January 21, 2011 – Daily Brief

Props to Dr. Dorio for speaking out. This is the kind of information which should be splashed across the Signal’s front page.

Agreed

Here Here!

I’m with you on this one, Jim. California has the second lowest rate of smoking in the nation (and if we were our own country, we’d have one of the lowest rates of smoking in the world), but somehow most cities get an “F” for anti-smoking controls. Do people buy into these gimmicks?

Yeah, let’s just worry about important issues like the open space tax.

We need to also keep our eye on the possibility of the new library tax that will be sold as a reduction of the county tax. As I understand it the County assessment goes away on July 1 when LSSI takes over. If the city puts it up for a vote we will be voting ‘yes’ for a $19 assessment or ‘no’ for no assessment at all. Does anyone know if it is a fact that the County assessment goes away for us living in the city? Another thing to look for will be weighted ballots giving developers a huge impact on the election. This one could be interesting…….

Weighted ballots? You mean like the 3/5ths rule?

Specifically I’m talking about Whitaker Bermite voting for the 2800 unbuilt houses they have a developer agreement for.

BGH – are you out there? As a committee member we could use your insight. You said at the Canyon Country Advisory meeting that the County tax going away is still up in the air. Please inform us on this one.

@Jim Farley I read comments every day, opine only when I feel the need. As to your question, as I understand it, the County of Los Angeles cannot continue to collect and KEEP the library assessment fee after July 1, 2011. The California State Constitution allows the City to RECEIVE the current library assessment fees after July 1, 2011 without a new vote. The County would have the ability to continue to collect the fees on behalf of the City if they turn them over as they do other funds they collect when required, however the County has said they will not collect them for us. Alternatively, the City can collect directly. The attorney’s for both sides disagree on the interpretation of the California Constitution and other pertinent law (are you surprised!). If the City attorney is correct, the City can collect the current assessment of $27.84 and yearly increases going forward. If the County attorney wins, no one can collect the $27.84. So in a nutshell, if this $19 library assessment were put to a vote: If City correct: A no vote means we continue to pay $27.84 with yearly increases collected for the City, a yes vote, we pay $19 with no yearly increase. If County is correct, a no vote means we pay $0, a yes vote means we pay $19. However, please remember this issue of the current library fee and who can collect it is still in dispute so I think the City is wise to proceed cautiously. Either way, we can still have a better library system even without the additional funds. I do have to question the rational of those who voted yes and are willing to turn extra money via library assessment fees over to the County, but not to the City instead. Just to clarify Jim, in a special tax election, it is a vote of registered voters rather than property owners. Since the vote is by registered voters (not parcel owners) unless a developer etc is a registered voter within the City of Santa Clarita, they do not get to vote regarding a Library Assessment. I hope I have answered your questions.

Thanks Berta. I’ll be very interested to see how this dispute pans out. As far as the potential election. I’ll have to research it but I don’t believe under Prop 218 that a property tax assessment can be approved by the general electorate. It would not be fair for those not paying the tax to be able to vote to put a tax on another group (property owners).

School bonds and what not don’t get a 218-style election. Coastal Sage, what’s your ruling?

Here’s what appears to be the difference. I mistakenly assumed this was an ‘Assessment’ when indeed it is a ‘Parcel Tax’. They have different voting requirements. So much more to learn.

Hell no says the city mouthpiece, we won’t allow an “F” for any reason. Not in assumetown! Second hand smoke seems to be real to the experts.

In Santa Clarita, you can go for weeks without even seeing someone smoking in public. The F is a joke, just designed to grab headlines.

I. will. not. lose.

Speaking of bets, how about Obama vs. the field, even money, another hundred?

What was the bet?

I need to see what unemployment is at in summer 2012. That will be the only number that counts.

Failing something highly unusual, you’re pretty much right. But such certainty wouldn’t make for an exciting bet, now would it?

I wonder why the Gov of Hawaii is having such a tough time producing a birth certificate ? Strange??? There must be an simple excuse…

Share retweet EmailPrint..MARY WILLIAMS WALSH, On Thursday January 20, 2011, 8:56 pm EST Policy makers are working behind the scenes to come up with a way to let states declare bankruptcy and get out from under crushing debts, including the pensions they have promised to retired public workers. Unlike cities, the states are barred from seeking protection in federal bankruptcy court. Any effort to change that status would have to clear high constitutional hurdles because the states are considered sovereign. But proponents say some states are so burdened that the only feasible way out may be bankruptcy, giving Illinois, for example, the opportunity to do what General Motors did with the federal government’s aid. Beyond their short-term budget gaps, some states have deep structural problems, like insolvent pension funds, that are diverting money from essential public services like education and health care. Some members of Congress fear that it is just a matter of time before a state seeks a bailout, say bankruptcy lawyers who have been consulted by Congressional aides. Bankruptcy could permit a state to alter its contractual promises to retirees, which are often protected by state constitutions, and it could provide an alternative to a no-strings bailout. Along with retirees, however, investors in a state’s bonds could suffer, possibly ending up at the back of the line as unsecured creditors. “All of a sudden, there’s a whole new risk factor,” said Paul S. Maco, a partner at the firm Vinson & Elkins who was head of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Municipal Securities during the Clinton administration. For now, the fear of destabilizing the municipal bond market with the words “state bankruptcy” has proponents in Congress going about their work on tiptoe. No draft bill is in circulation yet, and no member of Congress has come forward as a sponsor, although Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, asked the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, about the possiblity in a hearing this month. House Republicans, and Senators from both parties, have taken an interest in the issue, with nudging from bankruptcy lawyers and a former House speaker, Newt Gingrich, who could be a Republican presidential candidate. It would be difficult to get a bill through Congress, not only because of the constitutional questions and the complexities of bankruptcy law, but also because of fears that even talk of such a law could make the states’ problems worse. Lawmakers might decide to stop short of a full-blown bankruptcy proposal and establish instead some sort of oversight panel for distressed states, akin to the Municipal Assistance Corporation, which helped New York City during its fiscal crisis of 1975. Still, discussions about something as far-reaching as bankruptcy could give governors and others more leverage in bargaining with unionized public workers.

@ND: I am not that lucky…

Hey now! I was referring to “Gang Fang!” If anything, your nick would be “The Bull!”

@ND: I understood that. I meant I am not that lucky that Gang Fang would be sent up “the river”. Why the “Bull”? As in full of…, or strong as a…? Or maybe pit bull that won’t let go?

Ahh- gotcha. “The Bull” – as in, entering a China shop!

@ND interesting take. I would never consider entering scvtalk a “china shop” although I certainly admit I am not subtle. I think of scvtalk more as a “den of lions” with a sprinkling of kitty cats.

did you notice the number of union leadrship in that group?