During this week we will be running some vintage commentaries. By vintage I mean from 2004 and early 2005. These are pieces that were written by Dave Bossert and are still valid today as when they were written.

I strongly disagree with an editorial that recently appeared in the Signal entitled “Staying in County as Good as Joining City? When Pigs Fly”. That editorial primarily criticizes the recently distributed County brochure “You Have Choices for Local Government”. It also presents incomplete, misguided information and regurgitates the same arguments for annexation that City has been disseminating.
Those arguments include the 5% utility tax, police protection, and local government representation. These are incomplete because they never include all the facts and the same is true for the above referenced editorial.

Let’s take the 5% Utility tax that the residents in the unincorporated areas pay and the City of Santa Clarita residents don’t have to pay. What is never mentioned are the fees and taxes City residents must pay that the County residents are not subject to! The city residents must pay a “Storm Flood/drain” tax of $24. Further, the City has a “Street Lighting” assessment fee of $50; the county only charges $5. There are many other examples where there are differences in fees, taxes and services if one takes the time to look.

The editorial mentions the City has more police protection and is one argument that is false once you look at the facts. First, the City of Santa Clarita is a “contract” city. That means that the City contracts with Los Angeles County for services. In this case the City has a contract with Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to supply Sheriff services to the City.

Now, the Signal presents the same argument that City Manager Ken Pulskamp has used that states that the City has 15 police vehicles for a 50 square mile area while the county has four vehicles for a 500 square mile area. What the editorial failed to mention is that by law the nearest sheriff must respond to any emergency regardless of the location, i.e. city or county. That means if you are living in the unincorporated areas you have as much protection as anyone in the city. Also, the Stevenson Ranch Community has an additional part-time Deputy that is funded out of film shoot fees something the Signal would have known if it regularly covered west side community meetings.

The County taxpayers have been picking up the tab for a good portion of the City of Santa Clarita Sheriff’s department. Currently the City of Santa Clarita is spending about $12 million dollars annually on law enforcement, which is about 20% of the city budget, according to Mayor Smyth. If one looks at other cities that are not contracting services from the county you would find a much higher percentage of the city budget going to police protection.

Case in point is the City of South Pasadena, which is not a contract city, currently spends approximately 38% of its budget on the city’s police department. That’s nearly twice the amount of the City of Santa Clarita’s law enforcement budget. What happens when the City of Santa Clarita has to pay the full price for police protection? Does the City raise taxes or fees?

The editorial mentions “explosive growth” and “low-ball growth projections” as possible reasons to annex into the city. The fact is that the City, not the County, is willing to allow developments that are denser and lack essential amenities. A case in point, the Warner Ranch property (Lyons Canyon) which is located south of Lyons Avenue, north of Calgrove and west of I-5. The property, which was owned by Warner Bros. Studio, is currently in contract with D.R Horton the homebuilder.
The City is willing to okay a project that proposes to put 416 single-family homes, 216 multi-family units, 203 senior housing units, three parks and up to 116,000 square feet of commercial space on 160 buildable acres of that property. The proposed project will impact 600 oak trees with more than half being removed. The project will also require the grading of nearly six million cubic yards of soil with the elimination of several prominent ridgelines, impacting the scenic view of the area.

It will also have potentially over 1000 school age children with no plan for an additional elementary school. D.R. Horton, at a recent community meeting, has acknowledged that this would have on impact on the schools and amenities of the greater Stevenson Ranch area.

The density and environmental impact that this project will have is more than the County would allow, yet the City is happy with approving it provided the owners agree to annex the land into the City of Santa Clarita. I don’t believe that this local City government is looking out for the best interests of the west side communities with these types of back door dealings.

I’m glad that Supervisor Antonovich is representing our community and has come out against the proposed annexation of this property. When the annexation application for this projected is rejected, and it will be, D.R. Horton will be forced to scale back and redesign this development. They will also have to repair the damage done to relationships with the local community leadership.

These are just a few pieces of information that are left out of the pro-annexation argument and the Signal editorial. The fact is if one were to sit down and do an actual legitimate comparison, apples to apples, you would see that there are fees, taxes, and services on both sides, the City and the County, that are centric to one or the other. The City and pro-annexation supports must realize that presenting all the facts is the only way for residents to have the ability to make an informed decision. The current path of misrepresented and incomplete information by pro-annexation supporters is only leading to mistrust and suspicion.

Finally, The Signal editorial states “It even suggests that forming a second city is a viable option ,now or at a future date, even though state law forbids it until such time as the west side has a big enough industrial base to pay for municipal services. That’s decades away”. This is false; the fact is that a second city is potentially two or three years away. This was verified by LAFCO during a fact-finding meeting by community leadership. One only needs to look at the commercial corridor along the Old Road to realize the amount of tax revenue being generated is enough to support a small city!

I applaud the County and Supervisor Antonovich for at least putting together a brochure that presents some balanced viewpoints and options. This brochure was long over do since the City has had a number of pamphlets extolling the virtues of annexing into the city. I don’t ever recall seeing an editorial criticizing the City’s brochure as “masquerading as an information piece” that gives the “illusion” that annexing is a panacea for all the valleys woes!
Be careful what you wish for and get all the facts because the grass is not always greener on the other side.