SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
May 11, 2011· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

No Daily Brief today – May 11, 2011

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

Open thread instead- knock yourselves out!

Also, I HEART has a run-down of last night’s Council meeting.

Comments (31)

  1. yourwebguruMay 11, 2011 at 8:02 am
    All right, Petz, gimme your best shot!
  2. PetzMay 11, 2011 at 8:13 am
    Obama has nothing over preacher Yancy when it comes to stirring the immigration pot. He eally loves to demonize GOPers, like they really want to build a moat with crocodiles to eat Mexicans. Meanwhile, Americans of faith continue to visit Mexico to deliver food, clothes, and build homes. This is pure unadulterated Alinsky-ridicule your opponent. I’ll tell you what comprehensive immigration reform means-an even handed policy without regard to geographical proximity to the United States. Let’s bring in immigrants who apply lawfully from around the world and appreciate American Values. Liberty, In God We Trust, and E Pluribus Unum – Not Equality-Secularism-and Multiculturalism. Shame on Obama whose Auntie got political asylum after ignoring a legal order to leave the country.
  3. Gang FangMay 11, 2011 at 8:21 am
    Not equality? Come again?
  4. PetzMay 11, 2011 at 8:39 am
    The founders and the Americans who follow their wisdom.
  5. PetzMay 11, 2011 at 8:41 am
    Equality is a European value – Liberty/Freedom is American, all are equal before the law, but we do not expect equality of outcome when people have different God given gifts. Thanks for asking.
  6. NateMay 11, 2011 at 8:26 am
    What did Reagan do?
  7. yourwebguruMay 11, 2011 at 12:54 pm
    Reagan did “Bedtime for Bonzo.”
  8. Mr PerezMay 11, 2011 at 8:29 am
    While I agree that immigration policy needs to be reformed I do have a question for you Petz. Who establishes the culture of norm here in America?
  9. Mr PerezMay 11, 2011 at 8:56 pm
    Tick..Tock..I’m waiting….
  10. Alan FerdmanMay 11, 2011 at 8:24 am
    In reference to last night’s City Council discussion and decision on the Library “right to vote” bill. While it is understandable our City Council Members would prefer not to have their decision making ability taken away, I found the comment, giving the public the ”right to vote” on Public Library withdrawal would “protect unions”, disturbing. Clearly the public has made the decision to limit our representative’s decision making power many times before and will again many times in the future. Our form of government purposely limits an elected official’s power so as to prevent any individual from exceeding the authority of their office. When elected and government officials start believing that they know better than their constituents we are in big trouble. Everyone should go back and reread George Orwell’s 1984 because vilifying the public’s “right to vote” to protect the public, sounds a lot like what Orwell called “newspeak”.
  11. Coastal SageMay 11, 2011 at 1:27 pm
    There may be a lot of huffing and puffing from city council members and city managers across the state, on the bill which would allow the city’s electorate to vote before a city could withdraw from county library systems. However, with explicit court approval dating way back to the mid 1900′s, and with tacit approval by the Legislatures, elected officials constantly “get away with” a much bigger scam involving use of the taxpayers’ cash. In particular I’m talking about the Constitutional and statutory requirement that the electorate approve the issuance of municipal bonds before they can be sold to the public by a city. As a result, the long standing practice of cities, counties, school districts and public water agencies is to borrow money by way of “Certificates of Participation”, which do not require voter approval. Certificates of Participation create the fiction that a public agency is selling to a third party, and then leasing back, certain physical assets, like a city hall, or in the alternative scheme selling to a third party, and they buying back, physical assets. These Certificate of Participation deals are not the special tax matters which Hart District has had approved by the electorate twice in ten years, but instead financing transactions which skirt the requirement for voter approval. The semi-annual or quarterly payments to the holders of these Certificates of Participation come out of a public agency’s cash flow, and do not require the “raising of taxes” as has been seen with the two Hart District bond measures. Although each public agency in California has a debt limit, that limit is quite high, and a public agency could end up indebting itself (to pay for boondoggles) to such an extent that it would not have the cash flow to pay for ALL of the normal services the taxpayers expect from each particular agency. Historically, these Certificate of Participation deals have been used by, among others, the Hart District, Castaic Lake Water Agency and the City of Santa Clarita. My point, in describing these transactions as a follow up to Alan Ferdman’s comment, is that I think the Legislature’s time would be far better spent reigning in the ability of local government agencies to “indebt themselves up to the hilt”, rather than simply creating a procedural roadblock to county library system withdrawal being used as a cash flow generator. The California Constitution’s prohibition on municipal bond borrowing without voter approval has been ignored for years, with a wink and a nod, between the counties’ Superior Courts and local elected officials. That’s the real problem in many local public agencies discussed on this board.
  12. Alan FerdmanMay 11, 2011 at 2:43 pm
    Coastal Sage Very Interesting and informative. Related to “The semi-annual or quarterly payments to the holders of these Certificates of Participation”. Who actually holds the note and how is it decided who the municipality will deal with?
  13. Coastal SageMay 11, 2011 at 4:51 pm
    There is no “note” like you would see in a mortgage loan. Instead, the public agency simply makes a written contractual promise to make the semi-annual or quarterly payments to a trustee, most often a bank with a trust department. Often, the payments stretch out over a 30-40 year period. At first, the trustee holds the right to receive the payments, but the right to receive the payments is then divided into fractional interests, and sold off to investors by a municipal securities underwriter (usually Stone & Youngberg in SCV). The public agency picks both the underwriter and the trustee. If you ever want to look at the “deal terms” of this form of financing, make a written Public Records Act Request to see (not copy) the “Official Statement” (like a securities prospectus) for each municipal financing transaction the particular governmental entity has entered into in any given year. Also ask for the “closing settlement statement” for each municipal securities issuance in that year, because it will tell you how much in “points and garbage fees” (to use mortgage loan parlance) it cost the public agency to borrow the money covered by the transaction.
  14. Alan FerdmanMay 11, 2011 at 5:16 pm
    Coastal Sage Thanks. I appreciate you taking the time to provide an answer.
  15. ToddMay 11, 2011 at 8:45 am
    “…all men are created equal….” Yeah that phrase isn’t at all contained in the fabric of our nation…
  16. spineflower2May 11, 2011 at 9:26 am
    If you want to be correct in practice and not just word, you mean, “white land-owning males,” don’t you?
  17. James FarleyMay 11, 2011 at 2:11 pm
    To re-iterate what Petz said. The fabric of our nation does declare that all are equal under the law. The fundamental difference between today’s Conservatism and Liberalism is that liberals from Pres Wilson, FDR, etal have shifted the interpretation of equality to the point that the government should “spread the wealth around” to make the outcome equal. Conservatism holds that liberty is the more important ideal as that is what made this nation the greatest on the planet.
  18. yourwebguruMay 11, 2011 at 2:23 pm
    I would beg to differ and say that our nation is the greatest on the planet and has exceeded the founders’ wildest expectations because of the liberal ideals of equality that have been manifested in the 20th century. The only reason the government has stepped in to ‘promote the general welfare’ of its citizens was when the good Libertarian idealist “Haves” exploited the misery of the “Have nots” for their own gain without consequence to their own consciousness.
  19. PetzMay 11, 2011 at 3:07 pm
    The Guru never fails to disappoint.
  20. NateMay 11, 2011 at 9:22 am
    Happy Birthday Mike!
  21. MikeMay 11, 2011 at 9:43 am
    Thanks!
  22. Capt. GeneMay 11, 2011 at 7:25 pm
    Hey Happy Birthday Nike! Any luck digging up proof that your claim I’m a birther isn’t a lie? If you already posted it please tell me where I can find it. Thanks in advance.
  23. Capt. GeneMay 11, 2011 at 9:26 pm
    Make that “Mike”.
  24. Jane DMay 11, 2011 at 9:43 am
    From IHEART – City Council recognizing Gail Ortiz for getting an award – Mayor McLean noted her focus on civic engagement and building relationships for the past 21 years in Santa Clarita. Uh, hasn’t that been her JOB for the past 21 years??? These city people kill me, get paid for doing a job, get awards from your cronies for doing said job, and then get praise for getting the award for doing your JOB. Seriously folks, you should try working in the real world sometime.
  25. CCMay 11, 2011 at 10:58 am
    For some reason it won’t let me give you a thumbs up Jane, but I totally agree with you. They have no basis in reality.
  26. IHeartSCVMay 11, 2011 at 11:24 am
    I’m normally in complete agreement, but Gail was quiet and gracious when the City Council called her out–she just smiled for the obligatory photo and ran to the backroom before McLean could force a microphone into her hand. And Gail’s award was competitive, not one of those where paying the application fee all but assures recognition.
  27. spineflower2May 11, 2011 at 10:14 am
    Interesting that in this “no new taxes” valley, the council raised the open space assessment. I thought the original authority to assess this required a public vote. But I guess increases, once the basic law was in place, do not? Give an inch, they take a mile…
  28. James FarleyMay 11, 2011 at 1:53 pm
    Per the engineer’s report “The maximum anual assessment rate will be increased each year by $1.00 per benefit unit. The actual assessments levied in any fiscal year will be as approved by the City Council and may not exceed the maximum assessment rate without receiving property owner approval for the increase”. I checked with Darren Hernandez who confirmed that the maximum assessment is cumulative. The council chose not to increase the tax at all one or two years ago but the maximum allowable assessment still went up. This is the reason it could be raised this year by the amount of $1.50 without voter approval. I’ve always read the above to mean the increase could only be $1.00 per year regardless of previous years decisions not to raise it at all. My interpretation does not count, Mr. Hernandez’s does.
  29. Josh PremakoMay 11, 2011 at 11:22 am
    This just in (well, about half an hour ago, according to the time stamp), The Signal reports Publisher Ian Lamont has stepped down. http://www.the-signal.com/section/36/article/44799/
  30. PetzMay 11, 2011 at 1:33 pm
    They will probably replace that carpetbagger from Long Beach with the uber liberal bearded one—Jonathan Randles.
  31. JayceMay 12, 2011 at 8:28 am
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LzqeEvkJgo Kermit rules!

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