March 26, 2014 – Daily Brief

By Josh Premako

For Starters, Billboard Deal OK'd: A KTLA-drawing, sign-bearing, council chambers-crowding crowd had no effect on the City Council's final decision last night, as the deal to replace the city's existing billboards with what we'll now call Vegasboards was voted through 3-1. KHTS
Signs Against Signs: The lawn outside City Hall was filled with protesters prior to the council meeting. KTLA The Signal
Billboard Buyout: Don't forget that City Hall getting its way includes buying out the company that owns a majority of the city's existing billboards, to the tune of $1.3 million. The Signal
Green Light for Cameras: The council also voted last night to extend the city's contract for red light cameras, on a month-to-month basis. The Signal
Mayor Dude Peaces Out: Last night also marked the final council meeting for Councilman Frank Ferry, elected in 1998. The Signal
I Heart the Play-by-Play: Anonyblogger IHeartSCV runs down the council meeting. IHEARTSCV
Surprising No One, Speed Was a Factor: The Sheriff's Department wrapped up its investigation of last year's Paul Walker/Roger Rodas crash that killed both men, concluding the Porsche was going somewhere around 90mph in a 45mph zone when it crashed. KHTS
Tonight is Bill Reynolds' Night: Tune in to NatGeo tonight, as it airs its much-anticipated Vietnam documentary "The Boys of '67" featuring the SCV's own Bill Reynolds. SCVNews
County Backs the Film Fight: The county Board of Supervisors approved a motion authored by Supervisor Michael Antonovich aimed at curbing runaway film production. SCVNews
Take a Break From Billboards and Smile: Steve Harvey's roundup of signage is always amusing. LAObserved
Who Knew?: The bald eagle, that most American of birds, calls Southern California a part-time and full-time home. SoCal Wild

Comments (1)

donrickettsThursday, March 27th, 2014 at 8:50 am

I don’t know if the claim that the voting power of the minorities on whose behalf the Voting Rights Act case against the City was brought is well founded; I haven’t seen the evidence. But, assuming that is true, I am having difficulty understanding how moving elections to November and cumulative voting will “reduce the vote dilution,” the core argument recited in the agreement to support the settlement. November elections would equally increase the turnout by the majority, as well as the minority, and the majority’s voting rights will, equally, be increased by cumulative voting. Does anything change? The City will pay $400,000 to implement these perhaps illusory changes (if they get all the necessary approvals) and $600,000 in attorney’s fees to the plaintiffs. Maybe I am missing something and someone can explain.

donrickettsThursday, March 27th, 2014 at 8:50 am
I don’t know if the claim that the voting power of the minorities on whose behalf the Voting Rights Act case against the City was brought is well founded; I haven’t seen the evidence. But, assuming that is true, I am having difficulty understanding how moving elections to November and cumulative voting will “reduce the vote dilution,” the core argument recited in the agreement to support the settlement. November elections would equally increase the turnout by the majority, as well as the minority, and the majority’s voting rights will, equally, be increased by cumulative voting. Does anything change? The City will pay $400,000 to implement these perhaps illusory changes (if they get all the necessary approvals) and $600,000 in attorney’s fees to the plaintiffs. Maybe I am missing something and someone can explain.