Last Thursday, The Beacon published a guest commentary by Valerie Thomas titled, “One Valley One Vision Land Use; our neighborhood is presently under siege!” which was a very thoughtful piece that brought up several valid questions. In that commentary Valerie wrote; “When our community left behind its “unincorporated” county status, Sand and Placerita Canyons negotiated with the new City a “Special Standards District.” ……The purpose of Placerita Canyon Special Standards District is “to maintain, preserve and enhance the rural and equestrian character of Placerita Canyon.” Sand Canyon’s Special Services District description is virtually identical to Placerita’s description except for the boundaries.

Valerie, a 30 year resident of Placerita Canyon was questioning why the description is now changing in the One Valley/One Vision in which; “It was more with resignation and sorrow than shock that we looked at the new proposed OVOV Land Use Element released early in July 2008. There on page 58, we saw the future for Placerita Canyon:”

• Policy LU 1.2.5: In Sand Canyon, ensure compatibility of development with existing rural, equestrian lots and the adjacent National Forest land: provide additional recreational trail links: and protect the Santa Clara River from incompatible development.
• Policy LU 1.2.6: In Placerita Canyon, preserve the eclectic neighborhood character, encourage provision of needed infrastructure, and provide an orderly connection to Newhall through implementation of the North Newhall Specific Plan.

Asking why, after all these years, the Special Services District description is now changing is a valid question and one that the City planning Director should face head-on and answer. It is clear that this is not what some of the residents of Placerita Canyon want and is an issue that should be dealt with in an open and honest forum. Don’t the residents of Placerita Canyon deserve an opportunity to weigh in on this matter and have a respectful dialogue about this issue?

Of course they do! That is what should be happening in the Santa Clarita Valley when it comes to any overhaul of the General Plan. It should be a document constructed through consensus, in the open and with as much transparency as possible. It should be a plan that openly encourages community participation and at the same time moves along a time schedule to completion, adoption and implementation.

That brings up another question that Valerie posed in a note; “If the City does not honor its written promises to original residents, why should those contemplating annexation to the City think they will be dealt with any differently?” That is one question I would like the City to answer!

By the way, as a side note, the day after Valerie’s commentary was posted here, Jeff Wilson at SCVTalk published his usual presumptuous comments in which he stated; “We all know that the wealthy and posh households in Sand and Placerita Canyons expect to be treated better than the rest of us, but did you know that it was actually promised to them by the founders of the City of Santa Clarita?” He went on to presume that Valerie Thomas “and her wealthy neighbors are “under siege” from the City of Santa Clarita…” and that, “…don’t forget for a second that these are the most wealthy areas of the city.”

Once again, Jeff shows that he has a complete disdain for anyone that may appear to be affluent or successful.

The fact is that, as Valerie Thomas stated in an email; “I live in a 2000 square foot house that would be indistinguishable from any Valencia home of the same era (late 70’s)……I mentioned in the article my children were active in 4-H and they knew we could afford either hay for the horse or “names-on-their-ass” jeans. They drove an old “junker” to Hart High while most of the Valencia kids drove brand new cars they received as 16th birthday gifts. When our youngest balked at driving the “green bomb” to school, her father casually asked her if she had checked the bus schedule.”

Jeff needs to stop prejudging people and what they may or may not have or be and start focusing on what the individual is actually saying. Raising questions and voicing an opinion on local topics should be respected without the constant attacks on the individual voicing the opinion which has been Jeff’s m.o. for some time. And if his attacks don’t have an effect, than he will censor you or just ban you from his site which he has done to a number of local residents. That type of censorship is counterproductive to a discussion.

Dave Bossert                                                                                                                   Commentary

Dave Bossert is a community volunteer who serves on a number of boards and councils. His commentaries represent his own opinions and not necessarily the views of any organization he may be affiliated with or those of the West Ranch Beacon.