A thought for the day

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

I was blown away by the amount of signatures gathered for the anti-takeover library petition presented at last night’s City Council.

Seriously, we can barely get 10,000 people together for anything in this town (except perhaps a Hart vs Valencia or Canyon Country football game), but the anti-privatization folks managed to do it in the space of a few weeks.

Just to put that number into perspective: some 17,000 ballots were cast in the April 2010 City Council election. That’s 17,000 individual voters out of a registered voter population of around 80,000. None of the three top candidates (we run at large, remember) had more than 8,000 votes, Marsha McLean finished first with over 7,000. Gauny lost by 32 votes to Frank Ferry.

So, do the math. If the anti-privitization folks can keep the momentum going into next year’s Council Election and encourage those people to go to the polls next April, there could be 10,000 votes for someone other than Laurie Ender, the Councilwoman most vocal in her support of the seizure and privatization of the libraries. The only other incumbent up for reelection is Bob Kellar who, 1)has opposed the takeover since the beginning, and 2)may not be running at all.

The trick will be to focus those 10,000 votes on a single person and ensure those 10,000 voters know their intended candidate by name (so as to avoid the David Gauny vs David Galvan problem of 2010 that’s sure to arise again in 2012). Hopefully Kellar will run again in 2012, which would allow all library-supporters to concentrate their vote against Ender by voting for a candidate (probably Gauny) and incumbent Kellar. If Kellar doesn’t run, then it’s possible to see Gauny get elected and Ender re-elected, so clearly, library supporters should encourage Kellar to run.

In other words, by showing how deep the opposition to the library takeover is, anti-takeover folks may have found a broad base with which to unseat a powerful incumbent.

Comments (90)

Joe GrandeMarch 23, 2011 at 9:53 am

Just about any one person could unseat Ender. But if more then one person run against her, the outcome is not so predictable.

Lori RivasMarch 23, 2011 at 9:55 am

On their way out the door, we handed citizens a half slip which listed “things you can do,” including signing an upcoming recall petition. The half slips were stapled to a voter registration card. Oh, yes, using these numbers will slam the current Councilmembers in the face.

Joe GrandeMarch 23, 2011 at 12:22 pm

I was not at city hall last night (I can’t muster up enough respect to talk to them again), but recall is certainly something I could get behind. Anything I can do to help?

Kevin D. KorenthalMarch 23, 2011 at 9:57 am

I am not surprised that solid, fact-based refutation of the wildly inaccurate claims that have been made against LSSI and The City have fallen on deaf ears. So many times in my advocacy career have I come upon people who have staked an ideological stance and nothing, not even cold, hard evidence will move them off their position. The process under which the city took over the libraries may not have been to everyone liking, but it’s necessity is more evident than ever. The County’s budget is and will continue to be under the strongest pressure imaginable. The insistence to cut services will not be on the poor and the elderly, it will be on the libraries. How much longer will we keep the future of our libraries moored to a bureaucratic institution that has consistently used our tax dollars to keep libraries in other areas running while they cut services to our libraries. I call on the coalition against the library to immediately cease and desist from all their obstruction and allow the city to complete this process. If in the end this turns out to be a bad idea for the city and library users, they’ll be nothing that can hide that fact. And the objectors will be validated. But further obstruction in this matter (now that you have lost numerous lawsuits and presented 2000 signatures on a document so full of holes that it makes Swiss Cheese jealous) only serves to warp the process in favor of a failure that will have been created by the obstruction rather than any error in the process.

JeffMarch 23, 2011 at 10:01 am

Call your buddies in the Tea Party, they’re against the takeover too. Are you saying the local Tea Party is wrong?

Berta González-HarperMarch 23, 2011 at 12:58 pm

If Kevin does not, I will. Yes, the local Tea Party group is on the wrong side of this issue as well as calling for a change from a General Law City to a Charter City. Bell and the City of Los Angeles are Charter cities and I do not see how they are run any better, address resident concerns more thoroughly, live within their budgets, etc. Therefore, in my opinion, whoever from that group is steering these issues is wrong.

LoriMarch 23, 2011 at 5:16 pm

Berta has a nice, gray mullet.

Lori RivasMarch 23, 2011 at 5:32 pm

Different Lori; not me; not my style.

MikeMarch 23, 2011 at 10:50 pm

Funny

Library Card Carrying BookreaderMarch 23, 2011 at 10:07 am

The First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This is clearly an obstructionist document…

NateMarch 23, 2011 at 10:15 am

“I come upon people who have staked an ideological stance and nothing, not even cold, hard evidence will move them off their position.” ~This describes Kevin Korenthal to T. He walks straight down the cult party line on every topic.

LarMccMarch 23, 2011 at 10:33 am

So we should just sit back and watch the library system self-destruct? This is MY money they are spending, after all.

KevinMarch 23, 2011 at 10:05 am

Srsly, KevinK, you don’t get it. “The process under which the city took over the libraries may not have been to everyone liking”–you’re so right. The process was illegal. County may be short of funds, but so is this City. They’re already $1 million over budget, and guess who’s going to have to pay for it. At least County lives within its means. We don’t need spoiled children demanding more and more when the economy clearly demqands some restraint. And as for Ender, I’d say her political career is finished. I realize she uses “EnderMath” but 10,000 residents have spoken, and all she’s done is laugh in their faces.

augustMarch 23, 2011 at 10:09 am

“If in the end this turns out to be a bad idea for the city and library users, they’ll be nothing that can hide that fact.” Kevin, we’re only at the beginning and 10,000+ people have said this is an expensive, bad idea. “So many times in my advocacy career have I come upon people who have staked an ideological stance and nothing, not even cold, hard evidence will move them off their position.” Like you?

Kevin D. KorenthalMarch 23, 2011 at 10:11 am

@Jeff: This Tea Party has made a fool of itself for getting involved in this matter. Many other Tea Party groups around the country value ‘local control’ over unionized, bureaucratic menageries like Los Angeles County. @Kevin: The lawsuits that were dismissed prove that the process was not illegal. You can continue to think it was illegal, but that does not make it so.

JeffMarch 23, 2011 at 10:19 am

“This Tea Party has made a fool of itself for getting involved in this matter. Many other Tea Party groups around the country value ‘local control’ over unionized, bureaucratic menageries like Los Angeles County.” Wow. You mean we all made a mistake assuming they were being the fiscal conservatives they claim to be? They listed by item the new expenses and asked a good question about taxes. Who knew they were being fools? If the Tea Party can’t be trusted to watch over our money, really, who can?

Fed Up N SCVMarch 23, 2011 at 12:16 pm

It seems to me that the “fool” on this thread is not our local Tea Party, but I could be wrong. Let’s see what the group has to say about Kevin’s remark…

NateMarch 23, 2011 at 5:04 pm

Uh oh the big bad tea party got their feelings hurt by Kevin K’s comments. Hahaha

Joe GrandeMarch 23, 2011 at 10:54 am

Local control? LSSI’s offices are in Maryland, and COLa’s offices are in city hall.

NewActivist27March 23, 2011 at 10:15 am

There will be no problem keeping the momentum up till next years elections. When the public sees what they got for a “library” 10,000+ people will be filling the council seats with someone who will abide by the residents wishes. I was at the library last week, and already we’re told we can’t order books into our local branches; we can still order, but now have to drive much farther out of our way to pick things up. LSSI will bring books from Riverside; I predicte that we’ll be paying for this, whereas now we books and movies free. So now question, we won’t forget this come election time. All all because of Ender’s greed. Too bad McLean isn’t up for re-election; but her time will come.

NateMarch 23, 2011 at 10:23 am

Cash is King. It is one thing to sign an online petition totally different to get them to donate money and get enough voters to turn out. Americans are lazy and some what appathetic about the democracy they claim to love.

cashMarch 23, 2011 at 12:41 pm

Thanks gnat!

NateMarch 23, 2011 at 5:05 pm

You are king of the wind bags.

Kevin D. KorenthalMarch 23, 2011 at 10:16 am

@August: Where is the evidence that I am wrong? Despite all of your worrying and hand wringing, you have not produced one shred of evidence that this move is not in the best interest of the citizens. If that Petition that was signed by 2000+ is any identification at how willing this group of people is to indict the city and LSSI based on hearsay and blatant misrepresentation, I suspect that one day this group might attract a lawsuit against them.

Kevin D. KorenthalMarch 23, 2011 at 10:18 am

“I predicte that we’ll be paying for this, whereas now we books…” Yet another example of how assumptions made into fact have been the fuel on which the engine of this conspiracy has run.

JeffMarch 23, 2011 at 10:20 am

A “conspiracy” your friend and supporter Bob Kellar recognizes and supports. Get out of the way of the train or get run over Kev

NanAndSamMarch 23, 2011 at 10:21 am

KevinK, the union has nothing to do with this, so quit using this fallback. 10,000 RESIDENTS spoke out. Elections are coming, Ender WILL be ousted. We won’t forget. “The County’s budget is and will continue to be under the strongest pressure imaginable.” As opposed to our city, where the council runs a Ponzi scheme and wants to float a fake tax to spend more and more? We can’t keep spending to have everything new, new new. County was doing a fine job; the difference is they understand budets have limits.

Leon WordenMarch 23, 2011 at 10:31 am

Sorry for saying it twice, Jeff, but it seems you’ve reported this in two different places. It appears that NOBODY signed this anti-library-takeover petition. NO signatures were turned into the city — only a typed list of names and ZIP codes that were supposedly collected online. As I said in the other place, for all you know, I could have hit the send button 5,000 times using different names & email addresses.

Lori RivasMarch 23, 2011 at 10:51 am

Leon, stop discounting our voices AGAIN. Really, this gets tiresome. And whiny. Yes, there are names of actual people attached to the print out presented to the City last night. Because the names were gathered both electronically and in person, we put the names into a system which would print out a uniform list, a neater pile, if you will, of the petition signers.

Leon WordenMarch 23, 2011 at 11:19 am

Lori, you’re right, this is extremely tiring! I know better than to discount your enthusiasm, passion, or opinions about the library system. What I discount is anyone’s — including The Signal’s — misrepresentation of this “petition” as bearing actual signatures of real people. It didn’t. (And no, I didn’t watch last night’s council meeting, so I have no idea whether you are guilty of misrepresenting this petition. Not knowing that answer, I would not, and do not, cast aspersions against you.)

ToddMarch 23, 2011 at 12:53 pm

Lori- I’m sorry, but I have to take Leon’s side here (at least partially). Online petitions generally mean nothing. By no means am I suggesting that this case happened here, but what has happened in other issues is that the organizers of a particular movement will engage the services of a company (usually overseas) to go through the phone book and enter names and zip codes, just like your list. To politicians, the only thing that matters is verifyable signatures of registered voters. And if you’re collecting those signatures, it might as well be for a recall vote.

Lori RivasMarch 23, 2011 at 1:16 pm

There are a significant number of verifiable, hand-written signatures included in that stack. I know, because I helped to collect the signatures. Anyone can go to the scvfbg.org website, and take a look at the names of the folks who show up on the page. All real people. I have not personally looked at every single name on the petition, but I have read a large fair share of the names, and addresses, and comments, and can tell you that there is a large cross-section of people who are not happy with the prospect of this library change. And that, in my mind, is the power behind the petition — people were unhappy last August, and people are still unhappy today.

ToddMarch 23, 2011 at 1:45 pm

Yes, I saw those on the site. Many of them are names I’m familiar with and wouldn’t doubt the authenticity of. However, they are far from 10,000. (a quick and dirty count I did came up with 177 entries, of which many names were “XXXXX”d out, many had no zip code, and at least one that did, was outside of the city (Santa Barbara) A quick google of “santa clarita library petition” reveals several petition sites on the issue. One, with a goal of 5000 signatures touts a total of 49. The SEIU ( http://action.seiu.org/page/s/CAlibraries.. . didn’t someone say the unions weren’t involved???) site doesn’t list its signatories, but if the SEIU is asking its members to sign, who knows where they reside/work???? 536 people like your group’s Facebook page, which seems to be the largest number that anyone can come up with for supporters of your group (nice photo of el jefe Grande on there, btw). By comparison, my high school’s page has over 3000 people liking it… So, you might see why I would be skeptical of the authenticity of the claim of 10000+ signatures. Simple enough to fix… are you, or is anyone with your group, at liberty to post the complete list? Or, are you going to make me go through the city to get the public records request?

Joe GrandeMarch 23, 2011 at 3:29 pm

el jefe – I like it. I’d take it for my handle, but I don’t want to upset Berta or Leon.

Lori RivasMarch 23, 2011 at 3:49 pm

I do not have the list; I have never been in possession of the list. I was one of many that helped with the language of the petition, and I helped gather signatures, both electronically, and in person. I do know that the 10,000 signatures is colated from more than one, single petition. I do know that the 10,000 signatures are not exclusively residents of SCV. Nonetheless, all the signees were against transferring our libraries from County to LSSI oversight. Some may wonder why it would matter that non residents signed the petition, and I can say, if the American Library Association, and other professional library associations, have drafted official positions against corporate operation of public libraries, as an elected official, that would give me pause to re-evaluate. The XXXXX which appear on the on-line petition – that was an option for those that signed, thy did not want their names published on-line. The database does, however, register the actual names. I can comfortably say that 2-3,000 of the petition signers were local, and were gathered within the last 2 weeks. Of the remaining signees, I know that local signatures are included, I just haven’t seen the names to speak with any authority. By contrast, the City gathered about an equal number (2-3,000, I don’t remember) of respondants to its recent library survey, which cost the City many thousands of dollars, and included a direct mailing to every household. So, I think we did pretty good, by any account, with no money, and in a shorter amount of time. Lastly, no one ever said that the union wasn’t involved at all; advocating for library employees is absolutely what thy should be doing. What I have said, and argued, is that the union is not the driving force behind this movement. I am troubled by how easily citizen voices are discredited as “union driven.” That has never been the case, as far as I have seen.

Leon WordenMarch 23, 2011 at 2:10 pm

Don’t sweat it, Lori. You can apologize to me when you learn some of the names on the “list.” No rush.

Lori RivasMarch 25, 2011 at 7:49 am

I will apologize when I know the source of the discrepency. I, personally, read through about 1,500 actual petition signatures yesterday. All real signatures, all real names, all with local addresses, and nothing stood out as fraudulent.

Leon WordenMarch 23, 2011 at 10:32 am

And you’re right. Common sense dictates that this “10,000 petitioners” idea is ludicrous. Good luck getting 10,000 SANTA CLARITA RESIDENTS to hit the “send” button in a span of two weeks …. much less SIGN anything, which they did not do.

cashMarch 23, 2011 at 12:40 pm

Leon, we do not have any expectation that you will ever not support the council and the gobn. Without them you have no scvtv! Perhaps you can help the city out by finding a way to advertise your support of the library like you have for the enterprise zone.

Fed Up N SCVMarch 23, 2011 at 10:34 am

Jeff, Can you please clarify the above post that says “@Jeff: This Tea Party has made a fool of itself for getting involved in this matter. Many other Tea Party groups around the country value ‘local control’ over unionized, bureaucratic menageries like Los Angeles County. ” Is this indeed Kevin Korenthal making the statement about the local Tea Party or is it a statement made TO him? I think the group has a right to know who is making this remark.

Lori RivasMarch 23, 2011 at 10:47 am

Kevin said it at 10:11 above.

Fed Up N SCVMarch 23, 2011 at 12:13 pm

Thanks Lori! As it has been mentioned on SCVTalk that the way to communicate with our local group is through “smoke signal”, I just wanted to be sure that when I send mine out that the information is accurate. Smoke rising now……..

Petz-aka Saugus SteveMarch 23, 2011 at 11:00 am

Petz thought that Frank Ferry presented the board’s position very well last night. What I find telling is that there was no real effort made by Mike Antonovich or his representative to keep the library under county control. I agree with Kevin that it is time to let this process move forward and let’s see what happens.

Joe GrandeMarch 23, 2011 at 11:46 am

Why would Antonovich intervene? The city is doing the county a favor by buying obsolete libraries that the county could not otherwise get rig of.

Coastal SageMarch 23, 2011 at 1:07 pm

Petz, the way the relevant library law (Ed. Code 19116) is set up, there was nothing Mike Antonovich could do to stop what has happened, except personally phone each Council member and try to talk them out of it. That’s why I suspect the process was so secret: To keep Mike’s influence on his junior elected Republican brothers and sisters at bay.

Petz-aka Saugus SteveMarch 23, 2011 at 2:41 pm

CS-There was an article in The Signal today page 9 that the LA County Board of Superviors at the urging of Mike A had shown support for AB 438 that would require the citizens of a city to vote before withdrawing from a county library system . A day late and a dollar short. http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/AB_438/20112012/ At last nights meeting the council indicated that they had pleaded with the county to address their concerns and that withdrawl was the only option after being told No many times.

NateMarch 23, 2011 at 5:09 pm

Yeah that’s why he is claiming to build another in Stevenson Ranch right obsolete…pfffft

Coastal SageMarch 23, 2011 at 12:57 pm

I read I Heart SCV’s summary of what happened at the Council meeting in reference to the latest library discussion. She summarizes or quotes the comments of Councilman Bob Kellar that “He said that the City had no idea that they wouldn’t collect the special tax”. Bob Kellar has always been a kind friend, when he was part of the original Whittaker Bermite CAG. Bob is not stupid. Bob can understand legal concepts. I become very irritated when city lawyers, or people representing what city lawyers have said, lie to my friend. I become very irritated when city lawyers or city staff lie to the Council by omission of critical information. I become very irritated when city lawyers malpractice. Obviously, whoever from Burke Williams & Sorensen was acting as city attorney in the months of July and August 2010 were physically capable of doing what I did: Contact the County Clerk, and get all of the election materials concerning the County ballot measure which created the SPECIAL library tax. In order to interpret those election materials by simply reading their plain English, it takes no more lawyering skill than the ability to pass the California Bar exam. Once a city leaves the LA County Library System, the SPECIAL library tax may no longer be collected by anyone. In order to interpret those election materials by comparing their content to case law concerning “ballot measures” and “Proposition 13/218″, it takes the skill of someone who has been out of law school for three years at the very most. The election documents I got from the County Clerk, concerning the SPECIAL library tax, were crystal clear that after a city such as Santa Clarita seceded from the County Library System that neither the County nor the City could collect the SPECIAL library tax from any real estate taxpayer in the relevant city, i.e. Santa Clarita. Those are the same election document pdfs which I emailed to The Signal, SCVTALK and any friend who asked to see them. As a result, I find it very hard to believe that the downtown Los Angeles law firm of Burke Williams & Sorensen, which has been touting itself as “expert” in “public law” or “municipal law” for more than 30 years, was so grotesquely incompetent that they could not obtain, read and understand the clear meaning of SPECIAL library tax election documents preserved by the County Clerk. To presume so is an insult to the intelligence and skill of Carl Newton, Esq., a partner in that firm who was City Attorney in August 2010. So back to what Bob Kellar said in public last night: That the City had no idea that they wouldn’t collect the special tax. Bob does not lie about legal issues. What Bob was saying was that he had no idea that the City wouldn’t collect the special tax. His statement leaves Santa Claritans with several factual options: (1) Burke Williams & Sorensen knew that the City could not collect the Special library tax, but none of its lawyers directly advised Bob Kellar of that fact. (2) Burke Williams & Sorensen knew that the City could not collect the Special library tax, but none of its lawyers directly advised the City Council of that fact. (3) Burke Williams & Sorensen knew that the City could not collect the Special library tax, but only advised certain City employees of that fact, e.g. City Manager, Assistant City Managers, Deputy City Managers, thereby intentionally or negligently allowing the senior City employees to impart or not impart that information to the City Council members, individually or as a group. (4) Burke Williams & Sorensen knew that the City could not collect the Special library tax, advised certain City employees of that fact, e.g. City Manager, Assistant City Managers, Deputy City Managers, and accepted and relied upon an express promise by those senior City employees that they would impart that legal information to the City Council members, individually or as a group. Given the long history of the relationship between Santa Clarita’s city attorney law firm and its City Council members, where (1) legal research “assignments” to BW&S are handed out (or not) by senior city management employees, (2) the detail about the progress of litigation by or against the city is “filtered” by senior city management employees who do not tell the Council members the unvarnished truth about what the city’s attorneys say are problems in a case (e.g. the sex discrimination case against the city by its former trash franchise supervisor), and (3) city attorney staff members pandering to the senior city management employees as a means of insuring that new cases and matters continue to be assigned to the law firm, I point the finger directly at City Manager Ken Pulskamp. If Bob Kellar did not know that the City could not receive or collect the library SPECIAL tax, it was because Ken Pulskamp did not want Bob or the other Council members to know that simple legal fact, which even a novice municipal lawyer could have figured out in less than an hour.

Lori RivasMarch 23, 2011 at 1:33 pm

As we say in our house, ¡TOMA!

Mr PerezMarch 23, 2011 at 9:38 pm

In my house saying that resulted in babies lol

Lori RivasMarch 23, 2011 at 9:51 pm

eeek! eeeek! did not need that graphic!

LarMccMarch 23, 2011 at 1:39 pm

I googled the tax and read it for myself. Seems rather clear to me. And no one paid me $450 an hour to do the work either. Here, you can all look for free, top of page 3 is where you want to look: http://www.scribd.com/doc/36618271/Los-Angeles-County-Library-Resolution

IHeartSCVMarch 23, 2011 at 2:44 pm

CS, I think the most ridiculous thing is that Joe Montes didn’t answer Marsha McLean’s question about the legality of collecting the special tax. He said he doesn’t want to deliver an opinion until May 10th! Meanwhile, the City continues with its tax reduction charade.

American GirlMarch 23, 2011 at 1:09 pm

Coastal Sage: You are ‘right on’ with your comments…..the truth always rises to the top eventually!

Kevin D. KorenthalMarch 23, 2011 at 3:44 pm

Does anyone think that perhaps there was confusion between the Library Tax (which is transferable to the city) and the Special Library Tax (which is not)? Not to call anyone out, but a lot of people have been very vague on this and many did not know that there is actually 2 library taxes. Furthermore, we’ll have to wait until May to find out what the City Attorney advises on the issue of the special tax but it is clear that they will report that the Special Library Tax cannot be transferred. But that does not mean that the city will pursue a new Special Library Tax if they can run the libraries off the regular library tax which is what the math i have seen seems to be implying.

Kevin D. KorenthalMarch 23, 2011 at 3:46 pm

To Petz point, the LA County BOS is now showing California cities in what regard they hold them. No longer allowing the elected city council’s of California cities to do what is best for the communities they were elected to? This sound to me like the issue that the activists ought to be going after!

Leon WordenMarch 23, 2011 at 3:58 pm

Hi Lori! Topic is getting too narrow so I’ll start a new one. While I don’t consider the whole city-hating topic particularly newsworthy, I’m waiting to see if others deem it newsworthy and report on it tomorrow. If they don’t, I’ll spill what I know. For today, let’s just say that no, I don’t think all 10,000 “people” are union members. For instance, I do not believe Santa Claus is a union member. (I’ll give you that one early because that is BY FAR not the most egregious example.) Kevin — I’m starting to wonder. Two things: (1) How is it that our county libraries have only half the books they/we need? and (2) Why was the Valencia library allowed to get so badly run down that the city needs to invest an extra $1 million just to get it up to snuff and furnish it with enough books?

Lori RivasMarch 23, 2011 at 4:25 pm

Santa Claus signed our petition? Well, if the threat of no presents at Christmas is not force enough to stay with County, I don’t know what is! Seriously, though, I am asking around to the people that collated the petition signatures. I am ignorant on all the names. Still, I am cofortable with the strength of 2-3,000 petition signers (to which I referrd above) equal to the number of City library survey numbers. Ask the City – they’ll tell you that 2-3,000 respondants is a really good number. That’s what was said at the last library advisory committee meeting. The City feels comfortable with 2-3,000 number as a decent sampling of what citizens want. So, then, why discount the petition signers?

Leon WordenMarch 23, 2011 at 4:32 pm

I don’t dismiss the initial 200 or so who actually completed the online form and made comments (even if they didn’t sign anything!) It’s the other 9,800 that are the problem. Two hundred is a far cry from 10,000.

Lori RivasMarch 23, 2011 at 4:38 pm

Real people signed real petitions outside the libraries for the last two weekends. People signed real signatures at a ferocious rate, and it was a really really rare patron that stated support of the City’s move. Really rare. Like one person per 2 hour shift.

IHeartSCVMarch 23, 2011 at 4:31 pm

Leon, perhaps you should save your suspicion for the company that failed to state its need for $1.3M in extra start-up costs. Or blame the City for neglecting to look at the condition/collections of the libraries it was buying–if it had there wouldn’t be any “surprises.” Call the $1.3M what it is: PR money so that on opening day, TMS can take a photo of amply stocked shelves and y’all can write a Sunday editorial entitled “City libraries better already” or maybe “Libraries in good hands” or “Library gamble pays off.”

Leon WordenMarch 23, 2011 at 4:34 pm

IHeart – you’re right. I blame the City of Santa Clarita for any and all deficiencies in the County Library system. Good night!

LarMccMarch 23, 2011 at 9:50 pm

The Signal already has the editorial written for opening day, I am sure of it. Do you really think they will come out with anything negative?

NewActivist27March 23, 2011 at 7:54 pm

Who ever said Valencia was “badly run down?” I mean, apart from LSSI. The library just had a renovation. And what is “enough books”? Seems LSSI wants us to buy more and more because they make a profit from it. They’re not stupid. Immoral, yes. Stupid, no.

Serendipity631March 23, 2011 at 4:51 pm

If any of you have ever visited an LSSI run library you will know that: • On Opening Day it will look beautiful • There will be colors added everywhere – lots of splash • There will be stacks of crisp, new hardcover books on the shelves bought with your tax dollars and approved by Council last night • There will be happy, helpful faces around every corner • On the surface it will impress – there might be coffee shops, gift stores and machines that print paperback books at a cost Now fast forward to a year from now – That’s when we will truly know what this change means to the citizens of the City of Santa Clarita. Did we get the interlibrary books in a timely manner? Did they have the materials (books, audiobooks, DVDs, etc.) we wanted in the Inland Library System? Will it be difficult for us to get items from our local branches since the Inland Valley Library System can now access our collections online and our items will be sent to Riverside, San Bernardino and Inyo Counties? Will we still have valuable out of print books in our collections or were they weeded out? Will photocopies still be free to library patrons? Will there be a children’s librarian, reference librarian, and teen/young adult librarian at each of our branches? Yes, after year one and then after year two we will know…………….

Coastal SageMarch 23, 2011 at 5:51 pm

And if, in such a Republican town, on 7/1/11 the library has crisp new copies of English translations of the writings of Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Mao, Castro, Guevarra, all of the English language biographies of both Fidel Castro and Che Guevarra, and the writings of Eldridge Cleaver and Angela Davis, for my grandchildren to read, then I will believe it is a real library. That’s the purpose of an independent library board of trustees, to prevent political ideology on the left or the right, or supporting one religion or another, from dictating what the taxpayers pay for the public to read.

Bill ReynoldsMarch 23, 2011 at 6:59 pm

Oh yes, we really need our grandchildren to read Angela Davis, Karl Marx, Che Guevarra, etc. Good grief. . .

NewActivist27March 23, 2011 at 7:57 pm

The issue is, you should be able to read anything you want, without censorship. What you read to your grandchildren in your business.

Bill ReynoldsMarch 23, 2011 at 9:41 pm

Yeah that’s it, America is going to hell in a hand basket and you want more socialism, marxism & communism growing in America. Give me a break!

Gang FangMarch 23, 2011 at 10:14 pm

It’s call freedom. Might wanna look into it, you frosty ponce! What exactly did you fight for when you served this country? Shouldn’t your grandchildren have access to the books necessary to research the “bad guys” that nasty old Grandpa Bill warned ‘em about? Your faux patriotism is frighteningly putrid.

NateMarch 23, 2011 at 10:21 pm

Little willy wants to burn books… Who was know for that again?

Gang FangMarch 23, 2011 at 10:32 pm

Little Willy! And so he shall be.

Coastal SageMarch 24, 2011 at 7:38 pm

No bill, the purpose one reads Trotsky, Guevarra, the biographers of Castro, and writings of Jesuits who preached liberation theology, for example, is to learn how to run a revolution, which is Americans’ God given right, if you believe Thomas Jefferson. If the folks in Libya had those books available in Arabic, at their local libraries, they might have had a clue on how to overthrow “the man in the Sham-Wow” without our help.

Joe GrandeMarch 23, 2011 at 7:46 pm

My list of authors would be considerably different, but the point remains the same. COLA libraries have both lists, while none of it would be deemed appropriate for the quality of life Ferry, Ender and McLean have in mind for us (look, look, see spot run).

MikeMarch 23, 2011 at 10:52 pm

The Soul On Ice test. I’m curious too.

Joe GrandeMarch 23, 2011 at 7:19 pm

I have never visited an LSSi run library, and it is doubtful that I ever will.

NateMarch 23, 2011 at 5:03 pm

I think what is most shocking is jeff believes that 10,000 people signed the petition especially when they can barely muster 500 likes on Facebook.

Bill ReynoldsMarch 23, 2011 at 7:01 pm

Hey Lil Natie No Show, news alert for you… many folks could care less about social networking. Get a clue…

Gang FangMarch 23, 2011 at 10:16 pm

Lord Billy, please convince Sarah Palin of this nugget of knowledge you have bestowed on us. You are so very modern and “hip” with the times.

NateMarch 23, 2011 at 10:18 pm

Hey little Willy social media is unseating dictators in the middle east. You can’t get traffic on websites without social media Numb nuts. If these jokers can barely get 500 people to click a “like”button, there is zero chance you got 10,000 to go to a website and fill out a webform. Since this is what I do… And have been doing for the last decade. I am calling bullshit.

Gang FangMarch 23, 2011 at 10:37 pm

Little Willy has a keyboard with oversized keys covered in saran wrap.

Love Santa ClaritaMarch 23, 2011 at 8:58 pm

I agree with Leon and Kevin. Enough already. The City maybe should have done things a little differently in August, but the decision has been made. Let’s move on. And don’t forget that even with the Special Tax and the Regular Property Tax the City and all of us had to build Canyon Country Library and the new Newhall Library. We will have more books and longer hours. The County Librarian has testified that their budget is imploding and they are cutting everywhere. It is not even clear that the County would have put books into the new Newhall Library. Can’t figure out why Antonovich only thinks of a Stevenson Ranch Library when we want to improve the three libraries located in the City. Also , why all the attacks on LSSI. You should also attack the Waste Companies, the Transit Companies and the LMD companies. All private doing city contracts. Does hypocritcal come to mind?

LarMccMarch 23, 2011 at 9:42 pm

The city did not do things differently in August. The city has been doing this all along. The city council (except Kellar, IMHO), have largely ignored public input on many key projects. Voter apathy has returned these guys to office. The city has wasted countless MILLIONS doing boneheaded things and largely ignoring public input. They have been able to get away with it. Over the objections of the community, the city approved a large commercial for-profit development at the hospital. This was land that was given to our non-profit hospital years ago. Of course the out of town developer came into town and wrote checks (some large) to fund the campaigns of many of our council people. In the end, the project was approved and we now have a massive development taking place in an area that is zoned residential. The city has ruined old town Newhall. Many businesses have closed shop including Newhall Hardware, a fixture in this town for many, many years. The city failed to listen to it’s own committee on recommendations and did what they wanted. The businesses that remain are barely hanging on. Now they have come for the libraries. It is obvious that the city is rushing into this and things are already falling through the cracks. The city has no idea HOW we use the libraries and what services we need. There was no analysis done in advance and the takeover is a little more than 3 short months away. I could care less about the trash service. It’s very simple. Put garbage out, the next morning it is magically gone. It either works or does not. The library is much more complex and it is silly to compare the two. The city has stepped in it this time though. While small pockets of our city can get fired up about the latest gaff, the libraries are something many people all over the valley use. It is obvious that we are going down another bumpy road with the city. Many people are now waking up and are shocked at the arrogance and stupidity of our council. You suggest we should stop complaining and just accept it? I am going to continue to spout my mouth off. Then when it all is a mess I will tell them “I told you so.” Come election time in 2012, I will remind everyone about Ender’s role in this fiasco, along with the other crooked dealings she has been involved with.

NateMarch 23, 2011 at 10:23 pm

And your groups lies about petitions.

Leon WordenMarch 24, 2011 at 11:06 am

This is kinda nonsensical … Newhall Harware stopped turning a profit in 1998, when Don G. sold the business, and it didn’t even pay rent the last several years it was still operating. Don G.’s heirs finally decided they couldn’t carry it any more and they wanted to sell the building. The fact that Newhall Hardware was unprofitable after 1998 has nothing to do with redevelopment, which didn’t really get going till a few years ago. The problem was that there had been NO redevelopment prior to 1998 and, like so many businesses in Newhall, it died as customers (including, especially, contractors) left for greener pastures and bargain prices that Newhall Hardware did not feel it could offer. The fact that Don G’s heirs haven’t unloaded the building is unrelated to redevelopment, as well; although redevelopment has raised many property values in Newhall, the economy nosedived when the heirs pulled the plug on Newhall Hardware. They’re waiting for more favorable market conditions.

Coastal SageMarch 24, 2011 at 7:40 pm

Thanks Leon. The truth is always enlightening.

BertaMarch 24, 2011 at 11:02 am

Laura Dixon from the Signal called me this morning and asked me to verify my signature on the so called “petition” against the formation of the City of Santa Clarita Public Library system, since my name was listed and she knows from hearing me speak on the subject that I am not opposed but in fact support the formation of our own municipal library system. The very fact that these people who are against the library are fraudulently and deceitfully using my and other people’s names and information , which is also identity theft , should concern every reasonable and decent person. Reminds me of the Acorn stuff…

BertaMarch 24, 2011 at 11:09 am

Just a footnote: the new registration system does not accept my correctly spelled name Berta González-Harper so I am now just Berta.

kkorenthalMarch 24, 2011 at 11:10 am

I believe that the continued assault against the city on this issue is fueled in large part by the past infringements by the council on the will of the people of Santa Clarita. My own collision with Frank Ferry on that atrocious and unconscionable letter he wrote to my employer must be a factor in the battle against the council. And I agree that this council is the Howdy Doody Show but with less entertainment value. I can not express my antipathy towards the council on a number of issues that I believe they have given short shift to the residents on. But the decision to bring the libraries under the control of the city was an uncharacteristically sound decision. All I ask of my fellow Conservatives who are reading this is that they separate their valid dislike of this council from the issue at hand. Smaller government, local control, lower taxes to spur the economy… All of these things will come along with longer operating hours, more books, better maintained facilities and better partnership with library users. Please consider supporting this difficult but necessary change.

Coastal SageMarch 24, 2011 at 7:45 pm

Kevin, while I disagree with you on 80% of the issues, I was truly outraged by what Frank Ferry did to you. In case it was never mentioned, his conduct was an attempt to induce your employers to violate at least 3 sections of the California Labor Code, which are intended to absolutely immunize political speech and political action from employer retribution. Sadly, too few people in Santa Clarita know about those Labor Code sections, since the practice of intimidation/job threats goes back so far, chronologically, and is so widespread.