Nov. 3, 2014 – Daily Brief

By Josh Premako

No Fines So Far: Three months into restrictive watering guidelines, no one has yet been slapped with fines as some feared. The Signal
People Like the Ban: A recent poll found that 6 in 10 Californians were in favor of the ban on plastic shopping bags. The Signal
Shifts in California Voting: “I kinda feel guilty. But it’s not really on my radar. I don’t have time, and I don’t pay attention. I’m not interested. The candidates aren’t appealing — and the ballot measures aren’t affecting me.” Particularly with changing demographics, California is seeing shifts in voting, and tomorrow may see more dismal than usual turnout. Daily News
On the Other Hand...: Contested races in certain area could lead to boosts in some voter turnout, Luke Money reports. The Signal
Water Overseers on the Ballot: Voters will decide on who will take three open seats on the Castaic Lake Water Agency board. The Signal
Metro Says No: Metro denied a request by KHTS to see its report on alleged signature blocking activity by electronic billboard company Allvision, citing an exception to the state public records act and ensuring that Metro had nothing to do with nefarious activities. KHTS
In Case You Missed It: Great story from Friday afternoon on a COC student. A 98-year-old COC student. SCVNews
A Charged Question: "The scientific jury is still out on the controversy whether EMR is harmful to humans or if some people might be more sensitive, but anecdotally there may be evolving evidence that high-power transmission lines cause medical problems." Dr. Gene Dorio questions whether it's safe to potentially build a new senior center beneath high-power lines. SCVNews
Thousands Take to the Streets: Some 2,500 runners hit the pavement early yesterday morning for the annual SClarita Marathon. The Signal KHTS

Comments (2)

Coastal SageMonday, November 3rd, 2014 at 11:24 am

Josh: On the reference to the California Public Records Act and the sheriff's records concerning "petition signature blockers" there is obviously not enough time to force release of the requested records before the election. However, it's worth knowing that two young lawyers, Dean Wallraff of Shadow Hills and Sebrina Venskus of Ojai won a monster California Public Records Act case at the California Supreme Court in 2013 against Orange County and its County Counsel's office, and very expensive municipal law firm Richards Watson & Gershon on behalf of the California County Assessors Association. The case was very hotly contested and is reported as Sierra Club v. The County of Orange, County of Orange Real Party in Interest at 57 Cal. 4th 157; 302 P.3d 1026; 158 Cal. Rptr. 3d 639 (2013). The case wasn't about law enforcement investigative records, but the point is that the California Supreme Court still does care about protecting the public and the press' rights to see important docments on public issues. The two young warriors, Wallraff and Venskus, took the case on a contingency. Many "likely to be won" California Public Records Act cases are taken on a contingency, because the public agency wrongfully withholding the documents has to pay the prevailing plaintiff's attorneys fees. Obviously, if a citizen or member of the press feels strongly about a public agency's refusal to allow the public to see documents, it is worth contacting lawyers who specialize in the California Public Records Act to see if "the experts" think there is much of a chance that the courts will order the public agency to cough up the documents. So after the election, if the people in Santa Clarita who are upset that the "petition blockers" got away with it, they should get a hold of Wallraff or Venskus, who can be found through the State Bar website, and see what they think about pursuing a California Public Records Act case.

Coastal SageTuesday, November 4th, 2014 at 9:24 am

I forgot to mention that there is a "kid", only 2 years out of UCLA Law School, who is enforcing the California Public Records Act against cities east of Downtown L.A., and he's batting 100% at the trial court level, in terms of wrestling away documents which stupid elected officials and arrogant public employees don't want released. The judges are awarding him 150% of his "hourly rate" of $250 per hour, so the little cities are caving in and releasing documents, rather than risking having to pay for the kid winning on appeal. The kid is not an expert yet, but if given a good Public Records Act case, he knows how to win it. He, too, gives hope for redress to ordinary citizens who are denied public records which should be released.

Coastal SageMonday, November 3rd, 2014 at 11:24 am
Josh: On the reference to the California Public Records Act and the sheriff's records concerning "petition signature blockers" there is obviously not enough time to force release of the requested records before the election. However, it's worth knowing that two young lawyers, Dean Wallraff of Shadow Hills and Sebrina Venskus of Ojai won a monster California Public Records Act case at the California Supreme Court in 2013 against Orange County and its County Counsel's office, and very expensive municipal law firm Richards Watson & Gershon on behalf of the California County Assessors Association. The case was very hotly contested and is reported as Sierra Club v. The County of Orange, County of Orange Real Party in Interest at 57 Cal. 4th 157; 302 P.3d 1026; 158 Cal. Rptr. 3d 639 (2013). The case wasn't about law enforcement investigative records, but the point is that the California Supreme Court still does care about protecting the public and the press' rights to see important docments on public issues. The two young warriors, Wallraff and Venskus, took the case on a contingency. Many "likely to be won" California Public Records Act cases are taken on a contingency, because the public agency wrongfully withholding the documents has to pay the prevailing plaintiff's attorneys fees. Obviously, if a citizen or member of the press feels strongly about a public agency's refusal to allow the public to see documents, it is worth contacting lawyers who specialize in the California Public Records Act to see if "the experts" think there is much of a chance that the courts will order the public agency to cough up the documents. So after the election, if the people in Santa Clarita who are upset that the "petition blockers" got away with it, they should get a hold of Wallraff or Venskus, who can be found through the State Bar website, and see what they think about pursuing a California Public Records Act case.
Coastal SageTuesday, November 4th, 2014 at 9:24 am
I forgot to mention that there is a "kid", only 2 years out of UCLA Law School, who is enforcing the California Public Records Act against cities east of Downtown L.A., and he's batting 100% at the trial court level, in terms of wrestling away documents which stupid elected officials and arrogant public employees don't want released. The judges are awarding him 150% of his "hourly rate" of $250 per hour, so the little cities are caving in and releasing documents, rather than risking having to pay for the kid winning on appeal. The kid is not an expert yet, but if given a good Public Records Act case, he knows how to win it. He, too, gives hope for redress to ordinary citizens who are denied public records which should be released.