ArchiveSCV
SCV Talk · Archive
A decade of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
September 23, 2011· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

September 23, 2011 – Daily Brief

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

  • Ballots in the Landscape Maintenance District vote have been counted and property owners have agreed to the change, unsurprisingly. 56% of the total ballots favored the change, 44% opposed. Most SCV owners will see a dip in LMD fees; Newhall residents, however, now being paying around $90/year for their new LMD SIGNAL, SCVNEWS
  • Council Agenda: Next Tuesday the Council will discuss Newhall Metrolink station parking, the results of the LMD ballot, redevelopment issues, and the controversial historic preservation ordinance among other things AGENDA
  • More on the redevelopment issue vis a vis Jerry Brown’s elimination of redevelopment agencies KHTS
  • August was better for home sales in the SCV, with 20% more sales than last year. Buyers are more “practical” these days, refusing to purchase homes that their realtors and lenders say they can afford; rather they are trying to minimize the monthly impact of a mortgage SIGNAL
  • Scott Wilk picked up three more endorsements in the SCV, as well as a handful from the Simi Valley, in his campaign for the 38th Assembly District. SIGNAL
  • Sheriff’s Deputies working in the SCV’s anti-gang task force have identified 200 gang members in the SCV, some of whom are SCV natives while the rest have moved here. SIGNAL
  • Speaking of the Sheriff, the latest Merrick Bobb report tags the Sheriff’s Department for less-than-perfect record keeping. And as for use of force incidents, our station is about top half of the pack compared to other LA County Sheriff’s stations. KHTS, SIGNAL, REPORT (PDF)
  • Taylor Lautner, who played a part in the Twilight movie series, still hangs around the SCV where he grew up. Nice profile at the DAILY NEWS
  • Rogert Gitlin slams Scott Wilk, saying that Wilk is using his position on the Board of COC to spring into higher office. But who cares what a carpetbagging columnist like Roger Gitlin thinks? He doesn’t even live here. We SCVers defend our own from outsider criticism. WRB
  • First they cheered loudly for the death penalty, then they shouted that sick people without health insurance should die. I thought there’s no way they can top that, but they did! Republican primary voters booed a gay soldier serving in Iraq during last night’s GOP debate. TPM
  • Bill Kennedy says President Obama should take the SCV economic model national and borrow programs from us like the Economic Development Corporation, the Enterprise Zone, and others. He also says SCV is better because it was centrally planned by NLF. So wait, central planning works? SIGNAL
  • Lynne Plambeck accuses the County of LA of silencing debate over Newhall Ranch by moving a hearing date at the last minute SIGNAL

Comments

47 · as published
  1. Fed Up N SCVSeptember 23, 2011 at 7:37 am
    Jeff, Here! Here! on the Roger Gitlin comment. He doesn’t live here anymore. I didn’t care what he thought when he did live here, I care so much less now.
  2. JoshSeptember 23, 2011 at 7:39 am
    While I’m not a fan of Mr. Gitlin’s commentary from afar (the grass must not be as green as in the SCV), it does beg the question of how Mr. Wilk intends to handle his COC board vacancy if elected to the Assembly. My hope is that he would not subject the already financially frugal college to a special election (or if he does, that he would make a donation to the COC Foundation as reimbursement).
  3. MikeSeptember 23, 2011 at 7:50 am
    Paul Strickland gets the kiss of death from Roger Gitlin. (never forget: http://scvtalk.com/2010/08/10/roger-gitlin-repugnant-racist/ ). I wonder if Strickland has the courage to reject Gitlin’s endorsement. Josh, the COC board appoints replacements – no special election. In fact, Wilk was an appointed replacement for Ron Gillis, who resigned. It’s always an amusing sight (and in fairness this applies to Wilk, too) to see the dozens of people who apply and lobby like mad for these appointed seats (recall the city council some years back), contrasted with the few that actually have the courage to run.
  4. Need for Involved CitizenrySeptember 23, 2011 at 7:53 am
    Re: Bill Kennedy editorial – job creation and growth in the SCV is nothing to cheer about. The last 2-3 years it has been declining and flat. The fact that we have low employment here is because we have a relatively educated community who’ve been able to keep their jobs and travel out of the SCV for them (like Jeff and I). Too many of the local jobs are low paying. Just look at the Enterprise Zone incentives and tell me how many of those jobs are for folks making over $60K that can now afford to live here. Trying to compare the nations issues to what has happened in the SCV is just ridiculous. Bill’s editorials sound more and more like he just wants to spout the City’s line and run for higher office.
  5. Timothy Myers SRSeptember 23, 2011 at 9:38 am
    These types of writings that make it seem like the SCV can uncouple itself from the broader macroeconomy just make it look like the writers have made it their personal business to be uneducated and uninformed about such issues.
  6. NateSeptember 23, 2011 at 8:41 am
    Giltin calling Wilk a “boy” is quite telling of the nature of the Repugnant Racist
  7. Mr PerezSeptember 23, 2011 at 8:53 am
    Maybe it was said as if Rog was Foghorn Leghorn.
  8. Curious John NewhallSeptember 23, 2011 at 9:08 am
    Right. On the other side of Lyons, the north side, my neighbor got to vote themselves a ten dollar year decease, going down to about $210. (Due to CPI increase on assessments this will disappear within 2 years.) My neighbors voted also, probably not knowing it, for the people on the south side of Lyons, like me, to pay a new tax of $60 and to bring our parcel into the “District”. There were five different ballot information letters, seven different ballots, and literally too many to count increase/decrease amounts on the ballots, due to varying percentages of “EBU”’s. But there was only one YES or NO. Not every parcel in SCV voted in this “election”, just those drawn in to make the YES vote likely, given the weighting of the ballots. The City claims that this is done according to state law, but there is a lot going on with the one “vote.” But think, is it really fair to ask some people to vote YES to reduce their own tax, and to vote to bring in new parcels of others that must pay a new tax? Is this really the only way the City could have done this? See http://santaclaritaassessmentballot.blogspot.com/ .
  9. Timothy Myers SRSeptember 23, 2011 at 9:36 am
    Curious John: When I wrote about this last week in the Signal City apologists rushed in to say this method was “required” by state law, but didn’t the Friendly Valley folks get to remove themselves from this after they complained to the City Council? As someone in the financial industry who studied law, just because something is “legal” does not necessarily make it “fair.”
  10. Alan FerdmanSeptember 23, 2011 at 10:36 am
    The reason why it is a single vote by law is due to the City putting all the landscape and median LMDs in one district. That is not a requirement but a choice the city made. While I believe it makes sense to have all the median LMDs in a single district with a single city wide standard, the same is not true for landscape districts where each zone is unique. In addition, since the “special benefit” is different for each zone, the monies should not be intermingled. The question still remains; how can all the landscape LMDs cost be reduced? If they have been overcharged, where is the excess revenue? I intend to ask those questions at the next council meeting.
  11. Jim FarleySeptember 23, 2011 at 1:17 pm
    Legal does not mean fair is so true. I have almost no doubt this election meets all of the legal requirements under prop 18. The measure even appears fair in changing the methodology between commercial and residential. The fairness breaks down altogether when those that get a small decrease due to a change in the methodlogy are also voting to impose a new tax on the people on the other side of town. The boundaries of districts/zones is very much in the cities control. The actual voting record will be very interesting. I’ve put in a public records request, and contacted several city players asking that I get it before the weekend so it can be adequately analyzed before Tuesday’s meeting. So far I’m only hearing crickets chirping.
  12. WalkerSeptember 23, 2011 at 4:40 pm
    FWIW, I thought it was really slimy, too. That Friendly Valley area (not the residents, but that part of Newhall outside of the FV HOA) has NO landscape improvements, but the rest of the city just voted that they get to help pay for the landscaping in other parts of town?????? Legal, I guess. Slimy, hell yeah.
  13. WalkerSeptember 23, 2011 at 8:07 pm
    My grammar suffered there. If it wasn’t clear, I meant the eastern residential area of Newhall, not including Friendly Valley. I think the closest landscaped median is over by Costco. The hillsides are all residentially owned and the medians are asphalt.
  14. Jim FarleySeptember 23, 2011 at 5:02 pm
    Mistype above. Of course it is Proposition 218. Here is a great site for understanding how it works. http://www.lao.ca.gov/1996/120196_prop_218/understanding_prop218_1296.html
  15. Need for Involved CitizenrySeptember 23, 2011 at 10:11 am
    So if the City sent out all of these different ballots, why would they not have been tabulated depending on each individual ballot type\item? Full disclosure was certainly not the case here and TMS sure missed the boat (Too bad Tim’s editorial was not generated right after the ballots were sent out rather than after the vote).
  16. CuriousJohnNewhallSeptember 23, 2011 at 10:58 am
    Tim, Al, and NIC— This is a very complicated measure. It is questionable that it is moral, ethical, right, fair, or possible illegal to package so many things into a single ballot. But that is the way the City rolls. Git ‘er done. At this point I expect that the measure will pass Tuesday, with the apparent change for Friendly Valley to cool tempers. I still wonder, as Al pointed out, why if assessments needed to be lowered why it hadn’t been done before. Also, is there a requirement that people vote to have their taxes lowered? Or was that just a convenient way for the City to garner more YES votes on the measure? In any case, this issue, like so many, is no longer so much about the issue. It is about how the City does business. That is something the Left and Right cannot any longer ignore. An election is coming. We will all lose on issue like these until we start paying attention and force transparency in our local government. Go to http://santaclaritaassessmentballot.blogspot.com/ for more information.
  17. Alan FerdmanSeptember 23, 2011 at 12:40 pm
    The way I interpreted today’s Signal article is; the only difference for Friendly Valley is the date their assessment becomes effective. Everyone else’s change become effective July 2012 except Friendly Valley which would be included starting July 2013.
  18. mikeSeptember 23, 2011 at 1:52 pm
    As Chairman of the Friendly Valley Social Club*, I commend the city council for carving out this niche. *any link between the Friendly Valley Social Club and the Friendly Valley community of Canyon Country. Oops, Newhall. Oops, Santa Clarita. Is coincidental. Mostly.
  19. 4eyedsueSeptember 23, 2011 at 12:38 pm
    I am completely disgusted with the audience behavior at last nights debate. They behaved as if they were at a Jerry Springer show. For the third time- no less. Santorum is an idiot. And I am very disappointed that NO ONE stood up for the man on the video. Gary Johnson- the only GOP candidate to speak out against DADT stood on that stage and said nothing. I have combed the internet to see if he has condemned the outburst- and have found nothing yet. He needs to speak out while the media is still paying attention to him.
  20. BertaSeptember 23, 2011 at 1:09 pm
    Same song Sue does it occur to you that some of us agree with Rick Santorum that a military person’s SEX LIFE, homo or heterosexual, is not a topic of interest to us. The performance of his/her duties honorably is what I care about and I do not want to know what their sexual preference is, which is what DADT accomplished. I am not interested in glorifying an alternative lifestyle either.
  21. Santa ClaritanSeptember 23, 2011 at 1:42 pm
    No, DADT accomplished punishing a subset of American citizens in a discriminatory fashion. Heterosexuals were free to “tell” all they wanted. Only homosexuals couldn’t. If people really wanted sexuality out of the military, anything that revealed a person’s sexual preference, gay or straight, should have been punished. Not punishing somebody for being gay is not the same as glorifying them.
  22. BertaSeptember 23, 2011 at 2:19 pm
    Santa Claritan, while I am not an expert on military justice, there are negative consequences for certain behaviors even between heterosexuals serving in the military. I believe the applicable term is fraternizing, and involves different levels of punishment depending on the circumstances.
  23. Santa ClaritanSeptember 23, 2011 at 2:29 pm
    What does that have to do with DADT? Anti-fraternization rules are neutral (or should be) on sexual preference. That’s not even close to the discrimination that DADT represented.
  24. BertaSeptember 23, 2011 at 2:33 pm
    Santa Claritan, you said “If people really wanted sexuality out of the military, anything that revealed a person’s sexual preference, gay or straight, should have been punished.” I responded to that statement.
  25. LarMccSeptember 23, 2011 at 5:48 pm
    DADT accomplished nothing other than to force gays to hide their sexuality. There were two sets of rules depending on what your sexuality is. Now, the playing field is level and the same rules apply to all. The world continues on, there have been no great plagues unleashed upon us as a result of it’s appeal. As a registered republican, it is embarrassing that my party spends so much time worrying about nonsense like this. What happened to limited government?
  26. JeffSeptember 23, 2011 at 1:46 pm
    Soldier: “Hi. I’m a soldier in Iraq. I hunt jihadis for a living, and I’m very good at what I do. You see these guns? *flexes biceps* I named them Righteous and Fury.” GOP: “Yay!” Soldier: “Oh, I’m also gay.” GOP: “Booo!”
  27. BertaSeptember 23, 2011 at 2:07 pm
    Jeff, why does sexual preference even come into the soldier’s conversation? Why does he even need to say, “Oh, I’m also gay.” Does a heterosexual soldier say, “Oh, I’m also straight.” No! His /her fellow soldiers and I do not care as long as the soldier, homo or heterosexual, does the job and that is my point! I am not a Democrat or a Republican, but I would never boo any soldier simply because he/she is gay and I doubt “all Republicans” would either.
  28. JeffSeptember 23, 2011 at 2:11 pm
    Republicans certainly booed him last night. Live. In front of national TV. And not a single candidate stood up for him nor thanked him for his service! Why does he have to say he is gay? Because until last week he would have been prosecuted and kicked out of the military for it. Tell you what: try for one day not talking about the person you love the most in your life. Just try. see how easy it is for you, then maybe you can sympathize with those men and women who were forced to hide in secrecy under this corrupt, dehumanizing policy.
  29. BertaSeptember 23, 2011 at 2:30 pm
    So then Jeff since the inappropriate actions of some Republicans taints them all, the same applies to Maxine Waters, Joe Biden etc for damming Tea Party folks to hell, calling them terrorists, accusing them of wanting to lynch blacks, etc right? All Democrats must be radicals inciting violence against American Tea Party members? I doubt that since there must be some sane Democrats. You perhaps?
  30. 4eyedsueSeptember 23, 2011 at 2:46 pm
    Oh, these generalizations are just silly. News reports say that some audience members were “shushing” the booers. Like I said, Gary Johnson, running as a Republican, supported the repeal of DADT. The Log Cabin Republicans certainly weren’t booing! Not all Republicans are as ignorant as Santorum. We don’t all fit into these neat little packages. Sometimes people fall just outside the box. An “alternative” political lifestyle. Glorify it, Babe!
  31. JeffSeptember 23, 2011 at 3:29 pm
    Where did I say it taints them all? There’s plenty of Republicans I like and respect, from right here in this town to nationally. It doesn’t taint them unless they’re cynically encouraging such behavior. There’s clearly a segment of the GOP base that is highly intolerant, however. They cheer when the death penalty is mentioned, scream “You lie” at the President from the well of Congress, shout that uninsured sick people should be left to die, and boo gay soldiers. Tell you what- I’ll condemn Joe Biden and Maxine Water on this blog the same day RightOnSCV condemns the remarks and sentiments expressed at the recent debates.
  32. Capt. GeneSeptember 25, 2011 at 7:42 am
    “Tell you what- I’ll condemn Joe Biden and Maxine Water on this blog the same day RightOnSCV condemns the remarks and sentiments expressed at the recent debates.” Also known as: “Conditional Indignation Syndrome”.
  33. LarMccSeptember 23, 2011 at 5:57 pm
    Berta, your statement is correct perhaps in 20 years or so. Someones sexuality should not matter and no one should feel the need to mention it. However, it was relevant in this case as DADT was just repealed. Gays have been forced to hide their sexuality because if they were found out they would be expelled from service. The guys point was that he is gay and has served our country honorably in the military. He was asking about if a candidate would try and circumvent the repeal of DADT. He was pointing out he would be affected by this. The people that booed are really sick people with a lot of hatred in their hearts. I could never imagine booing someone who put their life on the line for all of us.
  34. BertaSeptember 23, 2011 at 10:26 pm
    LarMcc my statement reflects what I believe to be true now, not 20 years hence. I have in fact always believed that each person should be evaluated based upon individual merits, or lack of same. I do not consider sexual preference important enough to consider as part of evaluating a person any more than I do height or eye color, unless I am marrying the person. I repeat I am not concerned with another’s sexual preference, particularly while they are serving in defense of my country. I simply do not want to hear about their sexual persuasion or have that one aspect as the defining issue whether they are in the military or not. In fact, I would prefer to not know about anyone’s sexual preferences except perhaps pedophiles, or see anybody half-naked, making out etc in public either, but I am old school I guess. I said earlier that I am not a Democrat or a Republican, but I would never boo any soldier simply because he/she is gay and I doubt “all Republicans” would either. As the mother of a military officer currently serving, I have nothing but respect and admiration for most military personnel, gay or straight, and their families.
  35. LarMccSeptember 24, 2011 at 9:33 am
    Berta, I agree with you 100%. If everyone in the world took the attitude of ‘who cares’ when it comes to sexual orientation we would not have this problem. But hatred against gays is one of the last areas where public hatred is tolerated. So, I can understand when someone has to come out and say they are gay while pointing out that they have served our country in the military. It shouldn’t have to be this way but until everyone can adopt a live and let live attitude, having dialogue about this is important.
  36. 4eyedsueSeptember 24, 2011 at 10:22 am
    Berta, I hear you say that sexual preference is not important to you when evaluating a person. I understand that you don’t care to know about anyone’s sexuality. But here’s the thing- we don’t live our lives hiding our sexuality. Heterosexuals “flaunt” it all the time and don’t even realize it. Out for dinner and a movie- my hubby and I may hold hands. He might open the door for me at the restaurant. In the theater I might have my head snuggled on his shoulder. We just told everyone our sexual preference. No one cares. But lets say that was two men… Just introducing someone to “my husband” tells them my sexual preference. Unmarried heterosexual couples use the terms “boyfriend” or “girlfriend” all the time. (shoving their sexuality in my face). I agree with Jeff- we should all experiment with hiding our sexuality for a day. Homosexuals aren’t asking for “special privileges” like Santorum says, they just want the same benefits and freedoms heterosexuals have when it comes to love and family. In 29 states, employers can legally fire someone just because they are gay.
  37. 4eyedsueSeptember 23, 2011 at 1:50 pm
    Why, yes, Berta, it has occurred to me that a military person’s SEX LIFE, homo or heterosexual, is not a topic of interest to you. It isn’t a particular interest of mine, either. That’s the entire point- one that you and Santorum miss entirely. This is not about sex. When I go to work, my co-workers and I talk about our families, our lives. I have pictures up. I don’t have to hide who I am or whom I love. I don’t have to live in fear of being “found out”. America’s military should not be forced to lie about their most important emotional bonds. The big, sick game of “let’s pretend” is over, Berta. PS- please be careful with the names, Berta. There are a few good one’s that start with B
  38. BertaSeptember 23, 2011 at 2:15 pm
    Sue you and I are not ever going to agree on the issue of gays so I will just leave it at that. Moreover, as to calling names beginning with a “B”, your insults are strictly your choice and nothing new to me on this site anyway. Saying you are a one song Sue is accurate since your main topic of conversation is ALWAYS gay rights no matter the blog, again your choice, but it would be nice to hear your views on other topics and not always the same one.
  39. 4eyedsueSeptember 23, 2011 at 2:27 pm
    I have a few songs, Berta. You must have missed them. Oh, no wait! – we discussed the 9/11 ceremony. That didn’t go so well, if I recall, either. Equality happens to be extremely important to me. I will continue my attempt to educate until things change. It’s my calling.
  40. SFC PerezSeptember 23, 2011 at 10:30 pm
    Berta, the individuals(notice I said individuals) who booed this Soldier are pieces of garbage. They are the morons who think our military is like the NBA and they get to pick and choose which player or troop they thank for their service. Our country is diverse and our military is a representative of that diversity. We actually tally the percentages of ethnicities, genders, and religion. We aren’t being pro anything in the military with the repeal of DADT except being pro troop regardless their sexual orientation. There are existing rules which govern sexual harassment and what you can and cannot discuss in the work place. Telling a troop to hide their sexuality for fear of being discovered and kicked out created the potential for blackmail by foreign operatives, true fact. I know not all Tea Party members are like these aholes last night, nor the ones who yelled YEA when Ron Paul was asked if we should let another human being die. I sympathize with them in that you have a small number committing these moronic acts but the larger peaceful Tea Party groups are being judged the same. Welcome to my world
  41. Mr PerezSeptember 24, 2011 at 6:39 pm
    I guess two Booo’ers from the other night didn’t like my comment
  42. 4eyedsueSeptember 23, 2011 at 8:28 pm
    My guy Gary Johnson came through… why did I doubt he would? Today he condemned the booing of soldier Stephan Hill, and says that he regrets his silence on stage. He said he was “chomping at the bit” to respond to the audience, but he was reticent to speak out due to his exclusion from the recent debates. I would have loved a dramatic fist pounding and some shouting, but I will forgive him. As for the other outbursts in previous GOP debates (debates in which Johnson was not present): On the death penalty- Johnson is against the death penalty. On “just let him die?”- Johnson says “Let him die? No, that’s not this country”. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/23/gary-johnson-gay-soldier_n_978710.html
  43. VenturanSeptember 23, 2011 at 8:43 pm
    The Republicans driving the party are more concerned with social issues than anything else. Otherwise Ron Paul, Johnson and others would be taken seriously. Otherwise those espousing principles of freedom would have no issues with the repeal of Prop 8, legalizing drugs would be part of the party platform, etc. Those who are pro-life (as I am) would be against the death penalty and in favor of a sensible health care policy (“let him die” is clearly outside the bounds of such). You’re banging your head against the wall. There’s obviously no one party that will align perfectly with every issue, but the hypocrisy is tiresome on the right side of the aisle.
  44. 4eyedsueSeptember 23, 2011 at 8:58 pm
    Here’s the thing, Venturan- I want my party back. Gary Johnson is no hypocrite- he for less government and more liberty for ALL. People- from both parties- are hearing what he has to say and realizing they don’t have to settle. (This is my Gary Johnson song)
  45. VenturanSeptember 23, 2011 at 10:02 pm
    First you need to fix the stranglehold FoxNews and the Koch Bros have on the GOP. It’s an intravenous 24/7 BS drip that made the bulk of the party go koo-koo for cocoa puffs. Three debates, each with narrative-validating behavior by the audience and a general lack of leadership by those on stage. I watched all three debates – every candidate was silent during these outbursts and many pandered. After-the-fact regret isn’t enough. It’s a pattern now. With apologies to the Gipper, I didn’t leave the Republican party — the party left me. Ronald Reagan himself wouldn’t have a chance in hell of getting elected by this mob. Not pure enough. So if you think your guy Johnson has a prayer, I’d suggest you and he charter a third party and wait out 2-3 cycles. At this stage, these guys are hopelessly brainwashed, perhaps waiting on the second coming of George Washington.
  46. 4eyedsueSeptember 24, 2011 at 9:21 am
    Venturan- I agree that after-the-fact regret does not satisfy. If you watched the debate- you must have noticed how nervous Johnson was- it was almost painful. I can understand why he stood silent. You needn’t apologize to the Gipper- he is the one that opened the door and invited the Religious Right on in and set the stage for the mess the Republican party is today. The current nut jobs idolize Reagan. They speak of him like a GOP demi-god. They remember what the want to remember and seem to have reinvented him. My guy Johnson criticizes Reagan for running up deficits. Does Johnson have a prayer? I still say yes. Here’s some past candidates with similarly low polls- Michael Dukakis, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton- 1% as late as October of the pre-election year. Johnson is being outspent 300 to one. He is truly grassroots. He has gotten this far because people believe in him- not because of the political machine (actually despite it!). He stayed in an $89 a night Econo Lodge while campaigning in New Hampshire.
  47. BertaSeptember 23, 2011 at 10:34 pm
    Jeff, I was unable to watch last night’s debate but I will make it a point to view it online and I accept your challenge. I will however also hold you to your promise “Tell you what- I’ll condemn Joe Biden and Maxine Water on this blog the same day RightOnSCV condemns the remarks and sentiments expressed at the recent debates.” You have a deal!
Support