SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
April 8, 2011· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

April 8, 2011 – Daily Brief

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

  • Really short City Council agenda for this week. Annexations, sign ordinance and a few other items on the AGENDA
  • Two men robbed a used car lot at gunpoint yesterday and made off with about $130 KHTS, SIGNAL
  • A 19 and 23 year old man were arrested Tuesday after they flashed gang signs then attacked a 21 year old man and his mother with bats in Canyon Country. SIGNAL
  • Hart District expected to vote Wednesday on $1.7 million purchase of Romero Canyon site for Castaic High School. SIGNAL
  • Senator Barbara Boxer introduces bill that might resolve the CEMEX battle in Soledad Canyon SIGNAL
  • More about the Santa Barbara Democrat who wants Cities to get voter approval prior to outsourcing libraries to private companies PAPER
  • Dr. Gene Dorio compares his posts on WRB about internal Henry Mayo personnel drama to  Deep Throat’s disclosures to Woodward and Bernstein during Watergate WRB
  • After hearing from chiefs of the Marine Corps, Army, Navy and Air Force describe the implementation of the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell as smooth, Buck McKeon appeared “taken aback” BLOG
  • Interesting article on how Mexican coyotes are taking to the ocean to smuggle in illegal immigrants. LA TIMES
  • When you factor in the increasing costs of tires, increasing rates of depreciation and the increasing costs of gasoline, you now pay $0.59 per mile to drive your car according to AAA ABC NEWS
  • I get Joe Messina’s radio show email every week and this week’s lineup confirm he’s the Glenn Beck of the SCV. Way more likeable though. Give him a listen and call in 12-3 on KHTS 1220. REAL SIDE
  • Robert Reich on all the budget drama in Washington REICH

Comments (10)

  1. BertaApril 8, 2011 at 9:31 am
    Regarding AB 438 and its sponsor Das Williams, the Daily Sound paper quotes “Joe Armendariz, a member of the Carpinteria City Council, feels strongly about the proposal.” Councilman Armendáriz further says: “It’s a piece of legislation with one purpose: pay back the union-ocracy that elected him,” he wrote in an email.”
  2. BertaApril 8, 2011 at 9:50 am
    Joe Messina’s show, The Real Side, covers multiple interesting topics. Today for instance among other issues, Tony Bell will provide his opinion on the Library Special Assessment funding, which should be interesting. I do not find Joe to be “the Glenn Beck of the SCV” at all although he does address the Constitution and related issues. Joe Messina may appreciate the comparison, I do not know, but I personally find Glenn Beck a bit overly dramatic so I do not watch his shows. Besides, I believe Beck does not usually have folks with opposite viewpoints on his show. Joe does nearly every show and usually makes sure both sides of an issue are fairly represented.
  3. spineflower2April 8, 2011 at 10:46 am
    “I personally find Glenn Beck a bit overly dramatic” You have a flair for understatement!
  4. Gang FangApril 8, 2011 at 1:36 pm
    Here, here! Saying Beck is bit overly dramatic is like saying that water is a bit wet. Dude is an actor with a tie and bag if faux patriotism.
  5. Gang FangApril 8, 2011 at 1:36 pm
    of
  6. spineflower2April 8, 2011 at 2:13 pm
    Sounds like the late comedian Dennis Wolfberg’s description of his nurse warning him that as part of his rigid sigmoid colonoscopy, he “might experience discomfort.” He said it’s like standing in front of a tsunami and hearing “you might experience moisture.”
  7. KLBApril 8, 2011 at 2:31 pm
    Oh my gawd, Dennis Wolfberg! No matter how bad traffic sucked, I always knew I was in for a good drive home when he was featured on the five o’clock funnies.
  8. LindaApril 9, 2011 at 8:37 am
    Dennis was brilliant — a former teacher with an incredible vocabulary who worked clean but was hysterically funny. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBF_50Jjsg8&feature=related
  9. Coastal SageApril 8, 2011 at 8:52 pm
    Anyone interested in the problems caused by marauding gang members wielding baseball bats needs to read the “Housing Element” in the current draft of the One Valley, One Vision plan: http://www.santa-clarita.com/ovov/_pdf/Draft%20Elements/GeneralPlan/8-HousingElement.pdf The City staff has picked out 25 locations throughout all areas of the city, except Valencia, which are suitable for 4000 new low income and very low income housing units to be built. The only location in Valencia which I saw mentioned as a potential site for low and very low income housing is a vacant area of the Valencia mall’s parking lot. I say this in all honesty as a person who spent 5 years working for a non-profit development company which built “scattered site” low and very low income housing throughout New York State, over the vehement objections of neighbors and the cities where our projects were located: There was not a single “HUD housing” project built by our company which did not increase the crime rate in the surrounding neighborhood. Despite Article 34 of the California Constitution (which the OVOV Housing Element doesn’t bother to mention) requiring the City’s voters to approve building of such “projects”, the City staff members and consultants who wrote the OVOV Housing Element want Santa Clarita’s taxpayers to (1) subsidize the construction of 4000 low and very low income housing projects (that’s 4000 apartments, not people) over and above the mandatory set-aside of redevelopment funds for that purpose, and (2) adopt an “inclusionary housing ordinance” taxing buyers of new condos and homes and builders of market-rate apartments in the city to directly subsidize low and very low income housing construction by paying additional fees for its construction or including low and very low income housing “units” in market rate projects. Other communities in California which find that kind of text in Santa Clarita’s OVOV Housing Element offensive have used Article 34 and other tools to avoid having to both subsidize and put-up-with the ruination of their community by just these sorts of provisions. Perhaps it’s the City staff’s willingness to have you taxpayers pay to subsidize building housing for 12,000 to 16,000 low and very low income people which is the reason that the Attorney General’s letter disapproving the Santa Clarita’s otherwise destructive One Valley, One Vision general plan update has been “lost in the mail”. And no, under current low and very low income housing programs, occupancy cannot be limited to people who already live in Santa Clarita, or to children and grandchildren of Santa Clarita’s homeowner/taxpayers. To quote long-time residents of Tehachapi, Lancaster and Palmdale, the rules of the Section 8 housing voucher programs have ruined their communities and it will ruin yours too.
  10. spineflower2April 9, 2011 at 8:19 am
    Do developers get density bonuses (i.e., more houses than zoning or general plan calls for) when a portion of the project is low-income? Is there any way this plan is a vaguely-hidden attempt to really allow higher density than we are being told in OVOV?

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