8 Comments

1. Steve Petzold says:

   Monday, Sep 8, 2014 at

   A complete distortion of the facts by Manzer. I am disappointed . Perhaps he can represent the Yes on S position at a future informational meeting, because Bob Kellar has gone into hiding.

   Reply
2. Sarah Jones says:

   Monday, Sep 8, 2014 at

   Thank you Darryl for finally reporting the facts! I am in total agreement with your comments regarding how 22 people spouting off on facebook and creating a mob mentality will now cost us.

   Reply
3. Lee says:

   Monday, Sep 8, 2014 at

   Wow…just…wow. Once again, Mr. Manzer, you are so deep in the CC’s pocket, that seeing the light becomes physically impossible.

   1. Ms. Weste doesn’t just live closest to the billboard right of way, she owns additional property that will have its value increased by the removal of the billboards…a value that will be demonstrated when that land is further enhanced by development in the post-billboard era.

   Oh, and let’s not even talk about the fact that, despite recusing herself, Mayor Recusal still benefited handily from this, by way of a nice fundraiser for her re-election campaign…thrown by the lobbyists that are driving the Yes measure…AllVision.

   2. The backroom deal doesn’t refer to where the deal went down…and playing on semantics doesn’t make you clever.

   This was a deal that was done away from the public eye, where no discussion on it could be had. If there was public discussion, the first comment would have been “hey, let’s see if we can get a better deal.” And, of course, this is borne out by the fact that contractors hired by the city confirmed, during the public discussion phase, that a better deal could have been made…for equal or more money on a shorter term. Which leads to…

   3…the 50 year deal. Yep, too long. Too long of a commitment for a bad deal.

   4. Just because it has been argued for 50+ years that this is bad for the environment and for drivers and nothing was done to stop it doesn’t make it wrong…it makes the original implementers ignorant.

   5. Yes, a lot of money was spent on both sides to either get or deny signatures for this measure. The difference is, one side encouraged learning about the measure and working to assure that voters had a say and the other side encouraged denying citizens the ability to sign the petitions and become part of the process. You tell me which is better?

   I’m a little flabbergasted that your blind trust in the city council allows you to believe that 22 cost this city. I’d like to think that it was 4 (3 if you discount Mayor Recusal) who cost the city. Had they made the citizens part of the decision sooner, they – and we – wouldn’t be in this mess.

   Reply
4. Jimmy Grise says:

   Monday, Sep 8, 2014 at

   someone should climb up those things and spray em colorful.

   Reply
5. Darren Rogers says:

   Monday, Sep 8, 2014 at

   That looks way better than an e-billboard …

   Reply
6. John Gilbert says:

   Monday, Sep 8, 2014 at

   Whew ! The humidity must be up, Lotsa hot air blowing from Darryl today. NAZI’s? So, the first thing the City of SCV did was force retailers in brick & mortar stores to lower their signs along streets to preserve the views and help omit sky pollution, effects on businesses be damned There’s been no laws enacted by the city to preserve the ridgelines, as Thousand Oaks had done. Then, they decided that since we couldn’t see the ridgelines anymore, they forced shopping centers in Canyon Country to raise the height of their facades, hence, passing the costs from the landowners to those businesses, putting several that had survived the recent recession out of business. And, the greatest monument to “Socialism meets Capitalism” is the Walgreens and the Dr’s Office on small corner parcels that were gas stations, and letting them build two story buildings, hence covering the view of the San Gabriel Mtn’s. (not too forget the 12 foot high solar panel’s that the City permitted blocking views from the houses north of Placerita Jr. High). But the killer was when my neighbor emailed the City that my grass wasn’t green enough and The City threatened with fine’s. The City rep came out and pointed at all the violations in the neighborhood, but wouldn’t cite them as “His department was reactive, not proactive.” (Hence, I’ve had to look at an illegal 6 foot fence across the street for 7 years) So, we have a nice lawn for the last 2 years. Now, the City wants us to restrict watering to the point of killing much of the grass. Yeah, Darryl…tell us about “The NAZI’s !

   Reply
7. Alan Ferdman says:

   Tuesday, Sep 9, 2014 at

   Darryl has his head in the sand. 18,000 signatures should represent a pretty clear message to our city officials. They had the opportunity to stop, reconsider and bring back a deal to remove all the existing billboards in the city limits. But the city council, minus TimBen, decided to spend $208,000 plus legal fees to put the measure on the ballot. The big question is; why is Kellar pushing the Allvision deal so hard when the opportunity to put together a billboard exchange program which would benefit the entire city sits in the wings?

   Reply
8. Donna Norman says:

   Tuesday, Sep 9, 2014 at

   Those of us who moved from Newhall / Santa Clarita to a different state that has e-billboards, say to people like Mr. Rogers, BIG DEAL. You are narrow minded snobs who dislike progress, no wait, you have a computer, that makes you a hypocrite.

   Reply

Leave a Comment