February 28, 2011· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

February 28, 2011 – Daily Brief

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

Image not recoveredIMG_0196-450x480.jpg: I like this white stuff on the ground better anyway. Photo credit: My wife!

Reader Jim Farley called it: the snow was a total bust this weekend. The Daily News said we’d get six inches (a prediction I shamelessly hyped and would do so again) but I hardly saw a speck in Newhall. It didn’t even rain. The Signal had to go all the way to Frazier Park to find snow SIGNAL
No doubt the clear if cold weather helped turnout for the SCV Food Truck Festival on Saturday. No estimates in the Signal report but the parking lot was jammed. A Theme Park review.com user posted tons of pictures and said waits were generally short except for a few of the more popular trucks
State official says water cleanup in Whittaker-Bermite could take decades. The Lewis Company also told the Signal it doesn’t want to take on liabilities at the site, but it’s excited about the development potential in “one of the best properties left in Southern California.” SIGNAL
Hart District officials and Larry Rasmussen are optimistic about the potential for a Romer0 Canyon Castaic High School after state officials issued a response to the District’s plans. The state is requesting more “geotechnical” details about the site, details that are “easily resolved” according to the District SIGNAL
The Signal has another article on the homeless man who was found dead near the Canyon Country library last week. Sad quote from his brother: “He was loved by his family and people that knew him,” he wrote. “We tried to help him all we could. Could you let the world know he lived and he was important?” SIGNAL
Signal announces that an anonymous donor has given the paper $25,000 to distribute to SCV people who are facing hard times. Ian Lamont, publisher, announces a plan to distribute $500 a time to needy people. The catch? You have to be a Signal subscriber to get the award. I HEART is not impressed.
Dave Bossert reviews the timeline for the City’s library takeover in 2010, concludes that, like the Middle East, the citizens of Santa Clarita can rise up and “force regime change.” WRB
SCVTV & Leon Worden have produced and broadcast 300 episodes of Newsmaker of the Week. For the 300th, they interviewed the biggest fish in these parts, Congressman Buck McKeon, and it’s a great interview on what McKeon is working on and his thoughts on the wars in A-Stan and Iraq. Congrats to SCVTV! KHTS, SIGNAL
Todd Zeile, the Hart baseball great who went on to play for the Dodgers, is being sued over a failed real estate deal says the LA TIMES
Dr. Gene Dorio provides some context for the recent reports about Mayo’s board and leadership. WRB
Irvine city council considering an ordinance that would ban the sale of dogs and cats, says the LA TIMES. A while ago, a Facebook group popped up in the SCV to encourage our city to do that, but the pet store they were focused on at the mall has closed.
Frank Buckles, the last living American who fought in World War I, has died. He was 110. Incredible story at the LA TIMES
Columnist Steve Lunetta thinks the City ought to spend its scarce money on leasing a parking lot in Old Town Newhall rather than building a new library. SIGNAL
Newhall County water board member Maria Gutzeit writes a touching letter to her 14 month old daughter SIGNAL

Comments

65 · as published

Samuel AdamsFebruary 28, 2011 at 8:48 am
$500 to a hard-pressed person who happens to be a Signal subscriber? Anonymous donor of the $25,000? There are many charities in the SCV that could do a lot more with this cash for those who really need it.
Petz-aka Saugus SteveFebruary 28, 2011 at 8:54 am
It is always tough to wade through the opening paragraphs of a Lunetta opinion piece, but Petz must agree with the conclusion. He ventured down to OTN yesterday in the Aztek-keeping the windows up and the doors locked to pick up some items at Planet Soccer- at 12:30 pm was NO available street parking. We had to go in the alley behind the building-double park and run in and out. This issue should have been addressed before the fancy sidewalks, landscaping , and benches. Very disappointed that this area does not have adequate convenient parking.
JeffFebruary 28, 2011 at 8:58 am
As a taxpayer, I’d rather the city spend its scarce resources on things that actually improve the value and attractiveness of OTN. Taxpayer dollars invested in vacant asphalt lots that are only used a few hours a week for the temporary storage of your Aztek is a total waste. The whining from auto-dependent readers and SCV residents is approaching absurd levels.
Petz-aka Saugus SteveFebruary 28, 2011 at 9:15 am
Well if you are counting on people bicycling from Valencia ,Saugus, Canyon Country to patronize businesses in this area than you ought to join the Flat Earth Society. The people of this community and the state of California financed this boondoggle and to dismiss our concerns with such arrogance shows contempt for civil discourse that I personally find unbecoming of someone interested in fostering more activity in this area. Petz thinks you are wrong…you think Petz is evil. So be it.
JeffFebruary 28, 2011 at 9:28 am
Petz is not evil, Petz is just inconsistent. Petz is okay with government spending as long as it’s for vacant asphalt lots built for his convenience. Jeff thinks that’s not the best use of funds.
Petz-aka Saugus SteveFebruary 28, 2011 at 9:48 am
Unfortunately for Jeff , he has locked horns with Petz-who happens to know what he is talking about. The city council shifted redevelopment funds from OTN targeted towards the vacant lot that Lunetta referenced in his piece today. And what do they plan to do-destroy parking at an “underutilized ” park and ride to build more low income housing. Of course “low income” doesn’t mean that they don’t have an auto that need to be parked. Redevelopment funds are simply used to reward political friends and punish enemies. Economics and common sense market principles are left out of the equation.
Mr PerezFebruary 28, 2011 at 10:24 am
As someone who bikes to alot of places, I would have to agree though with Petz in this situation. OTN could be great and I have personally watched a city, Naperville IL, grow it’s downtown to huge proportions. The one thing they did was secure parking since they knew if they built it, they would come but they needed somewhere to park what they came in. And they also didn’t just secure a piece of asphalt and instead built a gorgeous 5 story parking garage which was always packed. The wife and I spent a few hours at the Pulchella Winery a few weeks back and I can guarantee you we wouldn’t be biking there and then onto dinner afterwards. I also watched my home city of Aurora, IL go through major changes and similar to what you are seeing in Newhall, the Hispanic population flourished and the businesses in the downtown area reflected such. Some people got mad but the reality is they paid their rent based off people patronizing their stores. There was eventually a renewed interest in developing different types of businesses then the bodegas but this means you have to generate economic growth by interest. This typically comes with parking spaces and not bicycle racks or mass transit, just a reality.
JeffFebruary 28, 2011 at 10:36 am
I agree with everything you said. If the businesses in old town Newhall want that space as available parking, they should lease it from the owner themselves. Hell, they can even charge parking fees and make a profit if they want. Petz apparently wants the city in the parking business, but I question why we, the taxpaying public, should subsidize these businesses in this way? We’ve already built them a new street.
Mr PerezFebruary 28, 2011 at 10:38 am
Possibly the business owners could form some type of organization like the Chamber of Commerce and create a escrow fund for things like this. Or, even sub-contract out to a firm that is willing to build and maintain and collect a small fee for parking.
JeffFebruary 28, 2011 at 10:42 am
Exactly. This is the type of free-market solution Petz and the Tea Party have espoused for years now.
Mr PerezFebruary 28, 2011 at 11:43 am
There are times and people you take care of with government funding and times and people you don’t.
navigatorFebruary 28, 2011 at 12:05 pm
There is a business organization in Old Town Newhall. It’s called OTNA which is made up of numerous Newhall business or property owners. Also, the rental funds for the parking lot were from MTA funds not Redevelopment. Those funds dried up and the City didn’t want to toss their money at it even though parking is such a critical issue in OTN. Very unfortunate on many levels. If Jeff could bring 5000 people a week to OTN on their bikes that would help.
Berta González-HarperFebruary 28, 2011 at 5:20 pm
@Jeff I agree with you on this one. If the business community needs parking, rent the lot from the property owner if he/she is willing and charge patrons to park. If I recall it was Metrolink that was paying the tab on that lot before to augment parking for the Jan Heidt Metrolink Station. Once Metrolink had enough parking between their lot and the Community Center, they stopped paying. Why should taxpayers foot the bill for a lease and provide parking for those businesses?
TimBen BoydstonFebruary 28, 2011 at 8:10 pm
BGH In the past both MTA money and Economic Development funds have been used to pay for the parking lot at 6th and Main.
NateFebruary 28, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Nate thinks Petz is a parking entitlists. Petz needs to travel to areas where one must pay to park.
NateFebruary 28, 2011 at 10:15 am
Nate agrees with Jeff and finds this entire dialogue highly amusing.
Joe GrandeFebruary 28, 2011 at 9:59 am
Should we waste money we don’t have on parking in Newtown or should we waste money we don’t have on a new library in Newtown? Tough choice.
TimBen BoydstonFebruary 28, 2011 at 1:59 pm
The City spent 1.2 million tax dollars on the best downtown redevelopment plan that money could buy. The plan says that many years before you should build a civic building (ie: library),you should supply parking. And the location for one of the two major lots, is supposed to be at the corner of Main and 6th streets. Buy, build, or lease parking for the Downtown, as per the plan or risk the failure of the very businesses that you wish to attract. Redevelopment is the Agency (in this case the City) acting as the “Master Landlord” to spend money in the redevelopment area to make the area a success. This can include many things, such as Facade improvements, business recruitment, marketing, and yes parking. The tax money used to” turn around” the area would go to the state if there were not a redevelopment area.
navigatorFebruary 28, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Basically, the RDAs around the state are telling Sacto that the RDAs can spend the money brought in from taxpayers within their districts much better than the state can. Looking at the budget woes at state and federal levels, I couldn’t agree more.
SCVFanFebruary 28, 2011 at 8:39 pm
The library will provide it’s own parking. Spend OTNA money on the lot and seriously TBB…shut up and move on.
Alan FerdmanFebruary 28, 2011 at 3:28 pm
One great example of what Newhall desperately needs is Honolulu avenue in Montrose. While Honolulu avenue itself looks much like Santa Clarita’s Main street with it’s landscaped bulb outs and angle in parking, behind the business area is a free public parking lot a block wide the entire length of the street. During the week, visit it at noon and find the public parking lot operating at about 80% capacity. Like it or not, the city decided to redevelop Newhall with taxpayer dollars. If the city chooses not to provide sufficient parking, businesses will fail and our money will have been wasted.
Mr PerezFebruary 28, 2011 at 10:22 pm
I actually have to agree with Al on downtown Montrose as a template of what could happen in Newhall. It actually has a Midwest/East coast feel to it.
spineflower2February 28, 2011 at 10:50 am
It was over 20 years ago that the #1 problem identified in downtown Newhall was lack of parking. No one wanted to park on a dark lot behind a store at night. And the short-sighted business owners marked each of their precious spaces as reserved for their business only, under threat of towing. So if you wanted to stroll, you risked a tow. Way to welcome shoppers! Sounds like that lesson was lost in the shuffle. Without easy, safe parking, very few people except locals will shop there. And local revenue isn’t enough to sustain the businesses. And the area will spiral down again, despite spending all that money. It’s sad.
Petz-aka Saugus SteveFebruary 28, 2011 at 10:58 am
It’s the Pottery Barn axiom “The city broke it-it is up to them to fix it. ” They stole the available parking to build the Newhall Metrolink Station.
JeffFebruary 28, 2011 at 11:04 am
That’s such crap and you know it. Building a parking lot to encourage commuters to take the train rather than drive alone is a net benefit to our city and the region. It’s in the public’s interest to have such a lot. When will the hypocrisy of Petz and Lunetta end? Should the city build a new parking lot for the Patios too, since it’s always crowded and Petz has to walk too far to get to Five Guys burger???
Petz-aka Saugus SteveFebruary 28, 2011 at 11:37 am
Should have been placed south of San Fernando Rd, where land is cheap and would have caused less disruption to a business enclave.
Cheryl PhillipsFebruary 28, 2011 at 12:09 pm
At the architectural meetings that were held a few years back – there were parking structures designed for OTN in the final designs. They are like those structures in So. Pasadena North of Colorado Blvd., and they will be on Railroad Ave. I’m sure those final designs are still available for viewing.
Mr PerezFebruary 28, 2011 at 12:39 pm
It would make sense to have the structures close to the businesses they would be patronizing as opposed to half a mile or more away. We are lazy as human beings and successful business owners have realized this
Jim FarleyFebruary 28, 2011 at 9:00 am
Congrats to Leon Worden on 300 episodes. Of course my favorite was episode 191 on May 27, 2006 on the Open Space initiative. Mr. Worden asked some very good questions that Rick Gould and Laurene Weste effectively danced around or told untruths about: Leon Worden: “So the money that is raised from this, if it passes, can only be spent on raw land” Rick Gould (seated next to Laurene Weste): “That is correct”. This was either a lie or Mr. Gould was ignorant of the facts, I don’t know what is worse. Ms. Weste did nothing to correct this false statement. This statement was a big reason the measure passed in 2006 after it failed in 2005. I know this is an old subject but I bring it up in light of the potential library tax. I’m sure if it comes to a vote it will also be an item on Newsmaker of the Week. Will we get the true story on this one?
navigatorFebruary 28, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Jim, I’m a bit confused. Has the City used Open Space funds to purchase real estate other than raw land?
Jim FarleyFebruary 28, 2011 at 3:32 pm
No. So far they are holding to the intent to buy only raw land. The engineer’s report for the district clearly says the money can be used for any purpose in the parks department, including maintenance. The truth that the money can be used for any purpose in Parks and Rec was confirmed in a memo from Legal Counsel Maryann Goodkind to TimBen Boydston on 11/27/07. My issue is the citizens were told something completely different and untrue to sell the issue. This was not a minor selling point in making gthe difference between 2005 when the measure failed and 2007 when it passed.
navigatorFebruary 28, 2011 at 3:41 pm
“This was not a minor selling point in making the difference between 2005 when the measure failed and 2007 when it passed.” Which was why I, and obviously many others, approved of it the 2nd time around. So far I have no complaints. If the City renegs on their word then I’ll be right beside you on the issue but I’m not going to play “what if” when everything is being done according to Hoyle.
NateFebruary 28, 2011 at 10:06 am
Do needy people subscribe to the paper? Seems like a gimmick.
Mr PerezFebruary 28, 2011 at 10:25 am
I think needy people may use the paper as a blanket on occasion, or sometimes to um, er, you know.
NateFebruary 28, 2011 at 12:23 pm
If you are having a hard time making rent, seems like the paper is the first thing that gets cut.
Mr PerezFebruary 28, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Unless your house is insulated with paper in a cardboard structure I don’t buy the newspaper because it sucks up too many natural resources and I can easily access the computer for the same thing….for free
Lori RivasFebruary 28, 2011 at 10:19 am
Nice article in the West Ranch Beacon. I find it curious that The Signal has yet to pick up on this story. Why are not more people upset about the apparent government manipulations and done deal and with LSSI?
Joe GrandeFebruary 28, 2011 at 11:37 am
This is about so much more then LSSI. As the article points out, this is the cities MO. We elect them to steal for us, and yet are surprised when they steal from us.
Coastal SageFebruary 28, 2011 at 12:02 pm
I agree with I Heart SCV. I don’t know any poor or unemployed person who has a newspaper subscription.
Mr PerezFebruary 28, 2011 at 12:42 pm
So with there being an already existent business organization in OTN, hopefully they are working on attracting new businesses to Newhall which will bring in greater revenue then some of the current tenants(no offense to current tenants.) I would like to see that growth but am not a fan of all the cookie cutter places. I like the unique area or regional type businesses that give a city it’s feel or zest.
ReaderMamaFebruary 28, 2011 at 1:42 pm
The person who donated $25,000 to the Signal chose the wrong “charity” for his largesse. The Signal has turned it to their advantage with the requirement that both the nominator and the recipient be subscribers. It comes across as more of a contest than a charitable endeavor. Subscribe now and have one of your friends nominate you to win $500! Also, I’m not sure that a one-time gift of $500.00 is a large enough sum to have a meaningful impact on anyone’s life. The money would have been better donated to the Senior Center to help cover the cost of meals or to the homeless shelter.
NateFebruary 28, 2011 at 2:33 pm
Agreed. The whole thing looks suspect. PR backfire really.
Coastal SageFebruary 28, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Tomorrow March 1, 2011 is a BIG DAY in the City of Santa Clarita – County of Los Angeles negotiation process for the sale of the two library buildings and their parking lots, and the books, furniture and equipment in the three libraries. The City is supposed to pay the purchase price for those buildings and books. If the City’s and the County’s representatives have not reached a firm agreement on that price by the end of TODAY, the price-negotiation-process goes into what looks like an arbitration process, albeit a defective one. Here’s how the relevant Education Code section concerning the library issues describes an inability of the City and County to agree on price by February 28, 2011 and the circumstances under which the City must pay “fair market value”: “Education Code Section 19116(e)(2) “Fair market value” means: (A) Any value agreed upon by the withdrawing entity and the county. (B) If no agreement as to value is reached by the March 1 preceding the July 1 of the base year, the value assigned by an appraiser agreed upon by the withdrawing entity and the county. (C) If no agreement as to the appointment of an appraiser is reached pursuant to subparagraph (B) by the April 1 preceding the July 1 of the base year, the value assigned by an appraiser agreed upon between the withdrawing entity’s appraiser and the county’s appraiser. (D) If no agreement as to the appointment of an appraiser is reached pursuant to subparagraph (C) by the May 1 preceding the July 1 of the base year, the value assigned by a state certified appraiser designated by the withdrawing entity. The designated appraiser shall provide the appraisal in writing to the county no later than the June 1 preceding the July 1 of the base year. (E) The withdrawing entity shall reimburse the county for any appraisal costs the county incurs in determining the fair market value pursuant to this section. As a result, as of today, the City and County have to have agreed on the sale price. Any price they set is deemed the fair market value. If they haven’t agreed, tomorrow the City and County are supposed to jointly agree on an appraiser who will establish fair market value. If the City and County can’t agree on that appraiser’s identity by March 31st, the City’s appraiser and the County’s appraiser are supposed to pick a third appraiser on April 1st, who will set the fair market price. If the City’s appraiser and County’s appraiser cannot agree on the identity of the third appraiser by April 30th, on May 1st the City must designate a “state certified appraiser” and that person will set the fair market value which creates the price for the two libraries’ real estate and three libraries books and equipment, unless the City and County agree to a different number. So it will be interesting to hear whether the City and County have reached an agreement on “the price” by the end of today. Quite obviously, Section 19116(e)(2)(A) above is the peace making provision, as well as the wild card. It says that “Any value agreed upon by the withdrawing entity and the county” is the “fair market price”. As a result, if a deal on the price is not reached today, the law makes it possible for the City and County to continue to negotiate and agree on any price which makes their decision makers happy, because “any price” is deemed the “fair market price” under subsection (A). However, if the parties stonewall each other on all issues until May 1, 2011, at that point the “state certified appraiser” picked by the City gets to decide the “fair market price” for all of the libraries materials and real estate which the City must pay (unless the County for some weird reason agrees to accept a lesser price. ) What’s totally unclear in Section 19116 is what happens if June 30, 2011 rolls around, and the County’s decision makers have refused to sign the deed to the library buildings, and refuse to hand over the keys to the buildings, because the County’s decision makers don’t agree with the “fair market price” set by that one “state certified appraiser”. I am ever so hopeful that common sense will prevail as to the price for the libraries and their materials, without the library doors simply being locked on July 1, 2011, but realistically, to avoid “egg on their faces” in late June 2011, under that subsection (A) the City’s decision makers can always agree to use Santa Claritans’ tax dollars to pay whatever price the County wants for the libraries.
JaneFebruary 28, 2011 at 3:45 pm
The City shouldn’t have an issue with paying the price asked by the County. How many times have they paid ridiculous prices for land because they felt it was too valuable to allow to go to a foreclosure auction? Or were otherwise afraid they were going to lose it when no one had made any kind of an offer on it in the 20 years prior to the City being interested?
Mr PerezFebruary 28, 2011 at 7:53 pm
“A public union employee, a tea party activist, and a CEO are sitting at a table with a plate of a dozen cookies in the middle of it. The CEO takes 11 cookies, turns to the tea partier and says, ‘Watch out for that union guy. He wants a piece of your cookie.”
Mr PerezFebruary 28, 2011 at 7:54 pm
Disclaimer: Thought that was a funny joke and not necessarily my position on anything.
Lori RivasFebruary 28, 2011 at 9:27 pm
I posted that one of FB today, too!
Bill ReynoldsFebruary 28, 2011 at 9:51 pm
Mr Perez, you’re from Chicago, huh…
Mr PerezFebruary 28, 2011 at 10:24 pm
Yes, land of the corrupt politicians and great food Go Bulls!
Berta González-HarperMarch 1, 2011 at 12:03 am
@TimBen Boydston , ok but that does not change my opinion that the businesses should provide the parking, not the taxpayers. I appreciate the arts, and upgrades to downtown Newhall, I just do not think it is fair to ask the taxpayers to pick up the tab for parking so patrons can attend the CTG. I know there will also be PUBLIC parking at the new library and more planned for the Mercado area. How about hiring a couple of college kids to valet park vehicles for those unable or unwilling to walk the block or so to the Community Center or Metrolink lot for a couple of years until the library is completed?
TimBen BoydstonMarch 1, 2011 at 9:16 am
BGH The public parking at the library is being paid for by the taxpayers. The parking lot at the corner of 6th and Main has always been for public parking. It was never for the sole use of CTG and was used by patrons of the REP, El Trocadaro, Out West, VO2, the Farmers Market and many more. In addition the lot was being used by metro-link parkers before the economy collapsed, and when the price of gas was up. If the gas continues to spike it will have the same result. A little story for everyone. When the CTG had just finished it’s planning process for renovating it’s parking lot, a City representative came to us to tell us that the zoneing was being changed to allow us to build on our whole lot, and that we would not need the parking spaces that we were putting in. (We put in the spaces anyway to serve our staff, and our customers when we had a show.) When asked about the parking needs, the City rep said that there would be a big City parking garage at the corner of 6th and Main and that it would be one of the first things built, as it was a critical part of the Master Plan (that the City had paid 1.2 million dollars for). We are asking the City to please follow that plan.
Berta González-HarperMarch 1, 2011 at 12:03 pm
@TimBen Boydston: “BGH The public parking at the library is being paid for by the taxpayers. The parking lot at the corner of 6th and Main has always been for public parking. It was never for the sole use of CTG and was used by patrons of the REP, El Trocadaro, Out West, VO2, the Farmers Market and many more.” Yes TBB that is why I mentioned the PUBLIC parking at both the new Library and the new Mercado area as “coming soon”, and IN THE MEANTIME, an interim solution is: THE BUSINESSES requiring more parking need to rent the lot next door, or valet park. As I said, we the taxpayers are already paying for the Metrolink and Community Center parking lots within a block or so of your location and the other businesses, and we will be paying for the new Library and Mercado parking lots too. In my opinion, it is an interim problem so YOU and the other affected businesses need to come up with an interim solution that does not cost ME and all of the taxpayers even more money, not the City.
navigatorMarch 1, 2011 at 12:13 pm
Gotta disagree a little bit Berta. One of the many nice things about living in the SCV is the fact that we don’t have to pay every Tom, Dick and Harry to park every time we stop somewhere. Even the City required G&L to have no-cost parking as a caveat for their office expansion project ( we’ll see how that works out!). We, taxpayers, pay for many amenities within the City. Parking is just one of those.
Berta González-HarperMarch 1, 2011 at 12:51 pm
@Navigator I understand your point but as I said there already is taxpayer paid for parking nearby and more to come. I myself have parked at the Community Center/Metrolink lot and walked many times to attend “downtown” events. For those folks who are unable or unwilling to walk the block or so, it is my opinion that the businesses should make the accommodation since they are collecting the money and profit paid for the services or goods, not the City. Providing parking is the businesses responsibility. There is ample public parking nearby. I would feel differently if there were not. Perhaps since TBB says he has employee parking behind, he should designate a few employee spots for handicapped only parking or as I said valet park those folks for a couple of bucks. Able-bodied folks should be able to cross the street and walk a block. In Pasadena’s Old Towne, Larchmont Village, Ventura’s downtown area of Main Street, Pueblo de Los Angeles/ Calle Olvera, and others, visitors routinely park and walk a bit to get to the restaurant etc, they wish to patronize. The handicapped use designated parking stalls and accessible curbs for walkers, wheelchairs, etc. Some places have drop off zones, another option to explore in this situation.
TimBen BoydstonMarch 1, 2011 at 8:29 pm
BGH When shows are running, our employees do not use the lot now, they are instructed to move their cars a block away. Our cast members are also instructed not to use our lot on show days. There is a sign posted on our lot on show days that says that it is reserved for mobility impaired people only. However, more than half of our season ticket holders are seniors and the lot fills up. Then our seniors are out of luck. “Just hire people” is an easy answer , if the non-profit had the resources to do that. But if we had lots of resources we could just buy the lot next door! The City master plan says there will be parking at 6th and Main. The merchants in our block need it.
Berta González-HarperMarch 1, 2011 at 10:43 pm
@TBB sorry no sale. You are entitled to your opinion, so am I. Ample FREE public parking is close by and more coming soon. If your particular patron demographic needs parking closer to your establishment, rent the lot next door and charge for parking to defray costs, establish a drop off zone, or valet park patron vehicles for a fee. Those directly benefiting pay, not those able or willing to walk a block. Most other “Old Town” areas have public parking areas where you PAY to park, and folks still have to walk a bit. In fact, taking a stroll through the area is part of the experience in those other “old towns”.
AnonMarch 1, 2011 at 1:09 am
Lamont needs to use all the tactics he can to get more subscribers because subscribers are dropping daily. How many subscribers do they say they have anyway? I heard they stretch the truth about the circulation as well. Someone should audit them for once.
TimBen BoydstonMarch 2, 2011 at 8:45 am
BGH I am not sure whether or not you have had any experience running a small business, but as someone who has, I can assure you that you cannot simply add paid parking and think people will pay it. This is not downtown LA and you may not have noticed, but there are not pay parking lots in Santa Clarita. As to your assertion that most redevelopment downtowns like Old Town Newhall have paid parking, it is simply not supported by facts. The City Master plan shows parking on the corner of 6th and Main. The plan needs to be followed.
Berta González-HarperMarch 2, 2011 at 9:49 am
@TBB I currently operate my own three distinct small businesses, and have in the past also run small enterprises for others as well. Certain things simply are the cost of doing business TBB, and should not be legitimately put on the backs of others. You can disagree if you want. I repeat, at other “old town areas” I pay to park and still have to walk to get to the antique shop, restaurant, theatre, office, bank, or where ever my ultimate destination is. If as you say this is not true, then I have been putting money into imaginary meters or paying imaginary parking attendants who have been quite pleasant I might add. My imagination is not that vivid but if it were, I would imagine that same location next to my house so I would not have to travel at all! I think I have stated my reasons how I arrived at my opinion, and my opinion itself clearly enough on this topic. I have nothing further to add TBB. Thank you for the respectful discourse.
NateMarch 2, 2011 at 9:57 am
What’s the hip new pyramid scheme?
Berta González-HarperMarch 2, 2011 at 10:04 am
@Nate, gee I do not know. Why don’t you tell us all on Taxpayer paid time no less? Oh, let me guess, Jeff will pull this comment for sure. However, never remove Nate’s unprovoked and/or vile attacks.
TimBen BoydstonMarch 2, 2011 at 9:01 pm
BGH The three small businesses are in a space that you rent or own which rely upon patrons to drive to your location? There is also a big difference between “most Old Towns” and the ones “I pay to park” from two different posts. Of course if you visit an Old Town in a very densely populated area, like Old Town Pasedena you are more inclined to find paid parking, because the surrounding area has paid parking in different locations. But there is not paid parking lots yet here in Santa Clarita, and by adding that to your customers bill , they will be way less inclined to visit you.
Berta González-HarperMarch 2, 2011 at 10:57 pm
@TBB redirecting the questions and asking about me, my business, etc is not the issue. You continue to argue your position and I respond with mine but the real question remains: Should the City, we the taxpayers, pay to lease an additional parking lot so that your patrons can park next door when we already pay for ample free public parking within a block and a half, with even more additional free public parking coming in the near future? My answer remains NO and I will not change my mind simply because you keep changing how you frame the question.
TimBen BoydstonMarch 3, 2011 at 10:29 am
BGH The questions are only asked because they help establish the expertise with which the comments should be weighed . As a Director of a non-profit organization that has been negatively impacted by the closure of this parking lot, it is not my “opinion” that we need it open (as do all of the merchants). That is a fact. And it is not my “opinion” that the best experts that money (our tax money) could buy have said that there is supposed to be parking at 6th and main. You do not address this issue. It is an important distinction, because your opinion is opposed to the urban planning experts. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but the reader of these posts needs to be able to weigh portfolio and expertise of each opinion.
Berta González-HarperMarch 3, 2011 at 10:45 am
@TBB, I have enough confidence in the readers of this blog to make the distinction between the biased “opinion” of a businessperson who stands to gain something if his views prevail, and that of the unbiased “opinion” of an experienced businessperson with nothing to gain for herself or her business.