I read the commentary Sunday by Steve Petzold in The Signal newspaper. I wonder just how much CBS Outdoor, Lamar and Clear Channel are paying for what he wrote. At least it seems he must be getting paid for such misinformation.

First of all, his statement about “closed negotiations” is misleading. According to the Brown Act, real estate actions, just like private personnel matters, are conducted in closed sessions. This is a real-estate development action.

Second, the hyperbole used by Petzold is over the top. I didn’t know the city was sick and requires a “healing process” or needs to “end the acrimony and give the citizens a chance to weigh in with their care and concern.” Well, the citizens did weigh in and signed the petition. They want to vote on the matter. Let them.

Then there is that bit about “the eyes of the nation are upon Santa Clarita concerning the billboard issue.” Really? Funny the network news hasn’t had anything about it. There are a few things more pressing that I’m sure are a little more important issues for our nation.

Mr. Petzold, you state over and over that the City Council caused all this. No, my friend, you and a group on Facebook started this during the City Council election because you few didn’t want to see two of the council members re-elected. Next thing we know, there is a petition. “Stop the digital billboards” was heard in front of many places of business all over Santa Clarita.

The purpose of the City Council’s billboard ordinance is to remove all of the unsightly billboards along the train tracks on Railroad, Bouquet and Soledad canyon roads. On Tuesday the council is expected to decide what to do about the billboard companies’ petition to stop the removal.

You know that deal the city negotiated with Edwards Outdoor Advertising to remove a bunch of signs? (The contract states 47 and any others to be identified.) Well, we are going to pay $1.3 million for that company. Why did the city cut a separate deal? A local company wanted out of the business. This way it got paid, and a source of revenue was found to pay it: Ordinance 14-02.

Plus, we have the cost of the election that we have to pay for – about $200,000 if we go cheap.

The money from the billboard ordinance was going to help offset the costs of buying out Edwards. So now we will just have expenditure without income to replace it. Isn’t that special.

As an added attraction, we get to keep the existing billboards. Some of them have bright lights known as spotlights to illuminate them at night. That way the folks can read them. Don’t we all love more light pollution?

The folks who want to defeat the billboard ordinance think that in a year, we can go back and negotiate a new deal with Metrolink and whatever company. Would that it were so simple. What if Metrolink and Allvision don’t want a new negotiation? Remember, the current negotiation took over three years. What if this is the last, best offer? I don’t know, but at some point those folks will just want to walk away. I’ve done that when buying homes and cars and land and horses, too. Can’t agree on a price and we walk away.

So we did get the price agreed upon. And along come folks from CBS Outdoor, Lamar and Clear Channel who want a piece of the action and start to block the deal. They want us to keep their old, ugly billboards, and at this point they will do just about anything to stop the ordinance.

Does anyone remember when one of the billboards fell across the tracks in Newhall a few weeks ago? Could have been a real terrible accident, had a train come along at the same time.

We’ve heard over and over: “But we want to stop the electronic billboards. Dangerous distractions to drivers. Light pollution. Inappropriate messages with near naked people shown. Looks like Las Vegas, etc. We want to keep all of those old-style billboards. We don’t want emergency messages flashed up on the screens. We want to save the old billboards. Bad deal. Could have done it better myself. Coulda, woulda, shoulda, yada, yada, yada.”

As it stands now, the contracted expenses for Edwards, plus the cost of an election, means a net cash outflow of approximately $1.5 million.

Income from not having the deal is, well … Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nothing.

And this is good for the city of Santa Clarita? The ordinance is a “bad deal”?

For the 18,000 people who signed the petition to stop the ordinance, could each of you please send the city of Santa Clarita $82? That should just about cover the above expenses you signed for by stopping those three electronic billboards.

Or, since the county stopped counting after 11,000 signatures, would those 11,000 of you please remit $136 each to the city? And to recover the $35 million in lost future revenues, please remit an additional $3,181.

Future revenues? Yes. The deal says that the city will get about $700,000 per year for 50 years. Not bad.

And you were led to think you were just blocking three electronic billboards.

Unless you work for a billboard company, I can’t think of a single person in the valley, or just about anyplace else, who wants and likes billboards. They are indeed a blight on our city and environment. The City Council’s ordinance is a way to get most of them removed from the middle of the city.

Imagine. Canyon Country nearly free of billboards. That is the one place that needs more city help, and now that it is at hand, a group of folks wants to reject it. Strange things here.

So let’s send it to the ballot box. Vote away. It is our way.

Can someone please explain the “bad deal” now?

By “someone” I mean someone who helped start the petition to stop the deal and bring it to the people to vote on and now wants to stop the election for the people to vote. Mr. Petzoid, I’ve read what you first wanted, and now you’ve changed your mind. Guess your rants about trucks parking to unload on Creekside didn’t get heard, either.

I’d guess you like the spotlights causing light pollution and the plastic wrap falling off the existing billboards – more plastic for our landfills that we just don’t have enough of now.

Let us vote on this. Let us let the people have a say. That is what all of you who gathered signatures wanted. A direct vote by the people.

And while we’re at it, let’s vote on the truck loading zones in the center of Creekside at Auto Row. Now, that is another issue that the eyes of the nation are focused upon. I know – I heard it from Steve Petzold, so it must be a real issue.

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 and his commentaries are archived at DManzer.com. Watch his walking tour of Mentryville [here].