- Lennie Tracey, the Canyon Country man accused of shooting his neighbor after a five year long feud, apparently used a shotgun and even pointed it at the victim’s wife. It goes beyond that though; apparently Tracey was using infrared lights to disrupt the victim’s video surveillance system. Tracey faces a life sentence if convicted and is in jail on $1.1 million bail. KHTS
- LMD change & new Newhall LMD passed 3-0 at the City Council meeting last night, with the City promising that in the future, they would propose smaller changes rather than sweeping ones that, in the words of some critics, pit neighbor against neighbor, a charge Councilmember Bob Kellar said he was sympathetic to. SIGNAL, SCVNEWS
- Sharron Angle came to town yesterday and praised local Republicans for their activism, including Paul Strickland and Joe Messina. She also talked up the “Election Integrity Project,” and discussed “how conservatives should best conduct themselves in the upcoming election.” SIGNAL
- You’d think RightonSCV.com, the SCV’s number 1 conservative blog, a beacon of conservative orthodoxy, a shining City on a Hill, would be all over a Sharron Angle visit, but no updates, reports, or posts on their site. Seriously, must I do all the blogging work in this town?
- Latinos say new LA County supervisor districts reek of racism and the suppression of Latino interests SIGNAL
- Hart District enrollment actually a little above projects according to the SIGNAL
- Local businessman who works in solar power says Steve Lunetta is wrong to condemn green energy initiatives LTE
- Ok who is playing a prank on the SCV? Unknown sign maker posts weird signs around town SIGNAL
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
80 visitors online now55 guests, 25 bots, 0 membersPowered by Visitor Maps
Loading ...
First thought when I saw that sign yesterday was prank. Then religious cult freakiness. Then meth. Then prop for local movie filming. Then batsh*t crazy. Then Wayside. Then Cal Arts. Then delusional Wal Mart shopper. Then promotion for some new energy drink. Then back to prank. I think in the next 24 hours the truth will be revealed, and I sincerely hope it is a sincere sign and not some sort of marketing.
They need to post this one next…..http://s3-ak.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/web03/2010/9/3/6/religion-is-like-a-keep-it-inside-11297-1283509798-5.jpg
This is absolutely disgusting. Especially any reference to something sexually suggestive about children is absolutely wrong. What’s the matter with you Perez. There is NO sense of humor there when children are referenced to an act. Come on.
I’m sorry Gang Fang, I really don’t believe your brain could think if all these possibilities for the origin of the sign. Only through exhaustive effort could you think out this mental journey of ridiculous options. I think you sat at the computer and really racked your brain to come up with all the stereotypes you could come up with to be funny which didn’t work– then hoped it was sincere? You are weird.
Was it really that slow of a news day that they have to cover a homemade sign with no information about it or why it exists? This is complete reporting?
I love stuff like this. Arguing about whose political penis is larger gets dull after awhile. It’s a blog, which means anything goes. And it is indeed complete reporting, because as of now that’s all the information anyone has on these signs that appeared. Hence the mystery!
I think it’s funny they cover this, like when they did the profile on the guy with the eyebrows that everyone sees around town. Also liked the profile on the guy that stands at Bouquet Juntion with the U Need Jesus signs. They’re a somewhat small town paper and it’s interesting to see these things once in a while.
I agree. We need “color” in our paper from time to time.
How about an up-to-date profile on this person?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ellen_Tracy
Fascinating. I wish I was around to see this.
And I wish the Signal would put its archives online. This must have been QUITE the story back in the late 80s.
I remember this incident back then. There was a lot of interesting scandal that happened back then and the Signal did not shy away from things like today. The Tony Alamo Church was always in the news. I also remember one of the 18 year old high school girls did a nude layout and unbeknownst to her the photog sold the pics to Penthouse who ran them as the centerfold. The Signal actually did a piece on it which ensured people were waiting for it to hit the newsstands.
Pretty sure they’re still living in the SCV. I’m pretty sure she was in front of me at Target a few months back.
I agree, we need “color” in our newspaper and I agree with the other examples given, but this “sign” story did not fit even the definition of a story. They should have waited until they had more information.
Mud, meet stick.
What happened on this last night:
“As they await the results of a lawsuit over redevelopment agencies across the state, Santa Clarita officials will vote tonight on whether to opt into a new voluntary agency.” (Signal, 9/27)
5-0 in favor
IHeart Where are You?
Without IHeart’s pithy commentary it looks like the “kids” in City management got by with a stern warning from Dad (Bob Kellar) that it would let it slide this time but in future there would be consequences for LMD shenanigans. Reminds me of the Brady Bunch “exact words” episode.
I Heart’s blog was sacked by Google because Google erroneously thought it was a spam front. I think I Heart is working to get it back online.
I miss him too; he has an open invitation to post on SCVTalk in the meantime.
IHeartSCV exists again. I didn’t exist for three days, and now I do; you could call it Messianic except that would be tasteless.
Tim, I completely agree on your opinion of Kellar as an indulgent father giving the lamest of scoldings to his errant son–Darren Hernandez, in this case.
IHeart:
Is the entry from last night’s meeting pending?
I’m going to let this one slide…an uneventful meeting apart from the aforementioned shady assessment ballots and the continued threat posed by ICLEI to our safety, property, and future. Email me if you’re asking because something scandalous happened that I missed or the like.
Completely understand IHeart. Even the the LMD that I was focused on was pretty anti-climactic. All I can say is that I am shocked, shocked, that it was voted 3-0. <—– much sarcasm in last sentence. At least Bob Kellar acknowledged the stink factor on this one and "reprimanded" staff to not let it happen again. To that point we made progress. They know we are looking. We will also do a complete forensic analysis when the voting record is available.
I'm glad all is right with your blog and you now exist again!
Additional Mystery:
There is (or was as of last Friday) a printed sign at the T of McBean and Copperhill with an American flag background that said to “Vote for Abe, City Council Spring 2012.” What is (or was) that about?
Yeah, I saw that too. Anyone have any info?
whatever happened to the rumor that Petz was running?
I’d buy that for a dollar!
I think IHeart should join the team.
/signed
Whoever entered my backyard the early morning of 11/27/2011 and flooded my side yard by turning on the water and putting the hose against the foundation is put on notice that Lucy is sleeping outside and is under strict orders to protect our private property. She has not been this excited since Prop 8.
Some is flooding your backyard two months from now? Do you have a time machine Petz?
Jinx!
I guess all the previous jokes caused Petz to branch out into a different kind of Minority Report #BAM
Are you predicting the future Petz? According to my calendar, 11/27/2011 is two months away.
Wait, let me add that to my November Outlook calendar so I won’t forget. Aaaaand…DONE!
bring a doggie bone
Lucy is not going for the old dog bone trickl
I bet she will go for a nice juicy steak
There goes Petz and his usual Prop 8 reference.
Mind your own damn business!
He’s just dusting out his closet…..
making it inhabitable?
In his Daily Brief, Jeff mentioned a Signal article concerning the 5 members of the Board of Supervisors districts as a result of the most recent census. http://www.the-signal.com/section/36/article/51832/ The Signal is not accepting comments on the article, and simply said that the basic Supervisorial District boundaries were not materially changed, and that Supervisor Gloria Molina voted against the plan.
The reality is that the meeting was among the most tense in the recent history of the L.A. County Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Molina wanted to re-draw the Supervisorial District boundaries so that Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky’s district would become a district with a 48% Hispanic population.
For those who don’t know, Supervisory Yaroslavsky has been very helpful to Santa Clarita in a large number of ways, in terms of helping find County funds to purchase open space between SCV and SFV. In a sense, Supervisor Yaroslavsky is Santa Clarita’s “second supervisor” in terms of reliably voting to help the community. For those who don’t know Supervisor Molina, she voted in favor of the Cemex Gravel Mine in Canyon Country, which is vehemently opposed by the City Council, the Sierra Club and all factions in between. Back in 2002, anti-Cemex Mine activists from Acton did extensive research on the sources of Supervisor Molina’s campaign contributions, and found that she had received substantial sums from Cemex and its executives before her vote on the mine.
Yesterday, Supervisor Molina and Hispanic activists had bused in hundreds of Hispanic “voters”, so many that not only was the Supervisor’sl Chamber full, but the side meeting rooms were full and so were the hallways. Supervisor Molina’s crew were demanding that the second Hispanic Supervisorial District be created, and the usual threats were made to sue if they didn’t get their way.
Supervisor Yaroslavsky also had a decent showing of voters from his existing district yesterday, who carried the message “leave our District alone”. There seemed to be an increased law enforcement presence in attendance at the Supervisors’ meeting.
At their meeting the Board of Supervisors were unable accomplish anything much other than then 4-1 vote, denying Supervisor Molina and her supporters what they wanted.
So now we’ll digress into the threat of litigation to invalidate the Supervisors’ vote, which had the effect of denying Hispanics the second Supervisorial District they wanted. I wrote most of the essay below, with respect to ongoing threats of “voting rights litigation” in another county, and wanted to share it with those who would like to know what the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2009 on the very same types of demands which Supervisor Molina and company were making. While I may not always agree with the U.S. Supreme Court, it’s presumptuous for anyone to say that their rulings are not the “law of the land”.
Even since the 2010 Census was complete, and redistricting began, I got very tired of journalists, redistricting consultants and self-proclaimed voting rights lawyers saying “The Voting Rights Act, in place to ensure minority populations aren’t unduly divided by district lines, takes precedence over local decision making.” Not anymore, at least outside the former Confederacy.
In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision seminal Voting Rights Act decision in Bartlett v. Strickland. I have posted the link below.
In the opinion Justice Kennedy states that the only circumstance where a minority group has a “right” to the creation of a custom tailored voting district is when the population of the district (as opposed to number of registered voters) is at least a 50% one minority population. 50% blacks, 50% Hispanics, 50% Native American, etc.
The link to Bartlett v. Strickland opinion is at:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4021888109176751340&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
In essence, Justice Kennedy says that if you don’t hit the 50% one-minority-population district, the Voting Rights Act does not entitle the minority to have a district tailored so that a member of their minority group will be elected.
In the Bartlett v. Strickland case, which concerned drawing of lines for Virginia legislative districts, the black plaintiffs groups were arguing that they had a 35% black population in the district they wanted, and that other ethnic groups, specifically white Democrats, would lean towards voting for a black candidate to give the blacks in the proposed district what would amount to a lock on the district’s seat in the legislature. [So, in essence, Supervisor Molina's proposed second Hispanic Supervisorial District was 2% short on population. Also FYI the population numbers are calculated including children, "undocumented workers" and others not registered to vote.]
The Bartlett v. Strickland opinion provides a powerful weapon in redistricting litigation, for those who feel their county or city or Congressional District was unfairly divided in order to gerrymander voting districts where minority candidates will always win. [The Bartlett v. Strickland opinion supports the L.A. County Board of Supervisors 4-1 decision not to created the second Hispanic dominated Supervisorial District Supervisor Molina and her supporters wanted.]
The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Bartlett v. Strickland is so clear, I have trouble believing that even the wackiest panel of U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit will try to worm their way around it in any redistricting litigation.
[This, perhaps, is why people like Supervisor Molina and her political advisors tried to muscle the Board of Supervisors with a lot of angry bodies this week. Way back in the late 1970's I saw a large Hispanic group try to muscle the Orange County Board of Supervisors into not closing some sort of health care facility used "by the community". Angry seat fillers didn't accomplish anything that time, either, but I had the pleasure of meeting a nice Orange County Sheriff's deputy who escorted me, and a few other people who were there on other agenda items, to safety, when it appeared that the crowd would riot in the Supervisors' chambers It was an event I'll never forget.]
The continuing problem is that many “voting rights lawyers and redistrictring consultants”, who are used to making a lot of money under case law decided before Bartlett v. Strickland, are circulating disinformation throughout the country by appearing on local talk shows and at community meetings, still claiming that under the federal Voting Rights Act that voting district maps must be drawn to favor minority groups, even when they comprise less than 50% of the population of a district. I saw one such lawyer, a woman, public television this past week.
Where the Voting Rights Act and “Undocumented Worker” Issues Collide:
Just today, the U.S. District Court in Alabama refused to grant a preliminary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of most of the provisions in the most restrictive anti-illegal alien law passed by any modern legislature. That Federal judge’s rulings were 180 degrees different than the ruling of the U.S. District Court for Arizona judge’s ruling enjoining the enforcement of virtually all of Arizona’s new anti-illegal alien law. (That judge said there is no Federal law prohibiting “undocumented workers” from working in the U.S.A.]
Interestingly enough, the Alabama law was couched in terms of protecting American jobs for American citizens. Quite obviously, within the next 10 years, state laws such as those in Arizona and Alabama are going to find their way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and barring the replacement of one of the currently sitting justices, I think we are going to see another states’ rights decision with the tenor of Bartlett v. Strickland.
The reason I connect the Bartlett v. Strickland decision, concerning the Voting Rights Act, with the various states attempts to regulate “undocumented workers” is that I believe that if we have a Republican elected President in 2012 or 2016, and the Democrats lose their Senate majority, we will see a further scissoring back of the Voting Rights Act before the 2020 Census, particularly the writing-in of exclusion of non-citizens in “the census population count” which drives that 50% number in the Voting Rights Act, at least as to Supervisorial Districts in Los Angeles County.
We aren’t supposed to discuss this. The Signal said so.
Excuuuuuuse me ! Petz-his family-and his pets are recovering from the trauma of having their home attacked by enviro terrorists wasting my money and fresh water. The date was early AM 9/27/2011 about the time Tim Myers leaves for work.
Maybe you were in a stupor from some of that home brew and don’t remember leaving it on. BTW, I have Cherry Cola sheesha for the hookah now.
Happy Rosh Hashanah to all celebrating!
L’Shana Tova
For those of us who cannot get enough of “Complementary Angle”, she will be attending the SCV Patriots meeting on October 13, 2011. All citizens are invited and we just pass the hat at the end of the meeting to cover expense. Sharron is a brave woman who went up against the Reid Machine in Nevada and almost won. Election today, you would have a new senator. This would be a great evening to learn more about the Tea Party movement as we gear up for 2012.