Newberry Springs:
Stupidity on Steroids ?

Pied Piper mesmerizes greedy citizens.

New released revelations on the Newberry Springs billboards.

•   Editorial Exposé   •

      Are some people in Newberry Springs really so stupid?  It would appear so!
"What were they thinking?"

      A good community image is vital in attracting and maintaining jobs in a community.  So it is incredible that anyone in Newberry Springs would be so nearsighted as to jeopardize the community's long-term future by supporting the visual blight of permanent outdoor billboards.  Twenty-eight (28) new billboard faces in the greater Newberry Springs area!

      Realizing the economic destructiveness of outdoor billboards, hundreds of communities throughout the country have banned the tackiness of the mammoth eye-sore signs.  Even tall local business signs have been outlawed in favor of low level monument signs.

Spike Lynch
Spike Lynch

      With his jobs-impairing billboards, public figure and billboard promoter Spike Lynch has distracted the crippling economic wound caused by billboards by pompously strutting himself as the economic peacock for Newberry.  A money dispensing savior; promising money he doesn't control or have himself.  And many of the gullible in Newberry Springs have swooned and have taken the luring bait of monetary promises.

      An early supporter of Lynch's billboard scheme is Sandra Brittian, a community figurehead, president of the local Chamber of Commerce, a crony on Lynch's property owners association board, and operator of a small real estate business.

      A few hundred others in Newberry Springs, Harvard, Yermo, Daggett, Barstow, Hinkley, Victorville and even Arbordale (N. Calif.) were persuaded to sign a pro-billboard petition which promised (socialist) "income sharing".  Their signed names were submitted publicly by Spike Lynch and are now forever etched into Silver Valley's Repository of Shame.

      With a population base of many thousands more adults in the areas of the petitions' circulation, it is interesting that far more signatures were not obtained.  Apparently, the vast majority of adult residents were smart enough to see the bigger picture.

Spike Lynch billboards

      In the Fall 2011 Newberry Springs-Harvard Real Property Owners Association newsletter, the Newberry Ripples, Spike Lynch reprinted and paraded an earlier Rural Community Income Sharing Billboard Plan that was part of a Development Agreement draft that was submitted to the county during the billboard permit process.  This was to demonstrate how wonderful his family owned General Outdoor Advertising (GOA) business is and the reciprocal benefits of billboards to the community.

      Lynch claims that this sharing plan, submitted to the county as part of a proposed billboard Development Plan, assures Newberry Springs of a perpetual cash flow from the future billboard revenues.  The recent property owners' newsletter reproduction of this sharing plan is however highly misleading - as explained below; but first some background.

Egotistical promoter?

      The grandstanding has been so full of it.  Even in the (above) income sharing plan's introduction, Lynch writes:

      "Knowing that the Lynch family is in the Outdoor Advertising Business, several community leaders contacted Spike and discussed the possibility of using billboards to promote the community and generate funds to help these "Triangle communities" [Newberry Springs, Daggett, and Yermo] improve their situation."

      By his own implying words, are we to believe that Spike Lynch, in the outdoor billboard business, was clueless and wasn't smart enough to think of promoting billboards in Newberry Springs himself; and that it required several unnamed, phantom community leaders to simultaneously rally together to educate him?

      Or is it much more logical that Lynch, in the outdoor billboard business, initially approached and pushed community leaders himself for their support in erecting gigantic billboards within Newberry?   (After-all, Lynch has claimed credit for hustling the petitions.)

      If the more logical second scenario is correct, then why the lie?  For what purpose?  Other then the glitzy self-portrayal of being a super-hero, an oracle where the humble village people must come to him for his superior wisdom, abilities and economic salvation, why would such a statement be made?  And, why would anyone have an apparent lustful need to place oneself upon an egotistical pedestal?  Has it anything to do with someone's past failures?

The political corruption of money.

      And why did these organizations go on record supporting billboards? 

×   Newberry Springs Community Services District
×   Newberry Springs Fire Department & Fire Fighters
×   Newberry Senior Service Center
×   Newberry Springs Chamber of Commerce
×   Newberry Springs/Harvard Real Property Owners Association
×   Newberry Gun Club
×   Daggett Community Services District
×   Southern California Fish Farmers Association**
          (**Try and find this one on Google!)

Their support in bringing in billboards has now caused irreparable damage to Newberry Springs!

      Some of these Judas Iscariot organizations were so greedy, that for a small share of the billboard revenue, they betrayed and sacrificed our community's future for a part of the thirty-pieces of silver!

      History shows that Newberry Springs was overwhelmingly against billboards until Lynch wised-up and started offering predatory bribes to induce community organizations to support his billboards.  He anticipated the hungry parasites and played to their greed.

      Shocking were the open bribes of promised billboard revenues to the governmental Community Service District entities should they support the billboards; which the Newberry Springs and Daggett CSDs now do endorse.  Yermo's CSD, well experienced with billboard destructiveness, refused participation.

      As an analogy, like financially strung-out and addicted street whores prostituting for money, a few organizations were quick to jump into Lynch's proverbial bed; as he fed their addiction a narcotic cocktail of promises.

      Such organizations are not the brightest.  They may want to believe that they are, but by their own tricks, they're not.  Tricks lead to internal and external diseases of the soul and mind; and some in Newberry Springs have demonstrated signs of retardation.

Getting screwed.

      We have established that a whore is stupid.  But a whore who doesn't get paid upfront is unquestionably stupid!

      It appears that in Newberry, they are willing to accept unsecured promises of future payment.

      The Rural Community Income Sharing Billboard Plan that Spike Lynch parades as being part of the county's billboard licensing permit, that secures billboard revenue payments to the community, is WORTHLESS.  The recent publication of it in Spike's Lynch's deceptive property owners' newsletter, the Newberry Ripples, appears to be a continuation of the Lynch propaganda con!  "The Lynch lynching of Newberry."

      According to the county departments responsible for handling the planning and billboard permits, the so called Rural Community Income Sharing Billboard Plan for community revenue was never accepted by the county as being part of the permit process; and that it was only viewed as being "informational in nature."

      "It is not a Land Use issue," according to Heidi Duron, Senior Associate Planner for the county, who recently spoke by telephone with the Community Alliance.  Duron represented the county's Land Use Services Department during the later years of the billboards' permit process.

      Robin Bramlett Cochran, Deputy County Counsel at a June 22, 2006 Planning Commission meeting (which was shortly before the county's permit approval) made it very clear that the Rural Community Income Sharing Billboard Plan between General Outdoor Advertising and the community was not part of the land use approval; that it was not a condition of approval; and that it was not something that the county would involve itself in.  Sandra Brittian attended the meeting in San Bernardino; she spoke in favor of the billboards; probably heard Cochran's public comments; and Brittian has continued to conspire in the promotion of the billboard scheme.  (Approved Planning Commission Minutes from June 22, 2006.)

      Spike Lynch has obviously had to know of the county's abandonment of his proposed revenue sharing plan; yet Lynch continues to dazzle his supporters by blatantly presenting such gobbledygook as: "A Development Agreement with County Council's [sic] review and approval will be executed and will take effect as soon as the billboards are installed and begin receiving income from prospective advertisers (Exhibit "E")."  (Reprinted from: Newberry Springs-Harvard property owners ass ociation newsletter - Fall 2011)

      People think that this sounds good because they don't understand it (they can't because it is senseless double-talk); but Lynch associates it with revenue sharing, and his groupies trustingly want to believe in the Lynch myth.  Unfortunately, for them, a revenue sharing plan doesn't appear to be a part of the county's permit approval.

      Actually, in his senior years, Spike Lynch seems to be confusing the Rural Community Income Sharing Billboard Plan with the Development Agreement draft that is discussed above.  The proposed Development Agreement draft was a rejected document presented to the county during the permit/CUP application.  The Rural Community Income Sharing Billboard Plan was an attached document and exhibit for revenue sharing mentioned in the Development Agreement.  As wrongfully stated by Spike Lynch above, the county would not be reviewing and executing "a Development Agreement" (for a permit/CUP) after the billboards were already "installed."  That time is long past.  Spike Lynch, either by intentional misrepresentation or confusion from memory loss, is misrepresenting the facts.

      Also, what Spike Lynch doesn't want people to know is that county Land Use Services Department, in its pro-billboard official Report/Recommendation to the County Board of Supervisors, mentioned the revenue sharing plan but did not include it as part of the billboard package presented to the Board of Supervisors for approval.

      Like, hey Dude, the permits were issued a half decade ago; the events are known not to be as you imply; the county removed the Rural Community Income Sharing Billboard Plan from consideration as not appropriate for them; and it was never a part of the CUP package that the Board of Supervisors approved!

      You're the billboard "expert"; you've followed every step of the permit process; much of which you orchestrated; why won't you tell the community the truth?

  Stop referencing a now bogus, dropped plan.  Stop misleading people!

      Won't brother Tim enter into a true contractual agreement with meaningful bonding to assure your promises to Newberry Springs?

      Give us something we can truly trust rather then your erroneous trust-me lip-service !

      Why does Spike Lynch keep presenting the meaningless crapola that he published in his Newberry Springs-Harvard Real Property Owners Association's newsletter?  If it does exist, why hasn't he simply published an actual signed and dated revenue sharing agreement "imposed" (for the community's security) by the county as part of the billboards permit?   Where is it Mr. Lynch?

      It is now understandable why Spike Lynch allegedly conspired with Sandra Brittian to quickly remove through treachery a Newberry Springs-Harvard Real Property Owners Association board member who started inquiring into the billboards.  They didn't want this billboard information to be publicly released:

      There currently appears to be no enforceable agreement over General Outdoor Advertising's promised performance to the community.  Zilch!  Nothing to insure and protect the community should Spike Lynch and his family's billboard company later slither away from their self-imposed Newberry obligations once their final billboards are built.

      Another consideration is Spike Lynch's health and age of nearly 70.  Once Spike Lynch is gone, are Spike's words worth anything?  What title does Spike Lynch have in his brother's company that would legally bind anything that Spike says?  Spike Lynch's signature is legally worthless as he alone can not obligate the company.  (Guess parasites don't ask such questions.)  And successors will owe Newberry Springs nothing!

      Other considerations are the faltering economy and the financial condition of General Outdoor Advertising; and the real future possibility that the new billboards, or the billboard permits, may be later sold or transferred.  No company acquiring the billboards is going to give unenforceable gifts to Newberry.  Especially, when the dynamic Internet industry is sucking an ever growing amount of marketing dollars away from outdoor billboards.

      Spike Lynch was crafty when he released a memo dated July 27, 2011 to the "NSCSD, NS Chamber, NS Senior Services, and NSHPOA."  He referenced it as: "Billboard income donations to Newberry Springs Community."  He doesn't reference any contractual money owed to Newberry Springs but references the money as an unenforceable "donation."  There is no company title to his signed name or any indication that his letterhead-less representations legally binds the billboard company.  There is nothing from his brother who actually runs the company.  Is anyone naive enough to believe that these multiple omitted items were accidental?

      It is important to remember that crafty Spike Lynch is not involved in his family's billboard company's daily operation which is actually controlled by the whim of his brother Tim, who states in court filings, "In my capacity with the company, I have overall responsibility for General Outdoor's operations."  "I have been and am the officer of General Outdoor responsible for the day-to-day operations of the company."  Tim is Da Man, not Spike who doesn't have control.

      As previously reported by the Community Alliance, the Lynch family has been selling-off their Newberry Springs properties; and the foolish community organizations who have jumped-in-bed with the Lynchs have no legal collateral for the promised billboard revenue.

Spike Lynch billboards
Anti-billboard cartoon from the year 1929.

The Newberry gullible are so easily fleeced.

      Going strictly on hearsay rumor, it is said that crafty Lynch/GOA offered $300 per month for a billboard lease site in Newberry Springs.  Trusting Spike Lynch and GOA that the offer was fair, the landowner allegedly accepted the offer.

      What isn't rumor is this fact:  In a sworn declaration by Timothy Lynch executed on March 18, 2010 and filed with the Superior Court on March 19, 2010, Timothy Lynch states that the proposed 14 billboard signs together are expected to gross $60,000 per month.  This averages out to $4,285 per (double-faced) billboard site.  (Superior Court - San Bernardino Civil Case No. SS142797, Declaration of Timothy Lynch 3/18/2010, page 5 line 28 to page 6 line 2.)

      A land lease amount of $300 per month is only 7% of $4,285.  If this percentage is true, according to a highly recognized billboard expert, it "is what would be accepted by a dumb landowner."

      According to the Community Alliance's expert source, most billboard land leases average in the 28% to 35% range.  High traffic volume sites, such as adjacent a busy turnpike, have gone for 53%.  Outdoor billboards are expensive to erect.  If a location is worth installing one, the location is premium.

      For reasons too lengthly to discuss here, the market for a rare legally permissible site in Newberry would rate a billboard land lease in the higher average range (or possibly above).  As stated in Timothy Lynch's above said declaration, " is extremely difficult to erect new outdoor advertising displays in the State of California and, as a result, new locations constitute valuable assets of General Outdoor." (Superior Court supra, Declaration of Timothy Lynch 3/18/2010, page 5, lines 3-5.)

      At $4,285 gross per site, an average lease of 28% to 35% should translate to $1,200 to $1,500 monthly for the one landowner; not $300.  So where is the remainder being skimmed?  Who is truly benefiting and who are being suckered?  Is crafty Spike Lynch looking-out for his community neighbors or himself?

      Another way to do the math on this is to simply take the $6,000 (the 10% of the $60,000) and divide it by the 28 billboard faces.  That equals a sorry $214 per month maximum in revenue share.  That's for a sign, estimated by Timothy Lynch, to bring in $2,142.85.  No government body (except in the Silver Valley) would give away their soul for so little; that malfeasance.

Bribe: A monetary promise or favor to influence judgment or conduct.

      It is also interesting to note that at the bottom of Exhibit "B" to the above Development Agreement draft presented to the county, that the much talked-about sharing figure of 10% of the gross billboard revenues going to Newberry, that only 4 of the billboard sites carried 10%; 6 others (on the I-15) were only 6% (with another 4% going to Yermo).  The remaining 4 billboards in Daggett, carried 10% going to Daggett.

      In short, of the 14 billboard sites, the divided share of the estimated monthly $60K gross income would be $6,000, at a 10% payola rate.  If the above numbers are proportionately divided according to the billboard/community allotment, Newberry would receive 54.28%, Daggett 28.56%, and Yermo 17.16% of the $6,000.

      That would respectively translate into monthly incomes of $3,256.80, $1,713.60, and $1,029.60.  Of course, this is BEFORE the agreement's deduction of "less commissions if any" which by normal bookkeeping massage practices could range as high as $3,256.80, $1,713.60, and $1,029.60 respectively.

      Presuming that there are no commission deductions (yeah, living in fairyland), in Newberry that would further divide the spoils down to $1,302.72 for the CSD, and $651.36 to each of: Sandra Brittian's Chamber of Commerce, Spike Lynch's property owners, and the Senior Center.  And that's the best case scenario.  Likely, they'll justly get far less but all the rest of us will get to keep the area's 28 job-impairing billboard faces that will depreciate our area's desirability and property values!

Note: The income numbers above are average numbers; and billboards on I-40 may bring in a lower revenue than on I-15.  Income can vary due to traffic count, variances in vacancies, negotiated pricing, and accuracy of the base information provided.

      Tim Lynch's estimate of a gross income of $60,000 per month is presumably assuming that all billboards are rented full-time.  However, in a sworn declaration, Timothy Lynch states: "Approximately 20% of General Outdoor's billboards involve donated space for public service messages, including advertisements for political candidates."  So in that alone, 1/5 of Newberry's anticipated billboard revenue can be immediately written-off. (Superior Court supra, Declaration of Timothy Lynch, 9/13/2011, paragraph 4, page 2, lines 10 to 12.)

      The planned 14 double-faced billboards (that's 28 billboard faces) in the Newberry Springs general area are going to be worth many millions of dollars and represent true cash cows.  Some high traffic volume billboards can pay for themselves in 3 to 5 years.  Thereafter, they're a steady cash stream.  A more equitable recovery for Newberry Springs should be about 3-TIMES what some of the above suckered organizations have foolishly settled in taking for themselves.  So crafty Spike Lynch and his family's advertising company are skimming the cream.

Spike Lynch billboards

How does the average citizen benefit?

      The Senior Center has received its first monies from the I-15 billboards.  The community billboard money was used, according to its president, Brian Fisher, to purchase a new copy machine.  Is this new machine going to be shared with the community?  Paper and toner cost less than a nickel per copy.  Well, the Senior Center is charging 15-cents per copy! (several times more)  So what community billboard benefit is there to the average citizen being fleeced to pay a top commercial copy rate?

      The Senior Center plays a very important role in the community.  It is the Holy Grail of all Newberry organizations.  But since it chose to support the injurious billboards for promised payola, should the Newberry CSD continue to subsidize it at the current rate when the Senior Center is now receiving outside income?  Perhaps the CSD subsidies can be better utilized on some needed youth programs.

      Other community billboard income may have been spent in the printing and mass mailing of Lynch's Newberry Springs-Harvard Real Property Owners Association's 16-page Newberry Ripples newsletter.  Much of the 16-page newsletter was used by Spike Lynch to solely promote his family's General Outdoor Advertising's revenue sharing gimmick, to blast opponents of his billboards, and to defame the Community Alliance.  Is this an example of how the general community is going to benefit from Lynch's billboard revenue sharing plan?

      And what ever happened to hundreds of thousands of dollars that the CSD received from Kiewit Pacific Company?  The community in the past has had a history of squandering funds aimed to the community; little community improvement has ever been shown.  So how is the average unemployed resident going to benefit from the billboards?  How are the property owners going to be compensated for the real estate market deprecation that billboard blight creates?

Da Man.

      It should also be noted, in a sworn declaration, that Timothy Lynch has apparently misled the Superior Court in stating that "Under the conditions for [permit] approval imposed by the county, 10% of this income (or $6,000.00 per month) will be contributed to the community for various local community projects." (Bold emphasis added.)  (Superior Court supra, Declaration of Timothy Lynch, 3/18/2010, paragraph 22, page 5 line 28 to page 6 line 2.)

      The county repeatedly stated during the permit process that it wasn't going to "impose" or become involve with such an applicant and community private contract; and that the revenue sharing was not a condition of the permit approval.  So the billboard misrepresentations appear to have extended to the Superior Court as well; and the revenue sharing does not appear to be a part of the county approval; which means there is no county enforcement behind it.

Corruption within the county?

      The big question is how did the billboards begin?  How did the many block walls against them fall; such as the scenic designation on Interstate-15?  Over a number of years, why did county officials chip away at the billboard barriers?  Was it due to pressure from corrupt political leaders above them?  What, if any, were the incentives?  County, state and federal investigations are sorely needed to get to the bottom of this matter!

      In a sworn declaration, Timothy Lynch confesses that, "As I recall, the supervisor in this area at the time the project was first proposed was Supervisor Kathy Davis, who I met with to determine whether she would support the project.  Since this project took over 10 years before it was finally approved by the County Board of Supervisors in late 2006, I later met with the successors to Supervisor Davis' seat, Supervisor Marsha Turochi and, later, Supervisor Bill Postmus."  (Superior Court supra, Declaration of Timothy Lynch, 9/19/2011, paragraph 11, page 3 line 24 to page 4 line 3.)

      To process a normal permit, one deals directly with the county departments; one doesn't need to personally meet with successive district supervisors.  One reason to personally meet with a district supervisor might be to attempt to persuade the supervisor to exert improper manipulating "control and influence" over the legal duties of county department heads.  Why else would repeated "support" visits be made to successive supervisors?

Final thoughts.

      Fred Stearn's courageous fight against billboard blight has reached a 5-year mark.  Because narrow issues of law are involved, the resolution can go either way; or even a split decision.  The litigation has been a refreshing window for viewing some information which otherwise wouldn't be known.

      It has also been over five years since the permit approval!  Only 3 of the 14 billboards have been installed.  That doesn't speak well of the confidence that the Lynchs have in the litigation (or perhaps it reflects the company's financial condition).  Rather than letting the matter go to a legal decision, they appear to throw legal road blocks to delay and prevent a decision.  One must ask why?  Don't they have trust in their own position?

      Numerous questions remain as to how the rezoning and the permitting process was handled.  Hopefully, the judge in the Fred Stearn litigation will permit discovery so that better government transparency in this matter will be allowed.  Open discovery, however, has been opposed by the defendants' stalling motions.  If their acts were clean, what is it that they fear?

      So far the Lynchs have adhered to their self-imposed payola sharing plan.  That they must do for now to look good, as their billboards are temporarily under the scrutiny of a judge.

      The supportive billboard fools, controlling the above listed community organizations, have been seriously scammed; through malfeasance they continue to sell-out their community for peanuts that may not last long.  Their income will never cover the billboard damages to the residents and property owners.

      Sandra Brittian appears excited that her Chamber of Commerce is acquiring a few years of "free" payola billboard space to promote her chamber's events.  This only means that during the time of her billboards, those billboards won't be generating "community" income.

      Billboards promoting the Pistachio Festival, firework displays, or other free (no admission cost) events generates no meaningful revenue to the community.  Billboard support has been based upon near-sighted greed and ignorance, faulty assumptions, irrelevant data, conjecture, phony pro forma projections, 5-years of incomplete results, a cover-up of the "Bonus Segments" as earlier reported by the Community Alliance; and, the support has been based upon a great deal of stupidity.

      Spike Lynch has a history of being involved in projects that were not successful.  Investors have lost money (if only Louis Duncan was still alive to speak about his lost $800,000... perhaps more on this later).  Even Spike's Newberry home has been owned by a family trust; and the trust has been trying to find a buyer in order to sell the property out from under him.  Despite a reasonable asking sales price, for years Spike hasn't had the money to buy-out the other family members' trust interest in the Troy lakebed property.

      But alas, his financial woes might be changing.  He may have now struck a bonanza by having exploited the gullible fools in Newberry.  He may be getting a taste of his first pay-off money from the recently installed 3 billboards; and with this new wealth, who knows how far he'll go?

      A good pitchman can easily recognize an easy mark.  The greedier that the target is in trying to acquire something for nothing, the easier is the deception.

      Apparently, none of the greedy fools believing in crafty Spike's billboard scheme have ever demanded anything legally binding in writing.  They've just ignorantly jumped upon the lunacy wagon.  In attempting to acquire something for nothing, they'll likely eventually end up acquiring nothing; but billboards.

E-mail contact: NewberrySprings @