What's Up With All These People Asking for Signatures, and Who's Blocking Them?

By Mike Devlin

An embedded YouTube video appeared here in the original post. View the original — embeds are preserved as links in this archive.

Yesterday, a dispute between a paid signature gatherer and paid signature blockers led in the signature gatherer's arrest outside of Trader Joe's in Saugus (yes, in Saugus). Citizen activist Nate Imhoff went to the scene of the alleged crime to call the signature blockers to task. The banter is really funny at times, and the cynicism behind the blocking effort is apparent.

There are three blockers in the video. The silent guy in sunglasses as seen in earlier videos being identified as a blocker in front of the Target store in Canyon Country. They also mention the name of a Calvin Conrad, possibly the owner of Conrad Petition Management.

The petition drive is for signatures to call a referendum that will put the city's digital billboard deal on the ballot, giving voters a chance to approve or deny the deal. Digital billboard opponents have alleged, with some evidence, that Allvision, the for-profit company that would operate the six digital billboards, has brought people in for the purpose of "blocking" signatures. Gatherers charge that blockers have offered money in exchange for signed petitions, circulated false petitions, harassed people attempting to sign the petition and staged disturbances outside of stores where petitions are being circulated.

Image not recoveredbefore-and-after.jpg

The approximate location of a would-be digital billboard in city-owned open space along the river. The Photoshopping is mine, and silly.

Allvision's lobbyist Arthur Sohikian is recently infamous for throwing a fundraiser for councilmembers Marsha McLean and Laurene Weste while the billboard deal was pending before the city council. Sohikian and his clients donated thousands of dollars to each incumbent in this year's election. Neither McLean nor Weste have made any public statements against the organized blocking activity. Bob Kellar and Dante Acosta have been just as silent. Emails to Allvision and Sohikian requesting comment have gone unanswered.

There's something disturbing about a company paying people to come into Santa Clarita for the purpose of creating disruptions in public spaces for a cause no greater than their own profit. Under the terms of the 50-year deal, Allvision will be the operator for at least 30 years. If this is their welcoming gift to Santa Clarita, I'd hate to see what we're looking forward to over the next few decades. Just imagine what sort of bullying tactics we might expect if the city tries to enforce decency standards on the billboards that might cut into Allvision's profits.

But more importantly, the laws governing the signature threshold and time limit for a referendum, already daunting, weren't written to consider fraudulent and abusive tactics to keep people from signing petitions. It's an intentional disruption of our democratic process conducted, most likely, by the city's new business partner.

Comments (42)

JulieOSaturday, April 26th, 2014 at 5:50 pm

Thanks, Mike. Appreciate you writing about this because too many people are unaware that our re-elected city council members have conflicts of interest and rushed this deal with a company that thinks nothing of violating citizens' rights to petition without harassment or intimidation. Many many Santa Claritans I spoke with today at the cowboy festival were appalled by this deal and happy to sign the petition calling for it to be put to a vote.

DavePutnamSaturday, April 26th, 2014 at 7:40 pm

If anyone who lives in the City of Santa Clarita wants to see how broken our political system has become, they need look no further than their own back yard over the past couple of months. Between the petition "blockers" and City Council members who refuse to listen to their constituents it's a pretty sad state of affairs. Not to mention the fact that two City Council members seemed to have no qualms about how improper it might seem for them to attend a fundraiser given in their campaign's behalf by a lobbyist for a company that is in the middle of negotiating a large contract with the city. California needs to get off the referendum-proposition tread mill and have the people we elect to office do the job that they were sent there to do. Term limits is obviously not the answer either because everyone who gets sent to Sacramento now is almost always looking for the next position they want to run for as soon as they get there. There needs to be a happy medium and that to me seems to be about 8 years. Citizens need to start paying attention to what their elected officials are doing. We have the chance to fire the people who can't do the job they were elected to do when we vote. Back in the 19th century, Joseph de Maistre wrote "Every nation gets the government it deserves." Boy was he ever right.

HenryJenningsSaturday, April 26th, 2014 at 9:07 pm

This is why direct democracy doesn't work. Originally designed to allow for reform of corrupt machine politics, the initiative process has become a multi-million dollar cynical business used by rich people of all sorts to manipulate the system. If you don't like what your elected representatives have done, vote them the hell out of office. Nicely done though, Nathan lol

timothymyers02Sunday, April 27th, 2014 at 7:21 am

I just nearly wet myself when the discussion turned to "the gays."

N8ISunday, April 27th, 2014 at 11:55 am

That was my favorite part as well..

C LosSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 7:47 am

The blocker mentions that he is collecting signatures for a petition regarding sex offenders. Yesterday there were two guys in front of Sprouts collecting signatures to keep sex offenders, rapists and pedophiles in jail. Their intentions rang untrue and now seeing this video makes me wonder about their collection of signatures for a "petition" was actually real or not. Are these sex offender petitions totally false? How does this affect the billboards petition gathering?

MikeSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 9:20 am

These may have been legitimate petitions, but according to several people who have encountered similar situations, the idea is to overwhelm an area where a billboard petition gatherer is collecting signatures and to give people the impression that it's a drive for a different petition. So if someone is approached to sign a sex offender petition (likely one of several state propositions) and signs it, they walk on, unaware that one of the half dozen gatherers has the billboard petition. According to eyewitness accounts, they will work the area is such a way that the blockers direct traffic away from the billboard gatherer.

BertaSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 12:05 pm

I love the way Nate continuously talks about how these folks are from out of town and how the digital billboards are supposedly blight yet NEVER mentions that the referendum signature gatherers are from OUT OF STATE and the council approved the deal to remove existing billboard blight affecting only certain older areas within the city. Also, please note Nate says he lives a few blocks away from the Best Buy Center, a commercial area built by Newhall Land and Farm built without any billboards ever allowed. Sounds like Patty Sulpizio is on the audio, I believe she lives in Valencia, which also never has allowed billboards. Oh, and the referendum petition gatherers brought in from OUT OF STATE are paid by Clear Channel Outdoor, who by the way also have digital billboards in nearby areas, and are Allvision’s competitors more facts never mentioned.

IHeartSCVSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 12:32 pm

Berta, if both sides have hired signature gatherers from out of state, then it cancels out. But that still leaves the many "amateur" signature gatherers from the SCV who are working at their own personal expense against the electronic billboards. I'm not aware of any grassroots effort to petition in favor of electronic billboards. I also find it curious that you're pitting Valencians against Canyonites when you are an outspoken critic of efforts to split the SCV into districts. Personally, I view the whole issue from an SCV History perspective. We've had conventional billboards for all of our history as a City, and electronic billboards for none of that history. If we lose the conventional billboards in favor of electronic ones, we've lost part of who we are. Don't ignore our rich cultural heritage of outdoor advertisements. Leon, can I get an amen? Leon? Leon?

BertaSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 12:49 pm

I am against voting districts because I do not want to see communities pitted against each other with less affluent areas losing out. The same reasoning applies to putting the billboard issue to a vote since all of Valencia and some newer areas of other communities with CCRs etc have already prohibited billboards, do not have any marring their views, and new ones cannot be put up, so they will not care if the older areas continue to be burdened with billboard blight. Three elected leaders voted for this deal, one member recused herself but would support if appropriate, vs. one elected leader TBB opposing. Sorry you cannot see the injustice of having folks not negatively impacted, able to potentially defeat something that would help less affluent areas clean up too. You are attempting to stack the deck against Canyon Country and Newhall ever enjoying the same uncluttered viewscape as the nicer areas of this city. At least the digital billboards are each in a different community, one in Canyon Country, one in Newhall, and one in Valencia.

N8ISunday, April 27th, 2014 at 12:51 pm

Get use to the idea of districts it will be happening either way... What are you so afraid of Berta? Don't want to hear what the people think?

BertaSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 1:13 pm

Nate, I am not afraid of anything but districts will not serve the residents, minority or otherwise, well. Unfair advantage is given to affluent areas to the detriment of less affluent areas under a voting district system where not all elected officials are answerable to all of the electorate. Putting the billboard issue on the ballot is actually a great example of why I have concerns about voting districts. Folks who live in areas not currently affected by billboard blight can vote to block the deal to get rid of the current old billboards predominately placed in older less affluent areas of the city. Voting districts accomplish the same thing, for instance Valencia and Saugus representatives could block city funds being allocated to address problems in Newhall and/or Canyon Country, and unholy alliances made between representatives to site all the crappy projects in the less affluent powerful areas and the good projects in theirs. At least now, all voters can elect all five council members and not just their own area representative. Voting districts dilute the power of each voter to hold all elected members accountable.

n8iSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 1:15 pm

Your hate for minorities is legendary... Either way districts are happening, all cities in the state will be going to districts.

BertaSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 1:33 pm

“Your hate for minorities is legendary...”See Nate, this where folks like you lose all credibility!

n8iSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 1:34 pm

I have credibility to spare... now be gone with you.

BertaSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 2:53 pm

You have something to spare. I don't take orders from you Nate but civil conversation not possible so voluntarily ending.

n8iSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 12:35 pm

None of the Signatures are out of state BUT some are hired from outside of the community and are also being paid by people in THIS community. Nothing illegal about it... in fact there is no way to get the signature necessary without hiring professionals. You are aware that these thugs roll up on older lady signature collectors and harass and set them up so they can make claims when the police get there. They are people of the lowest character and if you want to defend and associate with them it only reinforces why you would have been an awful council person. Patty Sulpizio was not there you are wrong again.

BertaSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 12:59 pm

Nate that is an outright lie. I personally spoke to several referendum petition gatherers last Saturday, 4/19/14, from Florida, Kentucky, and Missouri who were specifically brought from their home state to work on this “campaign” and were staying in San Dimas during this effort. Clear Channel Outdoor hired the company they work for, and these folks travel all over the country for the petition gathering company to earn their money. The woman arrested for assaulting a LOCAL resident is from Illinois and several others quoted in the Signal are from out of state too. Moreover, I said ...Sounds like Patty Sulpizio ...did not affirm that it is.

n8iSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 1:03 pm

The assault and theft were both setups by these low lives and Santa Clarita Sheriff's department has continued to show just how in the pocket of the city they are. I thought you were a person of integrity... you are clearly not. Talk to yourself.

MikeSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 1:07 pm

Berta, You say you know the woman in the black hat. Can you confirm that she has not been paid by Allvision or anyone else in conjunction with this issue?

BertaSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 1:29 pm

Mike, I do not have access to her financial records, so no. I can however assure that she is a local resident as is another woman who had a shopping cart forcefully shoved into her by a paid referendum signature gatherer; I did not witness the event just spoke to the woman. I personally was given misinformation and intentionally lied to in order to get my signature on the billboard petition, called names, threatened, cussed at etc when I provided my reasons and refused to sign. No one laid hands on me…bullies face to face generally do not. Even Nate has not introduced himself in person although someone else told me that he was right behind me at a council meeting.

MikeSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 1:39 pm

OK, next time you see her, could you ask?

BertaSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 2:48 pm

Sure Mike. I knew of her but did not meet her until the day before Easter when I arrived at Wal-Mart shortly after the assault incident. Actually the subject of pay came up the day I met her for the first time when one of the petition folks screamed at me that I was a paid blocker and I would burn in hell, all because I told him why I would not sign. I asked black hat lady what the heck that person was talking about since I had never heard of “blockers” and she said, “None of us are paid to be out here”. However, I learned years ago while volunteering to interpret for victims of domestic violence to attest to only that which I personally know to be true, therefore my answer to your question. I probably will not see her anytime soon as we do not generally run in the same circles.

Carole L LutnessSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 4:12 pm

Yes, there are paid signature gatherers on both sides but there are a lot of local Santa Clarita volunteers working to get this issue on the ballot so people can have a choice about whether we want six-story high flashing billboards on the 14 and 5 close to schools with messages like "drink beer", etc. The bottom line is that getting this on the ballot because we have gotten 11,000 valid signatures is going to send a message to City Council that we are tired of backroom, no-bid deals that leave the citizens out of the loop and in the dark. (Remember this is the same way Santa Clarita City Council railroaded privatizing our public libraries a few years ago despite thousands of signatures and hundreds of people showing up at City Council, etc. And don't forget the Hospital expansion deal - another - "we don't give a damn what the people want" issue. And who can forget the closed percolate wells that CLWA and Newhall Land kept secret for a year while the OVOV & Newhall Ranch plans were being finalized). We're tired of the lack of transparency, the apparent graft and lack of respect this City Council (except TimBen) consistently shows our citizens. BTW- there are no "union thugs" involved in this issue. The signature gatherers and the disrupters are all paid signature gatherers that move from state to state, sometimes working on the same issues together. But the SCV citizen volunteers are your neighbors and friends who give a damn.

BertaSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 6:44 pm

Carol did you read the agreement? You say, “whether we want six-story high flashing billboards on the 14 and 5 close to schools with messages like "drink beer", etc.” The agreement says “The size of the face of the digital billboards is 14 feet high by 48 feet wide. Each site has varying topography and therefore the height of the structure that houses the billboard face varies by site.” The MAXIMUM height measured from the LOWEST adjacent grade to the top of the structure is 65 feet, so none of the signs will be sticking up 65 feet from AT GRADE into the air, the 65 feet allows for topography below freeway sight lines such as in the case of the Remson site which is at a much lower elevation than the freeway, but in no way calls out for signs visible for a height of 6 stories. Also there are no flashing, moving, blinking, traveling, revolving lights, etc. ONLY static images are permitted. By comparing this issue to the library issue, which has been a successful municipally owned system for about two years now helps my case not yours. Leaders make decisions based upon what is best for the most residents and not just what the loudest complainers want.

MikeMonday, April 28th, 2014 at 7:44 am

That's still six stories. Also, changing every eight seconds, when the light intensity is modulating through your window, is hardly "static."

BertaMonday, April 28th, 2014 at 12:10 pm

Mike that is the equivalent of six residential stories (not commercial) to accommodate from a spot in the ground about four stories below the freeway in one location, 65 feet is the MAXIMUM and Remsen Street billboard is adjacent to the freeway overpass pylons so already have columns several stories off the ground in that location. In addition, all light is louvered downward so unless you are the troll living under the bridge, light should not spillover into any residential areas.

MikeMonday, April 28th, 2014 at 12:27 pm

Fantastic hair-splitting. By the way, as the presentation pointed out, unless the city were to otherwise mitigate this with trees, the billboard on Norland will be visibile from some homes. The louvers are the limit the light pollution to the sky. They don't make the board invisible. If you can see what's on the billboard, the light from the billboard is hitting you.

BertaMonday, April 28th, 2014 at 12:33 pm

Norland Road site is the ONLY site close enough to homes to have had negative light impacts, which is why I expressed concerns until agreement included language requiring screening via trees or unable to site billboard at that location.

MikeMonday, April 28th, 2014 at 12:43 pm

Appears that the Magic Mtn. board will be visible to county residents on Silver Aspen Way.

BertaMonday, April 28th, 2014 at 1:08 pm

Being visible is not the same as negatively affected by light intrusion but if they are Mike, then I would support appropriate screening for those residents also.

scvforallSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 8:59 pm

Carol is a voice of reason . Berta your bitterness is palpable. Time to accept that you lost and times are a changing.

BertaSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 9:17 pm

SCVFORALL, according to you what exactly am I bitter about?

timothymyers02Monday, April 28th, 2014 at 11:49 am

Bitter perhaps because you got less votes than FOUR candidates who had never been to a City Council meeting. You did, however, hand Dennis Conn a CRUSHING defeat.

BertaMonday, April 28th, 2014 at 12:28 pm

Tim, I am not bitter about the election results at all despite your snarky comments. All of the other “novice” candidates who lost spent more money than I did and had volunteers to help. Daniels was given money by and backed by the local Democrats and Attorney Shenkman, Chowdhury spent tons of his own money to put signs on every corner, Bull was fresh off of a Newhall School District Board run so had name recognition and had signs and other campaign give away materials from that run at her disposal, Paul had plenty of yard signs, vehicle magnetic sign, and all the single women in Santa Clarita who know him as the “single guy” from his monthly magazine articles. Therefore, overall, I am very proud of my low budget, individually walked neighborhoods, talking to folks and distributing my home made flyers effort. Nearly one thousand votes is nothing to be ashamed of for a first time individual effort.

timothymyers02Monday, April 28th, 2014 at 4:05 pm

Berta: Before Friday I would have said that what you just wrote was the craziest thing I ever heard but now Donald Sterling holds that record forever! Really? "I didn't try very hard so that is a really good outcome to finish next to last."

BertaMonday, April 28th, 2014 at 6:03 pm

Who says I did not try very hard, you? Oh ya the guy that has never run for anything, moved out of the area, but is still the "local" expert.

DavePutnamMonday, April 28th, 2014 at 7:30 pm

You came in 13th place in a 14 horse race. I'm not quite sure what you were trying to prove but it should be obvious that whatever message you gave while walking neighborhoods, talking to folks and distributing flyers didn't really big true with many. Thanks to your efforts, one or possibly both of the incumbents were reelected to another term in office. Maybe that was your goal all along, since you don't seem to have much of a problem with the way the majority of the City Council voted on the electronic billboard deal.

BertaMonday, April 28th, 2014 at 7:51 pm

Dave, I finished 12th in a 13 candidate race so at least get your numbers right. No money means no ads, signs, mailers etc to get your message out there, therefore less votes. I chose to run because of the Soliz vs. City of Santa Clarita lawsuit, which I was uniquely qualified to do since I was the only Hispanic candidate who lives in one of the neighborhoods referenced by the lawsuit as having a large Hispanic population, and because I felt I had something to contribute and still do. The folks who voted for me would never have voted for your likely choices given you comments, but think whatever you want.

N8IMonday, April 28th, 2014 at 8:11 pm

Only candidates people take serious have the ability to raise money.

donrickettsMonday, April 28th, 2014 at 1:17 pm

These comments, and replys, and surreplys are enough to make a guy want to unsubscribe. Take it to the pm's.

Teresa ToddMonday, April 28th, 2014 at 7:30 pm

Fascinating fact: Sao Paulo, Brazil, banned outdoor ads in 2007. Just sayin'.

JulieOSaturday, April 26th, 2014 at 5:50 pm
Thanks, Mike. Appreciate you writing about this because too many people are unaware that our re-elected city council members have conflicts of interest and rushed this deal with a company that thinks nothing of violating citizens' rights to petition without harassment or intimidation. Many many Santa Claritans I spoke with today at the cowboy festival were appalled by this deal and happy to sign the petition calling for it to be put to a vote.
DavePutnamSaturday, April 26th, 2014 at 7:40 pm
If anyone who lives in the City of Santa Clarita wants to see how broken our political system has become, they need look no further than their own back yard over the past couple of months. Between the petition "blockers" and City Council members who refuse to listen to their constituents it's a pretty sad state of affairs. Not to mention the fact that two City Council members seemed to have no qualms about how improper it might seem for them to attend a fundraiser given in their campaign's behalf by a lobbyist for a company that is in the middle of negotiating a large contract with the city. California needs to get off the referendum-proposition tread mill and have the people we elect to office do the job that they were sent there to do. Term limits is obviously not the answer either because everyone who gets sent to Sacramento now is almost always looking for the next position they want to run for as soon as they get there. There needs to be a happy medium and that to me seems to be about 8 years. Citizens need to start paying attention to what their elected officials are doing. We have the chance to fire the people who can't do the job they were elected to do when we vote. Back in the 19th century, Joseph de Maistre wrote "Every nation gets the government it deserves." Boy was he ever right.
HenryJenningsSaturday, April 26th, 2014 at 9:07 pm
This is why direct democracy doesn't work. Originally designed to allow for reform of corrupt machine politics, the initiative process has become a multi-million dollar cynical business used by rich people of all sorts to manipulate the system. If you don't like what your elected representatives have done, vote them the hell out of office. Nicely done though, Nathan lol
timothymyers02Sunday, April 27th, 2014 at 7:21 am
I just nearly wet myself when the discussion turned to "the gays."
N8ISunday, April 27th, 2014 at 11:55 am
That was my favorite part as well..
C LosSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 7:47 am
The blocker mentions that he is collecting signatures for a petition regarding sex offenders. Yesterday there were two guys in front of Sprouts collecting signatures to keep sex offenders, rapists and pedophiles in jail. Their intentions rang untrue and now seeing this video makes me wonder about their collection of signatures for a "petition" was actually real or not. Are these sex offender petitions totally false? How does this affect the billboards petition gathering?
MikeSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 9:20 am
These may have been legitimate petitions, but according to several people who have encountered similar situations, the idea is to overwhelm an area where a billboard petition gatherer is collecting signatures and to give people the impression that it's a drive for a different petition. So if someone is approached to sign a sex offender petition (likely one of several state propositions) and signs it, they walk on, unaware that one of the half dozen gatherers has the billboard petition. According to eyewitness accounts, they will work the area is such a way that the blockers direct traffic away from the billboard gatherer.
BertaSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 12:05 pm
I love the way Nate continuously talks about how these folks are from out of town and how the digital billboards are supposedly blight yet NEVER mentions that the referendum signature gatherers are from OUT OF STATE and the council approved the deal to remove existing billboard blight affecting only certain older areas within the city. Also, please note Nate says he lives a few blocks away from the Best Buy Center, a commercial area built by Newhall Land and Farm built without any billboards ever allowed. Sounds like Patty Sulpizio is on the audio, I believe she lives in Valencia, which also never has allowed billboards. Oh, and the referendum petition gatherers brought in from OUT OF STATE are paid by Clear Channel Outdoor, who by the way also have digital billboards in nearby areas, and are Allvision’s competitors more facts never mentioned.
IHeartSCVSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 12:32 pm
Berta, if both sides have hired signature gatherers from out of state, then it cancels out. But that still leaves the many "amateur" signature gatherers from the SCV who are working at their own personal expense against the electronic billboards. I'm not aware of any grassroots effort to petition in favor of electronic billboards. I also find it curious that you're pitting Valencians against Canyonites when you are an outspoken critic of efforts to split the SCV into districts. Personally, I view the whole issue from an SCV History perspective. We've had conventional billboards for all of our history as a City, and electronic billboards for none of that history. If we lose the conventional billboards in favor of electronic ones, we've lost part of who we are. Don't ignore our rich cultural heritage of outdoor advertisements. Leon, can I get an amen? Leon? Leon?
BertaSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 12:49 pm
I am against voting districts because I do not want to see communities pitted against each other with less affluent areas losing out. The same reasoning applies to putting the billboard issue to a vote since all of Valencia and some newer areas of other communities with CCRs etc have already prohibited billboards, do not have any marring their views, and new ones cannot be put up, so they will not care if the older areas continue to be burdened with billboard blight. Three elected leaders voted for this deal, one member recused herself but would support if appropriate, vs. one elected leader TBB opposing. Sorry you cannot see the injustice of having folks not negatively impacted, able to potentially defeat something that would help less affluent areas clean up too. You are attempting to stack the deck against Canyon Country and Newhall ever enjoying the same uncluttered viewscape as the nicer areas of this city. At least the digital billboards are each in a different community, one in Canyon Country, one in Newhall, and one in Valencia.
N8ISunday, April 27th, 2014 at 12:51 pm
Get use to the idea of districts it will be happening either way... What are you so afraid of Berta? Don't want to hear what the people think?
BertaSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 1:13 pm
Nate, I am not afraid of anything but districts will not serve the residents, minority or otherwise, well. Unfair advantage is given to affluent areas to the detriment of less affluent areas under a voting district system where not all elected officials are answerable to all of the electorate. Putting the billboard issue on the ballot is actually a great example of why I have concerns about voting districts. Folks who live in areas not currently affected by billboard blight can vote to block the deal to get rid of the current old billboards predominately placed in older less affluent areas of the city. Voting districts accomplish the same thing, for instance Valencia and Saugus representatives could block city funds being allocated to address problems in Newhall and/or Canyon Country, and unholy alliances made between representatives to site all the crappy projects in the less affluent powerful areas and the good projects in theirs. At least now, all voters can elect all five council members and not just their own area representative. Voting districts dilute the power of each voter to hold all elected members accountable.
n8iSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 1:15 pm
Your hate for minorities is legendary... Either way districts are happening, all cities in the state will be going to districts.
BertaSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 1:33 pm
“Your hate for minorities is legendary...”See Nate, this where folks like you lose all credibility!
n8iSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 1:34 pm
I have credibility to spare... now be gone with you.
BertaSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 2:53 pm
You have something to spare. I don't take orders from you Nate but civil conversation not possible so voluntarily ending.
n8iSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 12:35 pm
None of the Signatures are out of state BUT some are hired from outside of the community and are also being paid by people in THIS community. Nothing illegal about it... in fact there is no way to get the signature necessary without hiring professionals. You are aware that these thugs roll up on older lady signature collectors and harass and set them up so they can make claims when the police get there. They are people of the lowest character and if you want to defend and associate with them it only reinforces why you would have been an awful council person. Patty Sulpizio was not there you are wrong again.
BertaSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 12:59 pm
Nate that is an outright lie. I personally spoke to several referendum petition gatherers last Saturday, 4/19/14, from Florida, Kentucky, and Missouri who were specifically brought from their home state to work on this “campaign” and were staying in San Dimas during this effort. Clear Channel Outdoor hired the company they work for, and these folks travel all over the country for the petition gathering company to earn their money. The woman arrested for assaulting a LOCAL resident is from Illinois and several others quoted in the Signal are from out of state too. Moreover, I said ...Sounds like Patty Sulpizio ...did not affirm that it is.
n8iSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 1:03 pm
The assault and theft were both setups by these low lives and Santa Clarita Sheriff's department has continued to show just how in the pocket of the city they are. I thought you were a person of integrity... you are clearly not. Talk to yourself.
MikeSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 1:07 pm
Berta, You say you know the woman in the black hat. Can you confirm that she has not been paid by Allvision or anyone else in conjunction with this issue?
BertaSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 1:29 pm
Mike, I do not have access to her financial records, so no. I can however assure that she is a local resident as is another woman who had a shopping cart forcefully shoved into her by a paid referendum signature gatherer; I did not witness the event just spoke to the woman. I personally was given misinformation and intentionally lied to in order to get my signature on the billboard petition, called names, threatened, cussed at etc when I provided my reasons and refused to sign. No one laid hands on me…bullies face to face generally do not. Even Nate has not introduced himself in person although someone else told me that he was right behind me at a council meeting.
MikeSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 1:39 pm
OK, next time you see her, could you ask?
BertaSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 2:48 pm
Sure Mike. I knew of her but did not meet her until the day before Easter when I arrived at Wal-Mart shortly after the assault incident. Actually the subject of pay came up the day I met her for the first time when one of the petition folks screamed at me that I was a paid blocker and I would burn in hell, all because I told him why I would not sign. I asked black hat lady what the heck that person was talking about since I had never heard of “blockers” and she said, “None of us are paid to be out here”. However, I learned years ago while volunteering to interpret for victims of domestic violence to attest to only that which I personally know to be true, therefore my answer to your question. I probably will not see her anytime soon as we do not generally run in the same circles.
Carole L LutnessSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 4:12 pm
Yes, there are paid signature gatherers on both sides but there are a lot of local Santa Clarita volunteers working to get this issue on the ballot so people can have a choice about whether we want six-story high flashing billboards on the 14 and 5 close to schools with messages like "drink beer", etc. The bottom line is that getting this on the ballot because we have gotten 11,000 valid signatures is going to send a message to City Council that we are tired of backroom, no-bid deals that leave the citizens out of the loop and in the dark. (Remember this is the same way Santa Clarita City Council railroaded privatizing our public libraries a few years ago despite thousands of signatures and hundreds of people showing up at City Council, etc. And don't forget the Hospital expansion deal - another - "we don't give a damn what the people want" issue. And who can forget the closed percolate wells that CLWA and Newhall Land kept secret for a year while the OVOV & Newhall Ranch plans were being finalized). We're tired of the lack of transparency, the apparent graft and lack of respect this City Council (except TimBen) consistently shows our citizens. BTW- there are no "union thugs" involved in this issue. The signature gatherers and the disrupters are all paid signature gatherers that move from state to state, sometimes working on the same issues together. But the SCV citizen volunteers are your neighbors and friends who give a damn.
BertaSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 6:44 pm
Carol did you read the agreement? You say, “whether we want six-story high flashing billboards on the 14 and 5 close to schools with messages like "drink beer", etc.” The agreement says “The size of the face of the digital billboards is 14 feet high by 48 feet wide. Each site has varying topography and therefore the height of the structure that houses the billboard face varies by site.” The MAXIMUM height measured from the LOWEST adjacent grade to the top of the structure is 65 feet, so none of the signs will be sticking up 65 feet from AT GRADE into the air, the 65 feet allows for topography below freeway sight lines such as in the case of the Remson site which is at a much lower elevation than the freeway, but in no way calls out for signs visible for a height of 6 stories. Also there are no flashing, moving, blinking, traveling, revolving lights, etc. ONLY static images are permitted. By comparing this issue to the library issue, which has been a successful municipally owned system for about two years now helps my case not yours. Leaders make decisions based upon what is best for the most residents and not just what the loudest complainers want.
MikeMonday, April 28th, 2014 at 7:44 am
That's still six stories. Also, changing every eight seconds, when the light intensity is modulating through your window, is hardly "static."
BertaMonday, April 28th, 2014 at 12:10 pm
Mike that is the equivalent of six residential stories (not commercial) to accommodate from a spot in the ground about four stories below the freeway in one location, 65 feet is the MAXIMUM and Remsen Street billboard is adjacent to the freeway overpass pylons so already have columns several stories off the ground in that location. In addition, all light is louvered downward so unless you are the troll living under the bridge, light should not spillover into any residential areas.
MikeMonday, April 28th, 2014 at 12:27 pm
Fantastic hair-splitting. By the way, as the presentation pointed out, unless the city were to otherwise mitigate this with trees, the billboard on Norland will be visibile from some homes. The louvers are the limit the light pollution to the sky. They don't make the board invisible. If you can see what's on the billboard, the light from the billboard is hitting you.
BertaMonday, April 28th, 2014 at 12:33 pm
Norland Road site is the ONLY site close enough to homes to have had negative light impacts, which is why I expressed concerns until agreement included language requiring screening via trees or unable to site billboard at that location.
MikeMonday, April 28th, 2014 at 12:43 pm
Appears that the Magic Mtn. board will be visible to county residents on Silver Aspen Way.
BertaMonday, April 28th, 2014 at 1:08 pm
Being visible is not the same as negatively affected by light intrusion but if they are Mike, then I would support appropriate screening for those residents also.
scvforallSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 8:59 pm
Carol is a voice of reason . Berta your bitterness is palpable. Time to accept that you lost and times are a changing.
BertaSunday, April 27th, 2014 at 9:17 pm
SCVFORALL, according to you what exactly am I bitter about?
timothymyers02Monday, April 28th, 2014 at 11:49 am
Bitter perhaps because you got less votes than FOUR candidates who had never been to a City Council meeting. You did, however, hand Dennis Conn a CRUSHING defeat.
BertaMonday, April 28th, 2014 at 12:28 pm
Tim, I am not bitter about the election results at all despite your snarky comments. All of the other “novice” candidates who lost spent more money than I did and had volunteers to help. Daniels was given money by and backed by the local Democrats and Attorney Shenkman, Chowdhury spent tons of his own money to put signs on every corner, Bull was fresh off of a Newhall School District Board run so had name recognition and had signs and other campaign give away materials from that run at her disposal, Paul had plenty of yard signs, vehicle magnetic sign, and all the single women in Santa Clarita who know him as the “single guy” from his monthly magazine articles. Therefore, overall, I am very proud of my low budget, individually walked neighborhoods, talking to folks and distributing my home made flyers effort. Nearly one thousand votes is nothing to be ashamed of for a first time individual effort.
timothymyers02Monday, April 28th, 2014 at 4:05 pm
Berta: Before Friday I would have said that what you just wrote was the craziest thing I ever heard but now Donald Sterling holds that record forever! Really? "I didn't try very hard so that is a really good outcome to finish next to last."
BertaMonday, April 28th, 2014 at 6:03 pm
Who says I did not try very hard, you? Oh ya the guy that has never run for anything, moved out of the area, but is still the "local" expert.
DavePutnamMonday, April 28th, 2014 at 7:30 pm
You came in 13th place in a 14 horse race. I'm not quite sure what you were trying to prove but it should be obvious that whatever message you gave while walking neighborhoods, talking to folks and distributing flyers didn't really big true with many. Thanks to your efforts, one or possibly both of the incumbents were reelected to another term in office. Maybe that was your goal all along, since you don't seem to have much of a problem with the way the majority of the City Council voted on the electronic billboard deal.
BertaMonday, April 28th, 2014 at 7:51 pm
Dave, I finished 12th in a 13 candidate race so at least get your numbers right. No money means no ads, signs, mailers etc to get your message out there, therefore less votes. I chose to run because of the Soliz vs. City of Santa Clarita lawsuit, which I was uniquely qualified to do since I was the only Hispanic candidate who lives in one of the neighborhoods referenced by the lawsuit as having a large Hispanic population, and because I felt I had something to contribute and still do. The folks who voted for me would never have voted for your likely choices given you comments, but think whatever you want.
N8IMonday, April 28th, 2014 at 8:11 pm
Only candidates people take serious have the ability to raise money.
donrickettsMonday, April 28th, 2014 at 1:17 pm
These comments, and replys, and surreplys are enough to make a guy want to unsubscribe. Take it to the pm's.
Teresa ToddMonday, April 28th, 2014 at 7:30 pm
Fascinating fact: Sao Paulo, Brazil, banned outdoor ads in 2007. Just sayin'.