April 4, 2011 – Daily Brief

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

Interesting article on the growth of charter schools in the SCV, with one Saugus Union School District official telling the Signal there’s no point to having charter schools in a place with high performing school districts. But charter parents say they’re not interested in public schools that just teach to tests. SIGNAL
Just awful: an 8 year old boy was killed Friday after the car he was travelling in struck a semi-trailer on Highway 14. The boy apparently wasn’t buckled in, nor was a 5 year old child in the car who also suffered injuries. SIGNAL
13 bridges across the SCV have been found to be “structurally deficient” by a transportation organization, but officials stress there is nothing to be worried about. SIGNAL
LSSI, the library contracting company that will takeover our libraries on July 1, has posted several SCV library jobs to its website. The job descriptions -ranging from Librarian to Branch Manager to Automation Systems Manager- don’t have compensation figures but most are full time. LSSI SITE
Dave Bossert goes there: accusing the Signal of plagiarism and writing a really low blow against Frank Ferry, Bossert says he believes in karma. Also, a post that looks like it’s been pulled says the Beacon is in “talks with a local investor group to sell a partial stake” in the West Ranch Beacon. One “investor” in the post says the WRB is a “media force” in the SCV. The post says the site would be expanded under the arrangement. WRB
Crazy new suck truck cleans out clogged storm drains in Santa Clarita. It’s called the VACTOR 2100 and maybe I’m just geeking out on it, but I’d like to drive it some time and operate the big suck tube CITY BRIEFS
Some 500 riders turned out of the Santa Clarita Century on Saturday, a charity ride that raises money for the SCV Child and Family Center. SIGNAL Speaking of the Child and Family Center, a Signal editorial describes what the low-key organization does in the valley SIGNAL
LA County prosecutors have “withheld evidence, intentionally misled jurors, and committed other types of misconduct” in 31 cases throughout the last several decades says a report by the Innocence Project. LA TIMES
Terrible: A San Francisco Giants fan was beaten to a pulp by two Dodger fans at Dodger Stadium on opening day. DAILY NEWS
Great Signal interview of a 34 year old career Sgt. in the Marine Corps who hails from Canyon Country and is on his third tour in Afghanistan SIGNAL
Buck McKeon questions why the Defense Department is cutting so much from ballistic missile defense AVIATION WEEK
SCV Chamber of Commerce finally gets a blog SCV CHAMBER
This Letter to the Editor says Calgrove Kennels, probably the nicest canine boarding facility in the SCV, is closing on July 1 SIGNAL
More info on that cool “Bikes and Bites” bicycling + food event at COC’s Canyon Country campus. Happening in May. KHTS
Kevin Korenthal, describing himself as a “tea party person,” defends the City’s move to privatize the library system saying, “Everything in my knowledge of this issue tells me that conservative Republicans and tea party members should cheer the decision to make our libraries local so that our tax dollars are invested right here.” SIGNAL
LTE writer says the City has made a series of poorly-thought out decisions, says that what is needed is an oversight person from Valencia, Saugus, Newhall and Canyon Country who will “oversee these major projects to make sure it’s what we “need” in the city and to save us from irrational spending.” Hmmm, that sounds like a District-based city council, doesn’t it? SIGNAL
LA Times Columnist Steve Lopez says its time to “tinker” with Proposition 13, at least for commercial property owners LA TIMES
Myers takes a new approach in saying that Castaic doesn’t need a new high school SIGNAL
Columnist Steve Lunetta says that if the state and federal government ended all social service programs, the church would step in and quite likely solve the root causes of poverty. SIGNAL

Comments (41)

Timothy Myers SR.April 4, 2011 at 7:34 am

DB must not really believe in karma because if he did he would not have made that nasty comment about Frank Ferry, worried about what part of his massive gut is going to explode.

Timothy Myers SR.April 4, 2011 at 7:36 am

Jeff: Thank you for the angle on the column since some might believe it was just an excuse to say that Valencia put a massive beat down on Hart! (just sayin’)

spineflower2April 4, 2011 at 7:55 am

Whine whine cry cry. Hart is in decline. But he thinks that is a reason to deny poper facilities and a local school for Castaic, twice promised to voters in selling almost half a billion in bond measures? Oh wait, maybe Tim slept in and this was supposed to be his April Fools Day column!

CCApril 4, 2011 at 8:25 am

Glad to see the Signal interview our military. I would much rather celebrate their life and commitment to serve.

Venturan (NDApril 4, 2011 at 8:36 am

It is a huge loss for the region to have Calgrove Kennels close. They are regarded as the best facility in the area for socializing anxious dogs (outside of Cesar Milan, of course ). We had two trainers independently recommend CK specifically for that issue, one 20+ year trainer going so far as to say they’ve turned around dogs that were previously considered lost causes.

NateApril 4, 2011 at 8:44 am

David Bossert convicted narcissist and blantant plagiarist and accusing anyone of plagiarism is simply amazing. Karma is coming. Lunetta is almost as high as his sister.

IHeartSCVApril 4, 2011 at 9:01 am

The person who does the most damage to Bossert’s reputation is Bossert himself. Yeah, not sure where he gets off calling plagiarism (he doesn’t give any specific examples).

Timothy Myers SR.April 4, 2011 at 9:19 am

IHeartSCV: I think he is conflating plagiarism with “me too” journalism. WRB ran stories on chaos at the hospital before the Signal, with their source most likely Dr. Dorio; stories the Signal probably would not have published but they could not ignore the material on the WRB.

Venturan (NDApril 4, 2011 at 8:48 am

WRB is a “media force” in the SCV Yes, the publication wherein everything is posted by “admin”. As they say in Night at the Roxbury , ‘Sweet-ass-sweet!’

Timothy Myers SR.April 4, 2011 at 9:21 am

If this story about an “investor” is true I would guess we are not talking about Huffington Post money.

James FarleyApril 4, 2011 at 8:50 am

My wife sent me out for her favorite fish tacos yesterday. To our dismay I found both La Salsa Grills out of business (Lyons and Old Road). I understood they were both owned by the same person. Too bad. I know it’s been brought up before but does anyone have advice on their favorite fish taco place?

ScooterApril 4, 2011 at 9:55 am

Wahoos

Serendipity631April 4, 2011 at 9:07 am

David Bossert obviously does not understand the concept of karma. ” if someone is nasty to me or screws with me then I have a tendency to give that back tenfold to that person. In other words, reflect back what is given!.” Mr. Bossert, this is called revenge, spite, malice, ill will, animosity, and bitterness.

Jane DApril 4, 2011 at 9:12 am

Dogs – Always thought Calgrove looked nice, but was too expensive for me – I have 3 dogs and they didn’t discount for multiple dogs or days so would be $150/per day, in some cases that was more than my hotel was costing me I found Canyon Kennels on Sierra Highway – Julie & Duane are great and my dogs love them. For the first time, they weren’t stressed by staying at a kennel. It is not as fancy/cute as Calgrove, but your dogs will love their stay! 661-251-1491.

BertaApril 4, 2011 at 9:22 am

Jeff a correction to the terminology you and others use in reference to our new public Santa Clarita libraries. First, our libraries are not being PRIVATIZED.Privatization means private ownership, as in Wal-Mart. The libraries will be PUBLICLY owned, as in we city residents. Second, neither LSSI nor the city is taking over the libraries. LSSI will ASSUME MANAGEMENT of OUR (we the public own) municipal libraries. The Santa Clarita Public Library system will be OWNED (as in purchased at fair market value) by the City of Santa Clarita’s taxpayers (us) after July 1 2011. The day-to-day operations of our libraries will be MANAGED by LSSI under a contract supervised by our city staff, which is directly answerable to the city manager, who is directly responsible to our elected Council members, which are directly answerable to us the residents. There is no privatization or takeover. There is a change in public ownership (county residents to city residents) and a change in management (from COLA library to LSSI).

JeffApril 4, 2011 at 9:43 am

A matter of opinion. We’re laying off public workers and hiring private workers. We may own the books and materials but this is a textbook example of privatization and outsourcing. Don’t deny it; embrace it. This is what people on your side of the political fence have said we need to do for decades. They’d like to replicate this model to multiple sectors, just as they’re doing in Costa Mesa. At least Korenthal is honest about the agenda. Also, it’s not just a takeover, it’s a seizure of library assets against the will of the people. This is part of the official SCVTalk.com Style Book. Someone’s got to be honest about what’s going on here.

BertaApril 4, 2011 at 10:05 am

Jeff you stick to your beliefs and I will stick with what I know to be true. I ask that you follow up and come back after a reasonable amount of time has passed, after we assume ownership of our local libraries, and provide a fair update on the state of our City of Santa Clarita Public libraries. I do appreciate the fact you provide a forum for those of us in support to “speak” on this issue even though you personally disagree. Thanks.

JeffApril 4, 2011 at 10:12 am

Whoa whoa whoa, you’re letting me off that easily? That’s not like you at all. Here, let’s try this. Question for you: are prisons run by private for-profit companies an example of privatization? How about for profit military contractors? Both are ostensibly “controlled” by elected officials. Both are examples of jobs, tasks and operations that used to belong (for good reason) to the public realm. These were never considered to be profitable industries, efforts made by the private sector to make them profitable resulted in them being inequitable. The library situation is no different. Libraries used to be owned, controlled, and operated by the people. Now we are among the first cities to hand over operational control to a private, for-profit company. LSSI has created a business model that depends on privatization; their entire business model falls flat unless we decide to prviatize a function that used to be exclusively public.

Alan FerdmanApril 4, 2011 at 11:06 am

At the last Council meeting, the Library comment that made me think the most was a when a lady asked; Why are we spending all this money to buy something we already own? Now that is a really good question. If we add it all up, it is almost $25 million for the Newhall Library land and construction. Plus another $10 million in Library startup costs. Some people will argue the land and new building is being paid for with redevelopment money. But isn’t that is just tax money taken out of another one of our pockets? So, why is this issue being so vigorously being supported by City Hall? If it was truly revenue neutral, would it be such a big deal or is this just another way to cloud another issue? The discussion, therefore, brings me to this question. If the Library System stayed with the County, How would our City justify spending $25 million on a 30,000 square foot anchor building at the end of Main Street in Newhall? Perhaps it is time to talk Santa Clarita City Council Member elections by district.

BertaApril 4, 2011 at 12:19 pm

You asked for it! Jeff I understand that you and others are viewing this issue emotionally. I have posted multiple times on the difference between the terms you and others insist on using, because they have very negative connotations. I agree with the Signal editorial, which commented that critics are simply not listening. Seizure is something being taken by force or confiscated. In this instance, nothing is being taken by force or confiscated. The residents of the City of Santa Clarita are purchasing assets not already owned at fair market value. You say it is seizure because it is “against the will of the people”. That is not the definition of “seizure”, and I say not so anyway. It is against YOUR will and some of the more vocal people, but it is not against MY will or that of others. Where are the other “thousands” who have not come to city hall with pitchforks to demand staying with the COLA system or signed the so-called “petition” for due diligence? Privatization refers to legal ownership, and whom or what is in control. I will not respond to your other examples, as I am not talking about those contractors or situations. In this instance, there is no privatization. The public via city residents own the facilities and materials and control the contract for the management of our public library system. I have used the example of an apartment complex before. One more time: I am a long time “tenant” paying more than my fair share of costs, who also owns one of the three fully furnished buildings, with an option, via my prenuptial agreement, to buy the other two older buildings and all remaining furnishings. My husband, the property owner of the other two buildings, keeps raising my share of the costs, limiting the days and hours I can use my own apartment and have access to the other buildings too. He makes me pay for new construction and upgrades to all three buildings myself so that he has more money to spend on his other ladies, and is not forthcoming on how many refrigerators, stoves, a/c units etc are actually on the premises so I also have to pick up those additional costs to replace or furnish myself. Sick of it, I finally say, ok I want a divorce. I will buy the other two buildings and the furnishings at fair market value, as my prenuptial contract specifies. Once I file for divorce, my husband locks me out of my apartment building for 6 months while delayed repairs are being made, even though I own that building and paid already for the repairs via several different fund accounts, while we “negotiate” the divorce terms and prices. Our attorneys and we haggle back and forth, about what our prenuptial actually says, what is enforceable, etc but finally we agree. I buy the other two buildings I do not already own and everything in them, and decide to have a property manager take care of the day-to-day stuff for all three buildings. Who owns the property? The property manager, LSSI does not own my buildings or the contents. I (the City) retain ownership, responsibility for and control of what happens to my buildings and contents. The residents of the City of Santa Clarita are the new property owners (me) via our agents the City (Council & Staff) who administers the escrow account funds (taxes), and our property managers are LSSI. PS The County is my now poorer ex husband!

JerryApril 4, 2011 at 2:24 pm

BGH “You asked for it!”, the other side isn’t listening, Ender Math , and that I own 3 houses story, Is it still April Fool’s day? LOL……… The only thing I learned is that YOUR EX-HUSBAND MUST BE A HAPPY MAN.

BertaApril 4, 2011 at 5:16 pm

Jerry if that is really what you got out of that very long explanation, you really do need to work on your comprehension skills. You are a perfect example of someone who is so busy coming up with negative remarks because you dislike the messenger; you do not even get the message. Hey, but at least you made a stab at reading it…

Phil EllisApril 4, 2011 at 7:31 pm

We contract out (out source) our police force to the County. Is that privatization? We outsource our transportation to an outside management company. Is that privatization? Privatization is just an ill-conceived buzzword used by the library detractors. If people really want the liibraries saved, wouldn’t they want them controlled by the more solvent entity – the City?

Cheryl PhillipsApril 4, 2011 at 8:01 pm

” There is a change in public ownership (county residents to city residents) and a change in management (from COLA library to LSSI).” I am a Los Angeles County tax paying resident. I am also a City of Santa Clarita tax paying resident. Nothing has changed – my taxes paid for the library under LACL and my taxes will still pay for the City of SC Library. And as you stated above – ” The day-to-day operations of our libraries will be MANAGED by LSSI under a contract supervised by our city staff, which is directly answerable to the city manager, who is directly responsible to our elected Council members, which are directly answerable to us the residents.” City staff, city manager, and Council members – none of whom have any library experience, education, qualifications, etc. yet they will be overseeing the LSSI contract. In the Riverside County LSSI system there is a County Librarian Director to oversee the contract -She is not an employee of LSSI, but an employee of Riverside County and she is a credentialed Librarian with an MLS degree and experience – very different from who will be the watchdog for LSSI in Santa Clarita. Would be great if our City hired that knowledgeable middle person to oversee our LSSI contract. http://bit.ly/fKZnNy

BertaApril 4, 2011 at 11:06 pm

Cheryl you say, “I am a Los Angeles County tax paying resident. I am also a City of Santa Clarita tax paying resident. Nothing has changed – my taxes paid for the library under LACL and my taxes will still pay for the City of SC Library.” There most certainly is a change. After July 1, your taxes and mine will continue to pay for our libraries but you will now have a direct voice in how your libraries are stocked and managed, hours of operation, programs offered, etc. We have had no choice or input regarding any of those things with the Los Angeles County Libraries. You further say, “In the Riverside County LSSI system there is a County Librarian Director to oversee the contract -She is not an employee of LSSI, but an employee of Riverside County and she is a credentialed Librarian with an MLS degree and experience.” We are hiring LSSI a professional library management company and no doubt will have plenty of citizen participation including many current and former librarians such as you. I personally am not sure we need that additional level of oversight for only three library branches, especially since as you mention this person has oversight of the entire Riverside County system, which is managed by LSSI. If you feel strongly about this issue perhaps, you should suggest it to Darren Hernández, or mention it at the next CPLAC meeting. I also will add as far as I know we never have had an impartial outside “watchdog” credentialed Librarian with an MLS degree and experience to audit and oversee our library service levels or our contract with the County of Los Angeles either.

Cheryl PhillipsApril 5, 2011 at 8:37 am

Already have discussed it with Darren and Mark Smith. You need to let go of comparisons with LACL system and LSSI. As of 7/1 County is gone – LSSI – a for profit company is in.

BertaApril 5, 2011 at 9:52 am

Cheryl I have no trouble letting go of LACL. I am happy you had access to and spoke with representatives of LSSI on issues of concern to you. Already you are having more of a voice than you ever did with LACL. Your input has been solicited via the CPLAC and you have had direct contact with LSSI representatives and City staff to express your concerns, offer ideas, etc. You and others keep talking about LSSI being a for profit company as though “profit” is a dirty word. The County of Los Angeles library system has been making “a profit” from the taxpayers of Santa Clarita and nearby unincorporated areas for DECADES and redistributing that “profit” where they see fit so while the County is not “technically” a for profit enterprise the results are the same. WE pay, and THEY decide how and where they spend the extra money (profit) collected. While you may say yes but the county libraries put it back into other libraries, I respond yes but we still have gotten the shaft by the county for years. I would prefer to have a company “managing” our libraries with lower markups (profit margins) and with the ability to fire non-performing employees, a government entity with better financial management skills such as the City as trustee of our money. I and every other resident now also have a voice on how we spend our money whether on programs, materials, facilities, etc to enjoy our libraries here locally. We have grown enough we no longer need to be subsidizing other municipalities and accepting less than what we pay for.

spineflower2April 4, 2011 at 9:44 am

A distinction without a difference.

NateApril 4, 2011 at 9:53 am

pri·va·tize /ˈpraɪvəˌtaɪz/ [prahy-vuh-tahyz] –verb (used with object), -tized, -tiz·ing. 1. to transfer from public or government control or ownership to private enterprise: a campaign promise to privatize some of the public lands. 2. to make exclusive; delimit or appropriate: special-interest groups attempting to privatize social issues.

Phil EllisApril 4, 2011 at 7:34 pm

So then is the City a private enterprise meaning we have privatization or is it a government entity meaning public control?

Lori RivasApril 4, 2011 at 9:34 am

I will happily pay my taxes until the Church feeds the hungry, houses the homeless, cares for the orphan and the widow and heals the sick. The Church can step in, anytime, but it will require using their resources for things other than fancy,new buildings, elaborate social activities; it will require personal sacrifices, such as Christians living less opulently, and more in community. It will also require church members to get up close and personal with the needy – inviting the needy into your own house, feeding the needy with your own food, covering medical expenses for a sick someone, parenting an orphan. If every church family did one of these – on top of their tithe, on top of sponsoring agencies in foreign countries, THEN we may be able to do away with state sponsored social services. Church members, put your money where your mouth is. Otherwise, comments such as Lunetta’s are just shallow political complaints.

Lori RivasApril 4, 2011 at 11:16 am

“…the cycle of poverty might be broken for many since the root causes for their predicament would be addressed, not merely the surface issues.” What, exactly, does this mean? That those in poverty are morally deficient? That the Church, presumably the Christian Church, can convert people, which will lead to an end of poverty? Sounds like the prosperity gospel. Name it and claim it. Or, only sinners are poor and needy. I actually think that the Christian church can do a lot to end poverty, but my idea has more to do with humility and grace and justice on the end of the church-goers, not a “lesson” for the needy.

4eyedsueApril 4, 2011 at 12:28 pm

Lori- If every Church (Christian and otherwise) did as you asked, we’d still have people complaining to the local paper about how it’s “not fair”. This church does more, this church does less, you don’t give as much as I do, all you do is take… Those same people will continue to accuse the needy of being leeches.

Lori RivasApril 4, 2011 at 12:39 pm

True enough. Sad, but true.

BertaApril 4, 2011 at 9:53 am

As to Dave Bossert’s comments, you may notice that his “publication” from outside the city limits is littered with anti city contributors who snipe at the city using his West Ranch Beacon as their forum. You will also notice that few people, including me, usually even bother to correct or comment on the items posted. For anyone to suggest that another’s life threatening illness is karma or somehow deserved is just ignorant and stupid. I would make the same comment if Frank said something like that about Bossert’s health. Dave, the Beacon is just a place for folks to post their one sided views. There is no balance. Many of the “regulars”, including you who control all posts, have little or no credibility elsewhere.

NateApril 4, 2011 at 10:25 am

Agreed. Also he calls himself a “newspaper” ( http://westranchbeacon.com/about/ )

Mr PerezApril 4, 2011 at 4:49 pm

Nate, did you just agree with Berta???????? Holy shiznit Batman! Jeff, is there an option on here to change ones password to something I personally desire?

Mr PerezApril 4, 2011 at 4:56 pm

Belay that request Jeff, figured her out.

BertaApril 4, 2011 at 5:19 pm

Hey, Pérez don’t spoil the momentary peace…

Gang FangApril 4, 2011 at 7:04 pm

Agreed x2. Look at us, a regular threesome of agreeableness. Hot.

Mr PerezApril 5, 2011 at 5:31 pm

Hey I think the peace is uber cool!

Timothy Myers SR.April 4, 2011 at 7:34 am
DB must not really believe in karma because if he did he would not have made that nasty comment about Frank Ferry, worried about what part of his massive gut is going to explode.
Timothy Myers SR.April 4, 2011 at 7:36 am
Jeff: Thank you for the angle on the column since some might believe it was just an excuse to say that Valencia put a massive beat down on Hart! (just sayin’)
spineflower2April 4, 2011 at 7:55 am
Whine whine cry cry. Hart is in decline. But he thinks that is a reason to deny poper facilities and a local school for Castaic, twice promised to voters in selling almost half a billion in bond measures? Oh wait, maybe Tim slept in and this was supposed to be his April Fools Day column!
CCApril 4, 2011 at 8:25 am
Glad to see the Signal interview our military. I would much rather celebrate their life and commitment to serve.
Venturan (NDApril 4, 2011 at 8:36 am
It is a huge loss for the region to have Calgrove Kennels close. They are regarded as the best facility in the area for socializing anxious dogs (outside of Cesar Milan, of course ). We had two trainers independently recommend CK specifically for that issue, one 20+ year trainer going so far as to say they’ve turned around dogs that were previously considered lost causes.
NateApril 4, 2011 at 8:44 am
David Bossert convicted narcissist and blantant plagiarist and accusing anyone of plagiarism is simply amazing. Karma is coming. Lunetta is almost as high as his sister.
IHeartSCVApril 4, 2011 at 9:01 am
The person who does the most damage to Bossert’s reputation is Bossert himself. Yeah, not sure where he gets off calling plagiarism (he doesn’t give any specific examples).
Timothy Myers SR.April 4, 2011 at 9:19 am
IHeartSCV: I think he is conflating plagiarism with “me too” journalism. WRB ran stories on chaos at the hospital before the Signal, with their source most likely Dr. Dorio; stories the Signal probably would not have published but they could not ignore the material on the WRB.
Venturan (NDApril 4, 2011 at 8:48 am
WRB is a “media force” in the SCV Yes, the publication wherein everything is posted by “admin”. As they say in Night at the Roxbury , ‘Sweet-ass-sweet!’
Timothy Myers SR.April 4, 2011 at 9:21 am
If this story about an “investor” is true I would guess we are not talking about Huffington Post money.
James FarleyApril 4, 2011 at 8:50 am
My wife sent me out for her favorite fish tacos yesterday. To our dismay I found both La Salsa Grills out of business (Lyons and Old Road). I understood they were both owned by the same person. Too bad. I know it’s been brought up before but does anyone have advice on their favorite fish taco place?
ScooterApril 4, 2011 at 9:55 am
Wahoos
Serendipity631April 4, 2011 at 9:07 am
David Bossert obviously does not understand the concept of karma. ” if someone is nasty to me or screws with me then I have a tendency to give that back tenfold to that person. In other words, reflect back what is given!.” Mr. Bossert, this is called revenge, spite, malice, ill will, animosity, and bitterness.
Jane DApril 4, 2011 at 9:12 am
Dogs – Always thought Calgrove looked nice, but was too expensive for me – I have 3 dogs and they didn’t discount for multiple dogs or days so would be $150/per day, in some cases that was more than my hotel was costing me I found Canyon Kennels on Sierra Highway – Julie & Duane are great and my dogs love them. For the first time, they weren’t stressed by staying at a kennel. It is not as fancy/cute as Calgrove, but your dogs will love their stay! 661-251-1491.
BertaApril 4, 2011 at 9:22 am
Jeff a correction to the terminology you and others use in reference to our new public Santa Clarita libraries. First, our libraries are not being PRIVATIZED.Privatization means private ownership, as in Wal-Mart. The libraries will be PUBLICLY owned, as in we city residents. Second, neither LSSI nor the city is taking over the libraries. LSSI will ASSUME MANAGEMENT of OUR (we the public own) municipal libraries. The Santa Clarita Public Library system will be OWNED (as in purchased at fair market value) by the City of Santa Clarita’s taxpayers (us) after July 1 2011. The day-to-day operations of our libraries will be MANAGED by LSSI under a contract supervised by our city staff, which is directly answerable to the city manager, who is directly responsible to our elected Council members, which are directly answerable to us the residents. There is no privatization or takeover. There is a change in public ownership (county residents to city residents) and a change in management (from COLA library to LSSI).
JeffApril 4, 2011 at 9:43 am
A matter of opinion. We’re laying off public workers and hiring private workers. We may own the books and materials but this is a textbook example of privatization and outsourcing. Don’t deny it; embrace it. This is what people on your side of the political fence have said we need to do for decades. They’d like to replicate this model to multiple sectors, just as they’re doing in Costa Mesa. At least Korenthal is honest about the agenda. Also, it’s not just a takeover, it’s a seizure of library assets against the will of the people. This is part of the official SCVTalk.com Style Book. Someone’s got to be honest about what’s going on here.
BertaApril 4, 2011 at 10:05 am
Jeff you stick to your beliefs and I will stick with what I know to be true. I ask that you follow up and come back after a reasonable amount of time has passed, after we assume ownership of our local libraries, and provide a fair update on the state of our City of Santa Clarita Public libraries. I do appreciate the fact you provide a forum for those of us in support to “speak” on this issue even though you personally disagree. Thanks.
JeffApril 4, 2011 at 10:12 am
Whoa whoa whoa, you’re letting me off that easily? That’s not like you at all. Here, let’s try this. Question for you: are prisons run by private for-profit companies an example of privatization? How about for profit military contractors? Both are ostensibly “controlled” by elected officials. Both are examples of jobs, tasks and operations that used to belong (for good reason) to the public realm. These were never considered to be profitable industries, efforts made by the private sector to make them profitable resulted in them being inequitable. The library situation is no different. Libraries used to be owned, controlled, and operated by the people. Now we are among the first cities to hand over operational control to a private, for-profit company. LSSI has created a business model that depends on privatization; their entire business model falls flat unless we decide to prviatize a function that used to be exclusively public.
Alan FerdmanApril 4, 2011 at 11:06 am
At the last Council meeting, the Library comment that made me think the most was a when a lady asked; Why are we spending all this money to buy something we already own? Now that is a really good question. If we add it all up, it is almost $25 million for the Newhall Library land and construction. Plus another $10 million in Library startup costs. Some people will argue the land and new building is being paid for with redevelopment money. But isn’t that is just tax money taken out of another one of our pockets? So, why is this issue being so vigorously being supported by City Hall? If it was truly revenue neutral, would it be such a big deal or is this just another way to cloud another issue? The discussion, therefore, brings me to this question. If the Library System stayed with the County, How would our City justify spending $25 million on a 30,000 square foot anchor building at the end of Main Street in Newhall? Perhaps it is time to talk Santa Clarita City Council Member elections by district.
BertaApril 4, 2011 at 12:19 pm
You asked for it! Jeff I understand that you and others are viewing this issue emotionally. I have posted multiple times on the difference between the terms you and others insist on using, because they have very negative connotations. I agree with the Signal editorial, which commented that critics are simply not listening. Seizure is something being taken by force or confiscated. In this instance, nothing is being taken by force or confiscated. The residents of the City of Santa Clarita are purchasing assets not already owned at fair market value. You say it is seizure because it is “against the will of the people”. That is not the definition of “seizure”, and I say not so anyway. It is against YOUR will and some of the more vocal people, but it is not against MY will or that of others. Where are the other “thousands” who have not come to city hall with pitchforks to demand staying with the COLA system or signed the so-called “petition” for due diligence? Privatization refers to legal ownership, and whom or what is in control. I will not respond to your other examples, as I am not talking about those contractors or situations. In this instance, there is no privatization. The public via city residents own the facilities and materials and control the contract for the management of our public library system. I have used the example of an apartment complex before. One more time: I am a long time “tenant” paying more than my fair share of costs, who also owns one of the three fully furnished buildings, with an option, via my prenuptial agreement, to buy the other two older buildings and all remaining furnishings. My husband, the property owner of the other two buildings, keeps raising my share of the costs, limiting the days and hours I can use my own apartment and have access to the other buildings too. He makes me pay for new construction and upgrades to all three buildings myself so that he has more money to spend on his other ladies, and is not forthcoming on how many refrigerators, stoves, a/c units etc are actually on the premises so I also have to pick up those additional costs to replace or furnish myself. Sick of it, I finally say, ok I want a divorce. I will buy the other two buildings and the furnishings at fair market value, as my prenuptial contract specifies. Once I file for divorce, my husband locks me out of my apartment building for 6 months while delayed repairs are being made, even though I own that building and paid already for the repairs via several different fund accounts, while we “negotiate” the divorce terms and prices. Our attorneys and we haggle back and forth, about what our prenuptial actually says, what is enforceable, etc but finally we agree. I buy the other two buildings I do not already own and everything in them, and decide to have a property manager take care of the day-to-day stuff for all three buildings. Who owns the property? The property manager, LSSI does not own my buildings or the contents. I (the City) retain ownership, responsibility for and control of what happens to my buildings and contents. The residents of the City of Santa Clarita are the new property owners (me) via our agents the City (Council & Staff) who administers the escrow account funds (taxes), and our property managers are LSSI. PS The County is my now poorer ex husband!
JerryApril 4, 2011 at 2:24 pm
BGH “You asked for it!”, the other side isn’t listening, Ender Math , and that I own 3 houses story, Is it still April Fool’s day? LOL……… The only thing I learned is that YOUR EX-HUSBAND MUST BE A HAPPY MAN.
BertaApril 4, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Jerry if that is really what you got out of that very long explanation, you really do need to work on your comprehension skills. You are a perfect example of someone who is so busy coming up with negative remarks because you dislike the messenger; you do not even get the message. Hey, but at least you made a stab at reading it…
Phil EllisApril 4, 2011 at 7:31 pm
We contract out (out source) our police force to the County. Is that privatization? We outsource our transportation to an outside management company. Is that privatization? Privatization is just an ill-conceived buzzword used by the library detractors. If people really want the liibraries saved, wouldn’t they want them controlled by the more solvent entity – the City?
Cheryl PhillipsApril 4, 2011 at 8:01 pm
” There is a change in public ownership (county residents to city residents) and a change in management (from COLA library to LSSI).” I am a Los Angeles County tax paying resident. I am also a City of Santa Clarita tax paying resident. Nothing has changed – my taxes paid for the library under LACL and my taxes will still pay for the City of SC Library. And as you stated above – ” The day-to-day operations of our libraries will be MANAGED by LSSI under a contract supervised by our city staff, which is directly answerable to the city manager, who is directly responsible to our elected Council members, which are directly answerable to us the residents.” City staff, city manager, and Council members – none of whom have any library experience, education, qualifications, etc. yet they will be overseeing the LSSI contract. In the Riverside County LSSI system there is a County Librarian Director to oversee the contract -She is not an employee of LSSI, but an employee of Riverside County and she is a credentialed Librarian with an MLS degree and experience – very different from who will be the watchdog for LSSI in Santa Clarita. Would be great if our City hired that knowledgeable middle person to oversee our LSSI contract. http://bit.ly/fKZnNy
BertaApril 4, 2011 at 11:06 pm
Cheryl you say, “I am a Los Angeles County tax paying resident. I am also a City of Santa Clarita tax paying resident. Nothing has changed – my taxes paid for the library under LACL and my taxes will still pay for the City of SC Library.” There most certainly is a change. After July 1, your taxes and mine will continue to pay for our libraries but you will now have a direct voice in how your libraries are stocked and managed, hours of operation, programs offered, etc. We have had no choice or input regarding any of those things with the Los Angeles County Libraries. You further say, “In the Riverside County LSSI system there is a County Librarian Director to oversee the contract -She is not an employee of LSSI, but an employee of Riverside County and she is a credentialed Librarian with an MLS degree and experience.” We are hiring LSSI a professional library management company and no doubt will have plenty of citizen participation including many current and former librarians such as you. I personally am not sure we need that additional level of oversight for only three library branches, especially since as you mention this person has oversight of the entire Riverside County system, which is managed by LSSI. If you feel strongly about this issue perhaps, you should suggest it to Darren Hernández, or mention it at the next CPLAC meeting. I also will add as far as I know we never have had an impartial outside “watchdog” credentialed Librarian with an MLS degree and experience to audit and oversee our library service levels or our contract with the County of Los Angeles either.
Cheryl PhillipsApril 5, 2011 at 8:37 am
Already have discussed it with Darren and Mark Smith. You need to let go of comparisons with LACL system and LSSI. As of 7/1 County is gone – LSSI – a for profit company is in.
BertaApril 5, 2011 at 9:52 am
Cheryl I have no trouble letting go of LACL. I am happy you had access to and spoke with representatives of LSSI on issues of concern to you. Already you are having more of a voice than you ever did with LACL. Your input has been solicited via the CPLAC and you have had direct contact with LSSI representatives and City staff to express your concerns, offer ideas, etc. You and others keep talking about LSSI being a for profit company as though “profit” is a dirty word. The County of Los Angeles library system has been making “a profit” from the taxpayers of Santa Clarita and nearby unincorporated areas for DECADES and redistributing that “profit” where they see fit so while the County is not “technically” a for profit enterprise the results are the same. WE pay, and THEY decide how and where they spend the extra money (profit) collected. While you may say yes but the county libraries put it back into other libraries, I respond yes but we still have gotten the shaft by the county for years. I would prefer to have a company “managing” our libraries with lower markups (profit margins) and with the ability to fire non-performing employees, a government entity with better financial management skills such as the City as trustee of our money. I and every other resident now also have a voice on how we spend our money whether on programs, materials, facilities, etc to enjoy our libraries here locally. We have grown enough we no longer need to be subsidizing other municipalities and accepting less than what we pay for.
spineflower2April 4, 2011 at 9:44 am
A distinction without a difference.
NateApril 4, 2011 at 9:53 am
pri·va·tize /ˈpraɪvəˌtaɪz/ [prahy-vuh-tahyz] –verb (used with object), -tized, -tiz·ing. 1. to transfer from public or government control or ownership to private enterprise: a campaign promise to privatize some of the public lands. 2. to make exclusive; delimit or appropriate: special-interest groups attempting to privatize social issues.
Phil EllisApril 4, 2011 at 7:34 pm
So then is the City a private enterprise meaning we have privatization or is it a government entity meaning public control?
Lori RivasApril 4, 2011 at 9:34 am
I will happily pay my taxes until the Church feeds the hungry, houses the homeless, cares for the orphan and the widow and heals the sick. The Church can step in, anytime, but it will require using their resources for things other than fancy,new buildings, elaborate social activities; it will require personal sacrifices, such as Christians living less opulently, and more in community. It will also require church members to get up close and personal with the needy – inviting the needy into your own house, feeding the needy with your own food, covering medical expenses for a sick someone, parenting an orphan. If every church family did one of these – on top of their tithe, on top of sponsoring agencies in foreign countries, THEN we may be able to do away with state sponsored social services. Church members, put your money where your mouth is. Otherwise, comments such as Lunetta’s are just shallow political complaints.
Lori RivasApril 4, 2011 at 11:16 am
“…the cycle of poverty might be broken for many since the root causes for their predicament would be addressed, not merely the surface issues.” What, exactly, does this mean? That those in poverty are morally deficient? That the Church, presumably the Christian Church, can convert people, which will lead to an end of poverty? Sounds like the prosperity gospel. Name it and claim it. Or, only sinners are poor and needy. I actually think that the Christian church can do a lot to end poverty, but my idea has more to do with humility and grace and justice on the end of the church-goers, not a “lesson” for the needy.
4eyedsueApril 4, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Lori- If every Church (Christian and otherwise) did as you asked, we’d still have people complaining to the local paper about how it’s “not fair”. This church does more, this church does less, you don’t give as much as I do, all you do is take… Those same people will continue to accuse the needy of being leeches.
Lori RivasApril 4, 2011 at 12:39 pm
True enough. Sad, but true.
BertaApril 4, 2011 at 9:53 am
As to Dave Bossert’s comments, you may notice that his “publication” from outside the city limits is littered with anti city contributors who snipe at the city using his West Ranch Beacon as their forum. You will also notice that few people, including me, usually even bother to correct or comment on the items posted. For anyone to suggest that another’s life threatening illness is karma or somehow deserved is just ignorant and stupid. I would make the same comment if Frank said something like that about Bossert’s health. Dave, the Beacon is just a place for folks to post their one sided views. There is no balance. Many of the “regulars”, including you who control all posts, have little or no credibility elsewhere.
NateApril 4, 2011 at 10:25 am
Agreed. Also he calls himself a “newspaper” ( http://westranchbeacon.com/about/ )
Mr PerezApril 4, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Nate, did you just agree with Berta???????? Holy shiznit Batman! Jeff, is there an option on here to change ones password to something I personally desire?
Mr PerezApril 4, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Belay that request Jeff, figured her out.
BertaApril 4, 2011 at 5:19 pm
Hey, Pérez don’t spoil the momentary peace…
Gang FangApril 4, 2011 at 7:04 pm
Agreed x2. Look at us, a regular threesome of agreeableness. Hot.
Mr PerezApril 5, 2011 at 5:31 pm
Hey I think the peace is uber cool!