country library is functioning just fine for me right now, building a new library in Newhall makes no sense, and city libraries with limited resources will be useless to me. Fortunately for me and for the lucky residents of unincorporated areas, the county is making its own plans for providing service after the city withdraws, with a new library in Stevenson Ranch and an additional book mobile already in the works.

@Daddy Joe G so can I assume that when our municipal libraries are fully stocked and staffed that you will not avail yourself of our soon to be award winning library system?

Already handing out awards! Sweet!

Yup…

If your award winnig system can match the largest library system in the country in terms of material availability, I’m there. Otherwise, you assume correctly.

“I know that the City prefers to take the high road with the County and try to work things out amicably.” SNORT! Seriously? If the City REALLY cared about “taking the high road” they would have partnered with the County early on in this process, in order to ensure a smooth transition; NOT spring this decision on an unsuspecting entity AND public. Whether or not the City’s takeover of the libraries proves to be as wonderful as the City claims it will be remains to be seen. However, the WAY the City went about the entire process was just. plain. wrong. The sneaky, smug and abrupt manner the City adopted immediately put the County on the defensive. Any goodwill that could have been salvaged between the two sides has all but evaporated. Now it’s in the hands of the lawyers and THAT rarely means anything good for the people down here on the ground.

Berta The letter from Ms Todd is 5 year old. The summary indicates the cost of Library Operation for that time as $1 million more than the tax collected. I fail to see how that does anything to prove your point. As far as people outside the City of Santa Clarita using the facilities, it is a County Library. They have a right to use it.

@Alan Ferdman you interpret things however you choose and come up with figures for your creative math, which is fine, but please do not infer you speak for me before Council and others because you do not. I clearly see among several others, financial statements dated 2008/2009 and a letter from Ms. Todd dated 1/9/2009. We must have different math skills since that does not add up to “five years old” in my ledger. I also see a future Revenue and Expenditure Analysis for 2011-2016. If the County fails to complete repairs and open the Library to the public ASAP, if I had the power to make the decision, as I stated I would evict the County and “recover/take possession of” the Canyon Country Library, operating it as a Municipal library. County patrons would NOT have a right to use our municipal library unless cost arrangements had been finalized, Mr. Ferdman. Could you please read my comments all the way to the end and twice before responding?

Ms. Gonzalez I relooked at all of Ms Todd’s letters. The summaries just confirmed what the county supplied spread sheet also shows. There is no new news. Fortunately, you are not the decision maker and in fact do not represent the city. In addition, if you want us to carefully read your long drawn out ramblings, stick to the subject at hand and present something new.

@Alan Ferdman I never do expect a different response from you, oh all knowing Al king of Canyon Country and you never do disappoint. My “ramblings” as you put it are usually in response to some bs information you or someone else is putting out there and/or related to the topic at hand. In addition, unlike you, I have never falsely claimed or inferred I represent anyone else…Is that concise enough?

“I am the king” -Paul, the king of big screens

It pains me to have to set you straight again Berta. When two parties have a lease, the Landlord (the City) can not just evict a Tenant unless the Tenant has done something to violate the lease terms and and because of that violation, the Landlord has the event to terminate the lease if the violation remains uncured after a reasonable cure period. It is unlikely that the City was smart enough to have a clause that required the County to complete construction. They may have an operation requirement but the County could argue that the back door and the bookmobile is an operation. Thus, the City can’t legally do squat except try to be big about this and work with the County to resolve this issue. If the City was a bit smarter, they would have waited until the renovation was done before stepping into this pile of shit!

@NFIC how about requirement to comply with all lease terms, or maybe terms of lease regarding keeping the premises in clean, usable condition. Do you have a copy of the lease? Didn’t think so…

I believe Berta’s difficulty is that she sees libraries as an accounting problem.

Do you have a copy? If not, your out of your realm. Why don’t you get your coworkers at the City to give you a copy so you can use it in your defense.

I believe BGH is ready to rumble!

The Signal should have found someone in the city other then McLean to interview. Her grasp on reality is tenuous, at best.

The folks at the city seem unconcerned with the lawsuit that claims only government employees can be trusted with confidential information. If you take that ricketty logic a step further, all doctors must be government employees because they have access to much more valuable information than a list of the books a person borrows. What is to stop a non-government doctor or a for-profit medical group from selling confidential information about the medical conditions of their patients to pharmaceutical companies that will directly market Viagra, Lipitor and Rogaine to those most likely to purchase those products? For the sake of protecting our personal medical information from being sold on the black market, all doctors MUST be government workers, stat!!! Ironically, SOL says on their blog “(we) support the formation of the new Santa Clarita Public Libraries….” They admit they can’t prevent the city from withdrawing from the county library, but believe all will be OK if the City just hires union employees…. Of course…. Anyone for Tea Party?

No one questions that the city has a legal right to withdraw from the county library system. I have the legal right to put a gun in my mouth and pull the trigger. Doesn’t make it a good idea. And it doesn’t matter much whether or not I’m in a union, I still lose my job.

SS I visited the Save Our Library Website and followed the link to California 6267. It specifically addresses requirements for Library Data. Medical information and confidentiality requirements are not addressed.

Ah, I knew SaugusSplasher would eventually return with more unfounded rhetoric to praise the tireless tonedeaf efforts of our elected leaders and well-paid staff at City Hall. The fact that it again proves false is somewhat disappointing after such a long absence. Is that all you got? I thought you’d know by now that the union argument doesn’t work with those a bit more informed. You could try the newspaper or maybe the city’s Seasons Magazine, or maybe Pulskamp could lisp it to those who must endure him when they call City Hall and wait on hold. Also tell them that the final library redesign was not the fault of Laurene Weste and some backroom arrangement. Maybe they’ll buy that too.

If this is the defense that senior City management is going to offer, I’m betting on Mr. Ricketts.

C’mon. He did say “ricketty logic.” Points for that, no?

Point due, for sure. On the real: I don’t know who Saugus Splasher is or precisely who he/she works for, but et’s just say no one has better articulated the viewpoint of City Hall on this site. After a protracted absence, he/she dismisses Ricketts’s complaint in a way that’s completely ignorant of the law that the it rests upon. It’s about to get real. Like, really real.

My over-the-top point was directed at the constitutional argument the lawsuit seeks to make regarding privacy. My comment was not made in the context of section 6267 which deals specifically with library records. Why? Because 6267 DOES authorize the use of library registration and circulation records by a corporation within the administration of a library. So the entire ricketty lawsuit about privacy hangs by a rather slim constitutional, and not statutory, challenge, because the legislature has expressly authorized the use of these records by a corporation for the purpose of library administration. So the issue of the lawsuit isn’t so much that Santa Clarita is violating the law but, instead, that the legislature violated the constitution in enacting certain aspects of 6267. Good luck with that. Huh? What the hell am I saying??? Here is the text of 6267: “6267. All registration and circulation records of any library which is in whole or in part supported by public funds shall remain confidential and shall not be disclosed to any person, local agency, or state agency except as follows: (a) By a person acting within the scope of his or her duties within the administration of the library. (b) By a person authorized, in writing, by the individual to whom the records pertain, to inspect the records. (c) By order of the appropriate superior court. As used in this section, the term “registration records” includes any information which a library requires a patron to provide in order to become eligible to borrow books and other materials, and the term “circulation records” includes any information which identifies the patrons borrowing particular books and other material. This section shall not apply to statistical reports of registration and circulation nor to records of fines collected by the library.” Now, sure, you’ll want to respond by pointing out that 6267 (a) says “PERSON” and not “CORPORATION” but, before you do, scroll up to 6252 to see how the legislature defines “person” within the context of the California Public Records Act. Actually, I’ll save you some time and include it right here: “6252. As used in this chapter: (c) “Person” includes any natural person, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, firm, or association.” So, where you see “person” in 6267 insert the entire definition from 6252 (c). Shazzam! The legislature expressly authorizes confidential library registration and circulation records may be used “by a natural person, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, firm, or association acting within the scope of his or her duties within the administration of the library.” Uh, oh. It’s ricketty. Like, really ricketty.

The Slasher’s unerstanding of California’s Public Records Act is superficial and incorrect. As City Attorney Carl Newton said in the Signal, this is a legal issue for the court to decide and we will make our argument there when the time comes to do so. It will be a long time before the issue is finally resolved–in the trial court and in the appellate courts.

Two comments about China… Respect your countries owner!

That would be ONE comment, Lil Natie!

No offense VJ, but my opinion of having it on the football field, regardless of the practicality, is: Blecchh!! That would suck the character right out of a cultural phenomenon and homogenize it as only Awesometown could. Even Saugus Speedway turns my stomach. I like the thought of closing down Lyons for multiple blocks, say around Brave New World Comics and lining the streets with them for as far as it takes. The retail stores could stay open late ala First Fridays at Abbott Kinney in Venice and get some walk in traffic. Much more of a community event that way and not just a foodstraviganza which is what it shouldn’t be. Food trucks are going to have lines. Yes it would be nice if they were a little shorter. Yes it would be nice if they weren’t wrapped around each other. But put it in a big open field and you give it the feel of an outdoor cafeteria. Yuck. Why are we so afraid of standing next to someone we don’t know? Say hi, how ya doin … you might make a new friend or make peace with an old enemy. Worth waiting in line for.

Well put

Someone who says Saugus Speedway turns my stomach, blecchh and yuck! is not someone I would want to be standing next to anywhere let alone a long line a roach coach!

And I definitely wouldn’t want to stand next to a guy who still calls it a “roach coach”.

Don’t worry, you won’t.

Don’t forget the Black Angus coupon.

Don’t forget to check for the C rating on the “roach coach”. Becchh and yuck to you sir!

I’ve got nothing against the Saugus Speedway. I wish I had the chance to visit in it’s hay-day. It’s a landmark and I appreciate it for what it once was. I do not want to see a Gourmet Food Truck “Rally” in any, let’s call it Non-Urban, location. It’s like calling grilled food BBQ. A place for everything and everything in it’s place.

They (Walgreens, etc) were open and had more business than I’d ever seen in that area. I do agree about those filling Rx, but outside of that concern I imagine the businesses in that center likely had one of their better nights since the opening of the center. I liked the location. It’s a great location for neighborhood/foot traffic and it I love that it provided some exposure to the businesses in that ghost town of a center. Obviously the event should have been set up and run differently given the huge turn out, but I think they could adequately handle a crowd that large. Between their parking lot, the local parks/school parking lots and the neighborhood there seemed to be plenty of room for parking. The real mess was that everyone expected to be able to park in the BMP parking lot. Once you got out of that mess, the vehicle crowds weren’t awful.

I will also miss the Do It Center and the cashier lady who looks like Aunt Edna from the movie Vacation.

Okay – we lost Holiday Hardware; Newhall Hardware; Do It Center. I knew where everything was in those stores and would frequent them at times, even if I had to pay a little more, because I could get in/out and get what I needed. Heck Do It Center even takes the 25 Score card too. I cringe thinking about going to OSH, in large part because it is very hard to get in and out of that place, particularly because of the maniacs that are in a hurry to go to either Best Buy or Trader Joe’s and won’t let you out of your parking space as they fly by at 25 mph or more while texting or taking to whomever on the cell phone plastered to their ear while they drive with one hand. Have to have your head on a 360 degree swivel — yikes! Who’s next?

Yeah, it was nice.

Nothing like a little politicin’ to spice up a discussion site.

@Leon Worden hi and thanks for the backup. I agree with you. That is what I have been saying for weeks but these knuckleheads are so hell bent on finding fault with the City, they are willing to turn a blind eye to the despicable way the County of Los Angeles is treating us, the constituents. County representatives are holding Canyon Country residents and all library patrons’ hostage while COLA continues to breach the contract. COLA saves considerable sums of money on operating costs for our branch library while it is closed, continues to collect all taxes, special assessment fees, developer fees, etc and pockets that money too while we have no use of the library facility OUR City funds paid to build. This crowd does not want to hear facts, logic or reason though. They want to keep SEUI employees happy, continue to send extra money for the County to allocate elsewhere, and screw us residents who want more local control over how our money is spent. These folks should all be screaming bloody murder to Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich about the way the Canyon Country Library build out has been mismanaged by the County. The build out/remodel was to be completed by September. By the way, unincorporated county residents are also being denied use of the Canyon Country facility. These “activists” certainly would scream at the Council if the City were at fault. A definite double standard. If it were up to me I’d kick the county out, finish remodel, bring in LSSI early, and sue the County for breach of contract, all taxes and fees collected during the period the library has remained closed and up to June 30, costs to finish remodel, and damages on behalf of the residents for loss of use. I volunteer to be the signatory on that lawsuit!

Love it – anyone who doesn’t agree with Bertha is a knucklehead!

” They want to keep SEUI employees happy, ” The people losing their jobs don’t work for the Service Employees International Union. They work for COLA Library and are represented by the Union. So get your facts straight and stop demagoging. Maybe people would be more amenable to your argument if you weren’t so hell-bent on seeing hard working library employees -our neighbors who have served us in the libraries for years- get fired by the city virtually overnight just because they’re in organized labor and cost a bit more. I don’t know about you, I want good paying jobs in the SCV. Shame on you Berta for being so callous about people’s jobs and livelihoods.

@Jeff, you say that I am so “hell-bent on seeing hard working library employees -our neighbors- get fired by the city virtually overnight just because they’re in organized labor.” I never said that. Those employees at risk can certainly apply with LSSI and if they have a good work record and are qualified, they have a good chance at a job. Of course, they may not have the same benefits and retirement package with LSSI but they may not have that much longer with the County either. They can also stay with COLA and take their chances on reassignment or apply now to transfer to another COLA library. In today’s edition a Signal article talks about how pensions etc are not sustainable since more money goes out than comes in. The County is going broke and sooner rather than later, change is inevitable. If the County is eventually forced into bankruptcy, the first things to be reduced will be employee salary, pension, etc. Other donor cities are also tired of paying in more than they receive back in services and have taken or are taking action to withdraw from their respective county library system. I am curious to see the new COLA library budget after July 1, 2011 without our Santa Clarita dollars included. In my opinion, the questions really are should we preserve COLA jobs at any price and continue to pay bloated County overhead rather than invest those dollars here locally? Should the taxpayers of Santa Clarita remain with the COLA Library system, continue to send more money than we receive back in services, have to pay three ways (regular taxes, Special Assessment fees, and City General Fund money) in order to have decent libraries and still be at the mercy of County cutbacks and maybe preserve County jobs? Should Canyon Country residents be denied full use of the library we paid for? My answer is no. I do not want to see anyone lose his or her job. I want more quality jobs available locally for anyone willing and able to work. I also don’t want to pay more in taxes and fees to support folks earning more than the job is worth or guarantee anyone a job through tenure or because of union clout that is not pulling his/her weight. Unions everywhere are under fire for the drain they place on city, county, state government funds. Pension reform will happen and workers will have to agree to have benefits and salaries that are more in line with private employment practices Jeff. You did not however address the actual point of my previous post which was that the County is violating its lease terms regarding the Canyon Country Library and denying both City and County residents full access to this public library. You do not seem to be concerned about that at all. Hum…

Trying to make the issue about unions isn’t going to work. SEIU isn’t doing much from what I can tell and they only have about 60 members working at the libraries anyway. They don’t run our site, and they don’t run the lawsuit. This is about library patrons: seniors, students, parents who homeschool, library staff, etc. etc. etc. Everyone who loves the library opposes this sham takeover. We aren’t a union. We aren’t big labor. We’re ordinary people. We’re voters, taxpayers, residents. You can’t bully us with anti-union rhetoric.

@SSCL really and who are your lawsuit signatories? A County Librarian and two union employees…so your comments are false. You say, “Everyone who loves the library opposes this sham takeover.” Many others and I support the City decision to withdraw from COLA Library System and create a municipal library system instead so your “everyone” statement is also false. As to bullying, it seems to me the bully here is the County, certainly not me for expressing my opinion or the City for taking legally permitted action to provide enhanced library services. I hope this is not you posting Don since in previous communications I did not find you to be “truth challenged” as are these comments.

Much of Mr. Worden’s post, including his criticism of the County (who has been added to the lawsuit as a defendant) is on the money. He is right on the fundamental facts: (1) The City has an absolute right to withdraw from the County system (and the pending lawsuit does not challenge that or seek to invalidate the City’s withdrawal resolution), though the way it did it is repugnant, and (2) The City has an absolute right to operate the libaries itself if it can straighten out the financing (which is, of course, the root of the problem) and which has to be resolved no matter who operates the libraries. The known financials are not sufficient to come to any conclusion how it can be done and at what cost. (We are retaining independent accountants to go over everything, known now and which further CPRA requests and formal discovery in the litigation will reveal.).