SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
November 25, 2010· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

The Library Takeover Explained

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

Comments (162)

  1. Capt. GeneNovember 25, 2010 at 9:42 am
    Brilliant!
  2. Bill ReynoldsNovember 25, 2010 at 10:44 am
    Man, that is just too damn funny! Brilliant!!!
  3. drive66November 25, 2010 at 10:51 am
    Heelarious!!!!
  4. kimNovember 25, 2010 at 11:05 am
    Great job. Now the takeover makes perfect sense! There were some cracks forming.
  5. Leon WordenNovember 25, 2010 at 2:40 pm
    Glad someone still has a sense of humor! On Tuesday, Nov. 30, county Librarian Margaret Todd will present her library-funding report to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, at which time she will ask the supervisors to place a measure on the ballot to raise the library tax. To fill the cracks. Go figure.
  6. Leon WordenNovember 25, 2010 at 2:56 pm
    And by the way, the humor aside, it is rather disingenuous to suggest that Supervisor Antonovich does not recognize the financial “cracks.” He knows them very well, thank you.
  7. Daddy Joe GNovember 25, 2010 at 3:15 pm
    Santa Clarita is giving him $8 million to use to fill up the cracks.
  8. Leon WordenNovember 25, 2010 at 3:31 pm
    Not “him.” Mike Antonovich is not what’s wrong with the county. Santa Clarita taxpayers aren’t giving $8 million – they’re spending $8 million to sidestep the cracks and take over their own library system. What’s lost in the conversation is that Santa Clarita city taxpayers have already given the library system $36 MILLION MORE than unincorporated SCV residents, for libraries that serve both city and unincorporated residents equally. ($5 million for C.C., $25 million for Newhall, $6 million for land for Newhall.) That’s on top of the library taxes that all SCV residents pay. By giving $36 million, we let the county off the hook for keeping pace with the population and building libraries here … freeing up the county to spend our money elsewhere. (Remember, we’re one of only 4 or 5 cities that subsidize the entire county system… and that’s just city. That doesn’t include the $2 MILLION PER YEAR that’s collected from unincorporated SCV residents and not spent here at all, except about 10% of it for the little storefront library in Castaic.) Darned right we shouldn’t see our $36 million EXTRA fall down a crack. So we’re closing that crack, at least here in our little corner of the county.
  9. Daddy Joe GNovember 25, 2010 at 3:49 pm
    My point is that a great deal of the money the city is paying out to withdraw from the county library system is being payed to the county, who can then use that money to improve the county library system. Antonovich and Todd are probably grinning a lot because we are giving them all this help.
  10. Leon WordenNovember 25, 2010 at 3:56 pm
    You’re absolutely right (tho I don’t know about the “grinning” part). That is the cost of secession. It’s the same thing as paying alimony to the county for an annexation or incorporation. It’s too bad; in fact it’s downright larcenous on the part of the county — but that’s the price, and it works out for the better in the long run. At the last council meeting, one of the opponents did some math that showed it would take 20 years to recoup the cost. Let’s pretend for a moment that his math were correct. My answer is: So what? At least we’ll be free, and from there, we’ll be in good shape. If the rest of the county falls through one of those cracks, or the state falls into the ocean, at least we won’t fall with them.
  11. NickelDimeNovember 25, 2010 at 4:41 pm
    We would all have been better off had the City Council waited for one of the mythical cracks to surface. We wouldn’t pay the additional $622k for the CC library. The City wouldn’t have the legal exposure and expense. We all wouldn’t be distracted by the issue and the obvious lack of planning. LSSI would have our support, helping out a broken system (their sweet spot). And it would arguably be a less expensive proposition. And the cherry on top: the City Council would have the near-universal support of the residents, who are now riled up in opposition to the move.
  12. Leon WordenNovember 25, 2010 at 4:49 pm
    Nick(?) – I don’t know how to respond to that except to ask, how many people must see the cracks before you’ve waited long enough? We saw the cracks in the mid-1990s when the county wanted to shut the Newhall Library. We saw the cracks in the late 1990s when the county refused to spend the MONEY WE HAD PAID to expand the CC library. We saw the cracks throughout the last decade as the county cut services, staff and hours. We saw the cracks in the last couple of years when the county claimed it couldn’t contribute to the new Newhall library despite a SURPLUS from this valley of $2 million a year. We saw the cracks when the county librarian claimed she couldn’t expand services here, even if we build our own libraries, despite that $2 million annual surplus. How is one supposed to know when “enough” of the public is paying attention to the news articles about this cracked library system? You might be right in saying the council wouldn’t have to pay the $600k for CC now … but if the city waited till the county completed the expansion before taking over the library system, the city would STILL HAVE TO PAY THE $600k to the county in alimony.
  13. DonRickettsNovember 26, 2010 at 9:39 am
    Has anyone ever read the 1999, outside-c0nsultant study that recommended against withdrawal because, among other things, it wasn’t cost effective?
  14. Leon WordenNovember 26, 2010 at 10:26 am
    Sure, back in 1999. (Is this what you meant by “borne back ceaselessly into the past?) Have you read the current staff report on the takeover? It’s a bit more up-to-date.
  15. Leon WordenNovember 26, 2010 at 10:47 am
    Better still, Don, have you paid any attention AT ALL to the county library’s financial problems over the past decade? Or is this your first library-related case??
  16. Alan FerdmanNovember 25, 2010 at 6:05 pm
    Leon You have “jumped the shark”. The $36 million you reference is being spent by the city for capital improvements not for operations. The city has incurred $19 million of debt for construction of the Newhall Library and according to the figures you gave me are still $2 million in debt on the Canyon Country Library build. In all likelihood the $1.8 million the county was providing for Library remodeling came from Library Facility Mitigation Fees collected in the unincorporated county. What we need is a complete accounting of all the costs and funding sources without all the BS.
  17. Alan FerdmanNovember 25, 2010 at 6:21 pm
    Leon Just thinking about it. When we talk about the City Spending $36 million more on Library Facilities, to be fair, we need to subtract the Castaic, Aqua Dulce and Stevenson Ranch Library costs which are all funded by the unincorporated County.
  18. Leon WordenNovember 25, 2010 at 6:28 pm
    WHAT Stevenson Ranch library? There isn’t one, and there won’t be one for years. The intelligent thing to do would be to build a new city-county library, operated by the city — because the city can provide more service at lower cost — closer to the west side. Castaic costs maybe 10% of the unincorporated SCV’s $2 mllion annual “contribution” to the system — tops. I’ll leave it to y’all to debate whether the county library system is “keeping it local” when it spends the money it collects in Stevenson Ranch on Crown Valley Road in Acton. Maybe we should ask S.R. residents how often they use that library. Oh! Wait. S.R. residents use libraries that are FULLY PAID FOR BY CITY TAXPAYERS. Duh.
  19. Leon WordenNovember 25, 2010 at 6:24 pm
    Happy Thanksgiving, Alan! Yes, the expansion is being funded with library impact fees. But please remember, the library taxes (which the county librarian is proposing to raise) are for operations AND CONSTRUCTION. Which is, of course, why the city is able to use library taxes to pay itself back the $8 million. It’s money that would have to be spent anyway to own three libraries. We don’t HAVE to buy the Valencia library; folks who say the city doesn’t want the Valencia library are proved wrong by the simple fact that the city is buying it. We could “save” $8 million and forgo the purchase of the building — but what would be the point? It’s library money. (And it doesn’t detract from other city services because the general fund gets paid back out of money that can’t be spent on anything other than libraries.) The point about the $36 million is that we city residents have paid $36 million MORE than county residents to support libraries that benefit both city residents and county residents equally….. freeing up the county to spend our money (city & county) elsewhere. The giant sucking sound is $2 million a year going straight from our unincorporated residents to other parts of the county. And what’s this about a shark? I throw them back whenever I catch them.
  20. Leon WordenNovember 25, 2010 at 6:32 pm
    I don’t know what side of the city-county line you live on, Alan, but at some point, your “entitlement” argument has got to stop. It is high time for people to take responsibility for their decisions. If our unincorporated friends and neighbors see how much better off they’d be in the city and still choose to remain unincorporated, they’ve got nobody to blame but themselves. If the city were greedy or stingy, it would forbid the unincorporated communities from annexing into the city … because why should we existing city taxpayers have to fund all the amenities and services the county was unable or unwilling to provide to them in the first place? But our city doesn’t do that. Santa Clarita’s door is open to everyone in the Santa Clarita Valley — because it’s the right thing to do.
  21. Alan FerdmanNovember 25, 2010 at 6:50 pm
    Leon Happy Thanksgiving back at ya. I live in Santa Clarita and Los Angeles County. I am not arguing, but I am looking for facts. When all the cards are on the table, arguing will be unnecessary.
  22. Leon WordenNovember 25, 2010 at 6:54 pm
    Agreed! Yeah! The funny little video at the top of this post is a very good example of how many facts have yet to resonate. Like, almost all of them.
  23. NickelDimeNovember 25, 2010 at 7:28 pm
    Assuming that’s true, Leon. Who’s fault is that? Pulskamp seems to think a half-baked website is the answer to the communication gap, while Laurie Ender is becoming a caricature of herself with Ender-math at every CC meeting claiming “95% of the residents don’t care who runs the library.” Both imply what is out there is good enough, yet the outcry continues and the City fumbles through this. The approach, at least in communication, is bass-ackwards.
  24. Leon WordenNovember 25, 2010 at 7:40 pm
    Well, assuming that’s true ) ….. what would you propose? I would absolutely LOVE it if there were better ways to get the information out there. We’ve written repeatedly in The Signal, we’ve televised repeatedly on SCVTV, various people have commented in this blog … what specifically do you propose? One caveat: Please spare me the argument that we “should have had” a committee before the fact. Two reasons. One: It’s water under the bridge. I’m asking for actual help/advice in going forward. And Two: The argument is meritless, considering the comments that followed the appointment of the new library committee. Point being, people in this blog have already attacked the new committee as being a hand-picked “yes-man” committee. How would it possibly have changed anything if this committee had met previously and made a decision (to create our own library system) that y’all would have decided was “predetermined”?
  25. NickelDimeNovember 25, 2010 at 8:12 pm
    First, I’d start with transparency. Admit there were mistakes, it was rushed, there are other issues in play (Newhall Library, for one) and unforseen circumstances. Second, I’d pull in some notable critics for a sit-down and work to get them on side. Third, I’d answer some unanswered questions, starting with equitable unincorporated resident access. We have councilmembers sending mixed messages on that front.
  26. Leon WordenNovember 25, 2010 at 8:16 pm
    this thread is getting too skinny and I need to write too much to address your three items. So I’m going to start a new little thread. Stay tuned…
  27. Alan FerdmanNovember 25, 2010 at 8:41 pm
    ND Good suggestion. Looks like you are on the right track. Your approach would go a long way toward getting the facts out and analyzed. After that, “let the chips fall where they may”.
  28. Leon WordenNovember 25, 2010 at 8:42 pm
    NickelDime– (1) Transparency/admission of guilt. No. Sorry, but if you’re going to ask my to repeat myself, I’m going to cut and paste. Here is how I answered your point earlier today when you brought it up: “We saw the cracks in the mid-1990s when the county wanted to shut the Newhall Library. We saw the cracks in the late 1990s when the county refused to spend the MONEY WE HAD PAID to expand the CC library. We saw the cracks throughout the last decade as the county cut services, staff and hours. We saw the cracks in the last couple of years when the county claimed it couldn’t contribute to the new Newhall library despite a SURPLUS from this valley of $2 million a year. We saw the cracks when the county librarian claimed she couldn’t expand services here, even if we build our own libraries, despite that $2 million annual surplus.” All of this has been published countless times over the years. It’s not the city’s fault if people don’t follow the news. Rushed? Taking over the library system was discussed a decade ago. At the time, the city decided against it. It wasn’t ready. Now, a decade of county budget struggles later, it is. “Other issues in play” such as the Newhall Library? What do you mean? The county wouldn’t build the library we needed with the money we gave to the county — so the city stepped up to the plate to fill yet ANOTHER void left by the county. The Newhall Library, like the CC Library before it, is precisely the point. It’s all part of the same point. They aren’t “other issues.” (2) I would be more than happy to have a televised roundtable discussion on this topic. As long as there are pending lawsuits and threats of depositions, etc., it ain’t gonna happen. No credible parties from either the city or the county are going to comment. (Remember, Ricketts sued the county, too.) When the lawsuits are dismissed — and they will be — I’ll be ready to host that forum. (3) “Equitable unincorporated resident access?” What in the hell does that mean? How is it in ANY WAY equitable for City residents to shoulder 100% of the cost of unincorporated county residents? BOY am I glad you stepped in this one. Right now, today, in the county system, we City residents pay 100% of the cost of EVERY book (etc.) checked out by EVERY unincorporated SCV resident at the 3 Santa Clarita libraries. The county does not spend one Nickel or Dime of unincorporated SCV residents’ tax dollars on services at those 3 libraries. Don’t believe me. Ask Alan Ferdman. He can show you that fact in his spreadsheets. Better still, ask Margaret Todd. She told me that same thing face-to-face. Under the city’s plan, we City residents will continue to subsidize the cost of EVERY book checked out by EVERY unincorporated SCV resident. Personally, I would CHOOSE to do that. But that’s the difference. Every city taxpayer deserves to have that CHOICE. In the county we do not have that choice. Only in the city do we have the choice. And if city voters decide they want county residents to pay a fee to use the libraries, that should be the city taxpayers’ RIGHT. What isn’t “equitable” is if only SOME of the people are paying for ALL of the people. (No, I’m not talking about the economically disadvantaged. I don’t particularly like the racial overtones of the anti-Newhall Library arguments, considering the studies of the various projected user groups, but I won’t get into that now.)
  29. IHeartSCVNovember 25, 2010 at 9:10 pm
    “Right now, today, in the county system, we City residents pay 100% of the cost of EVERY book (etc.) checked out by EVERY unincorporated SCV resident at the 3 Santa Clarita libraries. The county does not spend one Nickel or Dime of unincorporated SCV residents’ tax dollars on services at those 3 libraries.” Why don’t you consider the inverse scenario?: unincorporated residents pay nearly all the cost whenever a resident goes to the Castaic or Acton library. OMG the injustice! Time for more pumpkin pie.
  30. Leon WordenNovember 25, 2010 at 9:13 pm
    IHeart – Uh, maybe you’re right. Maybe we should take that into consideration. Maybe Santa Clarita residents don’t go to the Castaic or Acton libraries now — but surely they will as soon as the city destroys its libraries, right?
  31. NickelDimeNovember 25, 2010 at 10:24 pm
    Leon, (1) On transparency, they at least botched the communication. Else there wouldn’t be a widespread lack of resonance with the facts (words to your effect above). Discussed a decade ago? So what? As we discussed on a previous thread, this came out of the blue recently and was voted on inside of two months. Jammed faster than the Mayo Expansion. Faster than the recent West Creek/Tesoro annexation issue. Hell, it was faster than the Benz Road debacle. A decision of this magnitude shouldn’t have been jammed. That’s a massive mistake responsible for at least 50% of the discontent and probably the lion’s share of the confusion. Transparency means standing up and admitting that. (2) You’re saying that the lawsuit precludes open discussion on the issue? Why? What does the City have to hide? Why did they try to block the deposition of TBB and others? Transparency this is not. (3) Addressed below. I have no problem with a clear “we’re not going to serve unincorp. residents” message, but that’s not what’s come out of this crew. Stop being so defensive and own it, Leon. They botched this. That’s not to say it isn’t the right result , the means simply aren’t justified.
  32. Leon WordenNovember 25, 2010 at 10:41 pm
    (1) You accuse the council of acting too quickly to save millions of taxpayer dollars? OK. Whatever. Glad they didn’t drag their feet to save millions of taxpayer dollars; goodness knows how you’d give them a shellacking if they did that! (2) Yes. Neither the city nor — come on, say it after me, you can do it — the COUNTY — will talk openly about these issues as long as litigation is pending. (3) I cannot and will not defend communication, or the lack thereof. I’ve been in the communication business long enough to know that people hear what they want to hear, when they want to hear it. (4) “Defensive.” I’ve addressed this earlier. The city doesn’t need to be defended in this case BECAUSE THE DECISION HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE! Rather, I choose to beat my head against a wall in this case because of #3 above. Judging from the fact that there are so many, umm, strange? opinions about this issue, I believe that much more communication is needed.
  33. NickelDimeNovember 25, 2010 at 10:53 pm
    Leon, It’s not prudent to rush a multi-million dollar, long term decision, nor its execution. The theoretical savings can evaporate quickly. You asked what the City needs to do to turn this around, I provided a roadmap that at least had the support of Alan Ferdman. I welcome a live conversation at 818-835-0307, first name is John. I’m just a plain old resident.
  34. Leon WordenNovember 25, 2010 at 11:25 pm
    Gosh, if only you knew how I hate the telephone …. Plain old resident? You underestimate yourself. Unless of course you meant it in a complimentary way. Because that’s how it should be taken. Random thoughts: I’d be glad to host a “library forum” or at least some sort of an “informational seminar” to get the facts out (more and better facts, anyway). The two impediments I see are: (1) As much as Ricketts wants to try his case in the press — which I believe is wrong for an attorney to do; it’s the job of us plain-old-residents to try his case in the press — neither the city nor the county are going to go on the record on matters that are challenged in the lawsuits. Right or wrong, that’s the way it is. And (2) I think the point of the forum would be to answer many of your questions — to which there are not yet any answers, because they’re under negotiation! So … how & when to proceed with such a thing? Don’t you think it would be pointless until (1) the lawsuits are dismissed and (2) the negotiations are complete?
  35. Leon WordenNovember 25, 2010 at 9:05 pm
    This is a really fundamental concept, and it amazes me that people don’t seem to grasp it: PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE NOT TO LIVE IN THE CITY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO CITY SERVICES. Want city services? Move to the city. Move your house to the city. Annex your whole neighborhood into the city. You’ll be welcomed with open arms and treated as an equal — because then and only then will you be an equal. Do we city people want all of our city money to stay in the city? Yeah. Deal with it.
  36. NickelDimeNovember 25, 2010 at 10:13 pm
    Leon, On the eve of the vote, our Mayor made it sound like unincorporated residents would be treated the same as incorporated residents. Her over-simplified question to Darren Hernandez was “will they have access” or some such during the rapid fire attempt to quell the discontent of the crowd. This was followed by Frank Ferry’s rant about unincorporated communities shouldn’t have access. Then the deal with LACo and 5 years of access for non-residents comes out, effectively nullifying both positions and leaving the issue in limbo. Which is it? I have no problem with your statement at all. But the communication coming out of City Hall is muddied at best. You asked for examples, you stepped right into one.
  37. Leon WordenNovember 25, 2010 at 10:32 pm
    LOL! Touche. *Without having asked for specifics about the 5-yr deal* … it looks like the answer is in the question. The county’s contribution of developer fees collected in the unincorporated SCV comes at a price — and the price is 5 years of access for unincorporated SCV residents. As for a final answer as to whether unincorporated residents will be charged any fees whatsoever to use the libraries … I think it is too early in the negotiation process to have a final answer. To my knowledge, that is one of several things that must be worked out in the transfer … the same negotiation process that places a price tag on the Valencia library and its collections; determines the disposition of special collections (specified in the law but still open to some bit of interpretation), and so forth. If the city chooses to use the library cooperative — which is its stated intent — then it must allow access to unincorporated residents. Does that mean it can charge a fee to unincorporated residents? I don’t know. Ask Darren Hernandez. You see, here’s the breakdown. There is a contingent of people who seem to believe the city should have had answers to all of the questions before making a decision to take over the libraries. That is logical. It is practical. It makes common sense. But the law isn’t written to be logical or practical or to make common sense. Getting those answers prior to the decision is impossible. If the city doesn’t make the decision to withdraw from the county library system, then there is nothing to discuss. Any questions about what would happen if … or how might this work … or how much would this cost … would be hypothetical. The law sets out a specific timetable for when things must happen. It sets out a timetable for the negotiation process and and for a determination of the answers to all those questions you want answered. The law states that a decision must be made prior to Dec. 2 if the takeover is to take effect the following July 1. ** Once the decision is made, ** the clock starts ticking for the negotiation process and all of those questions get answered as the city and county negotiate the details of the transfer. I appreciate everyone’s eagerness to find out how the thing is going to work, and I certainly want to know, too — but the law makes it impossible for the city or the county to know the answers until they sit down at the table at a specified time and agree upon the answers. Stated differently, you’re accusing the city of putting the cart before the horse, but this is one case where, by law, the cart actually is required to come before the horse.
  38. NickelDimeNovember 25, 2010 at 10:40 pm
    Why in the hell didn’t City Hall simply come out and say that? Instead, it feigned confidence in the approach, put on the appearance of crossing every T and dotting every I. If there was indeed some uncertainty that would enfold following a decision, why not simply say that? This is exactly what I’m talking about with admitting mistakes. It’s an execution fumble at least, a poorly informed decision at worst.
  39. Leon WordenNovember 25, 2010 at 10:47 pm
    I don’t know what you mean about “uncertainty in the process.” The process doesn’t seem very uncertain to me — quite the opposite. I’ve read the law. It’s VERY certain. Please read it, if you haven’t already done so, and you’ll see what I mean. The process isn’t “uncertain,” the outcome of that process is uncertain. HOWEVER, regardless of the particulars of the outcome, the city wins in the end because it’s able to spend all of our money here, and provide vastly increased service more efficiently. Re: efficiency — I don’t know if you’re motivated by a desire to defend the county, but have you ever tried to work in or with or for the county? You can’t buy a paper clip without getting the approval of your supervisor’s supervisor’s supervisor. (Yes, I can cite some rather significant examples.) It’s unlike any other bureaucracy I’ve ever known.
  40. NickelDimeNovember 25, 2010 at 10:56 pm
    “but the law makes it impossible for the city or the county to know the answers until they sit down at the table at a specified time and agree upon the answers.” Leon, “Not knowing the answers” = uncertainty. Perhaps you missed the exchange you broadcast between our Mayor and Darren Hernandez: the City feigned confidence in knowing all the answers.
  41. Leon WordenNovember 25, 2010 at 11:16 pm
    ND – I saw it.
  42. NickelDimeNovember 25, 2010 at 11:18 pm
    Well, my man, that’s where the transparency can begin. “We didn’t have all the answers like we thought we did.” A little humility goes a long way.
  43. NickelDimeNovember 25, 2010 at 11:20 pm
    Who said anything about efficiency?
  44. Cheryl PhillipsNovember 25, 2010 at 11:03 pm
    The conversation could have begun last January, giving plenty of time for all library patrons to be educated about the problems and the solutions. They would have had plenty of time to bring together those who had questions and those that were worried about the changes that would occur. It’s called communication.
  45. Leon WordenNovember 25, 2010 at 11:16 pm
    Cheryl, you’re being too sensible. Seriously, I truly appreciate that opinion. It didn’t happen. Since it didn’t happen, do you have some suggestions for what to do now? (Other than, “reverse the decision,” because that’s not happening.) What do you think should be done at this point to increase the level of communication? Thanks!
  46. Cheryl PhillipsNovember 25, 2010 at 11:53 pm
    It’s late and it’s been a long turkey day but here are a few communication points that have never been dealt with honestly - 1. Start with being truthful about the changes that will occur in accessing DVDs, Audiobooks on CDs and newly published books with membership in SCLC. 2. Every time it’s mentioned that hours will be added and more books will be purchased, also mention what will be lost – jobs (20 last I read)
  47. EricNovember 26, 2010 at 12:43 pm
    It would be nice if the council was simply transparent about their motivation. My speculation…Redevelopment of OTN is the city’s top priority. The new library is viewed as a critical element of redevelopment, particularly to encourage future private redevelopment funds. The county declined to provide additional funding for the staff and collection for a larger Newhall branch. This left the city scrambling to find a way to provide adequate funding. The private/public partnership was their answer. The problem is that the city continues to try to sell this based on longer hours and unspecified enhanced services and the people aren’t buying it. Bottom line, this is about redevelopment and avoidance of a new vacant building and NOT about library services. I think this controversy is fueled much more by the MANNER in which this council crammed the proposal down the throats of the people, than by the action itself, which, given the circumstances, may very well have been the right decision.
  48. Leon WordenNovember 26, 2010 at 7:57 pm
    Hello Eric! That’s a very reasonable observation … and if it were true that the objective was redevelopment, I would support it, because redevelopment (of Newhall today, Canyon Country tomorrow) is crucial the well being of the city. Funny thing is, it wasn’t about redevelopment. I serve on the city’s redevelopment committee. You may or may not be aware that when the Newhall Library was initially proposed, it garnered a lot of opposition from redevelopment committee members who wanted to do other projects instead. The key word in that last sentence is “instead.” It was demonstrated that the library project could go forward and the other redevelopment projects (such as the streetscape) could go forward at the same time. For that reason, I initially didn’t oppose, and ultimately helped garner commitee support for, the city’s plan to build a new library in Newhall. Because, the fact was, it was actually about building a library, not about doing a redevelopment project. There were many other redevelopment projects we could have done “instead.” But the fact was, the community is and was library-deficient, and there are and were major underserved populations in the area, vis-a-vis libraries. Yes, there was a library in the redevlopment plans, but it was 10 years down the road. Pushing it up on the timeline wasn’t about fulfilling a redevelopment goal. It was about building a library. You might say it was done *in spite* of the particular redevelopment plans.
  49. NickelDimeNovember 26, 2010 at 8:34 pm
    But the fact was, the community is and was library-deficient, and there are and were major underserved populations in the area, vis-a-vis libraries. I hate to say it, but the new Newhall Library may end up being somewhat redundant, especially given the activity in Antonovich-land + the forthcoming COC library expansion , all of which are available to all SCV residents. In a matter of 24-48 months, we will triple the square footage dedicated to libraries and long term, I’m not sure every single buildout / expansion is justified. Is there a formula?
  50. Leon WordenNovember 26, 2010 at 8:39 pm
    Hi Nick! Not sure what you mean by activity in Antonovich land, but the county has no money to build a library in Stevenson Ranch. As for a “forumula,” if you will — I would suggest that you call someone at city hall and ask for a copy of the studies & surveys that were done while the Newhall Library planning was in the works. (Remember all those meetings that were held a couple of years ago for Newhall Library planning? They were quite well attended, as working meetings go.)
  51. Berta González-HarperNovember 26, 2010 at 10:32 pm
    @ND too narrow here please see new thread for answer.
  52. whateverNovember 25, 2010 at 11:35 pm
    The city wants to provide the same level of services currently offered by LA County Library (i.e., interlibrary book loaning). In order to do that they need to be part of the Southern California Library Cooperative which is funded in part by the State. To join, one of the stipulations is that any CA resident can get a library card at any library that is part of the cooperative. So really this unincorporated/incorporated issue is moot. If Santa Clarita becomes part of the cooperative, it will allow full borrowing access to any CA resident who wants to have a Santa Clarita library card. If Santa Clarita doesnt become part of the cooperative, they’ll be stuck with the selection of books at their 3 libraries which means there will be 50 copies of Twilight after LSSI optimizes the book selection
  53. Leon WordenNovember 26, 2010 at 8:00 pm
    Whatever — right. The question from people in this forum, as I understand it is, OK, out-of-towners can use the libraries if (when) the city joins the cooperative, but will out-of-towners have to pay a fee? I could be wrong, but I believe the answer is yet to be determined.
  54. DonRickettsNovember 26, 2010 at 8:58 am
    So we blog on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
  55. Lori RivasNovember 28, 2010 at 8:00 pm
    Love _The Great Gatsby._
  56. Leon WordenNovember 26, 2010 at 9:52 am
    ALL CRACKED UP Here is a taste of county Librarian Margaret Todd’s report to the Board of Supervisors this coming Tuesday: “Over the next 10 years, the Public Library will experience a $22 million annual structural deficit if immediate measures are not taken. “In the past 3 years, declines in the Public Library’s operating revenues caused by the recession had a significant impact on the budget. Budget balancing measures have included, but were not limited to, reductions in service hours, consolidation or suspension of programs, curtailment of spending for books and materials, and a 30% reduction in part-time staff hours. “Despite these measures, the gap between operating revenues and operating costs will continue to increase even as the economy slowly recovers. Even with increasing efficiencies, the Public Library will need to increase revenues to simply maintain adequate service levels.” Note to Don Ricketts: I rest my case.
  57. Daddy Joe GNovember 26, 2010 at 11:52 am
    I see it now. The solution is clearly to counter the county’s problems by giving up 95% of the library assets and taking on 600% of the cost. It’s so simple, I should have seen it long ago.
  58. Berta González-HarperNovember 26, 2010 at 11:53 am
    Hi Leon. Much of what you are saying I have also said many times on this blog. The bottom line here is what I have also said many times, those who are opposed would have been opposed no matter how many meetings, committees, etc. Those who support the decision would still support no matter how many meetings, committees, etc. Those of us who have listened to the dialogue from the county, paid attention for many years, done our own due diligence, and do not oppose everything simply because it involves city hall are ridiculed and insulted as being incapable of making independent decisions. Yet some of these folks crying foul come up with their own math figures, indicate that they represent a whole group of folks they do not, ask the same questions over and over and yet refuse the truthful answers time and time again. If Diana Hanashiro asks one more time why Calabasas left the county system, I am making a placard that says, “Calabasas ALWAYS planned to bring Library services in house”. I mean come on already! Interesting that she does not mention the City of Camarillo that recently left the county system and hired LSSI. When you refuse the answer because it does not conform to what you want to hear, I believe there is a problem. How many more times do all of you want the same questions answered? How many more times must you be told some things are part of the separation negotiations and not available to make public at this time. Thanks for trying Leon because frankly I am tired of trying to explain things to people who do not really want any explanations; they just want to be indignant and “right” no matter what. Their anger should righteously be directed at the county for all the shenanigans going back many years and their recent actions regarding the Canyon Country Library build out. I was a very vocal supporter of Mike Antonovich and the County of Los Angeles for many years. The Canyon Country Library issue has really changed how I view this relationship, and not for the better either. In closing, in MHO some of these critics would have more credibility if they did not oppose everything the City proposes or have conspiracy theories about anything involving city hall. I do not believe those few loud anti city critics represent the majority of the residents of this city.
  59. Leon WordenNovember 26, 2010 at 12:21 pm
    Hello Berta! I appreciate your tenacity and understand your frustration. (And I appreciate the fact that you actually stand by your opinions by putting your name to them.) I think the idea — to paraphrase, “how many times must I repeat myself?” — is interesting. I’ve never been one for repeating myself. But I’ve come to believe that this is wrong of me. I am starting to think there is no such thing as “too much” communication. You know, I’ve been the editor of The Signal, and I run SCVTV — and still I’ve never been able to reach enough people to my own satisfaction. (It’s not just me; nobody else in the local media reaches enough people, effectively enough to my satisfaction, either.) Whatever the topic, I wish there were some sort of a magic bullet that would make people hear the information we’re trying to convey. Here’s what I mean. How long has OVOV been discussed? I remember it was supposed to be approved around 1999, so more than a decade. Well did you catch that planning commission meeting just a couple of weeks ago, where a guy who said he has lived in the unincorporated SCV forever stormed city hall because he just heard about this OVOV thing? You might wonder, what rock has this guy been living under? But that would be wrong. Go to the mall. Ask people at the mall what OVOV is. Ask them who the mayor is. Hell, ask them what city they live in. Just the other week, I was talking to a high school class and I asked them what city they live in. To a person, they said Valencia. At least they didn’t say Awesometown. Repetition is the key. I know it can be frustrating — and it can be EXTREMELY difficult to hide your frustration. Don’t give up. There’s simply no such thing as “too much information,” or saying it too many times. Because people aren’t listening. Like I’ve said, people hear what they want to hear, when they want to hear it. That’s why, like the guy who just heard of OVOV, they freak out when they first hear of something and perceive that their ox is being gored. They haven’t got the background information. Is it their fault that they weren’t listening? Or is it our fault for not conveying the message effectively enough? I can’t do anything about the former. I can only try to do something about the latter.
  60. Berta González-HarperNovember 26, 2010 at 12:59 pm
    @Leon, very well said. Thank you. I will try to ignore the insults, continue to challenge the misinformation, keep up the good fight and my frustration at bay…
  61. RemStarNovember 27, 2010 at 10:05 am
    Leon, this group is so heavily invested in the city library being a disaster and in their own predictions of doom coming true there is no way they will ever agree it was a good idea to leave the county library. The county library cut days (not hours, entire days) at over half of their libraries ( http://www.colapublib.org/events/releases/nReleases.php4?rNum=307 ), but Pamela Broussard, public (mis)information officer for the county library swept this under the carpet last month in her column in The Signal, stating “belt-tightening required a reduction in hours at some community libraries” ( http://www.the-signal.com/section/33/article/35499/ ). By Broussard’s characterization, reducing days at anything less than all library branches is simply a reduction in day at “some” library branches. But even after closing libraries on more days, cutting back on maintenance, cutting back on staffing and cutting back on library materials, the county library still faces annual deficits of $22 million. Add in the $8 million of one-time money they’ll yield from the divorse estimated by city staff and the deficit is cut for a single year to $14 million, but it’s back up to $22 million the year after. What were those fools at city hall thinking? Why didn’t they stay so they could get a piece of that negative action? And no wonder why the county librarian said she’d never add staff/service to the new library in Newhall. But don’t try to get the folks on this site to reconcile with that.
  62. Leon WordenNovember 27, 2010 at 11:02 am
    Rem- People ought to be frightened when a county department head — not some random county employee, but a county department head — tells the people of Santa Clarita there aren’t any “cracks” in her system, then tells the Supervisors that they aren’t “cracks” but rather a vast, $22 million chasm to the center of the Earth. People ought to be annoyed when a county department head writes a letter to The Signal in which she uses funky math to claim that she spends city residents’ money here — and commits a gross “lie by omission” by failing to mention that her department sucks $2 million *per year* out of this valley from our unincorporated taxpayers. People ought to be embarrassed for our fine Supervisor Mike Antonovich when a county department head wages war on one of his cities — e.g., closing the CC Library, trying to cut off the city’s library tax dollars — rather than fulfilling her responsibility to ensure an orderly transition of library services. How many MICROSECONDS would it take the Santa Clarita City Council to order its city manager to fire a city department head who behaved in this manner?
  63. Coastal SageNovember 26, 2010 at 5:24 pm
    I have to admit that I didn’t read all of the rhetoric above, for two simple reasons: (1) Figures can lie, and liars can figure. (2) I don’t believe in crying over spilled milk. Under Education Code Section 19116, the city had the right to secede from the county library system. The fracas over the library withdrawal is because of the city staff’s engineering the secession so that no public input was obtained, and because there was no meaningful public discussion by the Council members before they took their vote. As Leon well knows, the City Manager Ken Pulskamp has far more power than the City Council members. Pulskamp’s mentor, George Caravalho, was a master manipulator, operating 99% of the time through his assistants and rarely saying anything in public. One rarely saw George’s signature on a piece of paper. I’ve noticed Pulskamp operates the same way. The only relevant reality, now, is that: (A) The 3 libraries being taken over by the city will produce a regular library tax cash flow into the city’s balance sheet. Under Education Code Section 19116, the only thing that cash flow can be used for is to “maintain library services”. Not to repay the city for loans to its redevelopment agency. Not to build buildings. Not to finance land purchases. The California Courts of Appeal are very big on enforcing the plain English wording of legislation. The Courts of Appeal get very testy when local government agency employees do not do what the Legislature expressly says. “Maintain” and “services” have a specific meaning in English, which are 100% inconsistent with any use of the regular library tax cash flow to “maintain library services”. (B) At the most recent City Council meeting, Ken Pulskamp refused to answer Cam Noltemeyer’s straight forward question. Cam says she repeatedly asked Pulskamp whether the city had closed and obtained the money from the city’s library-related certificate of participation deal. Pulskamp refused to answer the question. That refusal to answer a straight forward question is very telling. Cam knows, and Pulskamp knows, that the proper terms she used are “municipal finance” industry jargon for the city borrowing money, based upon the lender’s relying on the regular library tax cash flow as the source of repayment of the loan. (Below, I will use plain English, not municipal finance jargon which that industry and sophisticated city employees rely upon so that civilians don’t understand what is going on.) (C) Cam is not just imagining the existence or potential existence of such a Certificate of Participation transaction, aka the city borrowing money based upon library tax cash flow. Darren Hernandez’s staff report, for the August 24, 2010 City Council meeting, said that the city could use the library tax cash flow to obtain approximately $25 Million, to replenish the city’s General Fund. Pulskamp understood what that meant. Hernandez understood what that meant. Cam understood what that meant. Who knows what the City Council members understood? What the city is going to use the borrowed money for is the question for the coming weeks, not crying over spilled milk (aka whether the county historically ripped off the city or not). Darren Hernandez has made it clear that $8 Million of the borrowed money will be used to buy the libraries and to pay for the Canyon Country Library renovation. It’s a legitimate question for any member of the public interested in the libraries to ask: “What is the city going to use the other $17 Million for?” (C) In 1997, the Board of Supervisors put the County library special tax on the ballot, seeking the voters approval. The Board of Supervisors resolution recites two things: (1) Proposition 218 mandated the election, even though the county had been collecting the library special tax for several years. (2) If a city seceded from the county library system, the county would stop collecting the library special tax from the city’s residents. As previously discussed ad nauseum, the city staff does not want to acknowledge that the county can no longer legally collect that tax from city residents after 7/1/11, based upon the text of the Board of Supervisors own resolution. The interesting and really puzzling question is why the city staff members who are not lawyers keep saying they will not put a replacement library special tax on a city ballot. It’s only $28 per year, or so. As a result, why are the city employees afraid to put a city library tax on a city election ballot? That is a legitimate question for city residents to be discussing now. Not crying over spilled milk, or caring whether the county ripped off the city in the past. (D) The library related resolution the City Council passed in August, concerning the county library withdrawal, is so broad that the city staff could interpret it to mean whatever Pulskamp, as City Manager, thinks it means. A city employee has already signed a contract with LSSI, without bringing it back to the City Council for review and approval, let alone any public comment on the contract’s deal terms. There has been little discussion of what is in that contract, and what is missing from it in terms of guarantees of quality library services. The content of the LSSI contract is a relevant issue now. However, theoretically, thanks to the wording of the LSSI contract, if this new library advisory committee of 37, or the City Council, decide they are unhappy with how LSSI is managing the libraries, Frank Pezzanite, the CEO of LSSI can simply say “Vaffanculo”. The text in the LSSI contract, and what is missing from the LSSI contract, signed by a city staffer, without any City Council public discussion of its deal terms is a relevant issue now, not more crying over spilled milk. To recap the 4 relevant questions for public discussion at this point in time: (A) Will the library regular taxes received by the city be used to “maintain library services” and nothing else? (B) What will the $25 Million or so borrowed by the city, based on the library regular taxes cash flow, be used for? (C) Should the city staff and City Council be afraid to put a city library special tax on the ballot? Would such a city library special tax be passed by 2/3rds of the voters? (D) What is the City of Santa Clarita going to do if library users are unhappy with the library services provided by LSSI?
  64. Coastal SageNovember 26, 2010 at 5:55 pm
    Wordo: Consistent not inconsistent ““Maintain” and “services” have a specific meaning in English, which are 100% consistent with any use of the regular library tax cash flow to “maintain library services”.” Too many grandchilden swarming, let alone son and nephew (both black belts) engaging in a mixed martial arts fight in the family room. Oh the joys of family!
  65. Leon WordenNovember 26, 2010 at 6:05 pm
    Much to read, Coast, and I’ll admit I skimmed it, but the most relevant part of the whole discussion is the part that I don’t think you mentioned. It’s the part in this coming Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors agenda from Margaret Todd, Chief Liar of the grossly mismanaged Los Angeles County Public Library System: (Yes, friends, any government bureaucrat who DENIES that the sky is falling in one breath and then SCREAMS that the sky is falling in the next breath is a liar of the worst sort): $25 MILLION *ANNUAL* STRUCTURAL DEFICIT. The Los Angeles County Public Library System was established in 1913. It took less than 100 years for someone to come along and destroy it. If anyone in Santa Clarita EVER mismanaged an agency so horribly, you-all would be calling for their head on a plate. Five words for our Supervisors, to get our county library system out of this mess: FIRE MARGARET TODD. HIRE LSSI.
  66. Leon WordenNovember 26, 2010 at 6:47 pm
    Correction: That should say $22 million, not $25 million. Suppose she’ll come after Santa Clarita now for the missing $3 million?
  67. Berta González-HarperNovember 26, 2010 at 8:33 pm
    @J, if we are unhappy with how LSSI is managing the libraries, or Frank Pezzanite, the CEO of LSSI says “Vaffanculo”(basically up yours), we, the City of Santa Clarita, simply say “Più non lavorate per noi!” In English, “You no longer work for us!” Finito….
  68. IHeartSCVNovember 26, 2010 at 9:55 pm
    The 5-year contract says otherwise.
  69. Leon WordenNovember 26, 2010 at 10:07 pm
    There are performance requirements in the contract.
  70. Berta González-HarperNovember 26, 2010 at 10:21 pm
    @IHeart I have not read the contract yet but I am positive it has performance benchmarks that must be met to be in contract compliance. Telling your employer to stick it up their a$$ does not count towards great customer satisfaction!
  71. Leon WordenNovember 26, 2010 at 10:34 pm
    Berta & Heart(?)– “… City will continuously monitor consultant’s [LSSI's] services. City will notify consultant of any deficiencies in meeting the requirements of this agreement and consultant will have thirty (30) days after such notification to cure any shortcomings to city’s satisfaction. Costs associated with curing the deficiencies will be borne by consultant.” … “City may terminate this agreement *with* [emphasis added] cause at any time after consultant fails to cure such cause upon thirty (30) days prior wirtten notice. City may terminate this agreement *without* [emphasis added] cause with one hundred eighty (180) days written notice prior to end of city’s fiscal year, given after June 30, 2012. “Upon receiving a termination notice, consultant will immediately cease performance under this agreement unless otherwise provided in the termination notice…” etc. Also of note: “Consultant agrees to comply with all federal, state and local laws applicable to this agreement. This obligation includes, but is not limited to, compliance with the requirements of the California Public Records Act and the right to privacy of library patrons with respect to the confidentiality and non-disclosure of registration, identification data, borrowing history, circulation records, electronic database information, computer usage, computer searches or other records relating to library patrons. Consultant shall limit access to such records to those persons acting within the scope of their duties within the administration of the Santa Clarita library facilities.” Also, the boilerplate language specifying that all Work product is property of the city. Also of note: The County uses and outside vendor to service its database that contains library patrons’ information. The same thing that prohibits LSSI from exploiting confidential data also prohibits the software vendor from exploiting the county data when its private-sector employees come in and service the system. Namely, the law.
  72. Berta González-HarperNovember 26, 2010 at 10:52 pm
    @Leon thanks for the contract with LSSI verbiage. I knew there would be appropriate protection for service levels under the contract. Also interesting to note the privacy protections etc. Despite Coastal Sage’s comments, I really do not anticipate Mr. Pezzanite or anyone else from LSSI telling a paying client to shove it anyway in these challenging economic times. I also keep hearing all the statements about the city being prohibited from making negative comments about LSSI if there are any problems. Even if that were true which I doubt, what pray tell would prohibit me or anyone else not bound by the contract terms from proclaiming lousy service etc from the rooftops were it to occur. Another bogus argument!
  73. Leon WordenNovember 26, 2010 at 11:01 pm
    You’re right. You will also not hear the city say that Margaret Todd should apologize to the people of Santa Clarita for lying to them and trying to cut off their library funds, and resign from office for gross malfeasance. (To wit, she’s got a fiduciary responsibility to the people of Los Angeles County — including its incorporated residents — to run her operation ON BUDGET and not $22 million PER YEAR in the red as if she were a Washington or Sacramento politician.) But there is nothing stopping ME from shouting it from the highest rooftop.
  74. IHeartSCVNovember 27, 2010 at 7:43 am
    “Telling your employer to stick it up their a$$ does not count towards great customer satisfaction!” Well, that’s what the City told the public (in not so many words) at the City Council meeting. And regarding the legal language, so what? Do you really think LSSI would give up a $19M contract without an expensive legal fight? I was simply making the point that it’s a hell of a lot easier for the City to break off with the County than it will be for them to break off from LSSI. It’s only the County they can leave on a whim.
  75. IHeartSCVNovember 27, 2010 at 7:53 am
    And there’s the “without cause” bit, but that’s still all but a guaranteed year-and-a-half on the job. And since LSSI is pretty much the only option–the City has showed no interest in having its staff run libraries, which would obviously eliminate the cost savings associated with having non-governmental employees–where exactly would they turn instead? Also, regarding the language that they will “comply with all laws”–LOL, how comforting.
  76. RemStarNovember 27, 2010 at 9:36 am
    The “conformance with all laws” language contained in most contracts is really superfluous. Because all parties must comply with all applical laws, there really is no for language to bind both parties to the law. You are seeking comfort where comfort (the law) already provides comfort.
  77. RemStarNovember 27, 2010 at 9:43 am
    It’s naive to suggest that a company whose sole revenue is contracts with cities and counties would pursue litigation to preserve a contract. Win or lose, the company would be blackballed and would never get another public contract. In reality such a company would rather end the contract quietly. Also, 180 days notice “without cause” is less notice than the city had to give the county.
  78. Berta González-HarperNovember 26, 2010 at 10:33 pm
    @ND I am sure I posted this some time ago but here goes again and I hope this answers your question: The service area of the new Newhall Library is both Newhall and the southern half of Valencia. Based on our population, we should have at least 89,000 square feet of library space (1/2 square foot per capita, based on a population of 178,000). With the “new” Newhall Library, we will still be short of that goal by 19,000 square feet.
  79. Bill ReynoldsNovember 26, 2010 at 10:49 pm
    I have used COC’s library… it’s pretty good.
  80. EricNovember 27, 2010 at 2:56 pm
    So in a nutshell…The city has the money to build the new library and they found a way to operate all 3 branches with the available tax revenue. While uncertain whether the city can collect the $1.4M in special taxes, Darren Hernandez has affirmed that even without those funds, we have sufficient tax revenue to meet our obligations. We’re getting more parking at the Valencia branch and longer hours at all 3 branches. Some uncertainty still exists about protocols for inter-library borrowing, but the city has assured us that if certain materials are unavailable they will purchase them with the enhanced budget for books/materials. Lori Ender even hinted that we will have on- demand book printing machines (interesting technology, see ondemandbooks.com). No additional fees or taxes for city residents and the residents outside the city can use the libraries for at least 5 years with the same privileges as city residents. Worst case scenario, I get my books from the county for pick up at Castaic. Do I have this right?
  81. Leon WordenNovember 27, 2010 at 3:15 pm
    Hi Eric! Right … except that I do not know the details of the CC Library agreement. (Don’t know if it applies to all SCV residents or just some segment of the population that uses the CC Library. That’s a question for Darren Hernandez.) Meanwhile, the county librarian is asking the supervisors to place a measure on the county ballot to raise library taxes, while running a $22 million *annual* deficit that has forced cutbacks to county library service. Santa Clarita taxpayers won’t see an increase in taxes — and might even end up paying less — while the city increases the number of books by 100,000, adds hours, and fills a greatly expanded library with additional staff and services. So, in a nutshell: County – Pay more, get less. City – Pay less, get more.
  82. EricNovember 27, 2010 at 4:06 pm
    So, going back to my first post, this controversy has more to do with how the council presented this proposal, i.e., essentially ramming it through. After eliminating term limits for commissioners against the will of the people, after increasing limits on campaign donations against the will of the people, they pass this proposal without support of the people. So even if this is a good idea (and I suspect it is), there is a chasm of distrust at the root of this current debacle.
  83. Leon WordenNovember 27, 2010 at 5:07 pm
    Essentially yes. It is an extremely close-knit group of people who are both aware of, and legitimately opposed to, the council’s decisions about term and campaign contribution limits. Now, a number of people in this blog will latch on to my characterization of them as an “extremely close-knit group,” but what I mean is that 99 percent of the Santa Clarita Valley is likely not aware of those council decisions, and thus is not opposed to them — and they have no predisposition to distrust the council. In fact, I would use the “mall” scenario. Survey people at the mall and ask them what city they live in; then ask them what they think of their city council. More realistically and appropriately, ask them how they like living in Santa Clarita. Most will not be opposed. The trouble in the case of libraries is that this (here I go again) close-knit group of distrusting people were predisposed to disbelieve the city (staff or council) on the subject of libraries, and they spread their anti-city-library message far and wide. As a result, the people at the mall might not know what city the live in, but they may well have heard that the city is going to destroy their libraries.
  84. Leon WordenNovember 27, 2010 at 5:19 pm
    Oh and by way of disclosure, as you may know I am one of those commissioners whose term was extended. You are more than welcome to distrust anything I say — but I stand by it.
  85. JeffNovember 27, 2010 at 6:00 pm
    Leon: “The trouble in the case of libraries is that this (here I go again) close-knit group of distrusting people were predisposed to disbelieve the city (staff or council) on the subject of libraries, and they spread their anti-city-library message far and wide.” I’ve been accused of a lot of things on this blog, primary among them that I’m a City fan, that I favor the city in my blog posts more than I should. I’ve even been called a lackey and a foot soldier of the City. So don’t give me that line of bull. I’m predisposed to believe the City of Santa Clarita is well-run and fiscally responsible, that its staff is professional, responsive and sharp. And yet even with my predisposition, what the City did with the libraries offended me. They hatched & executed this idea that affects everyone who uses the libraries in less than 90 days. Zero outreach to actual library users or homeschooling parents. They tossed up a slick and misleading website virtually overnight, timed to Laurie Ender’s wish for the item to be placed on the agenda. They pretended they were going to consider three options; well we now know they were talking to LSSI way before the Council meeting. They asked leading questions to staff members on 8/24 and ignored the hundreds of people who came to protest the move. They promised respect to the librarians and employees even as they hired a company whose CEO has nothing but contempt for public employees. And so we see the result of their haste and contempt for the public. For the last two months they’ve stumbled through unexpected obstacles: the closure of Canyon Country, the lawsuits, the letters to the editor, entire new groups of people becoming aware and getting involved because they love their libraries as they are. They chose to do this and now we see the result. And you have the gall to claim the City is the victim in all this? You know what else? Those who participate in a democracy get to have the final say. So I could give two shits what the uninformed and apathetic think. They choose not to have a say. Those of us who do take the time to care and think about our community should be listened to first and foremost. And when we’re not listened to, we are allowed to address our grievances through the courts. That’s Democracy. If the City had been a bit more democratic in its desire to privatize the library system, if they had treated the libraries as something treasured and valued by the community rather than one more thing to optimize and make money off of, they could have avoided much of this resistance, as I have stated again and again since July.
  86. Leon WordenNovember 27, 2010 at 6:04 pm
    (1) I’m one of those people who actually enjoys it when people take the time to find out what’s going on around them. (2) The city’s library website went live in September 2009, initially to show the progress on the Newhall Library construction.
  87. Leon WordenNovember 27, 2010 at 6:20 pm
    Jeff – Put simply, the will of the voters should have been upheld in 1976 and 1978. Until it is finally enforced, there will be no peace. If we have to do it bit by bit, so be it. This time it’s libraries. Next time it will be something else. We’ll get there in the end.
  88. JeffNovember 27, 2010 at 6:23 pm
    Police & Fire are the only things left, aren’t they?
  89. Leon WordenNovember 27, 2010 at 6:27 pm
    No. What’s left is full local self-determination, where we are not subjected to the whim of four supervisors whom we don’t elect, who do not represent us, and who see us as nothing more than a source of revenue.
  90. JeffNovember 27, 2010 at 6:40 pm
    ” where we are not subjected to the whim of four supervisors whom we don’t elect” Well that too is a peril of representative democracy. There’s a whole lot of elected officials who do not represent me either, but that’s part of the system. I wonder if the library takeover was a dry run for the police. That would seem to be the next logical move in the grand arc of SCV history.
  91. Daddy Joe GNovember 27, 2010 at 6:41 pm
    As opposed to four council persons whom we do elect, who do not represent us, and who see us as nothing more than a source of revenue.
  92. Leon WordenNovember 27, 2010 at 6:56 pm
    Jeff – The difference locally is that we have, should have, will have, the power to change the system. As for police, I have no opinion. I suggested going our own way vis-a-vis police in 1988 (there were specific problems with our police service at that time, and they were subsequently fixed.) I was probably about 3 decades premature. Maybe in another decade or so — if there is good reason to change our police service at that time. Daddy – We do not elect 4 of 5 county supervisors. We elect 5 of 5 city council members, and as long as we don’t make the mistake of electing by district, we would elect 5 of 5 SCV supervisors. (There’s a difference between not liking 4 council members, and not having the right to vote for or against them.) As for libraries, perhaps you can see why I’m dumbfounded by the notion that this decision was “rushed.” The seeds for this decision were sown in 1976. My only question to the city is: What the hell took you 23 years? (Note: That is not a rhetorical question. There might be a perfectly good explanation. I don’t know when the state law was changed to ease the transition of library services in L.A. and Riverside counties.)
  93. Daddy Joe GNovember 27, 2010 at 7:48 pm
    Laurie Ender got it right last Tuesday evening. 95% of the library users, including me, do not care who owns the libararies, they only care about getting thier books. If I can get my books at the Newhall library, I will, not because it is owned by the city, but because it is closest. If I have to go to Stevenson Ranch, I will, not because it’s owned by the county, but because I couldn’t get what I wanted in Newhall. It’s just a city, not a prison.
  94. IHeartSCVNovember 27, 2010 at 7:54 pm
    Answer to your non-rhetorical question: It took 23 years because nobody was complaining about the libraries the way they were. LSSI sprung up as a solution in want of a problem. Despite the “cracks forming”, there were no cuts in local service hours, the collection continued to grow, and everyone was happy. We can argue about whether service *would* have diminished in light of funding shortfalls, but that’s moot now.
  95. Berta González-HarperNovember 27, 2010 at 8:21 pm
    @IHeart you are incorrect that people did not complain. I am among many Canyon Country residents who complained over twelve years ago that our library was too small, old, depressing, and parking deficient. The County did not give a poop and claimed that they had no money for a new facility so THE CITY STEPPED IN AND BUILT IT for us, not the County even though they had been collecting funds for years. Even back then, many of us questioned what the County was doing with OUR money and where it was going instead of being spent here. Well before this latest Canyon Country library closure/hostage situation, OUR Canyon Country branch library was open fewer hours than the Valencia branch even though WE are the largest and most populated of the communities out here. WE have not been getting our money’s worth for a long time. You can disagree all you want but those are the FACTS.
  96. Leon WordenNovember 27, 2010 at 8:43 pm
    Berta – you just reminded me that I hosted a show with the CITY AND COUNTY library consultant two or three years ago, before all of this started, where she spent a half-hour making the point that the Newhall library was too small and antiquated to serve the population.
  97. Berta González-HarperNovember 27, 2010 at 8:57 pm
    @Leon did she ever say that the COUNTY would pay to build a bigger, better one in Newhall or mention that residents of unincorporated Los Angeles County use all three of our library branches too or that the County has saved a boatload of our money to use somewhere else by NOT building libraries here. I am betting the answer is NO!
  98. Leon WordenNovember 27, 2010 at 9:04 pm
    see new thread
  99. RemStarNovember 27, 2010 at 9:18 pm
    “… if they had treated the libraries as something treasured and valued by the community …” It seem that investing $5 million in 2000 to build the Canyon Country Library and $25 in 2010 to build the Newhall Library shows that the city council does treat the libraries as something treasured and valued. By the way, it’s ironic that you posted the video ridiculing Marsha McLean at the same time the county librarian made public a report on the dire financial situation (aka “cracking”) of the county library. Ooooops!
  100. Leon WordenNovember 27, 2010 at 9:20 pm
    Rem – Henceforth, “THE” Marsha McLean.
  101. RemStarNovember 27, 2010 at 9:51 pm
    Right. Sorry. “The Marsha McLean.” “Cracks forming.” You know, it’s kind of hard to believe a grown man invested time and effort in putting together something so petty, only to find out the day after it’s posted that Marsha knew what she was talking about. Little by little, all that’s left to complain about is that they just don’t like the way the issue was handled. You know, Captain Sullenberger should have taken more time, done more outreach, and maybe even put the issue to a vote of the passengers, before he decided to land Flight 1549 in the Hudson river….
  102. JeffNovember 27, 2010 at 10:08 pm
    “You know, it’s kind of hard to believe a grown man invested time and effort in putting together something so petty, only to find out the day after it’s posted that Marsha knew what she was talking about.” The only thing worst than a grown man investing time and effort in videos like this is a grown man investing time and effort to bitch about videos like this after he’s consumed them. If you don’t like what’s on the site, click the little X up in the corner. Oh and your comparison of the City takeover of the library with Sully’s heroics on the Hudson? Thanks for the laugh.
  103. Leon WordenNovember 27, 2010 at 9:16 pm
    Berta – No. The city & county library consultant I’m referring to wasn’t talking politics. She was merely talking about the need & plans for the Newhall library. She wasn’t the right authority figure to discuss financing. But, Berta — DUH! I just had a revelation. Hit me upside the head. *NOW* I get it. *NOW* I get why people in this blog and elsewhere haven’t heard the community outcry for more library service. I mean, how can I be hearing one thing, and so many other people aren’t hearing it? Because. What are the two primary beneficiary users of the future Newhall library? (1) Newhall’s senior community; and (2) Newhall’s 50-percent-plus Latino community. Jeez, you’d think I’d have figured it out before this. These demographic groups respond to city & school district surveys (people who claim to have a “heart” should read them) but are not prone to spouting off in places like SCVTalk — or anywhere else, for that matter. Someone in this blog suggested that we shouldn’t care what people think if they don’t vote. Well I’m here to tell you that is WRONG. Absolutely we should try to increase civic involvement. Absolutely we should encourage people to participate. But we have a civic responsibility to care about people who do not participate in the political process, whether old, young, black, white, English- or non-English speaking. People who only read The Signal or this blog or other general media aren’t necessarily getting the full picture — and they aren’t hearing the same things the city is hearing because they aren’t listening in all of the right places. Friends, you can disagree with me on the subject of caring about our fellow SCV residents regardless of race, creed, color, language, sexual orientation, religion and so forth — but I’m afraid we will have to agree to disagree.
  104. NickelDimeNovember 27, 2010 at 9:22 pm
    Leon, Congratulations – you have birthed “Enlightened Ender Math.” We should all celebrate quietly, stay home at the next CC meeting and turn off SCVTV.
  105. JeffNovember 27, 2010 at 10:22 pm
    +++ Yes. Exactly. In Leon and Berta’s world, the problem with Santa Clarita is us, the ones who are involved and pay attention. It works out like this on any given issue: 1. Claim that the people who are involved and pay attention are stupid, uninformed, or chronic naysayers and City haters (Group A) 2. Claim that the people who don’t get involved tacitly approve of everything the city does (Group B) (with zero proof) 3. Propose Issue X , claim you represent the people from Group B and play off the two groups above against each other 4. Profit! It’s a beautiful system. All you have to do if you’re a council member is motion generally in Santa Clarita’s direction while saying, “I represent the ones who aren’t here.”
  106. Berta González-HarperNovember 27, 2010 at 10:34 pm
    @Jeff not worthy of a response.
  107. JeffNovember 27, 2010 at 11:03 pm
    Actually I think you proved my point just minutes before you posted this. You did exactly what I described with this sentence: so you and Jeff truly believe that those people who show up to protest the decision to change from a County run library to a City run library wearing their SEIU provided red t-shirts speak on behalf of the entire citizenry? You guys are entitled to believe whatever you want. There are many people who do not attend meetings, write letters to the editor or post on this blog that have more faith in the City doing an excellent job to protect our interests than in the County. You 1) asserted many who were against this in the meeting was associated with SEIU, 2) asserted that the many people who don’t attend meetings have faith in the City and 3) claimed a mandate on behalf of those people. You offer no proof for any of this, you just assert it. Thanks for proving my point!
  108. Berta González-HarperNovember 27, 2010 at 10:31 pm
    @ND so you and Jeff truly believe that those people who show up to protest the decision to change from a County run library to a City run library wearing their SEIU provided red t-shirts speak on behalf of the entire citizenry? You guys are entitled to believe whatever you want. There are many people who do not attend meetings, write letters to the editor or post on this blog that have more faith in the City doing an excellent job to protect our interests than in the County. Living within the City of Santa Clarita happens to be VOLUNTARY, no one is forced to move here unless you count Wayside and that is outside city limits. Many of us prefer local government rather than being governed by those who are not accountable to us or dependant upon our vote(s) to retain their power. Please answer just one question for me. If you believe Margaret Todd when she says that the City of Santa Clarita is not a donor city of surplus money into the COLA library system but in fact a drain on the COLA library system then why would she not be THRILLED to get rid of us when she has a 22 million dollar PER YEAR deficit?
  109. JeffNovember 27, 2010 at 10:58 pm
    Todd isn’t here and I’m not going to speak to her. In some years we were a surplus city, in other years we were a drain on the system. It all equals out in the end: every COLA patron has access to every other COLA library’s assets -7 million of them in fact- and it’s all easy to understand and use. The argument from the City that we were blowing $400k more a year into COLA than we got out didn’t resonate with me for precisely this reason. Now we will have to jump through hoops to get equivalent access. You keep painting Todd as a villain, yet she’s the only one in this entire debate who is actually a librarian. Who’s the person on the city side with the equivalent knowledge, skills and abilities? Why should I trust Hernandez and Pulskamp and Striplin on libraries more than a real librarian?
  110. Daddy Joe GNovember 28, 2010 at 8:38 am
    Who says Todd is not thrilled? The county has done nothing to try and prevent the city takeover of the libraries. It’s more like they are afraid they might say something that would make the city change its mind. The demand for library sevices is, as is the demand for most things, shifting away from brick and mortor and toward the internet. By withdrawing from the county system, the city is helping the county to bring its library system into the 21st century.
  111. Lori RivasNovember 28, 2010 at 7:48 pm
    “Living within the City of Santa Clarita happens to be VOLUNTARY, no one is forced to move here…” Not sure what you mean by this, Berta. It seems like you are saying that if one does not agree with the way things are being run, then said person can move away from SCV, and live in a place more “agreeable.” Democracy is based on a melding of different, often opposing, viewpoints. A dictatorship is based on “my way or the highway.” Woe to any American who does not feel the freedom and responsibility to state his/her opinion, and to rally support for his/her vision.
  112. IHeartSCVNovember 27, 2010 at 10:50 pm
    Leon, thank you for your assumption of my ignorance about Newhall, but I spent the better part of my childhood on Chestnut Street and return there often to visit my grandparents. Curiously, they are part of “Newhall’s senior community,” who you say will be primary beneficiaries, yet they think the library takeover is dumb–everything from spending $117,000 to redo the facade design to imagining that the new library will attract big spenders from Stevenson Ranch. Says Grandma “It’s still Newhall.”
  113. IHeartSCVNovember 27, 2010 at 10:56 pm
    There I conflated the library takeover with the building of the new Newhall libary. To clarify, the grands think both are dumb. Whereas you see the County as responsible for most of Clarita’s ills, they–and many of their “old-timer” friends–see the City as responsible for most post-incorporation problems.
  114. JeffNovember 27, 2010 at 11:10 pm
    Leon: Ironically, the thing that would empower Latinos in the SCV (District-based council seats) is the very thing you just said you hoped would never happen here. Check out what happened in Port Chester NY just two years ago. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/nyregion/23discriminate.html
  115. Lori RivasNovember 28, 2010 at 7:40 pm
    I just so happen to live in Newhall, and am part of the Hispanic community. My kids have taken classes at the community center since it was a storefront on Main Street, I used to work for the SCV Pregnancy Center as its only Spanish speaker, I taught as a substitute in the Newhall Elementary School District as a bilingual teacher, etc., etc. I have never, ever, EVER heard one single Hispanic resident complain about the library. As a matter of fact, I know Spanish-speakers who drive across the valley to borrow books from the Newhall library, passing up Valencia along the way. Always good things said about the libraries, and about the Newhall library, in particular. I have never seen a library survey directed at my neighborhood, or posted at the Community Center. And, you are right, I would have responded, had I seen such a survey. So, is there some City data regarding the Hispanic community and the libraries? I’d be interested in what the data says, and how it was collected. As far as Hispanics not “spouting off” here or in other media, I would further challenge that the City doesn’t particularly care what the Hispanic community thinks. Again, how has their opinion been sought? *I* was the one who translated the city library committee application into Spanish. *I* was the one who offered interpretive services, if a Spanish speaker were chosen for the committee. Show me just one instance of the City trying to gather an opinion or participation from the Hispanic community. As a matter of fact, one could easily argue that the whole gentrification of downtown Newhall is designed to “clean out the riffraff” of the predominantly poor and Hispanic neighborhoods. Plus, I distinctly remember when Laurie Ender was running for City Council in 2008, she came to my door, to solicit my vote. She plugged the new library (the first I had heard of it), was very anti-immigrant, and would not engage in viable solutions to what she viewed as “problems.” Her campaign website plugged her “top concern” as illegal immigration. So, please forgive me if I have a difficult time believing that the City is looking to serve the Hispanic community with the new Newhall library. I will be very surprised if there remains a sizable Spanish section of books and materials at the new facility.
  116. Leon WordenNovember 28, 2010 at 7:50 pm
    Lori – prepare to be surprised — and be sure to tell the library committee what you want to see in the Newhall library — and in the meantime, you might want to ask the city for copies of the Newhall Library surveys from a couple of years ago.
  117. Lori RivasNovember 28, 2010 at 7:54 pm
    Ah, well, not only do I plan on telling the committee what I would like to see in the libraries, I will be attending the committee meetings. I assume that the meetings will be public.
  118. Leon WordenNovember 28, 2010 at 8:52 pm
    public – absolutely.
  119. Leon WordenNovember 27, 2010 at 11:24 pm
    “she’s the only one in this entire debate who is actually a librarian” Oh God now THAT is funny!! Heart — I have no problem with people who think county life is better than city life. (Though I don’t know why they’d continue to live in the city if they think it’s so horrible.) As far as I’m concerned, either you want political autonomy for the Santa Clarita Valley, and the ability to keep all of your local tax dollars in your local community … or you don’t. If you don’t, then we really have nothing more to discuss on this topic.
  120. Leon WordenNovember 27, 2010 at 11:26 pm
    And George W. Bush is actually a rancher. And Barack Obama is actually a community organizer! Once upon a time, Margaret Todd may actually have been a librarian. Can you picture her helping someone check out a book today?
  121. Daddy Joe GNovember 28, 2010 at 8:45 am
    That’s what librairians do? Check out books? I think we are finally getting the the real problem here. Those who know what a library is are againt the takeover. Those who think a librarian’s job is to check out books are for the takeover.
  122. Leon WordenNovember 27, 2010 at 11:30 pm
    Then again, Jeff, maybe you’ve hit the nail on the head! Margaret Todd is a librarian! I’m sure she was a wonderful, caring compassionate, capable librarian. But as the manager of a multimillion-dollar county department with a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers of Los Angeles County to live within her means and operate within a budget, she is a complete and total failure.
  123. NickelDimeNovember 28, 2010 at 8:11 am
    Berta & Leon, If I understand correctly, you defend this Council’s decision because you believe it was the right thing to do. The ends justify the means. We (and nearly all involved in such matters) are concerned that the manner in which this is being executed puts the City at risk – financially, legally, and in the end product itself. The ends are dictated by the means. That’s not ‘crying over spilled milk’, it’s an ongoing, real issue. By not admitting the City made mistakes in the process, you only have credibility with the City. Public figures shouldn’t ask the public to “move on” (as Ferry did) without acknowledging fault. As a Christian, Ferry should know better . The Council serves us . And the part you seem to miss: we may actually agree with the end decision. The process and details just need to be vetted properly in a public forum.
  124. EricNovember 28, 2010 at 9:39 am
    “And the part you seem to miss: we may actually agree with the end decision. The process and details just need to be vetted properly in a public forum.” Amen! The 3 things I want most from my council…Transparency, Transparency, Transparency.
  125. Daddy Joe GNovember 28, 2010 at 11:26 am
    Ferry says that to continue to argue against the city withdrawal from the county library system is ridicules, since it already done. This is very likely true. I have little hope of changing anyone’s mind. But isn’t it even more ridicules to continue to argue for the city withdrawal? It’s already done, what more do you want?
  126. Berta González-HarperNovember 28, 2010 at 12:41 pm
    @DaddyJoeG are you for real? What more do I want? I want the residents of the City and yes our unincorporated brothers and sisters like ND to understand that this was not only the best decision but also a necessary decision. I want them to understand that while the Council could have taken more time; it would have been for naught since as I keep repeating: those opposed would remain opposed; those in favor would remain in favor. When was the last time Cam, Lynne, Ferdman, et al were in favor of ANYTHING the city proposed? How about Margaret Todd, if it meant spending money the county collected from US? How about SEUI if it meant losing any of their member’s jobs? Do you honestly believe any of these folks would change their mind after waiting for another year to pass before leaving the County system? Look at how Cam, Lynne, and others including you have insulted all of the members of the new committee? You do not even know us all since I do not even know most of the committee members. I think I counted four names I recognized on that list. Yet you all would have respected the committee process and our recommendations if we had waited another year? Sure… I called Lynne on that insult personally. None of us can ask the “right questions” or think independently? Really!!!! Holding more meetings, forming committees and postponing any decision until everyone agrees to secede from the County Library system is pointless. We lose precious time preparing for the actual business of running our own libraries, determining what materials and programs WE want to have available for residents to enjoy, etc. Because Council is not listening to those of you opposed does not mean they are not listening or paying attention, you just did not get YOUR WAY this time. Frank Ferry was correct in this instance, the decision has been made, move on, JOIN THE PROCESS and make suggestions to make OUR libraries the best possible. That is what I WANT! @ ND while you are concerned with the process, I am concerned with the lack of understanding about the process and how many years this decision has been brewing. I am concerned about the same few sources putting out misinformation to further muddy the waters. As far as I am concerned, Margaret Todd simply put the nail in the coffin with her “funny math” about OUR contributions into the kitty and refusal to spend any of OUR money to upgrade OUR facilities and increase staffing and materials for OUR current and future expanded libraries in Canyon Country and Newhall. I would be embarrassed to be on the record having said some of the garbage she did. Ditto for some of the critics posting on this blog.
  127. Daddy Joe GNovember 28, 2010 at 12:48 pm
    So winning isn’t enough for you? Funny. What are you afraid of?
  128. NickelDimeNovember 28, 2010 at 12:54 pm
    “…I am concerned with the lack of understanding about the process and how many years this decision has been brewing.” Who’s fault is that, Berta? Seriously? “I am concerned about the same few sources putting out misinformation to further muddy the waters.” When/where there’s a gap, it gets filled. And I take your point about the critics, but Jeff, myself and a number of others have been staunch supporters of City Hall during some very tenuous periods, namely the Henry Mayo expansion and the recent election. Does that mean our constructive criticism will be taken seriously?
  129. Berta González-HarperNovember 28, 2010 at 1:17 pm
    @ND I believe it is the fault of those who accept whatever is said, regardless of the source, without doing their own research. I also think there is no one as blind as he who will not see. Some times leaders just need to lead… While Jeff and now you apparently think I am speaking to you when I comment on anti city folks, I am not. I am addressing those folks, we all know who they are, who are ALWAYS OPPOSED, always talk about some conspiracy, always slam Council, Pulskamp, etc NO MATTER WHAT THE TOPIC. I do not categorize you or Jeff in that group. You and Jeff do agree with city decisions at times as do I. You also disagree at times, as do I. Nor do I lump you ND in with Jeff. You discuss (back and forth) and are usually respectful in your dialogue even if we disagree. Jeff only responds to my posts when he disagrees and usually does so in a sarcastic and insulting manner. Jeff also is very selective on who he decides to defend from insults on this blog, you appear to be fair so I do not think of you as “a unit”. Thanks for letting me clear that up.
  130. Daddy Joe GNovember 28, 2010 at 1:31 pm
    I believe you are leaving out the largest group in opposition to the library take over. And that is those who up to now have not cared what the city did. I also believe you can add us to those will look with suspicion at any future activity of the city council. The library decision may have been a good one, I hope it was, but the damage that the city council has done to itself by the way the decision was made in irreparable.
  131. Berta González-HarperNovember 28, 2010 at 2:42 pm
    @Daddy Joe G if you now care what your municipal government representatives do, then I consider the issue to have produced an added bonus of more a active and informed resident. I am sorry you have negative feelings regarding this decision. I am confident, that if you are a reasonable person, once you see for yourself that you personally will have more input into the materials and programs available with our own City of Santa Clarita Library System, experience how many more hours and days you can actually use the library, you will be happy with the outcome of this decision.
  132. Leon WordenNovember 28, 2010 at 2:46 pm
    Berta – you beat me to the punch. For all of the negativity surrounding this issue, if it has inspired some people to care about what their city does for the first time, that’s an added bonus.
  133. Daddy Joe GNovember 28, 2010 at 4:04 pm
    Recently, at 2 AM on a Sunday morning, I decided I wanted a certain book. I immediately requested it on line and picked it up on Wednesday. While I was reading it, I discovered uncut pages, indicating it had not been previously read. Curious, I did some checking. The book had been published in 1986 and I had the county’s only copy. If the city system can improve on that, I’ll be all for it. I don’t need a $25 million brick and mortar library. If you do, that’s fine with me. I don’t need more library hours. If you want them, that’s fine with me. I don’t want more books housed locally. If you want them, that’s fine with me. I do want the books I want. If I cannot get them, we got a problem, not an improvement.
  134. Leon WordenNovember 28, 2010 at 4:10 pm
    Berta – This is an excellent & well written comment for the library committee to consider. I’d encourage you to save this one.
  135. Berta González-HarperNovember 28, 2010 at 4:24 pm
    Great minds etc. Already printed it out!
  136. Timothy Myers SRNovember 28, 2010 at 2:15 pm
    New Drinking Game: Take a shot every time Berta says “do my own research.” Pie eyed in twenty minutes or less!
  137. Berta González-HarperNovember 28, 2010 at 2:32 pm
    @TM I prefer you and the rest pie eyed rather than brain washed. At least you will eventually sober up. Repetition seems to be the key so again, I do my own independent research. ¡Salud amigos!
  138. Daddy Joe GNovember 28, 2010 at 4:06 pm
    No research necessary. Books good, no boooks bad.
  139. Long Time ResidentNovember 28, 2010 at 2:17 pm
    Berta you’re wrong. An important part of an elected official’s job is to bring the community along on important decisions. If done well not everyone will agree with the decision, but most everyone will agree it was a good process. This may or may not have been a good decision, but it was a bad process. The city council failed to have a good process. The mistrust and anger that now exists did not have to be there. They failed that important test of leadership.
  140. Berta González-HarperNovember 28, 2010 at 9:01 pm
    @Long Time Resident you may feel that I am wrong and you have a right to express your opinion. I do not agree with you. I believe it was a decision long overdue and I am gratified the Council had the guts to make this decision knowing full well, there would be plenty of fallout from those of you who would have had an issue regardless. Waiting a year and dropping more of our money down the county rabbit hole would have made no difference to the opposition or the ultimate necessary decision to secede.
  141. Leon WordenNovember 28, 2010 at 6:34 pm
    Jeff — “Ironically, the thing that would empower Latinos in the SCV (District-based council seats) is the very thing you just said you hoped would never happen here.” Yes, Jeff, I’m aware of the roadmap. I well remember the political science curriculum at UCLA, which was built around the goal of overthrowing “white male conservative” city councils and boards of supervisors. (By their definition, Marsha McLean and Barbara Boxer would have been white male conservatives. That is not a joke and I am not being facetious.) The roadmap: *Divide the electorate into districts. *Limit campaign contributions. *Directly elect the mayor. *Move to 11- (rather than 5-) member councils and boards of supervisors. *Dramatically increase the number of commissions. *Switch to a mayoral form of government rather than city manager form of government. It’s a tried-and-true roadmap for liberals to follow (meaning, in a 50-year span where it has been implemented, it has achieved the goal) … just as it is a comprehensive list of things for conservatives to avoid. My opposition to election by district, specifically, pertains to the fact that my goal is to have the ability to vote for all of our local representatives, rather than just one. But of course, I wasn’t talking about political structure. I was talking about listening to what our minority groups are saying.
  142. Leon WordenNovember 28, 2010 at 7:18 pm
    Oh – duh – my bad – I forgot one of the most important components of the roadmap — term limits.
  143. Daddy Joe GNovember 28, 2010 at 7:46 pm
    So, being aware of how the city is screwing me is a good thing, but wanting to do something about it is not?
  144. Berta González-HarperNovember 28, 2010 at 7:01 pm
    @ Jeff personally as an American of Hispanic ancestry I would prefer 5 Anglo guys or gals to any 5 Hispanics, male or female, like the crooks on the Bell City Council so thanks for thinking of me but I EMPOWER MYSELF with my voice and my vote.
  145. Lori RivasNovember 28, 2010 at 7:20 pm
    Wow. In case no one has ever pointed it out to you, that is a huge prejudice, Berta, to equate “any” Hispanics to the crooks in Bell. I might remind you that Anglos have a long history of crooks, as well. I am continually dumbfounded by the blatant prejudices in SCV.
  146. Berta González-HarperNovember 28, 2010 at 7:38 pm
    @Lori it is not a huge prejudice against Hispanics since I am one but rather a huge prejudice against crooks. You obviously did not understand the previous conversation and therefore my response. However, if you want to believe I am prejudiced, that is your prerogative.
  147. Lori RivasNovember 28, 2010 at 7:42 pm
    If you prefer “any” Anglos over “any” Hispanics because 5 Mexican guys were crooks in Bell, then that is a prejudice.
  148. Lori RivasNovember 28, 2010 at 7:51 pm
    Maybe you meant you would prefer “any” Anglos over the 5 particular Hispanics in Bell? Or you meant you would prefer any honest person over any crook, regardless of race? I really want to understand what you meant.
  149. Daddy Joe GNovember 28, 2010 at 8:16 pm
    I know just what Berta means. The people in this valley make me ashamed of being a Republican.
  150. Berta González-HarperNovember 28, 2010 at 8:33 pm
    @Lori within the space of just a few minutes you insulted me, discounted the fact that I complained years ago about our Canyon Country library, that I am also an American of Hispanic ancestry, and intimated I would not represent the best interest of any Spanish-speaking residents. I have to say that you are the one exhibiting a prejudice towards me and the city. I said exactly what I meant …“Jeff personally as an American of Hispanic ancestry I would prefer 5 Anglo white guys or gals to any 5 Hispanics, male or female, like the crooks on the Bell City Council. I think the word you missed is “like”. That you chose to interpret what I said differently is more a reflection on you than on me. To make it as clear as I know how: I would rather have five honest Anglos than five dishonest Hispanics. Is that clear enough? I do not believe that someone will represent me or any one else better simply by virtue of being Hispanic. If you do, that is your view. I personally know several Hispanics in this community who are about as unethical as it gets so spare me the platitudes. And just to clarify another remark you made, I will do whatever I can to assist anyone from any country, race, religion, ethnic background etc who is here LEGALLY. I am not interested in further enabling those who ignore immigration laws and come here without going through the proper screening process as prescribed by law. If you also want to add “racist” to your insults, go ahead. Many Spanish-speaking people are here legally and avail themselves of our libraries. I am bilingual, worked for LAUSD, taught Spanish-speaking children, translate, etc…So what is your point that you should have been picked instead? I obviously disagree with you on many issues and I am fine with that too. Hispanics are not one size fits all either Lori.
  151. Lori RivasNovember 28, 2010 at 8:58 pm
    I am sorry, Berta, that you interpreted all that from my statements. All I meant was the Anglos over Hispanics, thing, which, apparently, I misunderstood, and I was trying to understand what you meant, with my further questions. So, please forgive me for not clarifying first. Not sure how I discounted that you complained about the CC library — I am sure that you did, and that you had valid concerns. I never intimated that you would not represent the Hispanic community. And, as far as not being picked for the committee, yeah, I am disappointed, but I don’t know what your application looked like — or anyone else’s application. I cannot judge whether I should have been picked over you, or anyone else, without that information. I have no gripe with you, or any other committee member. The City chose who the City chose. I know Hispanics are not a one size fits all. I am fully aware that people have differing views on immigration. I am not offering any platitudes. I don’t know you, Berta. I am not angry at you. I do not doubt that you are sincere. Again, I am really sorry that I misunderstood you Anglos vs. Hispanics statement. I just don’t understand how you thought I was saying all those other things.
  152. Berta González-HarperNovember 28, 2010 at 9:20 pm
    @Lori apology accepted. I got all of those impressions from the comments you made above such as: “I have never, ever, EVER heard one single Hispanic resident complain about the library.” Discounting MY complaints. You also said, “Show me just one instance of the City trying to gather an opinion or participation from the Hispanic community.” Discounting my opinion and participation on the committee. In addition: “Laurie Ender was running for City Council in 2008, she came to my door, to solicit my vote. She plugged the new library (the first I had heard of it), was very anti-immigrant … Intimating anyone not supportive of illegal immigration is “anti immigrant”. You further said, “So, please forgive me if I have a difficult time believing that the City is looking to serve the Hispanic community with the new Newhall library.” Discounting my ability to advocate for Spanish-speaking library users or the City’s interest in serving all residents. Words have power Lori. I hope we can work together to reach what I believe is our mutual goal, to help plan the best municipal library system in all of California and perhaps the country.
  153. Daddy Joe GNovember 28, 2010 at 9:36 pm
    Just try for as good as your throwing out. Keep your goals real.
  154. Berta González-HarperNovember 28, 2010 at 10:24 pm
    My goals are real.
  155. Lori RivasNovember 28, 2010 at 9:30 pm
    “I got all of those impressions from the comments you made above such as: “I have never, ever, EVER heard one single Hispanic resident complain about the library.” Discounting MY complaints.” I meant that I have never heard complaints in my community, in my social circles, in the communities which I outlined. Nothing was directed at you, Berta. Never even crossed my mind. “You also said, “Show me just one instance of the City trying to gather an opinion or participation from the Hispanic community.” Discounting my opinion and participation on the committee.” I meant that I have never seen the City gathering input from the Hispanic community at the Newhall library, at the Community Center, again, within the communities I outlined. “In addition: “Laurie Ender was running for City Council in 2008, she came to my door, to solicit my vote. She plugged the new library (the first I had heard of it), was very anti-immigrant … Intimating anyone not supportive of illegal immigration is “anti immigrant”.” I think that you assumed too much. I was purposefully vague about my conversation with Ender in 2008 because we are not so much discussing immigration. “You further said, “So, please forgive me if I have a difficult time believing that the City is looking to serve the Hispanic community with the new Newhall library.” Discounting my ability to advocate for Spanish-speaking library users or the City’s interest in serving all residents.” I think that you took all this way too personally, Berta. I am speaking in generalities, you are reading it as a personal attack. Believe me, I know that words have power. You might heed that same lesson, as well.
  156. Berta González-HarperNovember 28, 2010 at 10:22 pm
    @Lori you are right I do take it personally. Especially when people make comments such as you did given the totality of your negative comments. I also think you and others need to consider that when you make these broad general statements that definitely have a negative tone and can be easily considered insulting. I want to see great libraries for all Santa Clarita residents and I am willing to work towards that goal.
  157. Lori RivasNovember 28, 2010 at 10:36 pm
    For your own sake, you may want to take a step back, then, Berta, because the library issue is not a personal attack, it is a city-wide effort. The only people who should feel insulted are those who have blatantly and categorically ignored the concerns of those opposed to the LSSI take-over. You may want to consider that your defensiveness colors your understanding of the comments posted here. I mean that in the kindest way possible, Berta, and in no way mean to imply that you should no longer participate in discussion.
  158. Berta González-HarperNovember 28, 2010 at 11:22 pm
    @Lori many negative comments made here and elsewhere about those of us who have supported the City’s decision to leave the County library system are personal attacks and insults. I do not need to take a step back, thanks. I understand that many are passionate both in support and in opposition. I also recognize an insult whether intended or not and you do me further injustice by believing otherwise. Furthermore, I am not at all defensive. I did not make the decision to secede but most certainly support it and have not been reticent to express that support. You need not fear that any comments you or anyone else makes will keep me from participating. That is simply not my style. I think we have exhausted this discussion for tonight. Good night!
  159. Gang FangNovember 29, 2010 at 7:07 am
    Berta: Self hatred is a bitch. You seem to spend most of your time here defending and defining your “style” when it comes to debate and what you perceive as personal attacks on your character. A step back and a heavy fistful of reality may be just what you need. Your “me and against the world and I will not back down” angle is trotted out like an aging hooker at a long since closed brothel. This may be where lotsa folks get these impressions of you, which cloud the issue and bring to mind a gaggle of arguing kindergarten brats. You really should get your aging rump outta the chair and take a break.
  160. Leon WordenNovember 29, 2010 at 12:23 am
    Hello Berta (and everyone else) – you might want to check this out. It’s from early 2008. http://www.scvtv.com/html/notw033008.html It’s a conversation-changer on a number of levels. It discusses the survey results (1,400 responses) when the city asked the community what library services it wanted. It explores some possibilities for programs geared toward Spanish-speakers. Above all, it demonstrates that *the county*, via its own consultant — whom I really, really like — *believed the current Newhall library was obsolete and needed to be replaced* … and *influenced the city’s planning of the new library* … and further *led the city to believe the county would provide the services that the community was requesting if the city built the library*. Then Margaret Todd changed her mind. Had she not changed her mind, we would not be leaving the county library system today. Make no mistake about THAT. Margaret Todd rolled the dice. She said NO to helping finance construction of the library, and we sat there and took it. She thought if she said NO again — NO to spending some of our valley’s $2MM annual library surplus to provide the services her own consultant was recommending — we’d sit there and take it again. She gambled poorly. So she got mad. Not only did she lose a piece of her library system, but she lost the surplus she was receiving from city taxpayers each year. She took it out on Canyon Country … and AFTER THE COUNCIL DECISION, she went to county counsel to try to stop the city from collecting its special library assessment. (Asking an agency attorney for an opinion on another agency’s tax assessment is not standard operating procedure.) She had NOTHING to gain from trying to block the city’s tax assessment. Not one cent. Nothing to gain, that is, except for vengeance. Would we have left the county library system eventually? Sure. It’s the only way to insulate ourselves from the system’s budget problems (currently $22MM annually). Maybe not this year, maybe not next year, but one day. Blame her or, I think, eventually you will thank her — but the reason we are leaving the library system now, at this time, in this place, is Margaret Todd.
  161. IHeartSCVNovember 29, 2010 at 7:14 am
    Thank you for this much-needed explication of M.D. Todd’s abundant faults, both personal and professional. Based on your comment, I think she exhibits almost all of the Seven Deadly Sins: *Gluttony–she consumed Claritan tax dollars in wasteful ways *Greed–her greatest fault; she could never get enough money and still wants more *Sloth–she was lazy and indifferent about building much-needed libraries *Wrath–she’s apparently prone to fits (“So she got mad”) and is dead-set on vengeance (“Nothing to gain, that is, except for vengeance.”) *Envy–she resents SCV for having money and power that she wants *Pride–she thought she was above reproach and could get away with it! *Lust–[not discussed] Gluttony’s a bit of a stretch, I know, and we have no indication that she is excessively lustful, but let’s be on guard. She may very well be evil incarnate.
  162. Bill ReynoldsNovember 29, 2010 at 7:04 am
    Look, the probelm here is exactly as Jeff stated way above. City Council took quick action to implement their library take-over plan with little concern about public sentiment and it came abruptly following a series of other unpoplular decisions. This entire episode has nothing to do with logic but everything to do with City Hall’s continued arrogance.

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