<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Global Warming Fuzzy Math &amp; Newhall Ranch</title>
	<atom:link href="http://scvtalk.com/2010/02/04/global-warming-fuzzy-math-newhall-ranch/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://scvtalk.com/2010/02/04/global-warming-fuzzy-math-newhall-ranch/</link>
	<description>your daily dose of SCV news, politics and culture. Published since 2006</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2010 00:50:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Farley</title>
		<link>http://scvtalk.com/2010/02/04/global-warming-fuzzy-math-newhall-ranch/#comment-8801</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Farley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 02:42:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scvtalk.com/?p=1947#comment-8801</guid>
		<description>Thank you Coastal Sage for clarifying that we need to look at this for the local and not the global impact. There are more and more reasons to not believe the theory of man made climate change that will lead to disaster. This project is bad simply form the standpoint of local polution and the traffic it will create on I-5 over Weldon Summit.

Forget Global Warming, there are plenty of other reasons to oppose this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you Coastal Sage for clarifying that we need to look at this for the local and not the global impact. There are more and more reasons to not believe the theory of man made climate change that will lead to disaster. This project is bad simply form the standpoint of local polution and the traffic it will create on I-5 over Weldon Summit.</p>
<p>Forget Global Warming, there are plenty of other reasons to oppose this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CoastalSage</title>
		<link>http://scvtalk.com/2010/02/04/global-warming-fuzzy-math-newhall-ranch/#comment-8794</link>
		<dc:creator>CoastalSage</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:43:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scvtalk.com/?p=1947#comment-8794</guid>
		<description>There&#039;s a basic concept called a &quot;jobs housing balance&quot;.  

In its simplest form, the principle says that the actual air pollution from commuting to and from an outlying subdivision must be calculated based upon the potential cost of the new homes, and the actual locations where jobs which will support payments on a 30 year mortgage are located.

Assume, for argument&#039;s sake, that the average home in Landmark Village will cost $400,000.  How many new, permanent jobs will the project create which will allow the project&#039;s residents to live nearby?  In theory, the commuting to and from the new, high paying jobs in the new project should not be &quot;counted&quot; for air quality calculations for the new project. 

How many existing jobs in the general locale (i.e. Santa Clarita Valley) paying enough to support a mortgage on a $400,000 home are currently vacant, or held by people who commute into the Santa Clarita Valley. In theory, the new project occupants&#039; commuting to and from the unoccupied high paying jobs and the high paying jobs held by outsiders should not be &quot;counted&quot; for air quality calculations for the new project. 

Which brings us to reality.  There are very few houses newly built in the Santa Clarita Valley which cost as little as $400,000.  There are even fewer permanent, high paying jobs to be created by the project, or held by outsiders who might move to this new project. 

All of that brings us back to reality.   In the Santa Clarita Valley, expensive developments (e.g. must build own sewer plant, must buy expensive water supply, must build costly infrastructure) create expensive homes.  By and large, only people who commute southward to the San Fernado/Glendale/Burbank area, Downtown LA and West LA will be able to afford to buy a new home in Landmark Village.   Not only will their commuting in their automobiles create additional air pollution, the clogging of southbound routes out of SCV with more traffic will greatly add to air pollution created by the cars of existing commuters.

Forget greenhouse gas emissions.  Ordinary air pollution will increase dramatically as Newhall Ranch and the 30,000+ other new housing units approved for the SCV are built.

SCV&#039;s jobs housing balance is way upside down, and will continue to be for the forseeable future.  

Frankly, the majority of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has absolutely no concern about air quality in the SCV.  They never have and they never will.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;s a basic concept called a &#8220;jobs housing balance&#8221;.  </p>
<p>In its simplest form, the principle says that the actual air pollution from commuting to and from an outlying subdivision must be calculated based upon the potential cost of the new homes, and the actual locations where jobs which will support payments on a 30 year mortgage are located.</p>
<p>Assume, for argument&#8217;s sake, that the average home in Landmark Village will cost $400,000.  How many new, permanent jobs will the project create which will allow the project&#8217;s residents to live nearby?  In theory, the commuting to and from the new, high paying jobs in the new project should not be &#8220;counted&#8221; for air quality calculations for the new project. </p>
<p>How many existing jobs in the general locale (i.e. Santa Clarita Valley) paying enough to support a mortgage on a $400,000 home are currently vacant, or held by people who commute into the Santa Clarita Valley. In theory, the new project occupants&#8217; commuting to and from the unoccupied high paying jobs and the high paying jobs held by outsiders should not be &#8220;counted&#8221; for air quality calculations for the new project. </p>
<p>Which brings us to reality.  There are very few houses newly built in the Santa Clarita Valley which cost as little as $400,000.  There are even fewer permanent, high paying jobs to be created by the project, or held by outsiders who might move to this new project. </p>
<p>All of that brings us back to reality.   In the Santa Clarita Valley, expensive developments (e.g. must build own sewer plant, must buy expensive water supply, must build costly infrastructure) create expensive homes.  By and large, only people who commute southward to the San Fernado/Glendale/Burbank area, Downtown LA and West LA will be able to afford to buy a new home in Landmark Village.   Not only will their commuting in their automobiles create additional air pollution, the clogging of southbound routes out of SCV with more traffic will greatly add to air pollution created by the cars of existing commuters.</p>
<p>Forget greenhouse gas emissions.  Ordinary air pollution will increase dramatically as Newhall Ranch and the 30,000+ other new housing units approved for the SCV are built.</p>
<p>SCV&#8217;s jobs housing balance is way upside down, and will continue to be for the forseeable future.  </p>
<p>Frankly, the majority of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has absolutely no concern about air quality in the SCV.  They never have and they never will.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Spineflower2</title>
		<link>http://scvtalk.com/2010/02/04/global-warming-fuzzy-math-newhall-ranch/#comment-8789</link>
		<dc:creator>Spineflower2</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:01:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scvtalk.com/?p=1947#comment-8789</guid>
		<description>Regarding employment for NR residents... NLF claims that most of the jobs will be within NewhalL Ranch, and a vast majority will communte within the SCV.  Thsi is clearly baloney, and runs against all demographic and historical informaton abotu income, housng prices, commute patterns, etc.

You can get anY EIR and study you want if you pay the right cosultant the right amount of money.

The County still lets the APPLICANT (i.e., NLF) choose the EIR consultant.  This is the fox guarding the henhouse.

NR is a wolf in green sheeps clothing, and the sheepskin dye is being drenched on it pretty thick these days.

By the way, the water study portion of their EIR got thrown out by an appeals court.  More lies from the paid-off EIR consultant get exposed...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Regarding employment for NR residents&#8230; NLF claims that most of the jobs will be within NewhalL Ranch, and a vast majority will communte within the SCV.  Thsi is clearly baloney, and runs against all demographic and historical informaton abotu income, housng prices, commute patterns, etc.</p>
<p>You can get anY EIR and study you want if you pay the right cosultant the right amount of money.</p>
<p>The County still lets the APPLICANT (i.e., NLF) choose the EIR consultant.  This is the fox guarding the henhouse.</p>
<p>NR is a wolf in green sheeps clothing, and the sheepskin dye is being drenched on it pretty thick these days.</p>
<p>By the way, the water study portion of their EIR got thrown out by an appeals court.  More lies from the paid-off EIR consultant get exposed&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Need for Involved Citizenry</title>
		<link>http://scvtalk.com/2010/02/04/global-warming-fuzzy-math-newhall-ranch/#comment-8759</link>
		<dc:creator>Need for Involved Citizenry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:08:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scvtalk.com/?p=1947#comment-8759</guid>
		<description>I wonder how they can really say that emissions will be reduced by folks working locally.  Will they have a huge set aside of low income housing for industrial center types of folks?  How can they ensure that the high paying local jobs necessary to allow those to afford homes in the Ranch will actually be generated and exist?  Seems like much of the analysis is based on this flawed assumption.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wonder how they can really say that emissions will be reduced by folks working locally.  Will they have a huge set aside of low income housing for industrial center types of folks?  How can they ensure that the high paying local jobs necessary to allow those to afford homes in the Ranch will actually be generated and exist?  Seems like much of the analysis is based on this flawed assumption.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
