August 19, 2008 - Daily Brief
Written by Jeff on August 19th, 2008
A picture during the fires of October 2007
- Brothers re-arrested in 2006 Murder case: Brothers Christopher and Ralph Rosas were arrested way back in March 2006 following the stabbing murder of Louis Campanelli, a Canyon Country bar owner, but were released shortly thereafter for lack of evidence. But on Friday, Detectives re-arrested the pair and arraigned on charges of first degree murder on Monday. Jim Holt has a detailed report.
- Home sales in So Cal jump 13.8% in July: The LA Times says “fire sales” boosted home purchases in Southern California last month, though experts say home sale prices will still take “months to hit bottom.” What’s more, the median home price in SoCal fell some 31% year over year in July from $505,000 to $348,000. Not sure on the stats for Santa Clarita yet, that report typically isn’t released until late in the month, but I have a friend who just bought a house in Canyon Country (on an 8,000 sq. ft. lot no less) for $178,000. Link Meanwhile, the Economist has a report that says the maturing of Option ARMs is the next “ticking time bomb” in American real estate.
- More on opposition to Hart Ballot Measure SA: First it was the Signal’s Sunday editorial on Hart’s proposed $300 million ballot iniatitive that would go towards modernizing schools and perhaps building a high school in Castaic; now KHTS has an article on the 2001 Measure V parent’s group that’s formed to oppose the current measure. KHTS reporter Jon Dell mentioned the group’s objections to Measure SA and got Superintendent Castellanos to speak on the record about the criticism. Castellanos seems to brush off the group’s concerns in the report,even going so far as to say that Measure V funds “were never used for district salaries.” That’s not the whole story, however; in October 2007, auditors found that the Hart District “lacks documented proof that Measure V funds were not inappropriately used” on vehicles and district salaries. KHTS story Also, Dave Bossert has what looks like a new press release from the parent’s group.
- Part 2 of Mentryville story: The debate about whether pepper trees are “historical” and ought to be preserved even if they are dying continues today in Part 2 of Jim Holt’s series on Mentryville.
- LA MTA details commuting patterns: The Times Bottleneck blog says the LA MTA is trying to defend its half cent transit sales tax by showing that commuting, traffic infrastructure and driving patterns are regional issues, rather than only Los Angeles issues and that the sales tax hike will help everyone in the LA area. That’s probably to counter Supervisor Antonovich’s claims. In any event, the MTA released a series of interesting slides that show traffic, commute, and job density patterns. One slide shows what MTA thinks will be commuting patterns in 2030- it says 49% of North County residents will still leave their “subregion” to commute to work. Link
- Hero of the week: Two thieves attempted the distract/purse snatch crime in a local grocery store on an 81 year old woman, but the woman was so sharp she warded them off and alerted store management. She then read the Signal story last week about the purse snatch crimes and “put two and two together.” Here’s the woman describing how the wanna-be thieves tried to separate her from her purse: “I wasn’t paying (strict) attention because on my right was suddenly another man and he wanted to put ice cream in my cart,” she said. “All the time, I had my hand on my purse. When he put the ice cream in my cart, I said ‘No’ and I said ‘Go away.’” Link
- SCV Republicans to welcome Senate Candidate Strickland at where else….IHOP! Tony Strickland, the Rooty-tooty, fresh ‘n fruity Republican who’s fixin’ to replace Tom McClintock in the California Senate, will be at the International House of Pancakes next week to talk to local Republicans. Speaking of that race, Democrat Hannah-Beth Jackson is asking the Strickland campaign to put a stop to a 3rd party television spot, while Strickland’s campaign is running two television spots; one that touts the “unity” of the Olympic stage and the other which says $5 gallon gasoline was unthinkable five years ago and touts alternative energy solutions.
- LA Times Travel Blogger says new Magic Mountain CSI show “horrible”: Brady MacDonald recently visited Magic Mountain with a friend and after riding as many coasters as they could, they checked out the new CSI live-action show in the par. “To say it was bad would be putting it mildly. Other words come to mind: boring, pathetic, horrible. They should rename it “ACI (Air Conditioning Inside) because the theater’s cool respite was the show’s only redeeming value.” Link
- Olympic Story #1: The Daily News’ Tim Haddock, a sports writer, has an in-depth profile of Valencia high grad and BMX Olympian Mike Day. Day, it turns out, loves golf before BMXin, but he’s simiply not very good at golf. He made Team USA by skipping money-making events and learning “every hill, jump, and speck of dust” on a replice of the Beijing track in Chula Vista. Day races this week I think. Link
- Olympic Story #2: I Heart profiles several SCV Olympians in his latest blog post. Here’s his opening, which simultaneously made me smile and squirm: “Of course, there’s a very special place in my heart for all the Olympic athletes from Santa Clarita. Their intense training, hard work, and natural-born talent certainly helped them get to Beijing, but don’t underestimate how much us Claritans helped. We formed the womb from which these athletes so gloriously sprang, so it is our victory as much as theirs. Right?” Link
- Good commentary on North Newhall Specific Plan and Placerita Canyon’s “Rural Equestrian Lifestyle”: I’m now adding “rural equestrian lifestyle” to the lexicon of unique SCV phrases (the other being, of course, suburban bedroom community) after reading P-Canyon resident Valerie Thomas’ good explanation of some of the issues homeowners in the Canyon have with the City’s North Newhall Specific Plan. Thomsa gets specific on the zoning for the Casden property and how P-Canyon residents were promised back in the day that homes in the Placerita Canyon special district would be “zoned for no more than two homes per acre.” Now though, a developer plans some 650 homes, 600,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, and a rebuilt Southern Hotel/Spa for the location. But that will only fly if the city can build an alternative railroad crossing. I wonder if Ben Curtis, the guy who filed an FPPC complaint against Laurene Weste, is a P-Canyon resident. WRB
Loading ...
19
AM
I wonder if Ben Curtis, the guy who filed an FPPC complaint against Laurene Weste, is a P-Canyon resident.
http://www.pcpoa.com/contact.html
19
AM
cash has the GOB web committed to memory. Nice rapid response.
19
AM
Re: Bedroom community and equiestrian lifestyle…
I can imagine the billboards: People riding horses in their pyjamas.
19
AM
I mean people in pyjamas riding horses.
19
AM
cash has the GOB web committed to memory.
Nope, had to look it up.
19
AM
” wonder if Ben Curtis, the guy who filed an FPPC complaint against Laurene Weste, is a P-Canyon resident.”
Ben Curtis is a long time PC resident
19
AM
Thanks to the many for your support on my Sunday column. There are very definitely LOTS of “facts in evidence,” many of which were cited in my article. I am dumbfounded by Myers’ piece and will offer no other comment than that.
As for this Ben Curtis/PCPOA complaint, I will just add that this is no small issue. In the city’s OVOV re-write of our General Plan, they are attempting to re-zone this area (and The Avenues site at Smiser) as a new “Specific Plan” zone with the deliberate intent to approve those projects sans public input. Arguments will be silenced when the zoning ordinances change - and make no mistake that this is only to placate developers.
Those changes will affect all of us which makes Weste’s manipulations on the issue much more concerning. She has maneuvered to approve a Specific Plan for the area which includes a project that has not even been applied for yet. Serious manipulation.
Ben has figured out what Smart Growth learned awhile ago: whether these particular projects are in your backyard or not, they will be soon given the re-write of the General Plan. These sorts of problems will also be shoved on all of us by tweaking traffic analysis to minimize mitigations required by developers for their projects. The burden will then be on our taxpayers to fix our traffic woes and, as we’ve seen time and time again throughout L.A., such fixes are hard to come by and are usually left undone. Miserable traffic is the only result.
And please don’t tell me that more density will keep us all fat, dumb, and happy with that – such reason is simply justifying more construction for those who profit from it.
The ingress/egress nightmare that faces PCPOA will be something we will all face on every major roadway if SCV residents allow these changes to happen. What we need is real planning, not blind approvals.
Good planning takes more work but that’s why we pay “planners,” right?
As for council, the function of council members is to create -and uphold— designed to protect our citizens. Self-interest and self-dealing by certain council members stand opposed to these responsibilities and should not be tolerated no matter where you live.
19
AM
EDIT: meant to say, “As for council, the function of council members is to create -and uphold— LAWS…”
19
AM
I agree that a site for Castaic High School should be identified now, not after a developer proposal or bond measure. We need something to rally around, and right now there is no site identified, only alternatives the school district will not discuss openly.
A little more openness would go a long way toward getting the measure passed. I hope they get hip to this soon.
19
PM
The ingress/egress nightmare that faces PCPOA will be something we will all face on every major roadway if SCV residents allow these changes to happen. What we need is real planning, not blind approvals.
David with all do respect, the Placerita canyon people can easily reopen the east end of the canyon road to provide resolution to the ingress/egress nightmare. They closed it to through traffic, leaving many to not feel too sorry for them as they fight with Ms. Weste. Though Ms. Weste does need her wings clipped. She has reached a point were she seems to believe she is entitled, you know, with all the trips she made to the Hill and all, to fight CEMEX!
Placerita Canyon has been treated with special care for a long time. I am afraid they are going to have to adjust to a small change in their lifestyle as a compromise..
19
PM
cash, I agree wholeheartedly.
19
PM
The ingress/egress nightmare that would come with a fully configured NNSP will affect all the residents of Santa Clarita, not only those of us in Placerita Canyon. Much to the chagrin of some that have posted here, we will have our eastern portal to use to leave the canyon. Any travel by us to the west will be nearly impossible as we wait in long lines near the City’s ill-conceived “round-a-bout” at the confluence of Dockweiler and Lyons avenues.
As to the comment by CASH that we can easily re-open Placerita Canyon Road… Keep a fact or two in mind when you discuss this issue. Almost all of Placerita Canyon Road between Sierra Hwy. and the railroad is privately owned land. This was NEVER a public street, and was being used as such without permission of the landowners. Most of the street is owned to the center line by the landowners on either side.
Have we been treated with special care? I suppose some would say we have, and I know I can speak for the bulk of the PCPOA community when I say that we are simply working to protect our community from the developers that would see it destroyed. We have no plans to change the status of P-Canyon road, and I would dare say that anyone on this board would feel exactly the same way if they were our neighbors.
Laurene Weste is one of our neighbors, and a long time friend of Val Thomas and I. Our complaint was filed so as to force her and others at City Hall to understand that planning issues are required to be decided on a fair basis without conflicts of interest. We are hoping that Ms. Weste understands that she is, without question, conflicted on this issue, and will totally and completely recuse herself from any and all activity surrounding it. That has not been done at this point, and we are left with no choice but to force the issue.
20
AM
As to the comment by CASH that we can easily re-open Placerita Canyon Road… Keep a fact or two in mind when you discuss this issue. Almost all of Placerita Canyon Road between Sierra Hwy. and the railroad is privately owned land. This was NEVER a public street, and was being used as such without permission of the landowners. Most of the street is owned to the center line by the landowners on either side.
Yes Ben, We understand this fact. A fact that assures that you have ingress/egress. The rest of us are not as fortunate. My point is that ingress/egress
argument probably does not buy much support for fighting the bigger problem. Some may view ingress/egress as a bit selfish. I would like to see the North Newhall project scaled back in a big way, but not because of your ingress/egress concern. You may have to gate both ends of your private road to further protect your lifestyle. Many of us have believed for a long time that Ms. Weste, and others, have misused their authority and should not go unchecked. Ms. Weste seems to be protecting her selfish interests as well, though her tactics seem to be outside the law. Good luck with the complaint, I think it is justified.
20
AM
Ben, correct me if I am wrong, but all residents of the canyon were offered access to the east gate, for a small maintenance fee. Many/most declined the opportunity. This even though prescriptive rights had long been establish by their regular ingress/egress from the east end.
20
AM
Ben, why don’t the landowners hand over their ownership of the street?
20
AM
Mike
The claim is that the city did not want the street because of the improvements that would be required. Many believe, that the HOA did not want the potential increase in traffic anyway, but needed away to avoid liability. Hence they closed the road.
I hope Ben will clear up the less than factual.
20
AM
Ben, I agree wholeheartedly.
Cash, please know that I absolutely respect your position also and that I’ve appreciated your insight and your advice on almost every issue you’ve commented upon here. I really mean that.
What I see, however, is arbitrary ruin of our zoning and General Plan ordinances simply because SCV is running low vacant strips of land within its borders. A failure to plan coupled with absolute failure to provide adequate infrastructure is being met with easing restrictions on developers (not more) and less information to the residents who suffer from such decisions.
These types of decisions stem from short-sighted planning and -sometimes- conflicts of interest, which is the case here.
The burden for our future growth should be increasingly on developers. They need to fully disclose and mitigate the impacts of their projects. Unfortunately, with the proposed General Plan, staff is poised to drive us in the opposite direction.
20
AM
David,, I agree with your thoughts. I share the many concerns. Again however, the Placerita Canyon ingress/egress matter is not very palatable. I think the community as a hole would be better served if the focus was on the community as a hole. PCPOA ingress/egress concerns seem to minimize broader objective. I am afraid some are weaving a tangled web, of the special interest coflicting with the special interests. This should be very interesting.
20
AM
Our community is not a “hole”, I should have typed whole, it’s early!
20
AM
Cash: All residents of the Canyon are offered access to the East Gate in exchange for a reasonable maintenance fee. My guess is that most have taken advantage of the opportunity, but there are many that live in the westerly portion that are happier using the west entrance over 13th street. By the way, there are provisions for discounted fees for seniors, and those on fixed incomes.
Mike: For the major portion of Placerita Canyon Road to be converted to a thoroughfare, it would require substantial re-engineering in order to meet Government Standards. It is too narrow, there are many Heritage Oaks directly on the current pavement borders and the thought of widening the road and making it a “Freeway” through a quiet canyon just doesn’t sit well with ANY of the residents. The organization that controls the road, Placerita Canyon Corporation, has easements over those sections that are privately owned, and thereby have taken the liability off the backs of the landowners. I am afraid that if the residents were asked, by some unfortunate soul, to “hand over their ownership of the street”, the “Hanging Oak” might be put to use.
Cash: Your comment on the HOA not wanting the increase in traffic, etc. is factual. The PCPOA is very concerned about the community as a whole, and works with other groups whatever way we can to assist them. While I know that some don’t like the fact that the road is closed, the liabilities we faced were very real and not at all “palatable”. There are broader issues, and I hate to think that P-Cyn. road would divert ANY attention away from the greater issues.
20
AM
The HOA is smart in limiting the access. I lived on a private street in Castaic, meaning the home owners owned the land to the middle of the street. The County was all for allowing a neighbor to build a minimall across the street from my house meaning those hundreds of cars visiting the minimall would leave by driving on my side of the road. There was no plan to pave the existing dirt road and I would have been liable for any accidents occurring in front of my home. You better belive the people impacted fought tooth and nail against the development.
20
AM
There are broader issues, and I hate to think that P-Cyn. road would divert ANY attention away from the greater issues.
Agreed, it seems that the P-Cyn. road may over shadow the bigger issue. New talking points perhaps?
No road closures set well with a community that is up in arms over the traffic problems. Be they to keep Cam Smyth’s parents and their neighbors happy, or for other reasons. Again, I support your complaint.
20
AM
Carrie:
Apples and oranges.
21
AM
I’ve read this thread with great interest and am appalled to hear of the lack of coverage on this issue. If I understand all the comments of the group, Placerita Canyon (in the section being referred to) is NOT a road…it’s a private driveway! I perfectly understand the desire of those residents to protect their neighborhood, lifestyle and heritage oaks — the thought of another cookie cutter community in such a lovely area makes me sick.
Good luck with your complaint…and keep an eye on those developers…
21
PM
“the thought of another cookie cutter community in such a lovely area makes me sick.”
Me too, but the proposed community is not within the Canyon. The lovely area will not be impacted other than a new development may be built outside the canyon area, in front of the entrance to Placertia.
Seems over crowding is a concern we should all have, but ingress and egress to the canyon is probably not a deal breaker. They have their own private ingress and egress at the east end of the canyon.
It is unfortunate that the Canyon residents may lose, what some may call a privileged lifestyle. Perhaps the residents can persuade the City Council to purchase additional open space in the canyon, much like the city has for the Sand Canyon folks.
It is tough to feel sorry for the Canyon residents, but the complaint filed against Ms. Weste seems justified.
21
PM
PRIVILEGED LIFESTYLE! Please. Placerita Canyon residents earned the right to live there.
The complaint seems justified. NO S_ _ T!
21
PM
Sorry Bill, but you may want to investigate the special treatment the canyon gets before you over react. Start with the Special Standard District status they have been awarded. The canyon residents are frequently before the City Council asking for special treatment. I suspect, some in the canyon believe they have earned the special treatment, given the support they have offered to the council and its objectives. They even refer to the Canyon as “their Canyon”, and have not hesitated to lobby the council for the council to spend open space money to further protect the privileged lifestyle. If you read the agenda for some of the council closed sessions, you will see this to be the case. Yes they have earned the right to buy a house and live in the canyon. But nothing more. Again the complaint is needed, but the special interests have no room to point the finger in this town.
21
PM
The words of Mr. Curtis.
Our Canyon seems is under constant attack from no less that our own City Planning Department, along
with their select group of developers. Our community is comprised of an especially tenacious and ‘head
strong’ bunch of people. We enjoy a comfortable and bucolic way of life in our canyon, and there is no doubt
that we will all fight to maintain what we have here. Maybe that is the real “Power” of Placerita Canyon…
The people that live here DO have power and are well known as a group that doesn’t take being pushed
around by City Hall or County Offices lightly. It has been suggested that the activism needed to maintain our
visibility at planning meetings, and City Council Meetings could well come under the banner of “Placerita
Power Posse”.
Your PCPOA Board works tirelessly to stay vigilant with respect the planning and other agency’s attempts
to ‘change’ our lifestyle, and ruin our Canyon. Many times, the board needs involvement of the rest of
the community to make a showing in various meetings so that the City and County can actually SEE and
HEAR us… Put many faces with the name if you will. In short, the Placerita Power Posse can still enjoy the
fun of organizing for the Fourth Of July, but we would love to have participation from everyone in the Canyon
to help us show there is more than one type of “POWER” in Placerita Canyon.
The PPP will meet whenever necessary to discuss actions that are contemplated that affect Placerita
Canyon. Please provide your input to this suggestion by contacting one or more of the Board members, whose
names you will find on the last page of the newsletter or online at http://www.pcpoa.com.
21
PM
I’m guessing they are fighting to maintain the lifestyle they moved there for in the 1st place. How can you fault that? I’m against over-development in my community (which is under threat), does that mean I’m trying to maintain a privileged lifestyle… I don’t think so.
21
PM
Understood and I support what you a David are working to accomplish. I do not believe David Gauny is a member of the good ole boy network or the special interest club. I cannot say the same for some of the residents of Placerita Canyon, or Sand Canyon for that matter. I know you and David have hitched your wagon to the Placertia canyon fight. I would hope more caution would be used in the future, as I believe aligning with the wrong groups will weaken your position. Seems the big issue was ingress and egress, not an issue that will get much sympathy when you have a private entrance on the east end; not to mention your on Special Standards District, which allow you to not comply with the same rules the rest of us must.
21
PM
cash, I completely agree. Smart Growth SCV seems to be the most credible, least self-interested with the strongest grip on reality of the local activist groups. It doesn’t help the brand to pair up with groups whose intentions aren’t as pure. That’s my view, at least.
21
PM
For the record, I could care less about “purity” considering our water situation, insufficient traffic infrastructure, etc., I am opposed to development of hi-density housing in our valley. Whether, it’s adjacent to Placerita Canyon, Sand Canyon, Newhall, Smiser Ranch, G&L’s hospital, etc. We already have enough of that… you get what you tolerate.
21
PM
Nina: Than you for the supportive comments. Like it or not, the City Planners will continue to hear from us on not only our direct issue, but on other issues throughout the city.
Cash: Although I find your comments usually civil, well worded, and not too argumentative, I also find that many of the “facts” upon which you seem to base your comments are not facts at all, and are surprisingly short sided. Perhaps I can help to clear up some misconceptions.
The plan that is proposed by the developer and the planning department is indeed within our defined canyon area. The plan is also one that includes major changes to intersections travelled by not only canyon residents, but others in the City. We do have a private entrance to the Canyon on the East end, but many of our residents use the west (13th street) entrance.
We are not asking for sympathy, just support of proper planning in ALL areas of the City. Planning that is not tainted by self interest, and planning that is pushed through without consideration of those that are already in place. We have always been proud to live in Placerita Canyon, and do indeed deem it a privilege. I suppose your definition of the term “Privileged Lifestyle” differs from ours. You seem to be inferring that we are snobbish, and self-centered, and not concerned about anyone but ourselves. You also suggest that for another concerned group to join with us, or ask our assistance is somehow demeaning to their good name and intent. Even the most cursory investigation of the intentions, the actions, and the individuals in Placerita Canyon will prove that we are far from what you have determined to be our nature.
There are three Special Standards Districts in the City of Santa Clarita, and not one of them was “awarded” to anyone. The GPAC (General Plan Advisory Committee) that wrote the initial General Plan for development in the City was faced with the specter of trying to protect areas that were unusual (special) in nature. They chose to write Special Standards District overlays that became a part of the UDC (Uniform Development Code) for the City. Our reliance on those standards when assessing projects affecting us, is the EXACT reason the Special Standards Districts were put in the UDC. This is “Our Canyon”, and we are proud to keep it that way.
Please point me to some fact that might show where we have tried to “… lobby the council for the council to spend open space money to further protect the privileged lifestyle.” Your suggestion that “…the agenda for some of the council closed sessions, you will see this to be the case.” Is false, and I am surprised that you would feel some need to put that in the mix as it were. Your comment that we are a “Special Interest” and have no room to “…point the finger in this town” is humorous. Have we struck a nerve somehow CASH? If our existence offends you, we apologize. Stand by to be offended even further, because we aren’t going away. There are a number of Canyon residents, myself included, that have been involved in local issues for over 30 years. If you are jealous of our long time activism or jealous of our beautiful Canyon Lifestyle (including that of our neighbors in Sand Canyon and Hasley Canyon), then I suggest you step back, watch and learn.
David Gauny is a very bright man, a very dedicated man, and his neighborhood is lucky to have him to lead their particular fight. No one has “Hitched (their) wagon to the Placerita Canyon Fight” as you suggest. And for you to say that he has made a mistake by consulting with us, is an unfortunate comment, and belies a very unfortunate attitude, one which you should reassess. We are all working toward the same goal, and it never hurts to be able to share ideas, manpower and influence where it may be needed the most. You seem to be a very frustrated and jealous person, and that is a shame. There is an old saying that I try to follow, and one that might fit you as well. “Lead, Follow or Get out of the way.”
(By the way, feel free to cut and paste from our newsletters on the http://www.pcpoa.com website any time.)
21
PM
Ben Curtis - Hoooawwhhh! Excellent response!
25
PM
Ben Says: The plan that is proposed by the developer and the planning department is indeed within our defined canyon area.
Ben’s comments kind of sum up my response and validate my previous comments.
It is not your canyon! To suggest otherwise is indicative of special interest and someone that thinks he deserves special treatment. I did not say you lobbied for open space, but the record is clear that the council has been approached to make such a purchase in “your Canyon”. By the way, you did not deny the fact. I am not offended or jealous by your existence, but I am concerned that in your case, Ben, as to why you do not feel a bit of dirt running from your forehead, given your record of previous involvement and profiting from Ms. Westes vote. Why did you fail to comment on your land sale transaction?
I to believe David Gauny is a bright man, but I am troubled that David would hitch his wagon to your fight. I think he has been depositioned with the Hospital matter by aligning with you, a guy the seems to have profited from the City Councils vote at the taxpayers expense.
As always in closing, Ms. Weste needs to be challenge as do all that profit from the taxpayers.
25
PM
You indeed did say that we had lobbied the council for open space money. Unless I misunderstood the exact wording you used.
David Gauny is well capable of choosing with whom he “aligns” his fight, and I am sorry you have such a burr under your saddle about the Placerita Canyon folks and their intentions. Considering that the Hospital issue is proposed by lobbyists who are also related to the Casden project, and that the city planning staff is using common tactics on both, there certainly seems to be some benefit of the synergism that can be created by working with one another.
By the way, I take personal exception to your reference to actions between me and the City being anything but above board. TRY to keep on track here, I know it is tough for you, but give it a shot.
25
PM
Ben, I know who the lobbyists are and I know the tactic. I understand your tactic as well. The Canyon landowner that approached the city to sell their land as open space, must have been an outsider, or in this case, not a member of the “WE” that you reference often..
Tracking what you are trying to accomplish is not that difficult, or is the smoke screen difficult to see. I also understand synergy. Teaming up to fight everything from Benz road speed bumps to the Hospital expansion, kind of minimizes the benefits of synergy. As does using the wrong spokesperson.
Perhaps you need to speak with Bob Kellar’s campaign advisor, Wilks. He was able to make a silk purse out of a pigs ear. And yes I know, he is an advisor to the Hospital. This incestuous City is becoming very interesting!