SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
April 7, 2011· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

April 7, 2011 – Daily Brief

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

  • The City Council got to take a look at the One Valley One Vision plan at a study session Tuesday night. The OVOV plan and its 7,000+ page EIR will land with a loud thud on the Planning Commission’s desk on May 14 and could go before the City Council on June 14. SIGNAL
  • A new state bill authored by a Santa Barbara Democrat would prevent cities from withdrawing from County library systems without putting the matter to a vote of the people, according to the VeCo Star. The bill is aimed squarely at cities like Santa Clarita and Camarillo, which have both withdrawn from their respective County systems and have hired LSSI to manage the libraries. LSSI, unsurprisingly, opposes the bill VC STAR
  • The Santa Clarita Economic Development Corporation would like the Castaic Lake Water Agency to not charge developers a “facility capacity fee” for a period of at least one year. Delaying the fees would “stimulate” the local economy, according to the corporation. CLWA says if the fees aren’t paid by developers, they may have to be paid by ratepayers, though that’s “highly unlikely.” SIGNAL
  • Property owner near Rasmussen’s Romero Canyon site -where Castaic High might be built- is upset about potential impacts on his property and says he will drink Rasmussen’s Milkshake -drink it up!- if it comes right down to it. SIGNAL
  • The Dodgers have hired former LAPD Chief William Bratton and his security firm to complete a top-to-bottom review of security at Dodger Stadium says the LA TIMES
  • Local woman is part of a group that knits together afghans for the families of troops killed in combat. The afghan pieces are all combined together into a big cloak thing and mourning families receive them. The woman said she started knitting her latest project when she heard about Spc. Rudy Acosta’s death in Afghanistan KHTS
  • Buck McKeon thinks Congress and the President will avoid a shutdown of the government. And if there is a shutdown, Congress will work through the weekend to open it back up by Monday. MARINE CORPS TIMES
  • Buck McKeon finds a way to allow Congressmembers to slip defense earmarks into bills even though earmarks have been banned by Congress and the president CNN
  • One last McKeon bit of news: A Christian ministry in Florida has sent a letter to McKeon asking him to find a way to delay implementation of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal. No word on if McKeon responded BLOG
  • Newhall Land, the City, Signal and the auto dealers will host a 40-strong gourmet food truck & muscle car event on Sunday, May 15 on Creekside, according to the Awesometown blog. As if that wasn’t enough, the Master’s College swing band will be there too. And it’s free. And if you want to buy a car while stuffing your face with Korean-Mexican fusion, hey, you can do that too. AWESOMETOWN
  • Rooms and Blooms florist in Newhall’s kind-of iconic western strip mall is closing says KHTS
  • Speaking of flowers, Antelope Valley’s poppies aren’t as impressive this year due to the rain. But you should still go out and see them according to a local volunteer docent SIGNAL
  • Lynne Plambeck and Cam Noltemeyer pwn The Signal, reveal that Lockheed Martin and other defense companies may be behind a recent study that downplayed the risk of perchlorate on pregnant women. SIGNAL
  • Bill Reynolds attacks Grandmothers for Peace group as naive and ill-informed. Stay classy Bill. SIGNAL
  • John Boston’s Time Ranger for this week WRB
  • Flowers are blooming all over the SCV, but you can escape the pollen by viewing BIG PICTURE’S collection of spring flowers and how we use them in happy times and sad times.

Comments (33)

  1. Timothy Myers SR.April 7, 2011 at 7:45 am
    On Bill Reynolds: I thought he was on the schedule to be picked up for his ride to the Soylent Green factory months ago! Did Bill oversleep that day?
  2. NateApril 7, 2011 at 8:00 am
    Lil’ Billy No Show?
  3. Gang FangApril 7, 2011 at 8:44 am
    Bill Reynolds increasingly becomes like an old racing greyhound. Struggling, panting, hobbling, barking at nothing – but always leaps and bounds behind the race. May be time to be put out to pasture. How’s that “paranoid & bitter despair” working out for ya, Billy?
  4. Venturan (NDApril 7, 2011 at 8:11 am
    The VC Star piece on the library issue is a certified must read . Money quote from Assemblyman Das Williams: “I’m worried about this practice spreading, with the same amount of public notice as the approval of a chimney would get.” Makes you wonder if he was streaming SCVTV a few months ago.
  5. Alan FerdmanApril 7, 2011 at 8:49 am
    Venturan Thanks, that is a very interesting article. Also linked is another article titled “Ventura will check out it’s Library options”. That article details how Ventura changed their plan and decided to hold back and study Library options for 6 months before making a decision. Berta Steele is quoted as saying “We need time to get people in the community involved.” Ventura, unlike Santa Clarita, seems to have gotten the message. That does not say the decision will change. What it reveals is an acknowledgment by Ventura that community support is an important factor in the decision making process.
  6. Timothy Myers SR.April 7, 2011 at 9:07 am
    Camarillo took over a year before they decided to withdraw from the Ventura County library system. Santa Clarita stands alone in pulling the trigger in a matter of weeks.
  7. Coastal SageApril 7, 2011 at 9:19 pm
    One commonality in all of the local take-overs of libraries by LSSI is that each city: Camarillo, Moorpark and Santa Clarita are represented by the same law firm, Burke Williams & Sorensen. I wonder if the law firm introduced LSSI to the city staff? I read the contract between Santa Clarita and LSSI, and it was just pro-forma boilerplate crap which looked like it was cut and pasted together by a young lawyer. Neither Carl Newton or Joe Montes signed at the bottom of the last page, indicating they had approved it. Instead, the form was signed by some lawyer who has never shown up at any public meeting I’ve ever watched. I wonder how much Santa Clarita paid to have the contract drafted? I wonder if Santa Clarita got charged for what amounted to the same form as was used in Moorpark and Camarillo?
  8. JeffApril 7, 2011 at 9:39 am
    Ventura has a Berta too? According to the article, she’s like the opposite of our Berta when it comes to libraries. Every town needs a Berta. Cheers!
  9. BertaApril 7, 2011 at 11:18 am
    Jeff thanks. This Berta says please read the comments on the Ventura article also. You will see that many folks agree with my take on this proposed law. AB 438 is intended to make it more expensive (lobbyist, campaign literature, etc) and take longer (take time for PR campaign and wait 2-4 years for regular elections) for cities to have the ability to withdraw from a county library system. It does not protect the public interests. It protects the county and unions from losing the additional revenue streams. The unions have more money and will just lobby harder to prevent any change. To continue with my marriage/divorce analogy: By law, AB 438 would allow the husband to make it more difficult for the wife to file for divorce no matter how much abuse has taken place. She can only file after extensive and expensive negotiation and lobbying of the children and others to ask their approval which increases her costs to file, and then must wait 2-4 years to actually request the parties formal approval, with no guarantee she will prevail, before even filing for divorce. All the while, her husband pockets the joint checking and savings money, refuses to pay the full costs for upgrades or repairs, puts all the money in a separate account so it does not count as joint assets. Then he charges her exorbitant rent or locks her out of their jointly owned home, promises the kids and others everything they want to gain their support, bad mouths mom, and changes how his business is structured to exclude his spouse, even though she worked for him without charging years to help build the business. He makes other changes, effectively tying her hands financially. Cumulatively his actions have made it so that the wife cannot afford to leave him. Think about how fair that is to the one wanting out of the relationship. She will most likely stay in the bad relationship and remain miserable, while her husband who has shown her who is boss and that she cannot leave, is financially better off and happy with the arrangement.
  10. Venturan (NDApril 7, 2011 at 11:39 am
    The commenters in the VC Star are notorious for their behavior — more so than the SCVTalk bunch. A recent article involving the tragic death of a cyclist was met with cries that “he deserved it.” You’ll also find some sexist and racist comments as well. It’s really, really bad. I wouldn’t count their support for LSSI as anything to crow about!
  11. BertaApril 7, 2011 at 2:42 pm
    ND I will not judge or discount all Venturans based upon the posts of a few jerks anymore than I will judge Stevenson Ranch residents on what I read in the Beacon. Nor do I believe I was “crowing” either.
  12. NateApril 7, 2011 at 3:58 pm
    Signal comments are the exact same thing.
  13. Alan FerdmanApril 7, 2011 at 1:21 pm
    Berta As far as your analogy goes, the Santa Clarita Council members are not our parents and we are definitely not their children. What happened to your support for local control? How much more local could it be when you get to vote on it yourself?
  14. BertaApril 7, 2011 at 2:45 pm
    Al, some of you are very much like spoiled children who complain about every decision and action that does not go your way. You claim that the Council does not listen to you, unless of course you get your way. Claim they are unfair, dishonest, they do not care about what you want, they spend money on things you do not want, will not give you what you do want; complain they favor your siblings, etc. Other more adult family members understand that sometimes decisions are made which are in the best interest of the entire family, but may not necessarily meet with the approval of each spoiled kid. Some of us actually get it. I am most certainly in favor of local control, which is very different from local union or other special interest group control particularly when it is to the detriment of the rest of us. This proposed law favors the unions and counties to the detriment of all cities, regardless of size and population. It makes it so cumbersome; few cities will even try to find alternatives to the behemoth county system. Will cities and towns all over California also have to wait and hold an election to form their own police department, fire department, animal shelters, etc. if they want to leave a county system? This would set a very bad precedent making it harder if not impossible for cities to chart their own course. I do not support a few people getting their way just because they show up at meetings and complain louder than I do either. We have citywide elections to determine who represents all of us on the Council and makes the decisions on how to conduct city business on our behalf. Our individual choice is not always the winner but that is how the voting process works. We only have the ability to remove one, if we vote for a contender, out of five Supervisors on the Los Angeles County Board and even our one, Mike Antonovich, is the supervisor for an area equal to many small countries. His loyalty is to the entire county not just our area anyway. Locally, we have the ability to remove and replace all five council members, or retain as many or as few of them as we choose. Your vote counts equally to all others and mine. I do not support manipulating the facts, or presenting only one side of an issue to influence others unfairly in order to gain support for my particular agenda either.
  15. Alan FerdmanApril 7, 2011 at 3:02 pm
    Berta There you go again. Name calling and accusations whenever you do not want to answer the question directly. It seems you also are arguing both sides of the issue when it suits your purpose. So, the questions remain; What happened to your support for local control? How much more local could it be when you get to vote on it yourself? Now are you trying to argue that democracy favors Unions? Don’t you trust the voters to make a good decision? Either you are for local control or you aren’t. When every voter gets to cast their ballot it is as local as it gets.
  16. LarMccApril 7, 2011 at 8:10 pm
    I disagree with you Berta on the library takeover issue, but I have to agree with you on this law. This is nothing more than an attempt to make it harder for the cities to withdraw from libraries and keep the unions in place. How about passing a law to force a vote on other things as well? We have the local control via our city council. In this case, we reaped what we sowed. The citizens of our valley elected these morons, many without a second thought other than seeing the ‘incumbent’ next to the name. People are not involved in city politics and now many are seeing the result in having this attitude. Passing this law is simply a knee jerk reaction to what our city did. We need to let the process work as it should. If the libraries end up being a mess, perhaps Ender will be the first to go in 2012. That is unless everyone gets distracted and starts worrying about more important things, like the latest crappy chain restaurant that is opening up here.
  17. Venturan (NDApril 7, 2011 at 9:46 am
    Here is the article . Fully agree with your sentiments, Al. It’s more about the process than the end decision.
  18. spineflower2April 7, 2011 at 9:40 am
    That CLWA would even CONSIDER delaying developer fees again shows it is perfectly willing to continue to subscribe to corporate welfare by having current ratepayers subsidize new development.
  19. Coastal SageApril 7, 2011 at 9:23 pm
    It’s not the current taxpayers directly subsidizing new development. It’s worse. CLWA is running up huge debts on something called “certificates of participation”, spending the cash they obtain mostly on ‘projects’ which don’t produce bricks and mortar construction, and then the existing taxpayers get to pay the principal and interest on the borrowed money which gets wasted away. This seeking of a round of developer fee waivers is just the tip of the iceberg.
  20. KevitivityApril 7, 2011 at 10:40 am
    Bill Reynolds assessment of Grandmothers for Peace seems to be accurate – those “well-intentioned” women aren’t paying very close attention to whats going on in the world… And there are more serious threats to national security on the horizon too, from Asia to Africa. Mark my words, Libya won’t be the last military effort Obama gets America into.
  21. Lori RivasApril 7, 2011 at 12:28 pm
    I thought Santa Clarita water was 100% surface water? Has that changed? I was not aware that we were drawing anything from water tables, which, by definition, would be the location of perchlorate, correct? In any case, my husband works in the drinking water industry, though not here in SCV, and according to him, no water treatment professional drinks SCV tap water, without a personal reverse osmosis filter, because of the Bermite contamination. Just sayin’.
  22. spineflower2April 7, 2011 at 2:10 pm
    Half of the SCV water usage is from groundwater, half from imported state water. I’m not sure what you mean by “surface water”, since much of the water flow is subsurface alogn the river path. The distinction is really between alluvial water (shallower wells, a few hundred feet) and the Saugus Formation (much deeper, up to 2000 ft).
  23. Lori RivasApril 7, 2011 at 4:33 pm
    By “surface water,” I meant anything not pumped out of an aquifer, so that would be rivers, lakes, and State Water Project water, stored or otherwise. It has been awhile since my husband and I have discussed our local water — I’ll ask him for the most recent info.
  24. spineflower2April 7, 2011 at 4:40 pm
    You leave out the alluvial water, which is neither state water nor from the aquifer. Our local wells supply 50% of our valley water usage from the alluvial source, now contaminated with perchlorate.
  25. Coastal SageApril 7, 2011 at 9:45 pm
    In California, the term “surface water”means drinking water which is drawn out of a body of water exposed to air. Like Lake Tahoe. There are 6 kinds of water used for most of Southern California’s water: (1) water from wells (ground water), (2) water from Sierra snow melt, brought south by aqueduct, (3) water brought from Colorado River by aqueduct, (4) sewage treatment plant water re-injected into the ground, and then pumped up again as groundwater, (5) sewage treatment plant water directly piped to customers often called “astronaut water” or “toiler to tap water” and (6) the mythical (for now) desalinized water. Blended water is the taking of two or more types of water, as above, and mixing them. The problem in Santa Clarita is that a certain portion of the drinking water is contaminated ground water, run through machines to take out perchlorate but not take out carcinogenic TCE and PCE. Then, the carcinogenic TCE and PCE laden water is mixed with aqueduct water, and shipped to some Santa Claritans though their water pipes. The use of TCE and PCE contaminated water as a source of drinking water is very rare in California, but Castaic Lake Water Agency insists that without using this carcinogenic, toxic substance contaminated water for drinking water it wouldn’t have enough water for existing customers. In Santa Clarita, the awfulness of having to drink PCE and TCE laden water is compounded by the fact that those chemicals are “heavy” and form an oil and water kind of combination, not really mixing. As a result, there can be batches of water blended which are heavy in PCE and TCE and other batches of blended water which have little PCE or TCE….just like the way oil and vinegar dressing pours out of a bottle when it hasn’t been shaken. And of course local water officials refuse to test the batches of water several times a day, or even daily, to make sure the mix is “safe”. Then there are other elected water officials at Newhall County Water District who do not want to spent the $50 per test to look for perchlorate more frequently than quarterly. The reality is that the vast majority of elected water officials just don’t want to know what’s in your drinking water. Santa Claritans: It’s time to start reading about the chronic health effects of constant ingestion of low levels of drinking water with TCE and PCE in it. Several years ago, in Simi Valley, there was a huge lawsuit by people made sick, or who lost family members to cancer, after drinking water laden with TCE. The plaintiffs collectively received a huge settlement, on the eve of trial, from the party who put the TCE in the drinking water. It sure would be sad if CLWA had to use huge amounts of taxpayer money, a few years from now, to compensate people who have gotten sick from TCE and PCE in their Santa Clarita drinking water.
  26. Lori RivasApril 7, 2011 at 9:52 pm
    Do you happen to know the filtration processes used by the local water companies? Do any of them use reverse osmosis? Or just the basic mixing/settling/filtering/adding chemical process? Why do I even read these boards…it makes my stomach turn, and want to go live on an island, with my own County library branch…;)
  27. BertaApril 7, 2011 at 3:37 pm
    Mr. Ferdman surely you are not as naive as to believe that unions do not influence elections? On the other hand, do you think I am so stupid that I do not get that whomever spends the most money on lobbyists, slick mailers, bussing voters to the polls, paying for their member’s time to go vote, providing free tee shirts, all in addition to spreading false information to further their cause, is the party most likely to win? Is that what you call local control? Not me, thanks anyway. You would be the first in line criticizing the “costs” and “underhanded methods” if the city spent money on any or all of the above. As to calling names, I do not believe I called you any names. I have however CALLED YOU OUT on your tactics many times and will continue to do so, God willing. I have answered you at length and on multiple occasions. As I continue to repeat Al, you just do not like my answers because I do not rely on your “information” to formulate MY opinion.
  28. NateApril 7, 2011 at 4:04 pm
    Money influences elections. Whether that is from the Koch Brothers or from corporations with a vested interest in some legislation. Frankly I would trust a Union 100 time over before trusting any billion dollar corporations. Supreme Court said, Money = Speech therefore he that has the most Money has the most Speech.
  29. Alan FerdmanApril 7, 2011 at 4:25 pm
    Berta The discussion we were having, before you joined in, was about the process Ventura and Santa Clarita were using to make their Library decisions. As Venturan stated “It’s more about the process than the end decision.” What is transpiring in the process arena is nothing new. Whenever the public looses trust in our decision maker’s abilities, laws are championed and passed constraining the decision and implementation process. That is what happened causing the generation and passable of California Proposition 13, 218 and others. In each case, the population at large reserved certain decisions for themselves and restricted where the revenues could be spent. The latest example of this in Santa Clarita is the Open Space District. Does this make it more cumbersome and harder to govern? Of course it does, but at the same time a message is sent by the public to our legislators. If our elected representatives are listening, they will take heed. Currently, I believe that is what is happening with AB438. It will have no impact on Santa Clarita, while at the same time it sends a message to the rest of the state. This bill translates the term “Local Control” to it’s most basic level.
  30. BertaApril 7, 2011 at 5:54 pm
    Al I am well aware that it is highly unlikely that this law, should it pass, would be made retroactive so I thoroughly understand it will have no affect on Santa Clarita regarding the library issue since we have already given notice to withdraw. However, it could have a future detrimental effect on potential other services we currently contract with the County should we ever decide to reevaluate those contracted services and decide to withdraw from the County. It is already difficult enough for a city to incorporate. Now you want to make it even harder for cities to decide what services they choose to contract to the county giving the county a virtual monopoly, and what a city can choose to outsource elsewhere, or bring in house for that matter. That is the definition of removing local control. Before it can even go on a ballot before the voters, large sums must be spent by the cities on lobbyists etc, placing the counties and unions at an unfair advantage since they have deeper pockets. The only winners would be the county supervisors, lobbyists, lawyers, and the union leaders. AB 438 if passed will have a very detrimental effect on other cities and their ability to withdraw from any county library systems. Moreover, I believe that is just the beginning. As I said, it will set a bad precedent for more of these laws further hampering the ability of cities to make their own decisions without first spending tons of additional money and waiting longer periods to withdraw from any county services. I do not evaluate a situation based on how it may affect just me personally; I consider positive and negative effects to others also. I do not agree with you Al.
  31. Serendipity631April 7, 2011 at 9:19 pm
    REALLY!!! “However, it could have a future detrimental effect on potential other services we currently contract with the County should we ever decide to reevaluate those contracted services and decide to withdraw from the County.” What does this even mean??????
  32. Alan FerdmanApril 7, 2011 at 6:21 pm
    Berta You are arguing a non-issue. I advise you to go to the “around the capital” website and read the description of the bill. It states “The bill would require that if the board of trustees, common council, or other legislative body of a city or the board of trustees of a library district intends to operate the city’s or the district’s library or libraries, with the help of a private contractor that will employ library staff, it must publish notice of the contemplated action, submit the question for voter approval, and, if the withdrawal is approved by the voters, notify the county board of supervisors, as specified.” The sky is not falling, the world is not coming to an end and the bill does not make it harder for cities to incorporate. But understand this well, if California enacts this new law and you want to argue that allowing the will of the people to prevail is too cumbersome a process, you will have a lot more indivduals to argue with than just me. This is not a Union issue, it is a constitutional issue.
  33. BertaApril 7, 2011 at 11:19 pm
    Al there you go again implying I have not read the bill. What is it with you? I read the bill last week and posted my observations on scvtalk, so you are late to the party again. I even asked for and received Coastal Sage’s legal opinion on the matter. However, I suppose it is so much easier for you to imply in your arrogant condescending manner and incorrectly yet again, that I do not know what I am talking about simply because I do not concur with your assessment. I never said AB 438 made it harder for cities to incorporate nor would I since it has nothing to do with city incorporation. Maybe it would help you to reread my post. I guess according to you every time I disagree with you it must be because I have not read something or other, or am too stupid to understand it, so therefore I should defer to your infinite wisdom on the topic. Al I do not suppose it has ever occurred to you that I am not the only person who does not accept your opinion as infallible. As I have said repeatedly, I do not agree with you and I have thoroughly discussed why I disagree so there really is nothing further for me to add.

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support