We are revisiting some vintage commentaries from the past several years this week. Some of those opinion pieces will be slightly update; especially the more controversial ones, but they all have some educational value. Several, like this one originally published in November of 2005 titled “What does Self-Determination really mean?” by resident Simon Weston, have stood the test of time and are still very relevant. 

(December 2007)

According to Santa Clarita Councilwoman McLean, self-determination is defined by 2500-3000 persons in a town with a history dating back almost 100 years and a total population of 30,000, deciding to leave that community. As a result these 2500 can make it impossible for those that are left to determine their own fate. They can’t incorporate into a new city – a key area for any new city is no longer available. They can’t even annex into Santa Clarita, since the City made it clear that they have no interest in the remaining part of the area having obtained the (smallest) area (possible) that they are interested in and achieves their goals.

So, if this is the case, the 25,000+ other residents of Castaic no longer have any decision to be made. They remain as they are regardless of which direction they may want to go – trapped simply because the Santa Clarita City Council decided that encouraging a subset of that town to get 60% [ed. Note: now only 5% are needed to start the annexation process] on a petition towards annexation and then following through on that annexation until 50.001% of the subset vote to annex.

If you are part of the 20,000 outside of that subset – tough – you don’t have a voice. Those ‘neighbors’ have eliminated your options. Those 2500 have self-determination – not you. You have no voice whatsoever over your own town according to the leadership in the City of Santa Clarita. The rights of the few outweigh the rights of the many.

In the case of Hasley Hills, there is a second, generally unstated in polite company, goal which is to prevent the establishment of a new city on the West side. The mere fact that this is a possibility keeps the City leadership concerned.

Rather than wait for those on the West Side to see the facts and decide for themselves, the City wants to reach across the I-5 and pre-empt the people on the West side from determining how they will be governed. After all, the minority (some of whom are City employees) can decide for the majority. That is the new definition of self-determination.

Self-determination is not defined by the lowest denominator deciding on their fate. Self-determination is about the entire entity deciding via a majority vote of their options – once they have the sufficient facts to see what the best options are.

If after this process and a majority decision is made towards a course of action, then those communities opposed to the decided direction can fight it. If they prefer annexation as opposed to incorporation, vote against incorporation and see how their votes count with the entire community. If they want to remain unincorporated as opposed to annex, then vote against it when the entire community votes on its direction. The majority decision of the entire entity is what counts.

That is what real self-determination represents. All of the members of the West side need to be part of the process. If the City wants to pre-empt the process, then do so seeking the entire area. Not just one or more strategic neighborhoods. One or more small neighborhoods, intensely lobbied by the City, should not define the course for the entire entity.

The City is afraid of this process. They can’t control this process. This process could result in a decision that is not to the advantage of the City. The City and its allies are not confident that they can get the majority vote of the whole, so they intend to redefine the ‘whole’ until they can manufacture a winning vote – and achieve their goals.

They don’t really want an informed process.

It’s too risky.

Simon Weston- Commentary

Simon Weston is a resident of Stevenson Ranch. 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.