SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
October 27, 2011· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

October 27, 2011 Daily Brief-Slow News Day Edition

By Timothy Myers SR. — Tim Myers

One knows it is a slow news day in the SCV when:

  • The banner headline deals with .25% of students at COC that “sign up for COC classes without any interest in attending them or earning degrees.”  Sounds like your average community college student to me.  (Sorry, sorry.)
  • And on their way back from the Tea Party four Republicans on the City Council vote for more “study”  on the Historical Preservation Ordinance which otherwise might be entitled the “Eminent Domain/Seizure of Private Property Rights without Compensation” Ordinance rather than enacting the unraveled and useless provision proposed by the Planning Commission.
  • And on their way back from that same Tea Party five Republicans on the City Council celebrate the finest traditions of 18th Century mercantilism by taking money from a TAX and giving it to a nonprofit that will allegedly benefit the businesses (hotels) from which the TAX was collected.  I would suppose the Auto Row car dealers are the SCV version of the British East India Company.
  • Unsurprisingingly, the California Supreme Court unanimously dismisses two injunction requests brought by Republicans against the new legislative maps.  Unsurprising because the US Supreme Court has already upheld similar commissions in other states on which the California plan was modeled.
  • And on a lighter note, the Vikings and Indians  hold a joint pep rally at Power Ford in anticipation of their televised football “showdown” on Friday which should be a walkover for the Vikings leaving Hart Alums to once again pine for those days long ago when the Indians used to be good.  And the outrage begins in 3, 2, 1…..

Comments (33)

  1. AlpinerOctober 27, 2011 at 9:16 am
    Hotel occupancy taxes are collected for the purpose of tourism and tourism related non-profits by every incorporated city and county in the state. All do it. This is not unusual at all and many depend on these funds for survival.
  2. LindaOctober 27, 2011 at 9:43 am
    Sounds like socialism to me!
  3. PetzOctober 27, 2011 at 9:44 am
    Mosyt of the hotels are in the county-let them go downtown for the $$$$$
  4. ToddOctober 27, 2011 at 10:40 am
    The five that are in the district are all within city limits.
  5. Alan FerdmanOctober 27, 2011 at 9:58 am
    Because “everybody does it” does not make it the right thing to do. It is still taxpayers money which should be used in a most prudent way. If Santa Clarita is truly the leader it claims to be, justification of each expenditure must stand on it’s own merit and not because other cities do it. Let me start by saying that Hart Baseball is an exemplary program second to none. Yet the question still remains; is providing this money truly going to benefit tourism or is it something else. Speakers in favor told the Council the money was going to be spent to improve their facilities and within 4 years possibly host 8, 4 day, tournaments per year. Not only was the mechanism of creating this tournament demand not explained, that level of outside normal league play would eat up 32 play days per season. If I was a current Hart player parent or coach I would be raising that concern load and clear. To echo the way I started, I fully support Hart baseball. What I do not support is spending taxpayer funds without adequate justification.
  6. Timothy Myers SROctober 27, 2011 at 10:06 am
    What is nice to say is that in an election year the incumbents passed out money to support baseball. We now wait in anticipation of the Mom and Apple Pie grants.
  7. PetzOctober 27, 2011 at 1:16 pm
    What about soccer tournaments? We pay for the fields.
  8. ToddOctober 27, 2011 at 10:39 am
    You seem to be overly professing love for Hart Baseball in all your efforts to derail this action. It kinda comes off as a “I’m not a racist, I have lots of black friends!” statement…. Its not “taxpayer” funds. Its “surcharge payer” funds paid not for by you or me (well, unless you’re in the doghouse with your wife often enough) but by non-residents who stay in one of 5 hotels/motels in the city. Is it a tax? Technically, yes, it is. A tax on the hotels… which unanimously agreed to form the district, and supported this disbursement at their board meeting, of which they hold the majority of votes.
  9. Phil EllisOctober 27, 2011 at 12:48 pm
    Thanks for the rational explanation.
  10. Alan FerdmanOctober 27, 2011 at 1:03 pm
    Interesting conclusion Todd. The point I am trying to drive home is; even though something may be proposed by a cause that you highly endorse, that is no reason to ignore your ethics and look the other way. Each cause and every group should be treated in the same manner. So, I will say it again, what I do not support is spending taxpayer funds without adequate justification. Rather than trying to derail an idea, I am asking for someone to provide the rational that would let us all support it. That is why items like this should not be placed on the Council’s Consent Calendar. Instead the plan should be laid out in a clear presentation provided to our Council and the public.
  11. ToddOctober 27, 2011 at 1:14 pm
    What more justification does one require than the endorsement of those paying said funds. That is the point you’re failing to understand. The members of the Tourism District, at their board meeting approved the expenditure. You don’t have to support it. Its not your money being spent.
  12. iMagicOctober 27, 2011 at 1:37 pm
    “I do not support is spending taxpayer funds without adequate justification” = Alan Ferdman self appointed approval.
  13. Phil EllisOctober 27, 2011 at 2:06 pm
    If you define all funds received by the City from whatever source received as being taxpayer funds, then Alan’s position would make sense. Todd still has the more logical position. If Use Permit fees were spent on Hart Baseball, we all should complain.
  14. BertaOctober 27, 2011 at 9:52 pm
    Al instead of just saying “even though something may be proposed by a cause that you highly endorse, that is no reason to ignore your ethics and look the other way. Each cause and every group should be treated in the same manner.” Your comments would have more credibility if you practiced what you preach. You consistently present YOUR misguided personal anti city viewpoint as reflecting an entire committee and our community of Canyon Country when you know perfectly well you never ask us our opinion or for our approval of YOUR position. You have a lot of nerve slamming others let alone even talking about ethics…
  15. AlpinerOctober 27, 2011 at 1:57 pm
    It is taxes paid by the hotels themselves based on occupancy. The occupants pay the tax based on use. These are designated funds that the hotels want going to bring them more travelers which in turn brings more people to an entire community to spend money. My understanding is that it is state law. Municipalities just determine percentage and where the money goes.
  16. ToddOctober 28, 2011 at 8:27 am
    No, these are special assessment funds, not regulated or required by the state.
  17. PattyOctober 27, 2011 at 1:11 pm
    It’s one of the few taxes municipalities may levy without a two-thirds (minority rule) vote post Prop. 13. As I recall, the others are business taxes and entertainment (Magic Mountain) taxes.
  18. ToddOctober 27, 2011 at 1:15 pm
    You’re right and your wrong. The city itself doesn’t levy anything… the “district” does. The “district” is formed by its membership, and it is disbanded by its membership. So that same simple majority that approved it can also abolish it.
  19. Alan FerdmanOctober 27, 2011 at 1:35 pm
    In a more complete story from Wikipedia “In California, tourism improvement districts are formed under the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989, or a similar enabling ordinance adopted by a charter city. California districts are also subject to other laws designed to ensure approval by business owners paying the assessment and accountability by the managing body to those business owners. In California, tourism improvement districts are formed with a majority of assessed businesses consenting and the local government’s approval. Funds raised are returned to a non-profit corporation which is under contract with the local government to manage those funds. Several accountability mechanisms ensure that funds are spent in accordance with a specifically defined district plan approved by the businesses paying into the district. District plans generally include marketing and sales programs to promote the businesses paying the assessment. Funds cannot be spent on programs that don’t benefit the businesses paying the assessment, nor can they be diverted by the government for other programs – two main reasons for TIDs’ growing popularity among tourism-related businesses.” As stated it is the government agency that has the approval and oversight role, ultimately translating to accountability to the public.
  20. AdamOctober 27, 2011 at 1:53 pm
    Alan, You are well respected community activist and most of the time I support your healthy distrust of our city council and the oversight you provide. However in this case you are incorrect. The Hotels them selves formed the district, taxed themselves (Well really their customers), and then decided that this is a good expenditure that will help their business. You think that the taxpayers should have say in how this money is spent, but that goes against the very law that you quote above. “Funds cannot be spent on programs that don’t benefit the businesses paying the assessment” The businesses feel that this will help them so they are for it. They pay/charge the tax (which is really more of a fee, but for marketing purposes they call it a tax so that they can point the finger at the government and not have their customers complain) so they should be able to spend it how they want. I’m just not really understanding your opposition to spending tax monies, that you didn’t contribute to, on some thing those who did pay them think is a good idea.
  21. ToddOctober 27, 2011 at 2:00 pm
    +1
  22. ToddOctober 27, 2011 at 1:59 pm
    OK, elaborate if you will. Or keep it short and sweet…. Your point about transparency and the like is not misplaced Alan, but you’re wrong in assuming that because its on the consent calendar it becomes less than transparent. I was discussing this on this very site prior to the meeting. How was I able to do it? By virtue of the fact that the agenda was posted and linked to the staff report, and the memorandum of agreement/understanding was available for everyone to read and look at. Consent agendas also do not need to be passed en masse. A council member may request that an item be pulled from consent and discussed on its own, or they may have a brief discussion to ask questions for clarification of staff. Nevermind that the TD board has its own meeting, which is noticed and public. ( http://apps.santa-clarita.com/PublicMeetingNotices/ ) Two meetings, ample access to documentation, and SCVTalk talking about it ahead of time… There was more than enough transparency on this issue.
  23. Alan FerdmanOctober 27, 2011 at 3:14 pm
    Adam and Todd Thanks for your spirited comments. I think it would be productive if we had an opportunity to sit around a table and discuss this and other issues. But even, in this case, if that will never happen and we will just have to agree to disagree, you have caused me to research the issue more and think about other venues that could be used for our community to work out our differences.
  24. Need for Involved CitizenryOctober 27, 2011 at 10:07 am
    http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/10/5499_new_housing_units_coming_soon_to_middle_of_nowhere.php Curbed article and blog on the just approved Mission Village project. Interesting to see how others outside the SCV react to this vs the SCVEDC…
  25. LindaOctober 27, 2011 at 10:45 am
    I’m not a supporter of Newhall Ranch, but it’s hardly “the middle of nowhere.”
  26. Phil EllisOctober 27, 2011 at 12:51 pm
    That article lost me when it referred to the SCV as the middle of nowhere.
  27. ToddOctober 27, 2011 at 2:53 pm
    a.) that area is the WEST SCV…. Anything west of the Commerce Center or east of Sand Canyon is not “The SCV” b.) Have you been out there. It is the middle of nowhere. Anywhere that requires more than a 20 minute drive to a grocery store or pharmacy is “middle of nowhere.” Now, I realize that means some parts of Plum Canyon are also included with that generalization, but I’m OK with that…
  28. VictorOctober 27, 2011 at 8:17 pm
    way out there http://scvtalk.com/2011/05/26/way-out-there-in-santa-clarita/
  29. LindaOctober 27, 2011 at 8:53 pm
    More than twenty minutes? I don’t think so — not the way people drive here. But even if that’s true, by the standards of people living in most every other western state, very few places in So Cal would qualify as “middle of nowhere.” We are one big urban sprawl — which is one reason why so many hate the idea of bringing in more to eat up what little scenic open space we have left.
  30. mikeOctober 27, 2011 at 10:51 pm
    I’d imagine that once they are done bulldozing, Mission Village will be part of the Valley. Some other parts of Newhall Ranch will be in a gray area, very much. I think with the way it’s situated, residents will have susrprising quick access, maybe ≤10 minutes to a grocery store/pharmacy on Hasley, Westridge and maybe even Pavillions – not to mention the super Wal Mart. It’s funny you mention Plum Canyon, because my first thought this morning was that my home in Plum Canyon is probably further from most things than this development would be. I can’t believe I’m coming off as a NR apologist, but pretty quickly, that area will have things of its own. It’s going to have quite a bit more neighborhood planning that anything we’ve seen built in this area in quite a while. All that said, in the context of an LA-Centric publication reporting on the county approving a massive development at the edge of the county, I think “middle of nowhere” is almost fair – if it weren’t across the street from a City of 150,000+. Every other direction is empty, though.
  31. Phil EllisOctober 28, 2011 at 12:15 pm
    And I think that the City, with its Open Space Initiative, wants to keep it that way.
  32. ScottEOctober 27, 2011 at 11:16 am
    Let’s Go Saugus!
  33. SCV LoverOctober 27, 2011 at 3:46 pm
    Yeah boy!

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