Let’s “stand with the people of Santa Clarita” who want to preserve the current billboards. Yes, those people who would want you to believe that only local folks, with the exception of Tony Strickland, have contributed to the “No on S” committee.

Thing is, there is just a little more money coming from a few more sources that filed separate forms. I shall enumerate them in a couple of paragraphs or so. I’d hate to see the “grass roots effort” not have accurate information and fail to show “the people” how they are so self-supporting.

I’m impressed that Tony Strickland has contributed $500 toward the preservation of our current billboards. That really says a lot. Let me see: He lives outside of the 25th Congressional District and isn’t a resident of Santa Clarita. Thanks, Tony. Nice gesture from someone who lives in a place where most all billboards are banned. Does he even know where Santa Clarita is located?

For your information, I’ve been named a “tyrannt” (sic) and at the same time by the same person, “a good soul.” It seems I’ve been misinformed for a long time. I thought those two terms were mutually exclusive. Guess Hart High didn’t do its job after all.

So now let me list and enumerate all of the grass-roots contributions I found that had been reported to the City Clerk as of the time I’m writing this:

* From the “Committee to Protect Small Business and Property Rights in Santa Clarita Sponsored by California State Outdoor Advertising Association,” the sum of $114,700 to date. The treasurer for this “Committee” is a recent candidate for City Council, Alan Ferdman. He sure is a “man of the people” and of the Outdoor Advertising Association, too. Gadflies need support, after all.

* Granite Assets (consultants) filed a report of $20,000 to support billboard preservation (the “No on S” side of things).

* Ocean Outdoor posted a separate total of $40,000 to date.

* And last but not least, the “grass roots” billboard preservationists themselves. About $7,000.

Gee, that adds up to $181,700 of “grass roots” support to preserve the current billboards – of which maybe $6,500 is local (the $500 from Tony Strickland being from “out of town”).

So far the “Yes On S” group has posted contributions of $98,000.

So there you have it, folks. All kinds of money to stop the three electronic billboards and preserve dozens and dozens of ugly relics of a bygone era that have serious light pollution issues, too.

I love being a “tyrannt” with a “good soul.” I love using spell check on my word processing program, too.

Now let’s get into another item of misinformation about this issue. The “fifty year contract.” Thing is, the current billboards have a long-term contract, too. Some 30-plus years. Does anyone seriously believe that whatever technology is put up to replace them will be around in 50 years? It could have been any period of time for the contract, and we’ll watch it be replaced by better technology.

Does that mean we keep the old, outdated, ugly, light polluting signs we have now? That is exactly what will happen if Measure S doesn’t pass.

The billboard preservationist scream, “We can get a better deal!” Well, don’t scream at the city. Metro and Allvision have had a long-term contract for billboard installation and maintenance for years. That is where those “negotiations” happened. Between Metro and Allvision.

If anybody were to get a better deal, it would just mean we get electronic billboards anyway. That is what billboard “deals” are all about: Replacing tons of ugly old billboards with a few new electronic ones. So it turns out, the billboard preservationists are OK with electronic billboards after all. Show us that better deal and tell Metro to go do it.

One day during the last Santa Clarita City Council election, a guy named Ray posted a map showing how close the new library in downtown Newhall was to some property owned by a council member standing for reelection. It was also noted that a billboard that could be removed was even closer. Little matter that the council member had already recused herself from any votes on billboards, to wipe out any possible conflict of interest. She was going to gain financially, according to Ray.

All of it turned out to be bovine scatology – but not before a movement against the billboard ordinance was started. “Look what the council did behind closed doors” and “It should have been negotiated in the open.” And lots of other baseless tirades that started because of one or more misinformed individuals.

Soon a single council member started speaking against the ordinance, along with a candidate. And now we’re here. All because some folks didn’t want some incumbents reelected.

They lost sight of the goal of removing the billboards and became fixated on their illogical dislike of electronic billboards. The current, old-style billboards have been in rotten condition for years. One fell over onto the Metro tracks in Newhall. They are a safety problem for the trains and in many cases, for cars and pedestrians, too.

If you really believe the folks you elected to the City Council are “on the take” from the billboard companies – despite the fact that more of the billboard company money is funding “No on S” – then by all means vote to preserve the ugly old billboards and vote “no” on Measure S. It will send a clear message that you don’t trust the people you just elected, that you do trust the ones who were defeated, and that you don’t care if the billboard companies are allowed to buy an election.

If you do that, you, too, may qualify as a “tyrannt” with a “good soul.” Welcome to the club.

Darryl Manzer grew up in the Pico Canyon oil town of Mentryville in the 1960s and attended Hart High School. After a career in the U.S. Navy he returned to live in the Santa Clarita Valley. He can be reached at dmanzer@scvhistory.com. His older commentaries are archived at DManzer.com; his newer commentaries can be accessed [here]. Watch his walking tour of Mentryville [here].