March 4, 2011 – Daily Brief

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

192,000 private sector jobs were added in the month of February as the nation’s unemployment rate dropped to 8.9%. NY TIMES
Crazy chain reaction event leads to power outage in Canyon Country: Tree trimmers cut a tree limb, which then hit a power line. Vibration in the power line caused a transformer to blow, which then resulted in a live powerline that fell on to wet grass being tended to by a Sierra Vista Jr. High landscape worker. The worker was shocked off his feet and doesn’t remember much, but was able to laugh it off later. The power outage lasted several hours SIGNAL
Council Agenda: On Tuesday Councilmembers will take first steps at annexing portions of Saugus and Valencia north of Copperhill (but east of McBean). Speaking of McBean the Council will likely approve an item meant to widen the bridge & install a Class 1 bike path near Pavillions (the path should link the San Francisquito trail with South Fork) . Next up a beautifucation project for Sand Canyon/Highway 14, and finally, the City has reached an agreement to buy out the leases of two auto shops that are located in buildings it owns in Old Town Newhall. COUNCIL AGENDA
The LAPD has forwarded its case against LAUSD Police Officer and Valencia resident Jeffrey Stenroos to the DA’s office. Stenroos, you’ll recall, claimed he was shot by a man in Woodland Hills. The bogus report lead to a huge manhunt in the area and outraged parents and residents. SIGNAL
No charges filed yet in death of 21 year old Canyon Country woman who hit her head on asphalt after getting in a dispute with her boyfriend while he was driving a car SIGNAL
West Ranch high students partner with local non-profit to help low income students pay for Prom SIGNAL
Four LAFD firefighters who live in the SCV get honored at awards lunch for heroism. Some pretty incredible stories here SIGNAL
SoCal Edison and PG&E are both generating nearly 20% of their electricity using renewable energy sources. SoCal Edison is at 19.4% and will reach a state goal of 20% soon LA TIMES
Supervisor Antonovich and CalTrans officials broke ground yesterday on a new $69 million HOV segment for Interstate 5. The new carpool lane -between Buena Vista street in Burbank and Highway 170- will join with a lanes being built on the I-5 closer to us. The Daily News says carpool lanes carry 2-3 times more people during peak hours than regular car lanes DAILY NEWS
Western City magazine gushes over Santa Clarita’s extreme neighborhood makeover program WESTERN CITY
Daily Kos blogger ponders Congressional Redistricting in California. His maps show Santa Clarita remaining in a much smaller 25th Congressional District that encompasses the SCV, Antelope Valley and parts of Kern County, nothing like the massive District it is now DAILY KOS
Wow: The Obama administration and House Republicans are in rare agreement on one matter that will affect us all: they’d like to end Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But that could mean the end of the 30 year fixed mortgage and would allow banks to nickel dime us to death NY TIMES
It’s possible the Valencia Town Center mall of the future may not employ pimply-faced youths but instead will just be bank upon bank of high tech vending machines. Okay maybe that’s not so likely but an LA Times article on automation in retail is still interesting LA TIMES
Do you like food trucks? Did you miss the Old Town Newhall farmer’s market/art walk/food truck event yesterday? Well don’t despair there’s a “TruckIt” food truck festival going on in downtown LA on Sunday that costs only $5. Hop on the Metrolink for fast and easy transportation COUGAR NEWS
“This is war” says a Signal editorial in defense of the City’s move to protect nearly $3 million in redevelopment from Jerry Brown’s plans to shutter the state’s redevelopment agencies. That that $3 million (plus hundreds of millions in other redevelopment agencies) might have been re-allocated to local schools which have been hard hit in recent years is not mentioned of course. SIGNAL

Comments (20)

HermanMarch 4, 2011 at 9:25 am

“Taken together, the job growth for the first two months of 2011 has not been much better than it was last fall. Still, economists say they are hopeful that the pace will soon pick up, assuming higher global energy and food prices do not derail the recovery.” “Hopeful economists”, that’s encouraging.

john AdamsMarch 4, 2011 at 4:35 pm

One scary aspect of the labor report was the total workforce went down (thus causing the lowering of the unemployment number) Why did it go down?

Mr PerezMarch 5, 2011 at 11:14 am

Reverse immigration?

Jim FarleyMarch 4, 2011 at 10:02 am

Really looking forward to the McBean bridge widening. This was will resolve one of the bike trail connectivity issues I talked about in my bike story last year. Adding a Southbound traffic lane is great too. Currently when going South in the right lane if you are not paying attention you could rear end someone slowing to turn right into the Pavilions parking lot. Kudos to the city on this one!

NateMarch 4, 2011 at 10:23 am

I am stoked about the connection of San Francisquito trail and South Fork.

Mr PerezMarch 4, 2011 at 11:57 am

20-25 miles in an hour……

NateMarch 4, 2011 at 2:45 pm

I ride to cross train for running. It would be nice to be able to start on the south fork and go more the. 3.5 miles before it dead ends.

Mr PerezMarch 4, 2011 at 5:01 pm

I have a route for you that may shorten your distance a little bit but will work you harder because of the elevation.

Jim FarleyMarch 4, 2011 at 8:14 pm

I used a Google point to point mileage calculator. From the start of the South Fork Trail at Orchard Village to the end of the San Francisquito Trail at Copper Hill is 6.2 miles. It’s almost a perfect 10 kilometers. Adding the connection between the two trails at the McBean bridge to link the two trails is huge. Will this be the longest uninterrupted off street bike route in the valley? Me thinks it might.

JeffMarch 5, 2011 at 9:58 am

From the start of the path at Orchard Village to where it ends at Soledad/Lost Canyon is 11.1 miles. But I agree, it’s going to be great to have San Fracisquito path connected to south fork

Jim FarleyMarch 5, 2011 at 12:46 pm

You got me there. Even though that is all Class 1 I look at the South Fork/San Fran different because most of it is not even adjacent to a roadway but to the more bucolic riverbed. The Mrs. and I will be out on our bikes taking advantage of the already awesome trail system and this beautiful day later this afternoon.

FrankMarch 4, 2011 at 10:24 am

SCV has lost a great man Don Shaw. He helped hundreds of youth baseball players at the W.S. Hart PONY Baseball complex through 20 years. http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/the-signal/obituary.aspx?n=donald-e-shaw-don&pid=149075640

Leon WordenMarch 4, 2011 at 11:03 am

Hi Jeff — there is a common misconception that it is “redevelopment vs. schools,” or that redevelopment money “would otherwise go to schools.” It’s not surprising that this misconception persists; the governor himself says it. He knows better. With or without redevelopment, Prop. 98 makes K-12 schools whole. If redevelopment takes property tax, schools are still whole under Prop. 98. If redevelopment doesn’t take property tax, schools are still whole under Prop. 98. But wait, there’s more. Some of the property tax money that redevelopment agencies “take” is passed through (by the county assessor) to the schools. This pass-through money is ON TOP OF their Prop. 98 money. And it’s not restricted like Prop. 98 money, meaning the school districts can and do use it for capital projects. Remove redevelopment, and one byproduct is that you remove the “excess” funds that pass through to schools. Remove redevelopment, and the schools would never see this money because they would only get their Prop. 98 money. So where would the “excess” wind up? It would go to the state. It’s complicated. Let’s say the state is giving $400 to schools under Prop. 98 and $600 to everything else (that’s about the ratio). Let’s say the redevelopment agencies collect $20 and pass $5 through to the schools. The schools now have $405. Take away redevelopment and the schools have $400. The other state agencies now have $620. Am I making sense? This is why some school districts in California aren’t too hot about the idea of eliminating redevelopment. They aren’t beating the drum loudly, of course, because they’ve got more pressing concerns. But ask any superintendent in a school district in a redevelopment zone, and s/he can tell you. Now, I know what you’re going to say. Prop. 98 hasn’t been upheld in several years since its passage. That’s got nothing to do with redevelopment agencies. They’ll suspend Prop. 98 again with or without redevelopment.

IHeartSCVMarch 4, 2011 at 1:04 pm

“Now, I know what you’re going to say. Prop. 98 hasn’t been upheld in several years since its passage. That’s got nothing to do with redevelopment agencies.” Oh, but it does. Being theoretically funded is of little consolation to schools; they’d prefer the real funding that is flowing into redevelopment agencies. Every Newhall redevelopment dollar spent on anachronistic hitching posts or sand-colored brick inlays or buying out a successful auto business property deemed inappropriate for the area is a dollar that won’t be spent on some other public service. That said, I do think education has been yielding diminishing returns for a long time–but it and other public services seem like higher priorities. P.S. People don’t always disagree with you just because they are laboring under misconceptions or have been misinformed.

Leon WordenMarch 7, 2011 at 3:48 pm

Hart District received $83,000 last year in redevelopment pass-through. No, it’s not that much, but if you eliminate redevelopment, it’s $83,000 that the Hart District wouldn’t have. Hart District certainly doesn’t believe it would *gain* by eliminating redevelopment. (I’ve asked.)

DonRickettsMarch 4, 2011 at 11:54 am

The agenda sets a special meeting of the Council for March 15. No indication of what it is about.

Leon WordenMarch 4, 2011 at 1:00 pm

Don – the purpose of the meeting is to secede from the County of Los Angeles and form our own planet.

OccassionalPosterMarch 4, 2011 at 11:56 am

Problem Leon, Prop 98 doesn’t take the California state budget as a whole and give 40 percent to K-14, public schools and community colleges drink from the same trough. It actually is 40 percent of tax revenues. So when people start classifying tax revenues as fees, the Prop 98 formula doesn’t change but the amount is affected. So Prop. 98 itself needs to be reformed. Second, by the nature of Prop 98, which says 40 percent of state taxes go to K-14 education, making that pie larger increases school funding – since Prop 98 is driven by a formula. Redevelopment agencies allow the sidestepping of state by the local agency to spend the money the way it sees fit. I agree with local control of money in principal. However, this puts a redevelopment agency, usually a city council in control of how much it wants to help fund local education and usurps the authority of the local school board to control its own fiscal picture. Now, you will say the state is in effect stripping those rights from the local school board under Prop 98, but don’t blame the state or the Dems, or the county or Brown, Blame the Serrano case and the nice people at the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (Keeping old folks in their homes to property tax shelters for multibillion-dollar corporations).

Leon WordenMarch 4, 2011 at 12:56 pm

I’ll be the first to admit there’s a danger in oversimplifying it, as I have done, but the upshot is the same. In oversimplified terms … Income taxes go to the state. Property taxes are local. Redevelopment money is the *property* tax increment. Prop. 98 is a state guarantee of state funds (income taxes, state fees, etc.) and is unrelated to the property tax. Schools get a share of property tax to repay their bonded indebtedness. As Santa Clarita property owners know, there are a couple of dozen line items on their property tax bills, some of which are schools – specifically the repayment of voter-approved school bonds. Until 2 weeks ago, it was totally unknown what would happen with redevelopment’s “share” of the property tax….. so you really couldn’t — nobody could — make any valid assertions about where the money would go if redevelopment were eliminated. Everybody says it would go “to the schools” (and other agencies that would otherwise receive a share of property tax) — but this was never the case. Until 2 weeks ago, that is, when the governor released the language of his proposal, in which he said redevelopment’s share of the property tax would go to the other local agencies on the property tax rolls that receive an allocation. (City, county, county fire, Hart bonds, elementary bonds, CLWA, vector control, Santa Clarita Open Space, and a couple of dozen more.) However, several questions remain unanswered. The scuttlebutt (hope that’s not a banned word) is that the redevelopment tax increment will remain as a separate line item, and that while the current-year proposal might be to divvy it up among the other local agencies, it would remain at the Legislature’s discretion. And leaving local property tax dollars to the discretion of the California Legislature is a problem.

OccassionalPosterMarch 4, 2011 at 4:17 pm

Schools get property tax money for more than repaying bond indebtedness. It still remains the primary funding source for the operating budget of every school district in California, thus the scuttlebutt (if Leon used it, I will) related to Prop. 13 impact on school funding. Flat property tax revenues equal flat school revenues.

HermanMarch 4, 2011 at 9:25 am
“Taken together, the job growth for the first two months of 2011 has not been much better than it was last fall. Still, economists say they are hopeful that the pace will soon pick up, assuming higher global energy and food prices do not derail the recovery.” “Hopeful economists”, that’s encouraging.
john AdamsMarch 4, 2011 at 4:35 pm
One scary aspect of the labor report was the total workforce went down (thus causing the lowering of the unemployment number) Why did it go down?
Mr PerezMarch 5, 2011 at 11:14 am
Reverse immigration?
Jim FarleyMarch 4, 2011 at 10:02 am
Really looking forward to the McBean bridge widening. This was will resolve one of the bike trail connectivity issues I talked about in my bike story last year. Adding a Southbound traffic lane is great too. Currently when going South in the right lane if you are not paying attention you could rear end someone slowing to turn right into the Pavilions parking lot. Kudos to the city on this one!
NateMarch 4, 2011 at 10:23 am
I am stoked about the connection of San Francisquito trail and South Fork.
Mr PerezMarch 4, 2011 at 11:57 am
20-25 miles in an hour……
NateMarch 4, 2011 at 2:45 pm
I ride to cross train for running. It would be nice to be able to start on the south fork and go more the. 3.5 miles before it dead ends.
Mr PerezMarch 4, 2011 at 5:01 pm
I have a route for you that may shorten your distance a little bit but will work you harder because of the elevation.
Jim FarleyMarch 4, 2011 at 8:14 pm
I used a Google point to point mileage calculator. From the start of the South Fork Trail at Orchard Village to the end of the San Francisquito Trail at Copper Hill is 6.2 miles. It’s almost a perfect 10 kilometers. Adding the connection between the two trails at the McBean bridge to link the two trails is huge. Will this be the longest uninterrupted off street bike route in the valley? Me thinks it might.
JeffMarch 5, 2011 at 9:58 am
From the start of the path at Orchard Village to where it ends at Soledad/Lost Canyon is 11.1 miles. But I agree, it’s going to be great to have San Fracisquito path connected to south fork
Jim FarleyMarch 5, 2011 at 12:46 pm
You got me there. Even though that is all Class 1 I look at the South Fork/San Fran different because most of it is not even adjacent to a roadway but to the more bucolic riverbed. The Mrs. and I will be out on our bikes taking advantage of the already awesome trail system and this beautiful day later this afternoon.
FrankMarch 4, 2011 at 10:24 am
SCV has lost a great man Don Shaw. He helped hundreds of youth baseball players at the W.S. Hart PONY Baseball complex through 20 years. http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/the-signal/obituary.aspx?n=donald-e-shaw-don&pid=149075640
Leon WordenMarch 4, 2011 at 11:03 am
Hi Jeff — there is a common misconception that it is “redevelopment vs. schools,” or that redevelopment money “would otherwise go to schools.” It’s not surprising that this misconception persists; the governor himself says it. He knows better. With or without redevelopment, Prop. 98 makes K-12 schools whole. If redevelopment takes property tax, schools are still whole under Prop. 98. If redevelopment doesn’t take property tax, schools are still whole under Prop. 98. But wait, there’s more. Some of the property tax money that redevelopment agencies “take” is passed through (by the county assessor) to the schools. This pass-through money is ON TOP OF their Prop. 98 money. And it’s not restricted like Prop. 98 money, meaning the school districts can and do use it for capital projects. Remove redevelopment, and one byproduct is that you remove the “excess” funds that pass through to schools. Remove redevelopment, and the schools would never see this money because they would only get their Prop. 98 money. So where would the “excess” wind up? It would go to the state. It’s complicated. Let’s say the state is giving $400 to schools under Prop. 98 and $600 to everything else (that’s about the ratio). Let’s say the redevelopment agencies collect $20 and pass $5 through to the schools. The schools now have $405. Take away redevelopment and the schools have $400. The other state agencies now have $620. Am I making sense? This is why some school districts in California aren’t too hot about the idea of eliminating redevelopment. They aren’t beating the drum loudly, of course, because they’ve got more pressing concerns. But ask any superintendent in a school district in a redevelopment zone, and s/he can tell you. Now, I know what you’re going to say. Prop. 98 hasn’t been upheld in several years since its passage. That’s got nothing to do with redevelopment agencies. They’ll suspend Prop. 98 again with or without redevelopment.
IHeartSCVMarch 4, 2011 at 1:04 pm
“Now, I know what you’re going to say. Prop. 98 hasn’t been upheld in several years since its passage. That’s got nothing to do with redevelopment agencies.” Oh, but it does. Being theoretically funded is of little consolation to schools; they’d prefer the real funding that is flowing into redevelopment agencies. Every Newhall redevelopment dollar spent on anachronistic hitching posts or sand-colored brick inlays or buying out a successful auto business property deemed inappropriate for the area is a dollar that won’t be spent on some other public service. That said, I do think education has been yielding diminishing returns for a long time–but it and other public services seem like higher priorities. P.S. People don’t always disagree with you just because they are laboring under misconceptions or have been misinformed.
Leon WordenMarch 7, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Hart District received $83,000 last year in redevelopment pass-through. No, it’s not that much, but if you eliminate redevelopment, it’s $83,000 that the Hart District wouldn’t have. Hart District certainly doesn’t believe it would *gain* by eliminating redevelopment. (I’ve asked.)
DonRickettsMarch 4, 2011 at 11:54 am
The agenda sets a special meeting of the Council for March 15. No indication of what it is about.
Leon WordenMarch 4, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Don – the purpose of the meeting is to secede from the County of Los Angeles and form our own planet.
OccassionalPosterMarch 4, 2011 at 11:56 am
Problem Leon, Prop 98 doesn’t take the California state budget as a whole and give 40 percent to K-14, public schools and community colleges drink from the same trough. It actually is 40 percent of tax revenues. So when people start classifying tax revenues as fees, the Prop 98 formula doesn’t change but the amount is affected. So Prop. 98 itself needs to be reformed. Second, by the nature of Prop 98, which says 40 percent of state taxes go to K-14 education, making that pie larger increases school funding – since Prop 98 is driven by a formula. Redevelopment agencies allow the sidestepping of state by the local agency to spend the money the way it sees fit. I agree with local control of money in principal. However, this puts a redevelopment agency, usually a city council in control of how much it wants to help fund local education and usurps the authority of the local school board to control its own fiscal picture. Now, you will say the state is in effect stripping those rights from the local school board under Prop 98, but don’t blame the state or the Dems, or the county or Brown, Blame the Serrano case and the nice people at the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (Keeping old folks in their homes to property tax shelters for multibillion-dollar corporations).
Leon WordenMarch 4, 2011 at 12:56 pm
I’ll be the first to admit there’s a danger in oversimplifying it, as I have done, but the upshot is the same. In oversimplified terms … Income taxes go to the state. Property taxes are local. Redevelopment money is the *property* tax increment. Prop. 98 is a state guarantee of state funds (income taxes, state fees, etc.) and is unrelated to the property tax. Schools get a share of property tax to repay their bonded indebtedness. As Santa Clarita property owners know, there are a couple of dozen line items on their property tax bills, some of which are schools – specifically the repayment of voter-approved school bonds. Until 2 weeks ago, it was totally unknown what would happen with redevelopment’s “share” of the property tax….. so you really couldn’t — nobody could — make any valid assertions about where the money would go if redevelopment were eliminated. Everybody says it would go “to the schools” (and other agencies that would otherwise receive a share of property tax) — but this was never the case. Until 2 weeks ago, that is, when the governor released the language of his proposal, in which he said redevelopment’s share of the property tax would go to the other local agencies on the property tax rolls that receive an allocation. (City, county, county fire, Hart bonds, elementary bonds, CLWA, vector control, Santa Clarita Open Space, and a couple of dozen more.) However, several questions remain unanswered. The scuttlebutt (hope that’s not a banned word) is that the redevelopment tax increment will remain as a separate line item, and that while the current-year proposal might be to divvy it up among the other local agencies, it would remain at the Legislature’s discretion. And leaving local property tax dollars to the discretion of the California Legislature is a problem.
OccassionalPosterMarch 4, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Schools get property tax money for more than repaying bond indebtedness. It still remains the primary funding source for the operating budget of every school district in California, thus the scuttlebutt (if Leon used it, I will) related to Prop. 13 impact on school funding. Flat property tax revenues equal flat school revenues.