A few people have emailed and asked me in person who I’m voting for in this City Council election. Wow…I’m honored you’d ask for my input. Thank you. That means a lot to me as a guy who started this blog on a whim four years ago and maintains it mostly so I can read your comments and ideas and formulate my own.
First of all, know this. Few of the candidates, incumbents or challengers, are really speaking to me. It’s 2010, and they’re still speaking to my parent’s generation, the generation of Santa Claritans who moved here in the 1980s, 90s, and 00s to escape from someplace else, someplace less desirable. As I’ve written about time and time again on this blog, those of us who grew up here as kids have a somewhat different perspective on Santa Clarita than those of us who moved here in the great building booms of the last three decades.
Secondly, from where I sit, life in the Santa Clarita Valley is pretty damn good right now. Compared with the rest of the world, compared with the rest of the country and even compared with the rest of Los Angeles County, we don’t have a lot to complain about here. I reject wholesale comments on this website like
I would NOT in a 100 years vote for Ferry, Weste or McLean. They have really harmed our community.
Come on. Hyperbolize much? What harm has Marsha McLean and Laurene Weste and Frank Ferry brought to our community? From where I sit, life is good here, whichever way you cut it. Let’s give credit to our great City of Santa Clarita, a city that is just over two decades old in the country’s largest and most populous County. Look how far they’ve brought us. Look what our City founders have accomplished.
I hope we have done right by them.
No, if this election is about anything, it’s not about how Santa Clarita is, but how Santa Clarita will be. Where are we going?
That is the question.
It’s clear in 2010 we’ve been told to fear the future. Fear, it is perhaps the most powerful motivator, more powerful than even love.
And it is the platform the two main challengers, David Gauny and TimBen Boydston, have chosen to run on.
Both of them love Santa Clarita, but both of them have ideas about Santa Clarita that are firmly rooted in the past, and both of them want to scare you about the future.
Boydston has singlehandedly revived the term “suburban” in his campaign lately. He tells us that Santa Clarita’s future should be “low-density, high-quality, suburban-style housing with lots of open space.” In other words, Boydston wants what Santa Clarita was and is: a valley of bedrooms, suburban housing, meandering roads. And he mistakenly believes that this model, when accompanied with sufficient roads, will reduce traffic. He hates the City’s idea of a “valley of villages” where people in the future will live within walking distance to the activities they do every day, work, shopping, school, and entertainment.
Gauny, meanwhile, couldn’t jump on the illegal immigration issue fast enough this winter. It was only two weeks after Bob Kellar’s infamous statement that Gauny was busy remaking himself from the guy who stood against office park expansion in Valencia to the guy who wanted to round up the poor day laborers standing around on Railroad Avenue. As if this was the chief problem affecting our city. As if this was a platform to run on in a local election.
This is why I haven’t been very excited about Boydston and Gauny. Neither of them are talking about what Santa Clarita could be. Neither of them are presenting a grand vision for the SCV in 10, 20, or 30 years. Neither of them has mentioned how big the Disney Ranch development is, and how that could change the course of Santa Clarita and really put us on the map economically and culturally. How it could make us into the next Burbank. How we should embrace this project and all it means for the SCV, even if it means we’re no longer the sleepy little ‘burb of the 1970s and even if we become a little more urban.
None of them are talking like that because they know fear is powerful. And they think that the 1980s Santa Clarita is sustainable well into the 21st Century, even if gas prices zoom past $4.50 per gallon as they did in 2008.
But what of our incumbents? I like Weste and McLean on transportation. Many mock her for it, but I cheer when Marsha McLean talks about her work on regional transportation boards like the OrangeLine. She understands that most Santa Claritans live here but work elsewhere, and she rightly believes there should be a better way to get to work than taking the 5 or 14 south alone in your car.
Laurene Weste has always been approachable. Do you know that during the Benz Road debacle, she was the only City Councilmember who sat up on that street and watched as drivers shortcutted through that neighborhood? Do you know that she has offered to set up meetings with transportation planners and me when I complained about incomplete bicycle trails and lanes? She has.
And as repulsive as Frank Ferry can be, I don’t think he has violated anything he said he would do. Two years ago I quoted from an article that mentioned Ferry.When Ferry was elected, he felt the City Council was out of touch with young parents who moved to the SCV. His goal on the Council was to create more parks, amenities and programs for youth. From where I sit, Ferry has accomplished his mission. The “Not a Ferry Fan” You Tuber will never get that; he’s probably well past the age of people Councilmember Ferry represented. NAFF doesn’t represent me or my friends. He doesn’t represent you, I think.
Alas, in an effort to please the ultra-conservatives in this town, the City put a slate of anti-immigration measures on the Council agenda a few weeks ago, in reaction to Kellar-gate, which I regrettably helped publicize. And when, given the choice, all three of the incumbents chose the most craven and backwards solutions to immigration. They voted yes on de-funding ACORN (as if that had a big impact in the SCV), they voted yes on stripping American-born babies of their citizenship, they voted yes on the most reactionary and biased Congressional bills available to them.
And that is why I cannot vote for them. I have friends whose parents are illegal immigrants.
So in 2010, I recommend you vote this way. Harrison Katz, the 19 year old, because he grew up here like I did and gets it. TimBen Boydston because even though he thinks suburbs are the future, he still listens and I think he can learn, and because he took the middle path when presented with the immigration issue even though it was easier to take the extreme path. And Henry Shultz, because he is a scientist and is logical, and came within 600 votes of defeating Bob Kellar in 2004. Plus, and I admit bias, he worked at 3D Systems, my former employer.
Hey Santa Clarita. It’s 2010. Life is not going to be like it was in 1978, or 1983 or 1996. The world is different now. Suburbs as an urban growth pattern are dead. We clearly need to develop local industry and high-paying jobs so that our citizens don’t have to commute 30, 40, or 50 miles to work. Global warming is real in my view, and that means we need to develop local jobs and industry, even if that means skyscrapers are in our future.
Even if that means we have to embrace a lifestyle unfamiliar to our parents. This is our time. Not their’s.
Vote for the future. Vote for Katz, Boydston and Shultz in 2010.
Loading ...
Love it.
The 30-50 mile commute is not a function of housing density, but rather the choice of the City (and to a lesser extent, the COunty) to favor min-wage/high sales tax businesses (box stores, low wage manufacturing,e tc), instead of highly skilled businesses whose wmployee incomes match the local housing price market.
The City LOVES it’s cut of the sales tax. But as a result of these choices, it runs the City like a business, not a public service agency, and so it has perpetrated our commute nightmare.
This was not the vision of the founders. Lumping the incumbents with those far-seeing founders is offensive to them.
That said, I agree with your endorsements of Schultz and Boydston, two who “get it” and aren’t fooled by this OVOV crap we are beign fed by the City.
Of course I agree with your choice for two of the candidates. At least your wasted vote for Shultz (a good and decent man, but no chance for council) will not go to an incumbent.
There are many of us for Shultz if only he would say something.
If he doesn’t …?
I will NEVER vote for someone who is not really trying (though I guess I came close to voting for Johnny Pride)
Jeff, did you hear Katz talk at the Cyn Cntry invitational? I did. He sounded like he was reading a class assignment for one of his college classes. I sensed no passion in him whatsoever. He did talk as fast as he possibly could to get all the words out he, or someone, had put on his paper though. I also had no sense that he had been in the trenches, knowing what needed to be done, and especially for SC businesses. Further, there were some other strange reports that I heard about his activities. I think you and others will be voting for him for the 19yo factor, and not much else. No, I don’t think he gets it at all.
Mark,
Without a doubt Harrison did terrible at the ccac, but watch him in the debate or watch him tonight on scvtv. He is a sharp kid. I think that was one of his first events and was probably just very nervous. Not everyone is a polished politician or actor ie the incumbents or mr.boydston .
And furthermore,
Harrison has “strange activities”?
Your candidate is MIA after being accused of statuary rape. Regardless of whether or not Pride did it or not, I think his activities are much stranger..
Katz was nervous at the CCAC. But he kicked ass at the council forum…I even heard some local VIPS talking about how impressed they were with him….trust me, Harrison has a bright future ahead of him.
Well what can you say about Pride? Nothing! He was a no show last week at the CCAC meeting…
I admit that I was also disappointed that Pride did not show up at the CCAC meeting. I doubt there are many here who don’t understand his not being there after what has been going on. Nonetheless, I agree that he should have been there. I think he needed people to hear him respond to what has been going on in person, and not just in postings on the Internet. But I can’t second guess his choice not to be there.
Realistically, it was a battle before in the election. Pride was not the top choice for many people early on. But he was gaining ground. Those who heard him talk were almost always favorably surprised and impressed. But when these new events came up, I doubt anyone, including Pride, would have felt his chances were anything beyond all but impossible. I can see someone not wanting to have to go through talking to a questionable crowd knowing his chances had already been shot.
I agree that he should have been there. But it’s certainly his choice as to how to spend his time. Knowing many of his positions, I do think SC loses by not having him as an active candidate, let alone on the council. He brings viewpoints and experience most others don’t have. He surprised even me when I first started listening to him. When I could objectively see what he brought to the table, overlooking the externals that everyone has discussed from the beginning, I realized he could make a significant difference here. And he was also willing and able to work well with others on and off the council. Yeah, he should have been there.
Gauny will shamelessly jump on any bandwagon he thinks he can ride into power. This weekend we will likely see him waving signs reading “kill the bill” and “baby killer”. There is nothing authentic about him whatsoever. He is a typical realtor/mortgage broker who will do anything to get us to sign on his bottom line.
Jboyyyyy, I just noticed that you commented that Pride was accused of “statutory rape.” I’m not sure I’ve seen the charge referred to as “statutory,” though that is what I had always assumed the sheriff had meant. Did I miss seeing that somewhere? There is certainly a distinction there.
I’ll see if I can catch Katz on YouTube somewhere with one of the better performances you & MikeC say he’s put in. I’m pretty uncomfortable with him so they would have to do a lot to change my POV.
Saugus Splasher, unlike many on this forum, I believe Gauny is sincere and sharp. I think he would be excellent on the council. He speaks well. And he’s clearly a politician. But that doesn’t mean he won’t do an job for SC. I think he’s a good man.
Make that “…an excellent job…”
Mark: David Gauny is a good man. He is thoughtful, sincere, committed, decent, honest, and collaborative. He listens respectfully to others but does his own in depth research before taking a position. He has the gumption to do what he honestly believes is the right thing. He is no drama queen making mountains out of molehills to attract a crowd. He works towards finding solutions not excuses. Santa Clarita will be well served by Councilmember Gauny.
Berta, from everything I have seen concerning David Gauny, including some things the public isn’t even aware of, I agree completely with you. SC would do well to have him working for the City.
Mark,
You can watch the full debate here.
http://www.scvtv.com/html/debatecc041310-1of2btv.html
You’ll see how well Harrison does there. He also did very well on scvtv tonight. My ballot is still Gauny, katz, Boydston.
Ya know Jeff? I don’t agree with your politics, but you gave a pretty fair assessment of the current council.
I guess the problem I have with Ferry is that as time goes on he feels more and more entitled, sleazy, pompous, and has forgotten the citizens. He has complained that he doesn’t want to hear people speak at the City Council meeting. He really wants to only speak to his crowd which has become non-citizens of this valley. I’m not one to support people who think themselves so high and mighty that they can ignore the citizenry.
While you may not agree with Gauny, he is thoughtful and does his homework. As for Schulz, I have voted for this man in several past elections but I think his time has past. We do need more forward thinkers on the council. Weste gas done a lot of good for the community, it is true and you are right to give transportation credit to McLean. But I find it grossly disturbing to discover who is now funding these people’s campaigns when once they were grass roots candidates. It’s time for a change, some fresh eyes, and some people from the community.
Ok – “Mike” asked me a while back to show where in the City ordinance TBB was breaking the law. I have finally found it.
TBB made a GIANT, fat, huge stink about illegal signs and now his rotten campaign are littering the streets. He is by far the WORST offender!
11.12.040 Signs or Billboards on Public Highways Prohibited Exceptions.
No person shall erect, construct, place or maintain any signboard, billboard, sign or advertisement in, over or on any public highway or other public right of way of the City. (Ord. 89-29, 1/23/90)
It makes no exception for campaign signs. None.
No campaign signs in the public right of way. None.
In that same thread, someone found that very section. I enjoyed some crow then, and will gladly have a second helping. Good sleuthing.
BTW, Mike is my actual name. Not an alias, not used ironically, so no quotes necessary
Are you sure he’s placing them in the public R/W?
“In an effort to please ultra-conservatives in this town. . .”
“Ultra-conservatives” don’t hold a monopoly on respect for this country’s laws. There are other, more moderate thinkers who are also disturbed by the word “illegal,” and would like to know why most liberals want to omit that word when discussing illegal immigration. Liberals like to throw around lots of quasi-compassionate rhetoric when confronting the issue, but they seldom take any positive action. Since the Federal govt. refuses to step up with workable solutions to the problem, why don’t our committed liberals go into the “shadow” communities and volunteer to give English-speaking classes? That might be a positive first step towards helping the illegals earn citizenship in this country.
fan, in that same thread, someone found that very section. I enjoyed some crow then, and will gladly have a second helping. Good sleuthing.
If memory serves. Senators Graham (r) and Schumer (d) were going to work on immigration reform, but Graham stated that if HCR was passed, then immigration reform will have to wait at least a year…as for the terms, it is all part of the rhetoric, that goes along with one’s political views, whatever plays to one’s base and what terms ever sound good in polling
ah – ok. I couldn’t find the same thread.
This just in! I just copy righted the name “Mike,” so Mike you will need to come up with alias or you will have to pay sir…you will have to pay!
Not so fast, I just got the domain mike.info
The City Attorney Carl Newton recently ruled at a City Council meeting that political signs could not be restricted as to size as an infringement on free speech. This followed a complaint lodged at a City Council meeting after the Boydston campaign had been instructed by city staff that their campaign signs were limited to 12 square feet, where no similar instruction was given by city staff to the incumbents. Consequently, the Boydston campaign erected giant campaign signs on private property with the owners’s permission along the I-5 and Hwy 14 freeways.
If you have ever been in the SCV in the weeks prior to any previous election, you would have commonly seen small 18″ x 24″ election signs posted along streets and on fences. The difference this year is the more rigorous removal of these signs by City staff and apparently, others.
The Boydston campaign is vigorously campaigning, and the incumbents would prefer to have this election pass unnoticed by the citizens.
I think our city will be able to survive a few weeks of campaign signs.
As an aside, the Boydston campaign is also committed to the quick removal of all campaign signs once the election is over.
Oh…..so illegal signs are less illegal during a “vigorous campaign”??
The residents should just “survive” and get over it?
HYPOCRITES! TBB said he went around for “hours” picking up the illegal signs. Now that they are his, we should just “survive”?
That’s just ridiculous.
Maybe the City Attorney, Mr. Carl Newton would be happy to give us his legal rendering on these signs.
It was news to the candidates that there was no size limit on campaign signs. The handbook for the candidates was verified to state the 12 sq.ft. limit by city staff.
Maybe all of the volunteers just do not know all of the rules.
Toadly – I’m not talking about the SIZE of the signs either. I’m referring to the illegal signs that are everywhere in the right of way. They are such an eye sore and are….illegal.
I support campaign signs during an election period. If they are currently not legal, the law should be changed to permit them. Otherwise, they should continue to just overlook them.
Oh, and thanks Jboyyyyyy for the link. I haven’t been able to watch yet, but I appreciate your posting it.
You seem to be saying that every sign was put up by TBB. Are you sure about that, or are you just content to slam him all the time?
How much does this foolish practice of conducting City Council elections on their own, not in conjunction with primaries or general elections, cost the City? How much overtime does the City pay to pick up signs during election season? Will the City be picking up signs during the primaries and general election?
With the incumbents shaking down businesses that have contracts with the City for campaign donations, one would think there are more important issues to be addressed in this election.
Now we have the best City Council that special interests and out-of-area developers can buy. It’s time for change.
NO VOTES FOR INCUMBENTS!
Right on Rocky!