SCVTALK:Tell us about your background and why you are running for US Congress?

ACOSTA : I am the middle of five children and was born and raised in the San Fernando Valley. My father died when I was 11 so my mother raised her five children alone.

When I was 8 years old, we moved from Studio City to Granada Hills which was a great place to grow up. We had very little money in those years but my mother worked hard holding three jobs to make ends meet and somehow we managed. She eventually started a bridal shop that became a successful family business. We often came to Santa Clarita to Hart Park and ate Moore’s Sub sandwiches and played in the park.

As a young man, I had a paper route, swept floors, emptied trash at an auto garage, delivered flowers, was an assistant manager for an auto parts store, worked in fast food restaurants and for a camera store chain. I went to work as a rookie new car salesman for a Chevrolet dealership in San Fernando eventually becoming the General Sales Manager, overseeing all aspect of new and used car sales and the Finance and Insurance departments managing over 50 people and about $50,000,000 in sales in today’s dollars.

For over 20 years I have worked as a financial advisor and I am currently a Senior Financial Advisor assisting individuals, small business and institutions with their investment, retirement and wealth planning needs.

I have been married to my wife Carolyn, who works in the medical field, for 26 years this May 31^st. We live in Canyon Country with our two surviving children, Allie, 16 and Doran, 11. Since day one we were very involved in their lives, volunteering at school, coaching little league, directing school plays and teaching Sunday school at church. Carolyn and I were even docents at the William S. Hart Museum. I have served on various boards, lectured on business and military issues and have hosted national business and political events.

I am running for office because I learned firsthand that this district is not being adequately represented. Congressman McKeon is out of touch with his constituents and is beholden to large defense contractors and other donors. After Rudy was killed, I started looking for answers and accountability through Mr. McKeon and his committee. Other than asking us to speak at Rudy’s prayer vigil and sending a few letters requesting an investigation that had already been ordered by the Army, Mr. McKeon was missing in action for nearly six months. As he stalled, more soldiers were killed at the hands of their “trusted” Afghan partners and protectors. Over the past year, I personally witnessed the nepotism, political control and ineffectiveness that is happening in the district and looked for a candidate that I could get behind to run against McKeon. No one came forward, so at the urging of many in the community I decided to run for office myself to provide better representation for the district.

SCVTALK: SCVTalk readers pay close attention to the news and were extremely saddened when they read of the death last year of your son Rudy, one of several SCV soldiers and Marines to die in Afghanistan in recent years. Many readers and residents went to Rudy’s funeral procession, and much has been written about your son’s life, the circumstances of his death, and your reaction to it. Tell us, if you will, something about Rudy that we’re not aware of.

ACOSTA : Rudy was an exceptional, heroic and dedicated young man. He was also a humorous and often silly “kid” who loved to make people laugh. He played varsity football and volleyball for Santa Clarita Christian School, acted in school plays and frankly, stole the show! He loved In-and-Out burgers and his favorite meal, in fact the first one he asked for when he came home on leave for the last time, was Siam Rice on Soledad Canyon and Sierra Highway. We have a special photo of Rudy with the owner taken that night.

Rudy also had a really big heart for people. His first date with his girlfriend was spent helping her feed her grandmother who was dying from cancer. He held the grandmother’s hand and talked with her as they fed her. What has not been reported widely but was told to us by soldiers that were there when Rudy was killed was that during the attack Rudy told a female medic to run and “covered her” as she escaped the gunfire saving her life.

SCVTALK: You list “Free Markets” as one of your campaign planks on your website. Where do you stand on the Dodd-Frank Financial Regulation bill and would you vote to bail out a bank or financial institution, as Buck McKeon did, if economic authorities said the bank’s failure could threaten the US and Global economies?

ACOSTA : America has not operated under a truly Free Market System for a long time. The 2008 Bank Bailout (TARP) is the best and most recent example of government playing two roles in the economy. Not only is it tasked with being/controlling the regulator of our financial system, in many cases it is also a market participant. TARP is the most recent and relevant example of this very poor policy. Congressman McKeon himself has agreed that in hindsight, he might not have voted for TARP. He blames this change of heart on the claim that the Bush administration and the Treasury Department pressured lawmakers to approve this deal with the country’s largest banks. So, even knowing at the time that TARP would give appointed bureaucrats the unprecedented power to pick winners and losers in the banking industry, he went against his better judgment and voted for TARP. I too now get the benefit of hindsight but my long career in banking and investments told me that TARP did not pass the smell test. Transferring huge sums of public dollars to the already richest banks in the nation, who along with other banks made bad investments, served only to force out small community banks and created mergers that cut competition and reduced customer sentiment towards the industry that I have loved being a part of.

This incident also draws another lesson about Congressman McKeon that I would like to share with voters. I know of several community members that reacted negatively to the news that Congressman McKeon helped President Bush ‘save the free market by abandoning free market principles’. Instead of reaching out to those constituents to explain his vote, he dealt very harshly with their perceived petulance. As your Congressman, I will not react harshly to criticism and will endeavor to have a dialogue, within reason, with those that have opposing points of view.

SCVTALK: If you were elected to Congress as a Republican, how would you work to secure Santa Clarita from the negative consequences of a CEMEX mine in Soledad Canyon? Would you partner with a Democrat to advance such an agenda? Would you push for a CEMEX fix even if it meant violating a supposed Earmark ban in the House?

ACOSTA : I am running as a Republican and will caucus with the Republican Party. However, I will work tirelessly to insure that the Cemex mine is stopped! As far as working with the Democrats, it is vital for both parties to work together on important issues or nothing gets done. In fact, I will be reaching out to several of my personal contacts in the Democratic Party to begin the process of stopping Cemex. Yes, I would push for a fix no matter what it takes as long as it is ethical, doesn’t violate the constitution and is in the best interests of the district.

SCVTALK: On your website, you say you are a “pro-military advocate.” What are your views on the Afghanistan conflict? Do you agree with the President’s strategy and if so, why? If not, why not?

ACOSTA : By pro-military, I am referring to being committed to our servicemen and women first. As most of your readers are aware, on March 19, 2011, we lost our son, Army SPC Rudy Acosta, to an Afghan terrorist masquerading as a base guard while Rudy was on base serving as a Combat Medic in Afghanistan. As a Gold Star father I support 100% the mission that our men and women in uniform are committed to by the Commander-In-Chief and the military officers that serve at the President’s pleasure. It serves no legitimate purpose to denigrate our war-fighting capabilities or the mission our soldiers are fighting for. However, in looking at the future, we will need to honestly assess the sentiment of the American people, our probable financial commitment and the state of readiness of our military forces before committing them to another foreign war. Undoubtedly the bar has been raised as to the type of justification that will be required in order for me to approve the commitment of troops to new foreign theatres. And all foreign intervention should come through the Congress for a vote.

SCVTALK: As Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Buck McKeon is perhaps the most vocal voice in Washington on the need to protect the Defense budget from cuts. Is he going about his role the right way, and would you do anything different than him?

ACOSTA : The Congressman must thread a needle in his role as the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. On one hand, he must keep America able to sustain its current commitments in Afghanistan and elsewhere and I give him and his committee high marks in this area. On the other hand they must continually be preparing the military for the challenges of the future. Whether it is in humanitarian work or, God forbid, another foreign war, today’s military equipment and the way our troops are organized is not going to get the job done. Without going into detail, we are spending too much money to keep aged equipment running and are supporting troop deployments that harkens to the Soviet era. The type of missions that our servicemen and women engage in today cries out for better force protection protocols and tactics. Why are Afghans being hired as guards to protect our soldiers through a $4,000,000 DOD contract with a Canadian firm? I have been told by virtually every Soldier and Marine I have met with here and on our bases in Germany that they can do the job themselves. Should I be asked to serve on the House Armed Services Committee or otherwise asked my opinion, I will work to help our national defense forces realign and prepare for the future and the type of combat they will be engaged in.

SCVTALK: Dr. Lee Rogers, one of your opponents, said in an interview with SCVTalk that he thinks the wealthy in America should pay more in taxes, at least equal to what many middle class families pay in order to help balance our budget and restore fiscal responsibility. Do you agree with him?

ACOSTA : You won’t be surprised to learn that I have a difference of opinion with Dr. Rogers on this subject. The fact of the matter is that President Obama and his ultra-rich supporters like Warren Buffet are selling a lie about how some wealthy people are taxed. The fact is that the total tax paid on the money Mr. Buffett receives is actually higher than the capital gains rate at which Warren Buffet is taxed. Mr. Buffet is allowed to choose this rate because he takes his income out as capital gains, not as dividends, which are taxed as regular income and at a higher rate. However, as with all gains and dividend income, the money is essentially taxed twice. Corporate profits are taxed first at the corporate tax rate, 35%, and then taxed again when it is received as profits by the recipient at the 15% capital gains rate as in Buffet’s case. Where the confusion lies is in the fact that our tax code has literally hundreds of thousands of deductions written into it that allow those with the means to understand it the ability to write off significant amounts of income, protecting it from taxation.

The President’s own National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (The Simpson-Bowles Commission) that he assembled after taking office proposed a complete overhaul of the tax code to both increase revenue to the federal government and lighten the tax burden on the middle class. Though I don’t agree with every suggestion the Commission came up with, I bet that if you and I Jeff went through the Simpson-Bowles work product we’d find a lot we agree on. But the President did not. So far, he has not implemented a single provision outlined in the Simpson Bowles Commission Findings. I am inclined to believe that a simplified tax structure is the only way that we can bring parity to taxation and grow the economy simultaneously.

SCVTALK: 18% of voters in this Congressional district are decline-to-state. Why should these voters select you over Buck McKeon or Lee Rogers?

ACOSTA : They should vote for me because I am actively engaged in the community and I understand what is happening on the ground today and the issues that face the average person. As someone who experienced layoffs due to the global financial crisis I have had the same difficulties as many of them have. Also, I have helped start and run small businesses and for the past 20 years have worked as a financial advisor so I believe I am the best candidate to provide solutions that can help make things better for people of the district.

Voters are tired of 20-year incumbents like Buck McKeon who has proven himself to be ineffective at representing this district and who is beholden to special interests. Conservative leaning voters have never had a credible option before and simply had to vote for McKeon as there was no other option. In me they have that option.

SCVTALK: Illegal immigration is a divisive topic in this District. Do you like Arizona’s AB 1070 law? Should the states be able to devise their own immigration laws as Arizona has done, or is immigration a uniquely Federal responsibility?

ACOSTA :I’m sure many are concerned with illegal immigration as I am; however, our campaign has held many meeting, forums and “Meet & Greets” and this issue has only been raised one time other than your question during this campaign. Based on the questions voters have asked, it seems they are more concerned with jobs and the economy, housing prices, Cemex, corruption and nepotism with our elected officials and gas prices. As far as “liking” AB 1070, I don’t like that the citizens of Arizona felt it necessary to enact it. It shows the failure of the federal government in securing the southern border.

If the federal government finds enforcement of our immigration laws too difficult, it is up to the states to assist them. I am confident that when the Supreme Court of the United States comes back with its decision on the Arizona Immigration law later this summer, it will announce that it agrees with that premise.

SCVTALK: What do you think the Federal role is, if any, in health care?

ACOSTA : For good or bad, the federal government already plays a very large role in healthcare via Medicare, Medicaid and the Veteran’s Administration system. I believe that government has the obligation to reform Medicare and Medicaid to serve the coming generations of citizens that were promised it would be there for them. Eliminating fraud and waste could go a long way toward saving the feds money so it can keep those promises. Beyond that, we must knock down the barriers to competition that stand in the way of better care and better prices. Competition is the only way to drive down prices and drive up quality. Opening up the health insurance market to companies from out of state like the auto insurance market is one way that could happen – giving consumers the choice.

There are other cost savings that could be gained perhaps, by having fewer mandates. I have a friend that is forced, because of mandates, to purchase a policy with substance abuse, infertility, pregnancies and other provisions that it extremely unlikely he will ever use. He is a non-smoking, non-drinking, unmarried man in his late 50’s that is not likely to use those services. In a free market shouldn’t he be able to purchase a policy that fits his needs and actual risks?

But this is an even-numbered year and thus, we must hold an April election. Which means it is time for the 15% of us who actually vote to pass judgment on the City Council’s management and operation of the City of Santa Clarita over the last two years.

On the plus side of the column, there are reasons to be pleased with the City. Biggest among them, I think, is the city’s fiscal health after nearly four straight years of an anemic and contracting local economy. Think about it: our town has double-digit vacancy rates in many offices, industrial and retail properties, and scores if not hundreds of foreclosures, short-sales and other ‘distressed’ residential properties on the market. The Creekside dealers are a shadow of what they were five or six years ago, and despite some recovery in the last year, there are still several empty showrooms. People aren’t moving to the SCV like they once were; in fact we’re starting to see signs that school districts may have overestimated growth.

And yet through all this mess, the City of Santa Clarita has remained in the black. Staff at the City anticipated this years ago, ordered department heads to cut budgets and implemented a hiring freeze. Other cities limping from one financial disaster to the next, but here in the SCV? We’re building new libraries, new bike paths, and more. That’s not a small achievement. At the same time, it’s not an achievement I’m willing to credit entirely to Laurie Ender and Bob Kellar.

On the other hand, no one can deny that in the last two years, the City Council has become less receptive to the public’s voice and even antagonistic when big, controversial items appear on its agenda. The ink was barely dry on the exciting 2010 election when the Council voted to, in effect, make committee appointments permanent rather than term-limited. They followed up that unpopular move with something even more controversial: increasing to $1,000 the amount individuals could donate to City Council candidate campaigns, a move that blatantly favors incumbents and their powerful patrons.

Finally, of course, the library take over. Conceived of in early 2010, announced in June and passed by late August, the City’s library takeover against overwhelming opposition has to be one of the most controversial decisions in the City’s 25 year history. The City may have made the correct decision to seize the libraries and outsource their operation to a private, for-profit corporation, but they bulldozed through public opposition and ignored local protests and calls to slow down on their way to that decision.

They took an ends justifies the means approach, and in democracy,  the means are as important as the ends.

So, on balance, while I appreciate the remarkable way the City has weathered the recession, I believe the City Council and senior staff deserve a rebuke for the way in which they handled these high-impact, controversial items over the last two years.

And the best guy to deliver that rebuke is TimBen Boydston, alone. Loathed by some, loved by others, I believe Boydston will, if nothing else, at least bring some rigor, transparency & legitimacy to the management and decision-making process of the City. He’ll be the same guy he was in 2006 & 2007, when he became notorious for pestering staff with questions and digging deep into budgets and documents and meeting minutes. This is a man who will spend many hours each week working on behalf of us; TimBen will not be a part-time pushover as some on the City Council are.

A City Councilmember Boydston might even lend more legitimacy to the City Council when it makes big, important and controversial decisions. After all, if a new controversial ordinance passed muster with the nerdish, devils-in-the-details Boydston, for instance, what could City critics say in response?

And if Boydston throws a grenade in the middle of a vote on a what was an easy consent calendar item, so much the better. We the people benefit when there’s a bit of friction in our elected bodies to match the friction in our body politic. A City council isn’t supposed to be a smooth, friction-less rubber stamp for whatever the staff wishes; it’s supposed to be a place where the community hashes out disagreements, solves problems, and compromises.

I think TimBen is that guy and what’s more, I recommend you bullet vote for him. As we cover every time there’s an election, bullet voting is the best choice you can make if you want to help a challenger defeat an incumbent in an at-large race. Voting for Bob Kellar & Boydston only ensures that Bob Kellar finishes second and TimBen finishes third.  So tomorrow, bullet vote Boydston and let’s bring back some rigor and accountability to City Hall.

BOYDSTON CAMPAIGN SITE

FIND YOUR POLLING PLACE

By the way, does anyone else feel that the timing of the story (8 months after the fact, but the Sunday before the ballots are mailed) and the location of the story (front page, above the fold) seems to validate the “incumbency machine” premise of Mr. Myers.

A few years ago, I was skeptical of the conspiracy theorists who made note of the biennial flowering of good news in the spring concerning the City of Santa Clarita.

But the 2010 election season, plus a deeper understanding of what really goes on at City Hall, changed my mind. Step back in time with me, two years ago this month, when the non-stop happy good news fun train was tooting its horn at full speed.

• March 31, 2010: Santa Clarita among the top 20 fastest growing retail markets in all of California from 2003 to 2008 (yes the report covered pre-recession years but was reported on in 2010)
• March 9, 2010: Pandering to reactionary right wingers in the wake of Kellar-gate, City Council embraces the most restrictive and mean anti-immigration measures in the new, Tea Party fueled Congress. This just as the vote by mail ballots were hitting mailboxes (Sidebar: only Laurie Ender had the courage to vote against them)
• February 28, 2010 : The Signal cites a decrease in crime and misinterprets a whole bunch of other crime data in its editorial embracing and congratulating the City Council incumbents on their positive tenure. I HEART had a field day with that one
• March 5, 2010 : New Sheriff’s Station captain is a local SCVer. Two weeks later, he’s promising to crack down on massage parlors after a whisper campaign against the depraved and permissive incumbents begins
• February 2010: New renderings of the Newhall Library are released. It’s the first time we’ve seen them and I pounced on the critics and congratulated the City. hook line and sinker. Earlier in January City Manager Pulskamp talks up the “tremendous amenity” in Old Town.
• And of course who can forget the opening of the Cross Valley Connector within a week or two of the vote by mail ballots going out? The SCV’s Yellow Brick Road, our Silk Route to a bright, prosperous future, opened with giant novelty scissors, pomp, circumstance, the KHTS fire truck, and every City official you think of, in March 2010.
• March 3, 2010 : City releases public opinion poll of 500+ residents which finds “high levels of resident satisfaction on big picture issues handled by the City.” Alas, not all is well in the SCV for the survey reveals that we pine for a Cheesecake Factory above all else, and yet, don’t have one. The Signal lede on the survey? “A Slice Short of Heaven.” Who would vote against heaven?
• Johnny Pride: framed or not, railroaded or not, you be the judge. DA had to drop charges. Happened in March 2010

Frank Ferry is a political terrorist. There, I said it.

Ender, Colley and Ferry are an unholy trinity.

City voters will have a choice in April; an opportunity to make a positive and lasting change by getting rid of Laurie Ender and putting a stop to the Ferry cabal.

Landslide Kellar in. Ender needs to go back to baking cookies at PTA fundraisers, and that troika of Weste, McLean, and Ferry… They are toxic…What a swamp that place is on Valencia Blvd.

“Cabal,” “unholy trinity,” “political terrorist,” “toxic” and Frank Ferry, all in the same sentence. Really now?

Let’s just get a few things out of the way, because as charged as these claims are, they do reflect on a reality in our city: Frank Ferry is fairly savvy as local politicians go.

That doesn’t mean he’s evil, or that he’s part of the devil’s trinity, or the king viper in the den of vipers, it just means he’s sharp, has a vision for the City, and wants people elected who agree with his vision. How is this different from any other elected person in local, state, or national politics? Is it so shocking he wants people like him to sit on the Council next to him? Is it really necessary to get a case of the vapors every time he makes a move to secure that vision?

Secondly, it seems local Ferry critics don’t really understand what he’s about, or they think they do, then they punch and hit at that strawman relentlessly. The best way to understand Frank Ferry is to read the profile of him, the SCV, and, ironically, food, in LA Magazine from a few years ago. I reviewed the whole article here, but let me just quote straight from the man himself on his motivations for getting into City politics way back in the 1990s:

I was part of that influx that came from somewhere else. Yet when I looked at the city council, the demographics there didn’t represent my family. There were people in city government who had lived here for thirty years before I came. Some were into slowing growth. Other people wanted to spend more money preserving open space and on historical preservation. Who was fighting for my interests? I’m saying you can’t build parks fast enough, teen centers, skate parks, more roads. The council was completely out of touch.

Newsflash! Frank Ferry is a fairly standard pro-growth Republican. He moved here in the 1990s, felt that the City wasn’t representing people like him (folks in the SCV who moved here with young children for the high-quality schools), so he ran for office. His 14 years in office have reflected that motivation in that he has consistently been for the expansion of youth programs, parks, neighborhoods, and other family-friendly efforts.

In other words, Ferry has a broad constituency, a broad base from which to draw support. Namely every parent who moved here and placed their kid in an SCV school. If you want to understand Ferry and how to defeat him and his vision for the SCV, understand that.

What’s deliciously ironic about the extreme Ferry criticism is that it comes from the right, from local, loyal Republicans who would never dream of voting for a Democrat for President but nevertheless oppose & vilify a local Republican who consistently favors pro-growth, pro-business, pro-family policies in the SCV.

Example: Ferry once called local environmentalists & anti-growthers “developmental terrorists,” a slander that would have elicited joyous, ecstatic applause at a GOP presidential debate but instead gets used by local Republicans as a club with which to beat Ferry over the head with. Does that make sense to anyone? Almost all of our local politicians are Republicans, and all of the local Republican clubs are virulently anti-Democrat, yet they’re all in favor of intrusive, heavy-handed local government interference when it comes to development in the SCV.

Anti-growth sentiment from local Republicans is inconsistent with their professed belief in an unfettered, deregulated free market. Attacking a Republican who attacks anti-growthers isn’t just just inconsistent, it’s hypocrisy, plain and simple. At least Ferry is consistent.

Finally, another key to understanding Frank Ferry is to know that he is a fairly typical, active Catholic in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and he’s an educator. His public thoughts and beliefs about illegal immigrants, amenities for kids and family life are informed by those two characteristics. If you fail to understand this, you fail to understand how much value many SCVers place in faith institutions and teachers, principals and good local schools.  People trust and trusted Ferry with their kids; is it so crazy to think they wouldn’t trust him with caring for the City?

Here’s my advice for locals who would like to see Ferry and his allies on the City Council defeated: get more savvy. Stop with the bullshit about the “unholy trinity” and get with the program. Find a candidate who actually has a vision for the SCV, who stands for something rather than just against Section 8 housing or illegal immigrants in front of a bunch of know-nothings from out-of-town. Try to appeal to more SCVers like Ferry and his “cabal” does.

Or continue down the current track where you only appeal to the 15% of people who have lived here for 30 years or longer and dislike outsiders. Pretty soon you’ll see that Ferry and his allies control 3 out of 5 votes on the City Council.

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?