I think the reason why some of us find his candidacy so interesting is that he really represents a different type of candidate. He’s not running so much that he’s upset with the politics of the City Council, but rather because he’s upset with the way things are – the net result of things. Call it “The Rent is Too Damn High” approach.

It fits in with our romantic view of the regular guy who wants to take on City Hall. That makes him a lot more like the average resident than most candidates, who are typically insiders, gadflies at city hall or who run out of self-delusion.

The challenge for nontraditional candidates is that the average resident is less likely to vote than wonks like us. Many of our neighbors aren’t all that mad or scared, either. They look around and like the way things are, and they just want more of the sweet stuff: parks, trails, pools, sports, concerts, etc.. These are your Laurie Ender voters, in a nutshell.

With a wild-eyed anti-crime platform,Hatami is after a different type of resident. It’s an interesting angle and there are plenty of people who will eat it up, so I think he’ll find a niche. But even if I agreed with his policy goals, I think there’s a problem at the core of this kind of candidacy that transcends ideology.

There is, as Tim mentioned, a problem with those of us “in the weeds” where our view of what’s possible isn’t broad enough. But if we make some slight adjustments to our thinking, it isn’t too difficult to separate our cynicism from our informed sense of what can and can’t be done within the boundaries that our city council operates.

A lot of Hatami’s proposals simply aren’t achievable because there are genuinely immovable pieces that stand in the way. It might be the budget, jurisdiction, state law, federal law, the constitution or just political reality.

He’s offering solutions that over-promise on outcomes, solutions to problems that don’t exist and solutions to things already solved.

What’s wrong with a little dreaming? Don’t we want someone who thinks big? Sure, but there’s a line between thinking big and having your head in the clouds. There’s a line between populism and pandering. There’s a real problem when your campaign is built on promises that you can’t deliver. If you are playing to the average, uninformed resident, you really shouldn’t come selling a bill of goods or re-selling us things we’ve already bought.

It’s been said by many and I think it’s true here as much as anywhere: politics is the art of the possible. Work within the limits of your power, compromise as needed, do the best with what you have.

It should go without saying, because usually it does. Our council and the notable challengers over the years, despite their policy disagreements, get it.

Say what you will about David Gauny (and I’ve said plenty), but he understands the rules of the game. Jon Hatami has brought a hockey stick to a game of chess.

The game isn’t unknowable and Hatami might learn it in time, if he cares to. When he learns the rules it might not even want to play. Until then, I’m taking a pass on Team Hatami.

Ryan Gosling checks out the SCV scenery in the new movie Drive

I’m not much of a movie goer or reviewer  but my wife and I found ourselves in rare cinematic agreement Saturday when we both agreed to see the new movie Drive.

I thought it looked really cool from the previews. “Like the Fast and Furious, only more serious,” I thought. “Film noir on wheels in the City of LA,” my wife thought. Whatever that is, I thought in response.

Overall: “It’s a car movie and she wants to see it….how bad could it possibly be?” Well….

My brother, who works in the “Industry,” told me a funny anecdote once. He was working on the distribution of the trailer for the Tom Cruise movie Valkyrie. The trailer sent to American theaters contained lots of explosions, gun play, airplanes, angry men shouting, and excitement. It probably raised the pulse of everyone in the focus group it was tested on. The trailer sent to European theaters, in contrast, was serious-minded, dialog-heavy and had virtually no explosions. Same movie, different trailers.

Drive’s trailer was more like the former (to attract low brows like me), but should have been marketed like the latter. Its car scenes are well-done but rare. It excels in its study of the characters and it has some exceptionally violent scenes. But I went for the cars and they tricked me so for that reason, I was disappointed.

What I wasn’t disappointed in was the fact that much of Drive is shot in the SCV. You see more of the SCV in Drive than you’ve seen on any screen -silver or small- since CHiPs. It’s all there: a scene with a race car on the old Saugus Speedway (the crowd was visibly excited by this authentic SCV pride moment and I was shooshed by someone I was so excited), a chase scene on Sierra Highway near the COC Canyon Country campus (along with a brief flash of the Sand Canyon sign), and some other scenes on what looked like the old Ridge Route or Old Road, north of Castaic. Once I rent (not buy) the DVD, I’m sure I’ll be able to pause a few scenes and pick out more SCV locales* from this critically acclaimed film.

So while Drive wasn’t all that I expected it to be, the scenes from our town make it a must-watch if you’re a loyal SCVer. I give it a B+.

Speaking of SCV-spotting in Hollywood films: my eagle-eyed wife spotted COC in Good Will Hunting recently. Can you see it just beyond Robin Williams’ feet? Someone should make a video compilation of shots of the SCV in major Hollywood films from over the years. 

Whether Huff’s account of what happened in the SCV is strictly accurate is beside the point. Perception is reality in politics, and the perception is that Santa Clarita’s seizure of the COLA library system was hasty, against popular opinion, and poorly executed. To other cities in California pondering library privatization and to boosters (and providers!) of privatized government services, Santa Clarita’s process has to be a case study in what not to do.

Maybe that explains why Mayor Marsha McLean penned that spin-tastic column last week in the Pasadena Star News. The City has to rehabilitate its image state-wide, or to put it more vulgarly and keep with the stink  theme, polish the turd.

In any event, Huff’s prescription for such bad decisions is to vote the bastards out of office. We know that won’t happen here next year  because incumbents are virtually invulnerable, which is  what enabled the City to bulldoze this through in the first place.

But let’s say it could. Let’s say all the people who were upset about the library take over got together and elected two or three new Councilmembers.

The problem is, at that point, the libraries are still privatized. And it’s a major hassle and very disruptive to go back. Very few government services that have been privatized ever go back to being truly public. Even with three new Councilmembers and a sympathetic Bob Kellar, going back to COLA (or firing LSSI & hiring real city employees) would be a difficult task.

That’s why I think AB 438 is a good bill, even if it does remove some local control. The cities should have to jump through extra hoops before they do something radical, controversial and anti-democratic like Santa Clarita did.

Being against illegal immigration -and its cousin globalization- is one thing, but to call out Mexicans specifically and proclaim proudly that you avoid economic activities that have Mexican involvement is another thing entirely.

I mean, seriously? You avoid food that has been touched by Mexican hands? How in the world do you eat exactly?

Mexico is as much a part of the history of this section of the country as Canada is a part of the history of Maine, and England is part of the history of Maryland or New York. You are aware that this part of the country was under Spanish control round about the time the Founding Fathers were signing the Declaration of Independence, right?

A Signal reporter once told me that if I thought some of the comments on the Signal website were questionable and eyebrow raising, that I should hear the phone calls they get and read the letters they get in snail mail from regular SCV subscribers that they refuse to publish. The reporter specifically remarked on a Signal newspaper cover in which a young Latino child was photographed on A-1, above the fold, in one of those typical heart-warming, parent-friendly Signal school stories.

The letters and phone calls rolled in: “You shouldn’t put brown people on the front page!” And this was the sentiment from multiple Signal readers.

Growing up here, I got used to the sort of casual racism on display in certain parts of town. Whether it was Stevenson Ranch or Valencia people referencing “those people” on the east side of Newhall or the disgusting debate about the opening of Vallarta in the 91355, you could at least count on SCVers having some sense of shame & decorum about their views. They wouldn’t mention “Mexicans” or the “Spanish” (I kid you not) specifically, but rather cloak their views in terms of culture or economics.

But people like “edsam” show the ugliness is just below the surface.

It is ridiculous that we need to take time from our busy days to engage in such lobbying, but this is a matter of extreme importance and substance.  CFLs contain Mercury and are very dangerous.  If you don’t think so, crush one up and mail it to Jeff Wilson or  a politician .please don’t you may hurt yourself, but you get the point.

Nice that he’s concerned his readers might hurt themselves, at least.

He’s right about one thing. It is ridiculous to take time away from your day and call Congress to support an absurd bill that would repeal efficiency mandates for obsolete incandescent light bulbs . For real? We’re like three weeks away from defaulting as a nation, the economy is stumbling, we’ve got three wars going on, and the House is worried about this?

At what point does Congress become a parody of itself? It feels like this is a story from the Onion and Petz just bought it hook, line and sinker. Only the joke is on all of us this time.

After thinking about this some more and reading all your responses to our initial story on this, I’m struck by how useful and productive our land is in the SCV from a capitalist perspective. Let’s review all the ways in which the land in the SCV has been productive:

First it was used as ranching territory after Henry Mayo Newhall bought it. To some extent, it’s still used in that way, cows still roam land on the Rancho. They may not for long, if Newhall Ranch is built.

Then, at the beginning of the oil boom, folks down in Pico Canyon managed to stand up an oil well and tap crude. An oil refinery followed in what was then the “Newhall Saugus” area. Wealth, for a little while, flowed from the ground.

Then in the early to mid 20th century, the land was used for farming. As SCV old timers remember, onion fields and other produce was grown all over the place. For a long time, this made up the core of the pater familias’ business interests. In some areas, you can still see how the land is used in this way.

Finally, in the 1960s, the land underwent massive change as entire communities were built. I suppose someone, somewhere, at some time determined the land would be even more productive if it held houses rather than patches of agriculture. Their decision to do this was no doubt based in part on the availability of cheap oil extracted from land elsewhere in the world.That continued for decades, a city was born, and voila! 250,000 people live here.

And there was one other productive use of the land: throughout these periods, land in the SCV was and continues to be used for shooting films, television and advertisements.

But now today, someone (Newhall Land?) is benefiting from materials beneath the land again by using the latest technology, hydraulic fracturing.  Here’s how that economic model works according to Geology.com:

Mineral rights also include the rights to any oil and natural gas that exist beneath a property. The rights to these commodities can be sold or leased to others. In most cases, oil and gas rights are leased. The lessee is usually uncertain if oil or gas will be found so they generally prefer to pay a small amount for a lease rather than pay a larger amount to purchase. A lease gives the lessee a right to test the property by drilling and other methods. If drilling discovers oil or gas of marketable quantity and quality it may be produced directly from the exploratory well.

This isn’t a unique story (or even a very interesting one) but it shows that even though the housing market has gone bust and the SCV is nearly built-out,  enterprising people will find other productive ways to use our land. And make no mistake about it, whoever owns this land is getting a cut of the fracking operation, of whatever gas is being extracted from the ground.

I wish the Signal would do some more reporting on this. Who owns the land? Is it really a hydraulic fracking operation? What’s the regulatory approval process for this in California? What chemicals are they using in their operation? Can we expect more of these types of operations on land in the SCV that is difficult to build on? What’s the City’s take on this, do they view this as economic development that should be encouraged?

The Times points out that most small and medium sized Cities only have part-time City Councilmembers. The same is true in Santa Clarita, where our members have bi-weekly Council meetings, a summer break, and are expected at numerous functions throughout the year.

The Times also found Cities that give health care benefits to residents who serve part time on City commissions. The database doesn’t show that Santa Clarita contributes to its part time commissioners.

What’s not clear is whether Councilmembers in Santa Clarita or elsewhere can get cash-in-lieu of their medical benefits. I would imagine some of our City Councilmembers, like Frank Ferry, get health care coverage through their employer.

Last month the Council gave itself a raise to $1,728/per month, for a total of a little over $20k per year for their service. That plus the $12,075 in health care contributions gives our City Council about $32k/year in salary and benefits.

Do you think the City should be paying for health care benefits for our City Councilmembers? On first glance, I’d say yes. I think we should compensate our Councilmembers for their time, and my impression is that City of Santa Clarita Councilmembers spend a lot of their time working on city matters. I’d hate to see an issue where an elected Councilmember has to minimize his time spent on City matters because he has to maintain a certain amount of hours at his day job just to keep health care benefits. In that light, the $12k/year buys us their time.

About 40 of those attending Rivas’ seminar were from LSSI, including co-founder Frank Pezzanite.

“It was hard to understand their concerns,” Pezzanite said. “They were coming from a very emotional place.”
Rivas said she was reinvigorated by ALA’s reception of her presentation.

That’s right. If you were concerned or upset by the way the City handled the library seizure in the last year, your concerns aren’t legitimate, you’re just being emotional. If you have real, substantive criticism to level at the City over their undemocratic, pre-decision process and their wildly optimistic budget & revenue projections, first of all, take a Valium and calm down little lady, and secondly, the sky didn’t fall, so what are you bitching about? “Why do you chicks keep arguing with me about my business model,” he seems to be saying.

I wonder how the women on the City Council or in the senior City staff would feel if a man publicly told a newspaper that “they were coming from a very emotional place.” Something tells me Laurie Ender, Laurene Weste and Marsha McLean wouldn’t react kindly to a man reducing them to a shrieking harpy.

The reality is that Lori Rivas has argued persuasively that public libraries should remain entirely in the public realm. And yet, I think she would say that if a community wants to outsource, the process should be clear, public, and transparent, with real opportunity for the public to weigh in prior to the decision. Which is exactly the opposite of what we had last year. Nothing emotional about that.

What a long strange trip it’s been. It was a little over a year ago when the idea of seizing the library system and outsourcing its operation first was discussed (quietly) at City Hall. By late June 2010, Laurie Ender had asked for it to be scheduled on the City Council’s Agenda. In July, the City opened the bidding and only one company responded. It was a foregone conclusion that the City wouldn’t be hiring its own librarian and library staff, but outsourcing it to a private contractor, and by early August, the deal was all but finished. And then on August 24, the decision was made, with only Bob Kellar dissenting.

An earthquake of opposition unlike I’ve ever seen while running this blog erupted in Fall 2010 as hundreds protested the seizure at Council meetings, in letters to the editor and on blogs. Groups formed, lawsuits were filed, and the County retaliated by refusing to finish its work on the Canyon Country library, effectively shutting it down.

Then the national press got involved. We were introduced to Frank Pezzanite, the CEO of for-profit LSSI, who attacked public librarians as lazy and shiftless in the pages of the New York Times. This was the shark our City decided to jump into bed with.

That revved up the opposition even more. Late last year and earlier this year, petitions were created, unions got involved, and even more press was generated as the costs of privatization spiked. Darren Hernandez, the architect of the deal, was on the hot seat for several months. Will we or won’t we get the County’s special library tax? It was Hernandez and the City’s counsel who confidently predicted yes, but the County had some things to say about that and ultimately the City said they didn’t need the money anyway.

Through it all, residents & library patrons of Santa Clarita complained that the entire process stunk, that it was cloaked in secrecy and was moving too fast. The ever-increasing startup costs and the City’s inability to anticipate the County’s reaction seemed to validate that the City had stepped in a giant pile of dog shit.  When the usual complainers plus a whole new set of engaged residents (homeschoolers, library patrons, and local library workers) complained that the City stunk, the city’s instinct was to resent us rather than apologize and slow down.

I imagine there was a moment at City Hall where the chiefs gathered to decide whether they ought to abandon ship or power through the storm no matter the cost. They chose the latter, and won. Eventually the courts tossed out the suits (which the city tastelessly gloated about for a good week or two, a final middle finger to its own residents), the Canyon Country library was reopened (then closed for a mysterious water leak) and the City decided to spend an additional $1million + on materials, furniture and equipment to add some razzle-dazzle.

And today the City celebrates its victory over the opposition, dedicated, local public employees and their unions, and the County itself.

As a fan of open government, transparency and democratic accountability, the City lost a lot of credibility with me through this crazy year-long ad-hoc secret process. But as an SCVer, I’m glad to see the libraries are opening on time. And as a blogger, I’m happy to move on from this subject.

New Library Website

Finally, a Santa Clarita mosque is a good idea because this issue will draw out the bigots among us who wish to stand in the way of exercising American ideals and principals. Some of these less-informed or less-understanding individuals we will be able to identify and end re-election, re-appointment or positions of power or influence in our community.

First of all, hoping a local mosque will be built in order to strengthen one’s own political position by exposing local bigots is bad form.  Why not just invite the Klan to town, see who attends, and be done with it?

And secondly, what will the exposure of bigots in the SCV serve? There’s no proof that bigotry harms electoral chances in the SCV. Indeed, the last time a local elected official made bigoted comments, support for him seemed to grow, not diminish.

The best way to support the religious freedoms of fellow Americans is not to restrict them or treat them special in any way. Whether they are Jewish, Muslim, Jehovah’s witnesses, Christian, Catholic or Unitarian, they all ought to follow local laws and ordinances. Local Muslims are like any other religious group; they don’t deserve special consideration nor do they deserve special defense. If they have the capital to raise their own mosque and get approval through the usual channels, more power to them. No need make a big deal out of what you assume will be a big deal.