- After some debate, the City of Santa Clarita unanimously supported five of seven anti-immigration and anti-ACORN bills currently circulating in Congress. But two of the bills, both which would strip birthright citizenship from babies born to illegal immigrants, were voted on separately and Councilwoman Laurie Ender voted no on those. SIGNAL, I HEART SCV, KHTS
- Council candidate TimBen Boydston says the City isn’t enforcing codes restricting the size of the incumbent’s signs. “The City Attorney, in direct contradiction to the rules that we were given and had clarified, said that what we were told was not applicable because that would be a violation of free speech,” he wrote to supporters in an email. Boydston says the sign size limit is 12 square feet but some of the incumbents have signs as large as 32 sq. ft.
- “It’s been hair, teeth, and eyeball, ” David Gauny says of his fundraising efforts. SIGNAL
- Councilwoman Laurie Ender pens a primer on the City Council election for the ladies over at SCVMOMSBLOG.COM
- Hart District issues layoff notices to all 37 assistant principles as it tries to cut $15 million from its budget SIGNAL
- Environmental group says Santa Clara River “belongs to the world” and says SCV has an “obligation not to destroy the river.” All that in relation to the Newhall Ranch project. Newhall Land disputes that it will harm the river SIGNAL
- 7 year old Norwalk boy calls 911 after armed men break into his home and threaten his parents. “They’re going to shoot my mom and dad. Bring cops, a lot of them, and soldiers too!” he said to the dispatcher LA TIMES
- Buck McKeon co-authors Politico piece with Democrat Ike Skelton on why the US should not withdraw troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2010. The President isn’t proposing that but Rep. Dennis Kucinich is POLITICO
- Reminder: City Council candidate debate tomorrow hosted by The Signal, KHTS, and SCVTV. KHTS
- ABC News profiles the family of Jani Schofield, the seven year old Schizophrenic girl who was on Oprah a few months ago ABC NEWS
- The State Senate will take up the appointment of Assemblywoman Sharon Runner to something called the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board where she’ll earn $128,000 per year. Her husband George is running for the Board of Equalization in November SAC BEE
- No break from these awful arctic winds. In fact, we may have gusts up to 60 mph today LA TIMES
- “We can all learn something from the SCV’s monthlong social-studies session,” says columnist Gary Horton on the ”proud racist” issue SIGNAL
- WRB writer Chris Sharp says TimBen Boydston is a class act WRB
Search SCVTalk.com
Official SCVTalk.com Time
You can set your watch to it. Courtesy of TimeandDate.com SCVTalkers ForumRegistration
LA Blogs We read
SCV Blogs We Read
Categories
- Advocacy
- Business
- Catholic Guilt
- City Hall
- College of the Canyons
- Complaint Dept.
- Crime
- Daily Brief
- Development
- Economy
- Education
- Elections
- Environment
- History
- Humor
- Media
- Misc.
- News
- Opinion
- Politics
- PSA
- Real Estate
- Recreation
- SCV Good Eats
- SCV Religion
- SCV.Tech
- Shameless Newhall Boosterism
- Sports
- Traffic
- Transportation
- Weather
- Website Matters
- Where in the SCV
- Wordless Wednesdays
- WOWS
Who's Online
47 visitors online now17 guests, 30 bots, 0 membersPowered by Visitor Maps
Loading ...
I have to tip my hat to Councilwoman Ender, for having the courage to request the split on the vote and then voting no.
I cannot believe that Carl Newton gave a legal opinion on Campaign Sign size at the CC meeting last directly opposite of what is written in the Candidates Handbook.
The sign size was verified with the city clerk herself, weeks ago, with witnesses at hand, that there was no wiggle room about campaign size limits 12 square feet!
Now, that the incumbents sign are showing up around town as large as 32 square feet it’s OK…. NOT!
So Newton says it is a free speech issue. I guess now any size is acceptable under the free speech doctrine. How about 100 square feet, 200? The arogance of these incumbents is incredible. Trying to hide under this free speech argument. Just one more reason they all need to go!
A proper response from Weste would not have been to ask Newton if she was protected under the ‘free speech’ doctrine and instead saying “you know we all want to play fair for the citizens, we will bring our signs in compliance”. But then again why would I expect the proper response from her???????
Hard district has(d) 37 assistant principals? Did the title ‘assistant principal’ replace the title ‘dean of students’ or something? Why so many?
I echo Mike C – Laurie Ender did the right thing and her stock just went way up in my book
I think Newton’s right. The restrictions, as they are worded now, would not pass Constitutional muster.
But then we must ask, where was he when they passed these restrictions? Where was he when they passed the ethics code? If his ultimate determination is going to be that these things violate free speech, advise the council of that beforehand.
I hope TBB goes out and makes the biggest signs in town.
In the City of Santa Clarita, we have restrictive election campaign rules for the challengers and no rules it’s free speech for the incumbents.
Is this still America? Or have the apparatchiks taken over at City Hall?
(look it up, Ken)
The unconscionable election tactics from the incumbents in this CC election are just plain disgusting IMHO!
Go TimBen!
Go Gauny!
Gotta Go…Frank, Laurene & Marsha!
By supporting a Bill that attempts to redefine the word “All” in the 14th Amendment and deny citizenship to any individual born in this country, 4 members of our Santa Clarita City Council showed their arrogance and lack of insight into decisions they make. Unrealistic bills always have unintended consequences. Just think about it. If passed, a birth certificate would no longer be proof of citizenship? I guess you could have to prove that a branch of your family tree entered the USA properly. What about an individual born in this country, who has lived here all their lives, now finds out that their parents or grandparents were illegal aliens? Are they now not a citizen? The supporters have all told me “That could never happen”. I hope not. I anticipate this bill will die in congress or be overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.
The only good thing that came out of last night’s meeting was Laurie Ender showing that she is upholding her oath to “uphold and defend the Constitution” by voting NO on this issue while the other 4 buried their heads in the sand.
Alan Ferdman: True American.
It occurred to me this morning that birth certificates of the future will read like the first chapter of Matthew. I’d imagine that everyone will have to trace their lineage to a person born in the United states before 2010.
It’s worth noting that this covers all children of immigrants, legal or not, that do not have a green card. Many people live and work and study in the US for years and years (legally) under different visas before obtaining a green card.
I think it’s a disgusting vote and none of those who votes yes or spoke in support of the resolution will ever have my support.
When Laurie Ender, Alan Ferdman, Jeff Wilson AND Tim Myers agree on something you know it has to be bulletproof!
The sign issue just once again shows the kabuki theatre that is politics. People enact things they know are not enforceable, the City staff pretends they are enforceable, and then when someone violates the unenforceable rule the City Attorney heaves a giant shrug of the shoulders. TimBen and Dave Gauny should pool their resources and fund a couple of billboards on Soledad Canyon Road.
Doesn’t TBB’s classy ass have billboards? That seems like a fairly large “sign”.
Didn’t Newton just make the city’s sign ordnance unlawful and obligate the businesses to sue for damages and the cost of changing theior signs.
If the city code means nothing to the counilmembers, than the code is useless.
Nobody is above the law!
Kip
Both TimBen and David are using Billboards.
Billboards are not regulated by the City’s sign ordinance. As the city has often stated, they are a whole different category of sign regulated by state law.
Brian,
It’s not the signs etc…it’s the content ie…political speech versus commercial speech. Depending on the type of speech it can be regulated. For example, HOA can prevent a commercial business sign from being posted in someone’s frontyard, but they can’t prohibit someone from putting up a candidate sign. Depending on the type of speech or signs, things can be regulated.
There is a lack of equity! sign ordinance won’t be enforced, then why bother enacting it. Last night was a sham, this is a way to start the dialogue..bs! This was to appease some folks and look like they are doin’ something.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Unemployment rose in 30 states in January, the Labor Department said Wednesday, evidence that jobs remain scarce in most regions of the country.
The data is somewhat better than December, when 43 states reported higher unemployment rates, but worse than November, when rates fell in most states.
Still, five states reported record-high joblessness in January: California, at 12.5 percent; South Carolina, 12.6 percent; Florida, 11.9 percent; North Carolina, 11.1 percent; and Georgia, 10.4 percent.
Michigan’s unemployment rate is still the nation’s highest, at 14.3 percent, followed by Nevada, with 13 percent and Rhode Island at 12.7 percent. South Carolina and California round out the top five.
Once again Weste turns to Newton to be sure she is legally correct. The fact that she voted to manage the blight associated with campaign signs, was meaning less. She is a phony!
I learned something new last night! Ferry, the educated one, mentioned that the Supreme Court can change the Constitution. Of course he did not mean it, but his mouth often overloads his ass! Ferry’s brilliance is remarkable!
We have three clowns setting on the council and they often make our city look like a circus..
I hope that will change.
Ah yes, our city attorney, the same guy who could have stopped the whole Kellar mess in it’s tracks by stating he violated the ethics code and been done with it. Somehow when his buddies are involved the city attorney finds a way around the problem.
His buddies make sure he continues his contract with the city. One way to ruin a good thing is to make the boss mad. Our city is corrupt,and Newton often walks a fine line when assessing the spirit and intent of our laws. He always leans in favor of the less than honest council, his boss.
All of you have missed the funniest news on SCVTalk today:
Buck McKeon writing an article for Politico?
Give me a break. The man owned a country western clothing store before he was elected to public office. He can write his name, and checks, but that’s about it in terms of his literary talents.
It really bugs me when Congress persons from either party are said to have written something weighty or intelligent, when it is crystal clear that the writing was done by a staff member. Both sides need to be called out on this “plagarism with permission”.
Starting with Buck.
On the issue of size of campaign signs which are on private property, it is important to remember that in California, Article I Section 2 of the California Constitution has been repeatedly said, by the California Supreme Court, to create a much broader right of “free speech” than under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
In Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. National Labor Relations Bd., 42 Cal. 4th 850 (2007) which is the California Supreme Court’s most recent pronouncement about free speech rights on private property, they said:
“The level of scrutiny with which we review a restriction of free speech activity depends upon whether it is a content-neutral regulation of the time, place, or manner of speech or restricts speech based upon its content. A content-neutral regulation of the time, place, or manner of speech is subjected to intermediate scrutiny to determine if it is “(i) narrowly tailored, (ii) serves a significant government interest, and (iii) leaves open ample alternative avenues of communication. [Citation.]” (Los Angeles Alliance for Survival v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 22 Cal.4th 352, 364 [93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1, 993 P.2d 334] (Alliance).)”
The kicker here, with respect to Santa Clarita’s unconstitutional attempt to use its Municipal Code to limit the size of political campaign signs is that the burden of proof is on the City to prove that the size limitation “serves a significant government interest”. The chance of the City of Santa Clarita’s lawyer proving that point, in court, with respect to the political sign size limitation ON PRIVATE PROPERTY are slim and none.
Carl Newton knows that. He’s probably told that to Council members in private. Ken Pulskamp as City Manager and a very few City employees are intelligent enough to understand that point. The rest of the City’s employees are generally illiterates if not simpletons on free speech issues.
Why prior City Councils have not fixed the campaign sign ordinance is beyond my comprehension, except for a desire to use incumbency to press for Code Enforcement action against signs for the incumbents opponents.
So non-incumbents and their friends, as to big campaign signs on private property, I suggest proactively sending Certified Mail letters to Carl Newton and Ken Pulskamp telling them that if City employees lay a finger on campaign signs on private property, they are going to have a lawsuit on their hands and that all of the existing Council members and key city staffers will be deposed.
That should scare them and shut them up, simply because in California there scope of questions which can be asked in a deposition are very, very broad. Extremely embarrassing questions which must be answered under penalty of perjury are the norm.
As to campaign signs on public property, the City probably does have a better shot at enforcing its sign size restrictions, but even then under the case law standards who knows. As to campaign signs on public property which any of you think are “too big” under the City’s ordinance, send in a complaint letter by certified mail, addressed to Pulskamp and Newton, with all of the pertinent details like location and sign size. Also take several photos of the sign and save it. Either all of the “too big” signs on public property have to come down, or none of them do. It’s that Equal Protection clause of the California Constitution, which, of course the people running the City allegedly understand.
I’m surprised that Kellar didn’t say anything about the political sign ordinance being swept away last night we he, himself, had to correct his signs 2 years ago because he was still using the 4×8 format that everyone has used (except Annette!) for years. That was too much to take even for me.
To all who have commented on exactly WHO Carl Newton represents as City Attorney, let me tell you something I’ve learned over many, many years of dealing with City Attorneys across the state.
Uniformly their perception is that their client is the 3 vote majority on any general law city council. That is who votes to hire the City Attorney as a person, and that his votes to hire his/her law firm to represent the City on a case by case basis.
The reality is that no City Attorney thinks he represents a city as a corporation, under doctrines similar to those in the securities law field which create a fiduciary duty for the attorney to represent the interests of the corporation’s shareholders.
City Attorneys clearly do not view voters as shareholders, let alone as their clients. Most will tell you that to your face if you press them on the point.
Most do not even believe it is their duty to DO what is best for the city as a “municipal corporation”. Their client is the most reliable 3 vote majority, and the City Attorney takes direction from that 3 vote majority.
That’s why Carl Newton only makes public pronouncements on legal issues, i.e. when his 3 vote majority has told him to do so.
Without that explicit instruction, with so many years of experience representing City Council majorities, Carl Newton definitely knows how to dance, even as an old heavy set guy.
Good point, Sage. The same holds true for HOA attorneys.
Alan,
Thanks for the clarification, but I really just wanted to say classy ass.
Ole Bucky and the Ferry have a campaign TV add. I saw it on Fox and one other channel. Bucky did not have my vote in the first place, but his endorsement of Ferry makes my decision easy.
Ferry takes credit for a budget surplus and the cross valley connector. He says nothing about the loss of city service or the traffic problems we have. Go figure.
Cash:
Gee, I wonder why Frank didn’t take credit for the City losing to the owner of Bermite, at a condemnation trial, to the tune of $22 Million in value of land taken for the Cross Valley Connector and attorneys fees due the Bermite owner’s lawyer.
Buried somewhere in City Hall is a license Bermite granted to the City, for free, to build the Cross Valley Connector across the eastern edge of Bermite’s land. So why did Frank not use his LAW DEGREE and his status as a person who passed California’s Bar exam to tell Carl Newton to leave well enough alone and rely on the license and not do a condemnation?
I totally don’t get it that Frank, the brilliant one, cannot control the City’s blood sucking attorneys. Newton brags on his personal page at his law firm that he is the lawyer for the biggest city in California to use “contract city attorneys only”. That means in plain English that SCV’s council are the biggest suckers in the state, in terms of local elected officials.