Fri 7 May 2010
Guest Editorial: Antonovich; “I will oppose any annexation that divides established communities!”
Posted by admin under Annexation , County of LA , Guest Commentary , Opinion , Santa Clarita Valley , Supervisor Antonovich [6] Comments
In response to several inquiries from residents in the 5th District regarding my position concerning annexations, I appreciate this opportunity to share my views. Under State law, known as the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, it is the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) which processes annexations in the County of Los Angeles. It is important to note that LAFCO is a State, not a County agency, and that its membership is intended to represent broad constituencies from throughout the County of Los Angeles. LAFCO includes representatives appointed by the County of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles City Council, members representing other cities in the County and special districts, a member representing the San Fernando Valley, and a member representing the public at large.
When the City of Santa Clarita was created, LAFCO excluded the west side of the Valley from the boundaries of the new city. Over the years, LAFCO has rejected, on three separate occasions, the City’s application to expand its “Sphere of Influence,” a pre-cursor to annexation, to include areas west of the I-5 Freeway. In each of these instances, LAFCO identified concerns about dividing up established communities, which is consistent with the provisions of Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg.
The City of Santa Clarita has annexed roughly 30 unincorporated areas since the City originally incorporated in 1987. The County has not stood in the way of these annexations, which, as far as I know, were supported by impacted residents. In rare instances, where I was concerned that accurate information be presented, the County provided information to impacted residents, but that is distinctly different from opposing an annexation altogether.
In terms of opposed annexations in the Santa Clarita Valley, I will oppose any annexation that divides established communities, particularly those annexations that are opposed by local town councils, chambers of commerce, and other community associations. If communities organize themselves in support of annexation and determine from within that the community supports annexation, I will not stand in their way so long as the annexation does not split up established communities.
The County Board of Supervisors has an adopted policy relative to annexations. Current policy, amended in December of 2007 by the County Board of Supervisors, states that “[t]he County will oppose annexations that carve up or fragment an unincorporated community that has a strong sense of identity.” This policy is another factor that impacts our County Board’s position as new annexations are proposed.
For unincorporated communities that wish to annex into a city, an application must be submitted to LAFCO. There are associated fees and costs, which can run to several thousands of dollars. While some cities may choose to front these costs and fees, and/or handle all of the submittals to LAFCO on behalf of unincorporated residents, there is no legal requirement for a city to do so. In times of lean government budgets, it may be particularly burdensome for a city to commit limited financial resources to an annexation that involves residents who currently neither live in the City, pay taxes to the City, nor vote for City elected officials or ballot items affecting the City.
The issues which I have discussed in this article will be foremost in my mind as proposed annexations are presented to the County or under consideration by LAFCO. To the extent a community is proposed to be divided, and established community representatives, town councils, chambers of commerce and community associations, oppose a specific annexation, I will oppose the annexation and make my position known to the commissioners who serve on LAFCO.
Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich
May 6th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
This is extremely well thought out!
May 6th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
I am surprised there have been no comments yet on this.
I applaud the supervisor for his position here. Not only is it consistent with the goals of LAFCO but he clearly indicates that the WILL OF PEOPLE affected by any annexation will weigh heavily in his decision to support or oppose.
This is what elected leadership is about. Using policy as a guideline, the Supervisor has laid out a clear and fair-minded approach, one that cannot easily be shifty or underhanded at a later date. IMHO, this shows a great deal of integrity on the matter.
I sincerely hope that Santa Clarita’s city staff and elected officials will make new strides in dealing with its public this same way. Public trust demands that leaders lay out the facts in full and state their positions clearly so that the public knows what its getting and can debate if needed. Unfortunately, on critical issues like use of public funds, public safety data, controversial development, OVOV, and annexation, the City has a very long way to go to providing clear, concise and complete facts to its residents.
I also hope that our City leaders will take a step back and begin a renewed relationship with the county. This is crucial to our valley’s planning and economic growth moving forward, yet we have created anger and resentment with the county, neighboring businesses, and Westside homeowners. To what end?
Supervisor Antonovich continues to show concern for all of our valley residents, most recently with his amendments to the 30/10 Plan which largely benefit our community. Yet while many other Northern L.A. cities in embrace and thank Antonovich, our city seems to fight at every turn. I have yet to hear a good reason for this.
So, this begs the question: is the animosity between the city and county a result of ego or a fundamental (and fatal) difference in the definition of leadership and public service?
May 6th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
David,
Thank you for your thoughtful and on pointed comments. Supervisor Antonovich did write a very concise, evenhanded and intelligent editorial that is fervently consistent and unwavering in his view of the unincorporated west side communities. He is a leader that is looking at the larger picture, a visionary, and listening to the entire constituency of the area.
The City of Santa Clarita leadership would be abundantly better off emulating that kind of civic management then their current tact of duplicity, deceit and clumsy administration. For the last decade or more the City has been relentless in trying to do whatever it feels like in the Santa Clarita Valley with complete contempt for any community leadership, i.e. the local area town councils, community groups, or neighborhood associations.
What has it gotten them? Nothing except breeding ill will, mistrust and a zealous, growing chorus of critics! A cacophony of local residents and community activist who are; “mad as hell and not going to take it anymore!” which has become even more evident with the results of this last City Council election.
You asked a very succinct question; “is the animosity between the city and county a result of ego or a fundamental (and fatal) difference in the definition of leadership and public service?” Of course the answer lies in the bombastic, verbose and pompous verbal puking displayed by Councilman Ferry frequently when he is on a donut induced tirade in council chambers. Ferry and others have regularly elevated the City to deity status while treating all others as leper outcasts.
The old saying that “you can’t teach old dogs new tricks” may apply here and is all the more reason to work towards a regime change. The next Council election is only two years away and I hope that you will start building your campaign war chest now.
Until then many of us will be working diligently to fend off the marauding cheats, miscreants and of course the donut wielding Councilman.
Thank you,
-Dave
May 7th, 2010 at 8:37 am
[...] Supervisor Antonovich writes op/ed for West Ranch Beacon, saying that he will “oppose any annexation that divides established communities, particularly those annexations that are opposed by “local town councils, chambers of commerce, and other community associations.” David Gauny then chimes in with a comment praising the Supe’s statement and saying that the City of Santa Clarita needs to explain better topics such as public safety data, OVOV and “controversial developments.” Gauny then says the City has created anger and resentment in unincorporated areas and he doesn’t understand why there’s animosity between the two when Antonovich seems to care so much for residents in this area WRB [...]
May 10th, 2010 at 7:18 am
[...] Thursday, May 5, 2010, The Beacon published a Guest Editorial by Los Angeles County 5th District Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich in which he reiterated his [...]
May 10th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
“…..Of course the answer lies in the bombastic, verbose and pompous verbal puking displayed by Councilman Ferry frequently when he is on a donut induced tirade in council chambers. Ferry and others have regularly elevated the City to deity status while treating all others as leper outcasts…..”
Oh my, this is the best description of how our city works that I have ever seen! And how unfortunate for the citizens of Santa Clarita that this is so true.
There is no reason for the West side to annex into Santa Clarita. The representation that West side residents receive from their Town Councils and from Supervisor Antonovich is SO far superior to what we get over here in our little slice of hell. You folks are treated with respect, with consideration; as you can see from our sad experiences over here, annexing into SCV means you will be giving up the superior representation you now experience from your Town Councils. So why would anyone on the West side want to be part of the hell that has become The City of Santa Clarita?
You folks on the west side have no reason to change what you have. You are blessed with government that works FOR the people, not AGAINST the people. We, the people of Santa Clarita, do not count with our city government, and we are treated like garbage when we voice concerns for our communities when vile, destructive projects threaten to totally destroy our neighborhoods. We get nothing but lies and misrepresentations, and our governemnt puts as many obstacles in our way as they can to prevent transparency and public input. Our City Council and City Manager Ken Pulskamp even moved the public comment portion at City Council from the first part to the last part of the council meetings to discourage SCV citizens from voicing our concerns! What you have on the West side is what WE dream of having over here -a government that exists FOR the people! You live our dream, West siders, there is no reason for you to annex into the hell that has become Santa Clarita.