November 12, 2010 – Daily Brief

Yes, this. There is a boarded up shop for CB across the walk from William Sonoma (near Macys).

It definitely is a Coffee Bean. I base this fact on all the signs in the Patios that say Coffee Bean coming soon.

The thing the Coffee Bean has going for it is that it sucks a little less than Starbucks.

They have a much better selection than Starbucks and wonderful tea lattes.

I like their Tea more then their coffee.

Walker: All due respect, but I have it from people I trust that the Einstein application was no half ass it might as well have been written in crayon.

And it may well be. I know that was the NSD concern and I had expected that HSD would have similar concerns. The article though clearly says that the HSD apprehension was in regards to their own ability to charter a K-6, which they currently do. Ms Engbrecht seems to have concerns that echo the NSD, but the quotes from the board members don’t mention concerns of implementation. Love how all local districts, sans SSSD, came together to fight their competition/charter. Telling…..

Walker: Here are the politics. The Hart District did not want to look like tools approving the charter after a district like Newhall, which is considered well run, had rejected it on substantive grounds.

Yes, I think the reality is that this is the primary reason the charter was denied. To save face.

I’ve got to disagree. I know there were anti-take over flyers being distributed amongst the parents at my childrens school, and I also had quite a few ‘friends’ on facebook (many of whom I wouldn’t consider even the least bit politically interested) who were posting their concerns about the library take over.

Did you happen to notice what organization was behind those fliers?

The parents group

… and what organization is behind the Facebook pages, etc.? Please don’t let anybody try to fool you into thinking this is some sort of grass-roots opposition that has grown up spontaneously. The anti-city-library message is carefully orchestrated.

Uh-huh. And what organization incited the parents group with misinformation in the first place?

Misinformation???? Yes, just as the city has provided their propoganda the opposition has created talking points for their side. The information….or misinformation would have come from our good friend Darren who tried as he might to answer our questions here on SCVtalk and in the Signal. If you consider this misinformation, more power to ya The take over was thrown through the approval process. You can’t deny that. Users had and continue to have valid concerns on matters of collection and service to unincorporated areas. THESE are the issues that fueled concern in my ‘circles’ (kids school, local friends, and our previous homeschooling network).

You forget Facebook, the people that packed the council chambers, the opposition’s website and the three lawsuits filed against the city. The opposition is seemingly everywhere else. Just about anyone who has opened their mouth in favor of the city is either a Signal columnist, a Signal editorialist or Phil Ellis.

excuse me?

OMG. You’ve been so quiet, I forgot. My apologies.

Quiet not dead…apology accepted.

What Tammy M., bless her heart, fails to understand in her bizarre argument that “we” elected the council and we should trust them is that 47% of the votes cast in the last election were given to non-incumbents and those folks can certainly under the First Amendment be free to continue to oppose the actions of the people they did not vote for. In a true democracy, EVERYTHING is opposed by someone.

Regardless of the topic, it is an odd argument for anything especially from a conservative.

Leon, you are kicking the bee’s nest; now there will be 70 comments on this subject (granted, they’ll be from 10 lonely compulsive commenters for whom SCVTalk is their primary “social community”). You are correct; it is pointless to express support for a city public library on SCVTalk because folks here are not tolerant of dissenting opinions. Anyone who doesn’t agree with the opinions of the socially awkward but numerically talented will be painted as misguided and mindless apologists for the city. Respectful disagreement is impossible because those with contrary opinions are branded fools and tools. It’s a fact that people don’t protest in favor of something good that is planned to happen. “The City is planning to cut taxes – let’s protest City Hall every day until they make it happen! Let’s get red shirts and make signs!!” Sure. Right. Regardless, a final decision was made, the county notified and the library contract signed. The drama continues limply on SCVTalk and a few other websites, and in the form of ricketty “Hail Mary” lawsuits, but it sure seems the city is moving along in an organized and deliberate manner. Next year it will be interesting to compare the library strategic plan being done by the city with the strategic plan done for the SCV by the county library, if only a county library strategic plan for the SCV existed….

You’re right. It takes me about a month for me to forget why I don’t read this thing, and then I come back for more. I guess it’s my deep-seated masochistic streak. I’ll probably shut up again for another month, after leaving everyone with this: (1) Brown Act and a “quick decision” – The people making this argument must have not been paying attention to the financial breakdown of the county library system over the past 10 years if they think the decision to create a city library system happened in a single meeting. It wasn’t the council that woke up one day and decided to take over the libraries; it was the members of the public who woke up one day and started paying attention for the first time. (I don’t begrudge them for it; the more people who wake up and start to inform themselves, the better.) (2) “Privacy.” The people who are making this argument need to go read the California Public Records Act. The lawyer who filed the lawsuit should go read it, too. I find it annoying when lawyers (a) try to practice an aspect of the law that is outside their field of expertise; and (b) attempt to try their cases in the press. It’s not for lawyers to do; it’s for us yokels to do. You won’t find the city or county lawyers trying their case in the press. Yes, county. How come nobody is mentioning that Ricketts named the county as a defendant? See ya next time! =;->LEON

“It wasn’t the council that woke up one day and decided to take over the libraries; it was the members of the public who woke up one day and started paying attention for the first time.” That is false. It was Councilmember Laurie Ender who introduced the idea before the summer recess, not a member of the public. (And many years before she brought it up, it was apparently discussed and studied by other staffers at City Hall). At the meeting where the library takeover was decided, more councilmembers (4 out of 5) spoke in favor of the takeover than did members of the public (2 or 3 vs. 50 against, 1000s against if you count the petitions). It has been revealed that meetings with LSSI involved only staffers, not members of the public. So you are simply incorrect–this action was initiated and approved by staff and the City Council, not the public. You can have an opinion about how successful LSSI will be, but you can’t opine that it was “members of the public” who “decided to take over the libraries.” SaugusSplasher, how charming of you to label anyone disagreeing with you as “socially awkward” in advance. You’re swell.

I checked the box where you can see replies to your posts, and I noticed this one from I-Heart. She misunderstands what I said. I did not mean to imply that members of the public woke up for the first time and decided the city should take over the libraries. I meant that we’re hearing from members of the public on the issue of libraries for the first time — despite the fact that the library system has been falling apart financially for more than a decade. They “woke up” when county library union leaders incited them to riot through a well orchestrated misinformation campaign.

You’re seriously insulting “the public” when you claim “union leaders incited them to riot through a well orchestrated misinformation campaign”–as if they couldn’t make up their minds on their own. It’s an often-repeated argument: people only disagree with the City because they aren’t properly informed. Do you acknowledge that there are people who are opposed to the takeover for rational reasons?

IHeart — to answer your question, yes I do. It is perfectly rational for labor leaders to attempt to protect their members’ jobs.

Oh, and one more thing before I leave. It’s kind of the point of the whole thing. The county librarian told me in no uncertain terms that even after the much bigger Newhall Library is built, she WOULD NOT increase overall library service in Santa Clarita under any circumstances, despite the fact that we pay in more than we get out. The city’s plan will fill all three libraries with books and services, and over the course of the next several months as the city’s new library committee convenes, those selections and services will be tailor-made for our community. End of story. TTFN! =;->

Tool! Fool!! Apologist!!! One disappointing thing about this whole issue is how Supervisor Antonovich has allowed (ordered?) the punishment of the thousands of Canyon Country library users because he doesn’t agree with a decision made by 4 councilmembers. This doesn’t sit well considering how strongly this area has supported him over the decades he’s been in office. Thanks Mike.

Leon this bunch is not interested in logical discourse but hey at least they aren’t calling YOU names…They will also “forget” to retract all the negative remarks once the new library system is in place and running circles around the existing COLA level of service and materials.

Says the lady handing out awards to something that doesn’t yet exist.

Everything else the City has been involved with over the years has won multiple awards such as our parks, trails, etc. I do not anticipate that OUR Municipal Library system will be anything but top notch, and yes, it is MY opinion based on historical context!

Is it logical to give something an award before it exists?

It is logical to believe that a proven record of award winning programs will continue to be the case with a Municipal Library system which belongs to WE THE PEOPLE and which we will all have the ability to make requests for programs, materials, etc, and also have direct access to the decision makers here locally. I’m done.

so berta believe assuming awards for something that doesn’t exist is logical. I am thinking she doesn’t understand what logical means. log·i·cal [ lójjik'l ] adjective Definition: 1. sensible and based on facts: based on facts, clear rational thought, and sensible reasoning 2. able to think rationally: able to think sensibly and come to a rational conclusion based on facts rather than emotion 3. of philosophical logic: relating to philosophical logic

Didnt Bammy get a nobel prize for ???? Ah, you get the point

at least he existed… but you get the point.

Oh yes and welcome back Johnny… done pouting?

“Tolerant of dissenting opinions” // “Respectful disagreement is impossible because those with contrary opinions are branded fools and tools.” Those are some big claims. I think you are confusing tolerance and disagreement. Jeff throws bones to wing nuts from the far right more often then the left. Go look at WRB or Local teaparty blog, you think they are “tolerant” of opposing views? If your expectation is that a stated opinion will remain unchallenged then you might be on the wrong blog. I think we would both agree that a solid position based on facts and principles doesn’t need consenses from the majority in order to be valid.

I think we can also agree that you can challenge a point without sounding like an a-hole.

Well said, but that’s not the norm around this blog.

Hi Alan! You raise a complex question but it seems to me that you’re taking a snapshot in time and trying to extrapolate it. That’s where the argument goes astray. You refer to a $5 million “subsidy from 2001-08 which I question, but if you want to put it in that sort of terms, then I would suggest you start in 1998-99, when city taxpayers subsidized the county library system by the total construction cost of the Canyon Country library (which serves unincorporated, too). I don’t remember the cost but it was a heck of a lot more than the $5 million by which you’re saying the county “subsidized” the city. Developers’ library impact fees are due regardless of jurisdiction. Developers must pay for libraries. Because the libraries were county libraries, the county collected the $2.6 million in fees. Had they been in the city at the time, the city would have been the collection agency for the $2.6 million. Either way, the developers would have to pay for the libraries they impact. The county is not doing us a “favor” by spending the $2.6 million in impact fees here. Those fees must be spent here. In fact, the county is breaching its fiduciary responsibility by failing to complete the Canyon Country TI improvements in a timely fashion. (It’s not even an “expansion” in the common sense of the term. The “expansion” is merely TI improvements to convert the space formerly occupied by COC into library space.) Now, just as the city subsidized the county library system in the late 1990s by paying for a library out of Santa Clarita taxpayers’ general-fund dollars when the county was too busy spending our library tax dollars in other parts of the county, the city WAS willing to subsidize the county library system by another $25 million this year by replacing a library in Newhall that the county failed to expand during its 53 years of existence, even though the county was still collecting more library tax dollars here than it was spending here. Santa Clarita has been generous to the county library system. Not the other way around. And not any more. It stops now.

Leon I do not have the data, to discuss the Library issue, prior to FY 2001. If you know where that data can be found we could add it into the analysis. But the data for FY 2001-2008 is readily available and can be verified against the County Reports on the City Website. The $4,978,343 FY 2001-2008 County subsidy (without adding in the $2,600,000 in “Developer fees” from the County) is a fact. If you like, I would be happy to share the spreadsheet with you. As far as Developer fees, analyzing them by using the idea” Had they been in the city at the time, the city would have been the collection agency for the $2.6 million” is not real world. They were collected when the developments were not in the city, the county has jurisdiction and that also is a fact. Sure, Santa Clarita built the Canyon Country Library and the City should be proud of their accomplishment. At the same time, the data also shows that Canyon Country revenue has been subsidizing the rest of Santa Clarita since FY 2002, producing $3,429,296 more than it cost to operate. While I commend Santa Clarita for building the Canyon Country Library, I also have to question the prospect of a 29,000 sq ft Library in Newhall. Why is Santa Clarita building the largest City Library for a constituency that has less than half the residents in Canyon Country and less than 1/3 the residents in Valencia? Why isn’t this new Library sized to meet the needs of it’s users? There are quite a number of real questions that should asked and answered relative to the Library issue. Perhaps we could get together, verify what data is available, determine a set of questions that should be answered and host a panel of City and County experts on SCVTV.

Hi Alan! Not a bad idea. I’m open to that. I don’t mean this in any disingenuous way when I ask: What do you hope would be the end result? Educating the public about library funding? I suppose that could be worth while. I think it might be instructive to understand where I’m coming from in all of this. It’s 1976 all over again. We’re hearing the same lies and witnessing the same hypocrisy and watching the same tactics we saw then. Remember, to the county’s organized labor force, it has always been about the money. Our money. It’s hilarious to hear people say that all the city cares about is money — when the truth is that’s what the county library system continues to want from us. Have you seen their library-by-library budget? I haven’t got it in front of me, but if memory serves, we are one of only 4 communities in Los Angeles County that is subsidizing the rest of the system. The rest of the system is in the red, and must rely on county general fund revenues to offset the losses — and the county is cutting back that contribution this year. Lucky for the county, by keeping the Canyon Country library closed, the county is able to make up much of the shortfall. (More on that in a moment.) I’m still mad at the county’s union leadership, and always will be, for nullifying the Santa Clarita Valley’s vote to secede from Los Angeles County – not once but twice. Labor leaders convinced voters in the rest of the county they couldn’t afford to let us go because then as now, the unincorporated SCV (then, all of it) was subsidizing other parts of the county. I am not Republican or Democrat, black or white, gay or straight. I don’t care about those things. I am interested only in autonomy for the Santa Clarita Valley, so that we — all SCV residents — can be left alone to run our little corner of the world in our own way, and make our own decisions and make our own mistakes without outside influence. I will ALWAYS fight for the independence of the Santa Clarita Valley — even if that must be done service by service, department by department. Once a freedom fighter, always a freedom fighter. Look at it this way. We have no more commonality with Bell Gardens or Boyle Heights than we have with Bangkok or Bangladesh, and Santa Clarita Valley taxpayers shouldn’t have to subsidize any of them. We are talking now about establishing a library system that we will have to live with for the next 50 or 100 years, just as we must live with the city we’ve created. As we do with the city, we will have the power to change it, and no outsider can take that away from us. We can’t do that in the county, where we’re served by the greatest and most responsive county supervisor we’ve had in my lifetime — and he can’t do it, either. He’s one of five votes. We cannot control our own destiny as citizens of Los Angeles County. Frankly, in this context, I do not care what a spreadsheet says about a particular year. (By the way, your spreadsheets were generated by county staff.) Over time, we subsidize the rest of the county. At some point this must stop — and in the case of libraries, state law gives us the power to stop it. Where is the scorn at the county for keeping the Canyon Country library closed? Because you’re right. At the moment, Canyon Country is subsidizing not only the Valencia and Newhall libraries, but the entire Los Angeles County Public Library System, to the tune of about $1.5 million for every six months that the county keeps the Canyon Country library closed. As to the rest of your argument — frankly, it had not dawned on me to look at it as a crosstown rivalry issue (Canyon Country vs. Newhall or Valencia or whatever). I thought we put that baby stuff behind us in 1987. I guess not. That’s sad. And it’s secondary. There is no sense in having cross-town rivalries as long as there is an actual rival out there that takes our money and spends it elsewhere. I’m sure they laugh at our cross-town rivalries. They’ve got us fighting over table scraps.

Oh and Alan, there is another way to look at this issue, which we tend to overlook. We DID achieve a great deal of autonomy in 1987. Not full autonomy, but a great deal. Our city has the freedom to choose its service vendors. The city CHOOSES to retain the services of the Los Angeles County Fire Department as its fire services vendor. It CHOOSES to retain the services of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department as its police service vendor. In my opinion the city has made a wise choice in selecting those particular vendors. But the city has the RIGHT to change vendors tomorrow. The city has the RIGHT to change library service vendors. Currently, the city uses the Los Angeles County Public Library system to administer its library services . It has the RIGHT under state law to change vendors, and it has indeed chosen to change vendors because it believes it can get more service from a different vendor.

Compelling points, Leon. The primary point you have missed in your helpful commentaries is the City did not have a broad conversation on this subject for a sufficient period of time. That smacks of a lack of due diligence and alterior motives. Had they had formed the Committee, had the open forum and allowed for public debate in a time span measured in months not days/weeks, it wouldn’t feel like you’re swimming upstream explaining the logic in the secessesion.

NickelDime – (sorry, I hate these silly names; I have no idea who I’m talking to) – I concede your point. I think those of us in the press, and those in government, who deal with these issues on a daily basis, year over year, tend to forget – or fail to recognize – that not everybody has the same experiences or the same background knowledge. I think there is a natural tendency for journalists and policy makers to assume that once something is said or written, everybody knows about it. Of course the notion is absurd if we think about it rationally, but we rarely apply that basic fact to ourselves, i.e., when we’re the ones who are doing the writing or talking. I noted earlier that there is nothing for the business community or the nonprofit leadership in this town to gain by going to bat for the city over the libraries, since they’ll just get their heads bashed in by critics. Clearly there is nothing for me to gain by doing so, either — but frankly, I don’t look at it that way. I’m not trying to go to bat for the city because, as I’ve also noted, the city doesn’t need me or anyone else to go to bat for it. The city has a legal right – and, in its mind, the moral imperative – to take the action it is taking. Rather, I choose to engage out of frustration — frustration over the fact that much of the information I am hearing seems, to me, to be off the mark. Why is it off the mark? Well, precisely for the reason you suggest. Not enough information — the information that compelled the council to reach its decision — has been disseminated well enough or frequently enough for it to sink in. It’s not that the information wasn’t made public prior to the council’s decision; it was. The salient points were made in news articles and editorials. But how frequently? And how well? Not frequently or well enough, I’d say, or we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion. Since the information was not effectively disseminated, there was an “information void,” and the people most directly impacted by the city’s (then proposed) library takeover — namely, the SCV’s current county library employees — stepped in and filled that void with information that could have been rather easily countered but was not. I’d say that was partly because of the compressed time frame, but I’m not so sure. County library employees knew last spring, when it came up during a City Council meeting, that the city was looking to take control of its local libraries. The union didn’t say a word. Articles were published on the subject — and largely ignored — over the summer, and still the union didn’t react. Not until the week or 10 days before the council took its vote did the union incite protest by standing outside the Valencia library, telling patrons their libraries were going to go to hell because the city was taking them over. The union waited until the 11th hour. It knew about the move for at least two months — longer, if the union leadership communicates with the county library administration, which knew it was coming even earlier. Would the union have spoken up earlier if it had been given two years instead of two months? I don’t know. They might still have waited until the 11th hour to strike with the force of a last-minute political hit piece. But at least the public would have been better armed with the facts if more time had been given to disseminating those facts. Yes, it is water under the bridge, as the decision has been made. But there is simply something inside of me that tells me it is important for people to understand the logic, as I see it, in the decision to establish a city library system at this time. The other thing is, deep down inside me, I see the union’s organized anti-city library campaign as an attack on our valley’s — our entire valley’s — longstanding push for self-determination. In my estimation, I think there are folks at the city who were surprised at the degree to which the public has misunderstood and flat disagreed with its library decision. We tend to forget that there are people in this valley who have different experiences from the collective or historical norm. We forget that there are people in this valley who weren’t here 40 years ago — or even 40 months ago or 40 weeks ago. I’m guilty of forgetting this. We all are. It’s not enough to say something once and assume everyone knows it. It must be repeated until it becomes common knowledge — as you said, in a time span measured in months, not weeks. And some things bear repeating over a span of years. Decades. Forever. How many people can recite our valley’s oil history? Gold history? Transportation history? Filming history? Does everyone know where Beale’s Cut is or who Harry Carey was? John Lang? What do W.C. Fields and Charles Lindbergh have to do with our valley? Have we written about these things? Of course we have. Have we done a good enough job in telling these stories? Unless everyone in the SCV past third grade can go 10-for-10 on a test, then no. Of course we haven’t. We’ll never reach everyone with all of the facts. But that doesn’t mean we should stop trying. I don’t mind swimming upstream, as you put it. It’s what I do. You’ll have to pardon me if I repeat myself sometimes. Clearly, it’s what I need to learn to do. Thanks for the comment, whoever you are. =;->LEON

I would posit that if the City had truly wanted the public input on library issues prior to the August 24th vote, perhaps the CIty should have been outside the libraries, engaging with library users, seeking opinions, selling their spin. That “the public” was unaware until late August speaks volumes of The Signal readership (or lack thereof), and the paltry efforts of the City Council to reach SCV residents in practical avenues. It is painfully obvious that the City was singing their song to the choir, and not seeking real input.

Leon Thanks for sharing your perspective. From my standpoint, doing a forum on SCVTV would strictly be to put the facts before the public. After that, it is what it is. What do I expect to get out of it? To become better educated on the issue, so that I can discuss Library services, costs and solutions more intelligently. I am not interested in attempting to influence the outcome of the forum, but I am interested is asking penetrating questions and listening to the answers. After thinking it over, if you feel a SCVTV Library Forum would be a good idea, give me a call so we can share ideas.

Hi Alan! The more I think about it, the more I like the idea. The trouble is, the lawsuits are in the way. The most knowledgeable people at the city & county won’t talk as long as they’re in litigation, and it would be fruitless to attempt it without them. There is a demurrer in one of the suits pending on the 13th, but there is still another suit that will still be outstanding. It might have to wait until both/all of the the lawsuits are dismissed, which is likely but might not be until next calendar year.

By the way, Alan, regarding your “real world” paragraph — yes, it is “real world.” Like I said, developers in the city and county have to pay library impact fees. Because we were in the county library system, the county has been the collection agency for the city and county library impact fees. A portion of the $2.6 million is from developers within the city. A portion of the $2.6 million is from developers outside of the city. How much of the $2.6 million accrues to the city now, and how much to the county? That’s one of the things the city lawyers and county lawyers are figuring out now.

Hi Lori – The point about the unions is reflected in your message. Exactly who was it who gave you (or who initially gave parents) the idea that you would no longer be able to “search for a book or AV material online, through one consolidated search engine, order books or AV material up to my 50-book library card capacity, for free, receive book(s) within 3-5 days, and be able to renew said items for up to 12 weeks?” Are you suggesting you developed those fears organically? You still will be able to do all of those things — as long as you hang on to your county library card. Don’t get rid of it. As to whether the city’s system will run as smoothly, we’ll know in about eight months.

Despite the stupidity which you imply, yes, we homeschool mothers developed these ideas both organically and through our own research, looking into other LSSI libraries. I personally researched all my own concerns independently, and footnoted my concerns in a letter to Antonovich, which I have also posted in several locations. Yes, obviously I can still use the County system when SCV libraries go to LSSI. The point, which you seem to be missing, is that I won’t be able to do so in my own community. I might counter to you, who planted your idea that the union is behind all anti-LSSI arguments? I can guarantee you that the initial idea came very early on, was planted in the ear of a City Council member, and has since been used as a non-sensical, political argument to dismiss any real discussion of the issues. The fact that you disregarded my concerns listed in the above post, and instead went straight back to the union slander is a perfect case in point.

The more I read your above comment, “Are you suggesting you developed those fears organically?” the angrier I become. No, Leon, I am not suggesting, I am unabashedly stating, (and reiterating!) on every venue available, that these are legitimate concerns from SCV citizens. How dare you, or the City, disregard public concerns so flippantly. If you cared to do the research, you would see that these are real issues. What a condescending, patronizing attitude. I cannot believe that you say these things publicly, without excuse.

No question that the concerns/fears are legitimate, just as they are also unjustified. The planning hasn’t even started and people are automatically assuming the worst, which, no offense intended, is crazy. Glad you signed up for the committee.

Not unjustified. Personally researched and verified with other LSSI libraries. Would you like my footnotes? What is unjustified is a blind trust in a company riddled with sub-par library services, and which hides its profit margin as “proprietary information.” What is unjustified is that elected officials would deign to push though such a monumental decision without seeking the substantial input of library patrons. What is unjustified is that the City Council completely discounted 3 hours of public testimony against leaving COLA, more than 200 pages of emails against leaving COLA, and then proceeded to clearly vote against the will of the people, while, at a later City Council meeting, 5 or 6 public speakers against the naming of a bridge warranted the Council’s decision to “wait, and gather more information” before voting.

Wow, Leon. Lori is both highly educated and highly informed. I think you owe her an apology. Why should any of us have to drive out of our own city in order to have access to County resources that we currently use, resources that we paid for, by the way?

The county labor unions (not to besmirch non-county labor unions!) have a 35-year history of killing our community’s efforts for self determination and local control. If you want to have the argument about which bureaucratic system is poised to deliver better service — a big one or a small one — I am happy to have that argument with you (but not right now – I’ve got to rush off.) It is frightfully easy for me to do, as long as you are on the side of Big Government and I’m on the side of small government. Just quickly, for now, your logic breaks down when you suggest that a large bureaucratic system is better positioned to deliver tailor-made community services than a small, community-based one. If you were right, then Glendale, Pasadena and every other city in Los Angeles County that have their own police departments would be bastions of crime because they have chosen not to contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, as the city does. All of the same arguments you apply to libraries have been cited as reasons for staying with the Sheriff’s department for municipal police service — such as access to databases and specialized programs. Well guess what? Burbank, Pasadena and the rest have access to databases and programs, just as the city will have with the libraries. I can go on when I’ve got more time but please remember why we formed a city. L.A. County’s big parks department was taking more of our money than it was spending here and wasn’t doing the job. Its road department, same thing. Etc. Same with libraries now. They take more than they give back, and they have not kept up with the demand for service, which the local libraries will be able to do now that our own local government controls them and doesn’t have to send money to south Cucamonga or wherever.

Again, you are skirting the concerns which I outlined above. You are extrapolating a big vs. small government argument, when I am talking about, again, searching for an inter-library book on one integrated system, borrowing up to 50 inter-library books at a time, having said books delivered to my home library within 3-5 days, being able to renew said books for up to 12 weeks, and all at no charge. Of course, all this also includes one of kind and rare books, as well as audio-visual materials. Show me one LSSI library of comparable size to SCV that delivers on these items. You are all about the unions, and nothing about the issues. Sounds like a pretty big chip on your shoulder.

Lori – that’s an excellent summation of basic needs, and I hope you’ll participate in the process over the next 8 or 9 months that the Library Committee will be hearing the community’s needs and concerns and drafting them into an action plan.

I turned in my committee application 2 or 3 weeks ago. I am hoping to be a part of the process, in addition to my current activities of speaking at the 8/24 City Council meeting, participating on Internet forums and the involvement at the SaveSantaClaritaLibraries.wordpress.com website.

The city’s fees accrue to the county. They’re part of the $2.6 million (or whatever the correct number is) that everyone is trying to sort out.

Leon In this case, I believe you are misinformed. I have my suspicion as to the nature of this fee but am checking with staff to find out where this money is targeted before commenting further..

Hi! OK, maybe we’re talking about different things … lemme know! =;->