The West Ranch Beacon

Below is a “vintage” column by Dave Bossert from 2004. We will, from time to time, be posting previously published articles and commentaries whenever they still feel relevant. Hope you enjoy!

Recently, Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich sent out letters opposing the proposed annexation of the Valencia Commerce Center and the Lyons Canyon property, also known as the Warner Ranch property. Both properties are located west of I-5 in the unincorporated parts of the Santa Clarita Valley. The West Ranch Town Council, The Castaic Town Council, Newhall Land, and property owners Sterling Gateway, Inc also oppose this attempted land grab.
The City of Santa Clarita is attempting to commandeer these properties from the residents in order to get a toehold on the Westside of the freeway. This is another example in which the City of Santa Clarita is doing everything it can to expand without having to speak with the community leadership of either the Westside or Castaic. Time and time again, the City has tried to circumvent opening up a productive and sustained dialogue with the communities of the unincorporated areas.
The City refuses to deal in good faith with the elected leadership in the unincorporated areas west of I-5 and has been disrespectful to the residents right to self-determination. This tactic will not work, does not work and has ultimately had a detrimental effect on the City and the future of the Santa Clarita Valley.
I would like to use the simple analogy of modern day dating to illustrate what the City should be doing in order to expand. Let’s say your single (the City) and are out at a social function. Across the room you spot someone who is attractive (any revenue generating unincorporated area). Your eyes meet. You walk over, introduce yourself and strike up a conversation. Hopefully you have some things in common. If all goes well you exchange phone numbers and agree to get together again. You wait a few days and then you call to say what a great time you had and arrange to go out on a formal date. Over dinner you both have another great conversation and realize that you have a lot in common. This of course leads to further dating and the building of a relationship. Over time, sometimes years, you both build a strong relationship that includes sharing, trust, integrity, and love. Finally, you both decide that to get married (annex into the City) and live happily ever after.
Instead, the City of Santa Clarita has decided to take the Caveman approach to dating. Spot someone you like (Valencia Commerce Center and the Warner Ranch property), walk over to them, bonk them on the head with a club and drag them off by their hair. That behavior may have worked a few thousand years ago but it does not work now.
Several years ago, The West Ranch Town Council attempted to build a relationship with the City. The City met with the West Ranch Town Council and at that first meeting we discussed many issues. When the City realized that any annexation would require many meetings, discussions, and negotiations (not unlike a normal relationship), they decided not to have any further discussions. The City clearly did not want to work at building a relationship, but would rather take some bad advice and attempt to take a more disingenuous, deceitful path.
A case in point, the Warner Ranch property 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 apparently 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.
The density and environmental impact that this project will have is more than the City would allow within it’s own borders, yet they are happy with approving it provided the owners agree to annex the land into the City of Santa Clarita. Of course, the City did not and has not spoken to any of the West Ranch Town Council members, the community leadership, regarding plans for this property and the impact it will have on the communities in the unincorporated areas.
As we have all witnessed, The City of Santa Clarita has chosen the caveman approach to dealing with it’s neighbors and once again it is being met with opposition that will ultimately end in another defeat for the City Council. The City’s behavior has only strengthened the West Ranch and Castaic Town Councils resolve, who are now communicating more frequently and are joining forces in forming a vision for their respective communities.
There are clearly three options for the unincorporated areas of the Santa Clarita Valley: 1) stay unincorporated in Los Angeles County; 2) Annex into the City of Santa Clarita; or 3) Form a new Cities. All three of these are viable options for our communities and all have been explored to some degree. Unfortunately, the City of Santa Clarita has done just about everything it can do to prevent option number 2, annexing into the City, from happening anytime soon, if ever! If new cities are formed in the valley it will be a direct result of the actions of the current Santa Clarita City Council.
The City of Santa Clarita has made a mess of what could have been a very amicable and productive relationship with the unincorporated areas north and west of the City. The former Mayor Bob Keller once made the delusional suggestion that the residents of the Westside throw a party for the city to say thanks for all the city has done. Generally speaking, as a rule, if someone treats me poorly I usually don’t throw a party to say thanks!
Fortunately, the City of Santa Clarita has a new Mayor, Ms. Weste, as part of the rotation through the City Council. Maybe she can bring about some change in how the City is choosing to deal with expansion and growth in the valley. Rather than asking for a party maybe this Mayor can take a more rational approach and actually start trying to build a relationship with the unincorporated area Town Councils.

The now defunct Good Guys store at Pico Canyon and The Old Road is apparently becoming a problem for the community. Nationwide Security staff who were assessing the problems with the closed Good Guys store have noted graffiti on the parking lot walls, which recently has been painted over [presumably by the County of LA staff some possibly abandoned cars in the parking lot that have been broken into. Several car windows have been broken and trash was accumulating. The area appears to be in need of a chain link fence to abate the area as an attractive nuisance. It is obviously a “gathering place” said one resident. The Los Angeles County staff has been very effective in “keeping the lid” on this problem, however this “attractive nuisance” needs to be abated quickly. Residents are asking for this problem to be handled in a timely fashion although the property owners appear to be ignoring the problem to date.

Term limits, campaign reform and lobbyist reform have been hot topics in Sacramento and Los Angeles of late.

Recently, the Los Angeles City Council approved a ballot initiative, which combines lobbyist reform with extending the term limits from eight years to 12 years for themselves, but excludes the Mayor, City Controller and City Attorney. Seven out of the 15 members will be termed out in the next LA City council election.

An article in the Los Angeles Times over the weekend, blamed term limits for the cause of staff members leaving legislators and working for lobbyists. If you believe that, I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn! I know people who work for Los Angeles City council members and state representatives. One of them worked for a Los Angeles City Councilwoman, her successor and now works for a State Senator. In other words, he has not had a problem finding employment. Prior to writing this commentary, I asked him if he had any concerns about job security. He stated that he did not but just the opposite. He has met a lot of people, made a lot of contacts, which have led to job offers. Why do staff people leave? Just like the rest of us, better opportunity, more money, potential for growth or wanted to do something different. Term limits are not causing the loss of staff for our elected officials.

What I find ironic, is that most legislatures say that government needs to run like a business: more efficient, resourceful, responsive and so on. Yet, they say that it takes them four years to learn how to do their job. Imagine that you serve on a board of directors and that you are interviewing potential candidates to run the company. Imagine every job candidate state, ” I would like the job, but it would take four years to learn what I am doing and you will not see results from my performance until then.” How many of you would consider hiring that person?
The purpose of term limits was for the elected official to hit the ground running and attempt to do everything he/she stated that they would do, because they would no longer be able to serve as long as they wanted to.

Some argue that the job is difficult, technical and so on. No one made our elected officials run for office. In addition, at the state level our legislators have staff, field office(s) and other resources at their disposal. What they need to do is focus on their job at hand.

The purpose of term limits, was supposed to get rid of the career politicians, to a certain extent we have succeeded and on other parts we have failed. The sad part, is that it appears our elected officials care more about fund raising, then anything else, they are worried about the next election or what other seat they will run for, instead of representing their constituents.

We need lobbyist reform and campaign finance reform. What are the solutions? I don’t have all the answers, but one suggestion I have is to ban all fund raising while the state legislature is in session or in other words, fund raising will only be allowed when the legislative body is in recess. One of my friends who works in Sacramento, informed me that basically every night of the week there is a fund raising event for either an elected official, political party or some cause.

Hopefully this time, our elected officials are serious about lobbyist reform and campaign finance reform. I would encourage all of you to contact your representatives and inform them of any ideas you have. It is time to get back to governing and making California a better place for our children!

Michael Cruz

The Wets Ranch Town Council will have its regular monthly meeting on Wednesday August 2nd, 2006 at 6:30 PM at the Southern Oaks community center. The Agenda includes regular update from various committees and county representatives. Here is the agenda as of today, July 27th:

A. Call To Order/Roll Call

B. Approval of July Minutes

C. Treasurer Report and Banking Update

D. County Updates

1. Doug Newell Parks and Rec
2. Sheriff’s Liaison
3. CHP Liaison
4. Bob Haueter LA County

E. Newhall School District- Marc Winger to discuss New Elementary
School/ Southern Oaks gate issues

F. Committee Reports

1. Election (Should have this kept on the Radar)
2. Security/Public Safety
3. Governmental Relations
a. Homeless Shelter Task Force
b. Westridge HOA and TPC issues Update
4. Westridge and Southern Oaks Liaisons
5. Sunset Point Liaison- Chuck to update on traffic issue

G. Old Business

H. Public Comment

I. Adjournment

A local “newspaper” editorial recently claimed, falsely, that the West Ranch Town council didn’t even have the power to control when residents “put their trash out”. As the press release below shows the Town Council does have influence, which in some circles is power!

After consulting with the Master Board of Directors of Stevenson Ranch, the West Ranch Town Council and listening to the feedback we’ve received from the Stevenson Ranch community at large, Waste Management is pleased to announce that we will switch your service day back to Mondays from Fridays. This will take effect on Monday, July 31st, 2006. Your final Friday service will be on July 28th, 2006, so in effect, you will be serviced on that Friday and the following Monday. From then on, your permanent day of service will be Mondays.

As a corporate citizen and member of the Stevenson Ranch community, we were proud to help sponsor the July 4th fireworks show and hope everyone who attended had a wonderful time, we feel privileged to have been able to help sponsor the fireworks for eight years running and will continue.

Beginning the week of July 31st

Your final Friday service will be on Friday July 28th.

PLEASE HAVE ALL GARBAGE, RECYCLING and YARD DEBRIS AT
THE CURB BY 6:00 am OR THE NIGHT BEFORE.

We appreciate your feedback and we are proud to be part of Stevenson Ranch. If you have questions, please call Waste Management / Blue Barrel at 1-661-259-2398.

Thank you.
Your friends at Waste Management of Santa Clarita (Blue Barrel Disposal)

Landfill Gas-To-Energy Generators Transform Methane Gas Into Green Power
Sun Valley, CA, July 20, 2006 - With summer temperatures soaring throughout California and leading to stress on the state’s power suppliers, Waste Management in Sun Valley is offering a better way to help keep local residents cool. Waste Management’s Bradley Landfill and Recycling Center, in the Northeast San Fernando Valley, is currently generating enough clean energy to power 10,000 Los Angeles homes.

The green power, which is produced by capturing landfill methane gas, a natural by-product of decomposing garbage, is produced at Waste Management’s site, and fed directly to the local power grid. Methane gas is captured in a series of wells throughout the landfill, which is then fed into a natural gas turbine where it is converted into electricity.

“Waste Management is the only Los Angeles waste company that currently captures natural gas to turn it into energy,” said Doug Corcoran, Director of Special Operations for the company. “This process helps us close the loop, taking what would otherwise be waste and putting it to good use - it’s a complete circle and a great use of an abundantly available resource.”

Typically, landfills simply “flare” off excess methane gas generated by landfill decomposition. This process, however, only wastes the potential energy produced by landfills. Waste Management was the first to capture this gas and use it to create energy.

Waste Management’s 100 renewable energy projects produce enough electricity to power more than 800,000 homes and save the equivalent of 8.2 million barrels of oil per year. Nationally, WM currently supplies enough landfill gas to create more than 250 megawatts of green energy - enough to power 225,000 homes, replacing over 2 million barrels of oil per year.

California has declared a power emergency. Power outages are possible throughout the State and PG & E requests customers refrain from non-essential use of energy. Outages have already affected some cities around the state.
Quick Powering-Down Tips:

1) Turn off unneeded lights, computers and appliances
2) Set thermostat to 78-F or higher when you’re home
3) Set thermostat to 85-F or off when you’re away
4) Use major appliances and equipment after 7 p.m.

OUTAGES: Outages have affected customers in the cities of San Jose, Los Gatos, Saratoga, Dublin, Pleasanton, San Ramon, Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton and Concord, officials said.

Over at SCVTalk.com is a seriously flawed rebuttal to a piece that was posted last week on The West Ranch Beacon titled “Another Different Look at Annexation- What’s in it for Us?”.

To start with the author, Chris at SCVTalk.com, claims that I wrote the piece, which I did not. The article was written by Ron Mechsner a member of the West Ranch Town Council who was expressing his own personal views.

Chris went on to lay out a typical liberal argument that everyone should be treated the same. It is that same old, “if you get something we have to get too”, attitude. Reading his piece I thought that he may be an employee of the City of Santa Clarita!

Just because the West Ranch area has a large commercial base that the city wants doesn’t give us the right to negotiate an annexation?! Well the reality is that it does give us that right because the city can not annex the commercial centers without taking the adjoining neighborhoods as well. That gives our community a bargaining chip in any annexation discussion. The tax revenue that the commercial centers on The Old Road have generated fior the County has been beneficial to our community.

He claims “one thing I have learned is that government is most definitely not a business, and in no way is it run like one.” Well maybe local, state and federal government should be run more like a business, albeit a non-profit business, that way they can actually stop running deficits. It would cut down on chronic waste and work more efficiently. Running government more like a business that is accountable to its “shareholders” (taxpayers) would actually serve those taxpayers much better.

The one thing that anyone following the annexation debate has to realize is that you must do a comparative analysis of services. The West Ranch Town Council has been doing that in fits and starts with the City. We have learned that there are services that the County supplies that the City does not and there are services that the City supplies that the County does not. It worth noting that there are differences in the fees changed as well with the City charging additional fees that the County does not charge and there are fees that the County has that City does not charge.

It is not just about local representation as Chris has argued. It is about being responsible community leaders who are looking at all the issues involved in any of the options of self determination of our community. Looking at each service, fee, and program is part of the process and asking for parity in those fees, services and programs is part of that analysis and right of the community.

That analysis of annexation will continue regardless of the ridicule that is hurled by the local papers and blog sites. It is not only the right of the community but it is the intelligent thing to do. Blindly jumping into the arms of the City will not happen unless the community wants to do that and that has not been the indicated path from members of the West Ranch community.

On the first Wednesday of the month, the West Ranch Town Council has its monthly meeting. The residents who attend this meeting have not indicated any passionate plea to change the current status of the community. The constant call for annexation seems to be coming form those either in the City or acting on behalf of the City including the local “newspaper”. If annexation were a hot topic then I would think that those residents that want it should be letting their voice be heard at that monthly community meeting.

The Town Councils are advisory groups to the County that have no judicial power. What the Town Councils do have is influence. That’s right influence is as good as having actual power. Anyone who has attended the monthly West Ranch Town Council meeting will know that that influence has been flexed to get some very important issues dealt with over the past years. Sadly though, those successes have not been reported on in the local “newspaper” very much, if at all, because that would give the Town Council credibility. That is something that many on the City side don’t want to see happen.

Chris has every right to oppose an annexation of the West Ranch community if he wants but that will not prevent our community from making its own choices. It’s funny, one resident has recently said “let’s just annex now”, yet they are not willing to step up and do anything about it. The West Ranch Town Council has made the attempt to work with the City to investigate annexation. Unfortunately, the City does not seem to want a two way dialogue.

Dave Bossert
Commentary

Magic Mountain has become the “bell of the ball” lately with much interest being expressed by the City of Santa Clarita and others. Several options have been circulated including a sale, dismantling and sale of the land or a restructuring to cut costs. The City is also interested in annexing the Park which is highly unlikely since it is not contiguous to the City boundaries.

Fitting into all these options is the possibility of, according to various County officials and others, Magic Mountain becoming a new auto dealer mega center. Apparently some Auto Dealerships are eyeing the property because of its proximity to Interstate 5 and the size of the potential land parcels.

An auto dealership complex could make sense in any of the scenarios being reported. If the park is sold the new owners would possible sell some of the undeveloped park land in order to monetize their investment more quickly. Should the park remain part of Six Flags, management could potentially still sell off some of the undeveloped land for dept relief. Of course, there are many possibilities for the land if the park were shuttered and dismantled.

The park closing is an unlikely scenario though because Magic Mountain is one of the crown jewels in the Six Flags system. No doubt that this story will take its twists and turns in the coming months.

During the run up to the recent City Council election I was mortified to find out that the City had elected to have polling stations located in the most outrageous places. Most, not even close to the districts there were to serve. My own location was located by Home Depot in Canyon County where as I live in Circle J. area which is literally miles away.

My biggest location issue was the Mercedes Benz dealership of Valencia. Yes, if you didn’t know it, that was a polling location. What in the world were the city officials thinking? Imagine having to go to a car dealership to vote? I have asked for and still not received polling data per location so I cant attest to the voter turn out there, but lets assume it was pretty low. My e-mails to the City clerk after the election asking “why” the polling locations favored people staying at home instead of voting have gone un-answered.

I knew there was a slight problem when my mail carrier came a knock’n at my door the day after the election. He was perplexed. He had gone to his usual polling locale and the folks told him that the city never contacted them for this election at all and that they had no idea where their polling location was. Then came the June primaries and low and behold, there they are with the garage open and people voting.

I am not real happy with the way the City chose its polling locations, but they did their best. Next time I am sure they will do better. Was it rigged? No way, they just made a few dumb decisions. Would better, closer to the district polling locations have increased or helped increase voter turn out? Yes, I do believe that. Say 5% more to be safe. Which would have had NO impact on the results.

Is it the City, County or States responsibility to make people vote? Nope. It is there responsibility to make it possible for them to vote in a fair and prudent manner.

I bring all this up because I am shocked still at the voter turn out for the West Ranch town Council. 54 people voted! 54 people voted. The local papers Op Ed writers blame location for weak turn out. Recently an Out of State writer for the Mighty Signal claimed it was a signal to the Town Council that they just didn’t care about them and want them to go away.

Ok, I am not normally like this, because I like my local papers and read them everyday, but lets get serious. This is total Bull! To say that people didn’t vote to send a signal to the town council that they didn’t care about them is just freaking nutty! You have to be a political neophyte to even think that way. What a down-right silly comment. Why didn’t he say the same thing when 14% voted in the last city council election? Instead it was all about people liking it the way it was and the status quo because everything is alright. Wow! Here is your alright folks, Where the hell is frank Ferry? Marsha? Bob Keller and Cameron? The only person doing anything is Mayor Weste, whom I now have a lot of respect for and admire.

Lets look at the other “problem” people have with the West Ranch election. Location. 4th of July fireworks in the park and vote. seems pretty simple and easy to me. People in this country have been screaming for YEARS that we need to hold elections on weekends or holidays because more people would vote. Well, there goes that myth. What if they had it at all the club houses in West Ranch? well, ok we increase it by 5%…..I think I made my point.

The problem is not location or people sending a signal that they hate the town councils or city councils, the problem is voter apathy. People don’t care. Yes 100 million of us cared to vote for a President in the last election but what about the rest of the eligible voters in this county? Didn’t they know where the location was? Didn’t they know that there was an election coming up? Didn’t they know who the candidates where? The answer is simple, they didn’t give a rip. Period. I know people like this. We all know people like this. They just don’t seem to care. Cant vote, got cook dinner or whatever. 87,000 eligible voters in SCV and only 14,000 vote for 3 open City Council seats. What a joke. That means that there are 73,000 people here in this City whom have NO say in the political debate at all as far as I am concerned. You don’t vote, your opinion means nothing. Just like if you lived in Virginia. You don’t vote here but you have the audacity to tell US how to vote. How sad. People in Virginia are probably thrilled that their local political writer is not espousing his version of political discourse locally and instead way over there in La La land. Politico’s in Virginia would eat him for lunch.

They had better voter turn out in Iraq and there they risked their lives to vote. Please don’t blame the candidates for low voter turn out, if you do you lose all credibility with people who have IQ’s over your 50. Just go back to cartoon network and your cheese wiz smoothy and leave the rest of us alone. You scare us.

I ran in the election this year in SCV. I came in last. I am proud that I tried to make a difference and bring fresh ideas to the debate. I put my name and reputation on the line and was fully vetted by the city and county. People came after me and I was proud to take them on and debate the facts. Facts are what matters. You cannot debate someone who has the facts wrong to begin with. Virginia is wrong and owes an real apology to the people of West Ranch and the Town Council.

Jack Murphy

U.S. Marines have landed in Lebanon to help with the evacuation of U.S. Citizens to Cyprus. The State Department has started to contact American citizens who have registered with the Embassy to begin the evacuation process from Lebanon. If you or a loved one have not been contacted by the embassy, please contact the Arab American Institute at (202) 429-9210 or rabouchedid@aaiusa.org and we will assist you in reaching the proper officials at the State Department.

Details of the State Department’s evacuation plan, including special arrangements for those in the South, and the answers to some of the most frequently asked questions are available below.

The most updated information can be found at the State Department’s website at www.travel.state.gov

The Arab American Institute (AAI) has received hundreds of e-mails from American citizens trapped in Lebanon as well as their family and friends. As the State Department continues to finalize plans for their evacuation, the State Department’s emergency task force on Lebanon has provided AAI with answers to some of the frequently asked questions regarding the government’s evacuation plan.

Q. What is the best way for American citizens in Lebanon to register with the US Embassy?
A. The U.S. Embassy encourages Americans who have not yet registered to phone the Department of State at 202-501-4444 from overseas, or at 1-888-407-4747 if calling from the U.S. and Canada. Registration can be completed by family or friends for their American relatives in Lebanon.

Q. What details are available for the evacuation?
A. The U.S. Department of State continues to work with the U.S. Department of Defense on a plan to help American citizens safely depart Lebanon. Americans who wish to depart Lebanon should prepare important travel documents such as a valid U.S. passport, birth certificates, and other civil documents such as marriage certificates, and medical records. Once U.S.-sponsored travel arrangements are in place, travelers will each be allowed only one small suitcase. The State Department will give priority to U.S. citizens but will consider departure assistance to Legal Permanent Residents accompanying a U.S. citizen immediate family member. We understand that neither Lebanese nor Americans need a visa to enter Cyprus. Pets will not be allowed to travel.

Q: There are thousands of Americans trapped in southern Lebanon, which has been heavily bombed, and is significantly more dangerous than the rest of the country. What advice does the State Department have for Americans in south Lebanon?
A: Embassy Beirut and personnel including consular and US AID officers have identified to places in Southern Lebanon were Americans may gather. The Embassy is also planning on providing transportation to run buses from these gathering points to the port of Beirut. This plan will be tested on Wednesday and the State Department hopes to continue them as long as necessary to evacuate all American citizens who wish to leave. The State Department urges Americans to use their best judgment when making travel decisions.

Q: Will green card holders be included in the evacuation?
A: Unfortunately, green card holders will only be eligible for evacuation in certain situations. If a green card holder is part of a family unit, that green card holder will be evacuated with their US citizen relatives, so as not to separate the family. In the case of a US citizen who is a minor, one non-citizen (green card holder or otherwise) may evacuate with that minor. After the evacuation of American citizens, there may be opportunities for those with green cards to evacuate.

Q: What is the status of green card holders if they are unaccompanied minors?
A: Permanent residents who are unaccompanied minors should contact the embassy and they may be included in the evacuation plan.

Q: What happens if a child is an American citizen and his/her parents are not?
A: US citizens who are minors can be accompanied by one adult chaperone. If the adult chaperone is not a green card holder, he/she will be considered a “visitor.” The guardian must have a valid passport and a U.S. visa if traveling to the U.S.

Q: What is the process for payment of the evacuation flight out of Lebanon?
A: Persons evacuating Lebanon will be charged by the US government the standard commercial rate for a flight from Lebanon to the United States. The exact amount has yet to be specified. Upon evacuation, individuals will sign a promissory note. No financial transactions will take place at the time of evacuation.

Q: What should an American citizen do if they do not have proper identification?
A: Before going to the designated evacuation point, individuals without identification may have to go to the US Embassy to verify their status as US citizens. The Embassy can verify citizenship using a database which includes the passport photos of US citizens.

Q: Can Americans find refuge at the US Embassy?
A: The US Embassy does not have the capacity to provide shelter for American citizens.

Q: What is the treatment of individuals who are dual Lebanese and American citizens?
A: Dual citizens are provided all of the rights of American citizens.

Once again, it appears the subject of annexation has risen to the level of a hot issue – particularly with the City of Santa Clarita.

The latest is the recent report that the City is investigating the annexation of the land that Six Flags Magic Mountain has – and to offer a package of incentives to Six Flags to attempt to prevent their inclusion of the park in any capital asset sale intended to reduce the corporate debt.

One has to wonder exactly what kind of incentives can be offered that would sufficiently entice Six Flags to not only not sell the Park, but still achieve their goals of debt reduction. It’s clear that the City is concerned about the economic impact on the Valley if the Park is sold and closes, so they seek to share with Six Flags proceeds from the value that the Park brings the City in such a way that both parties can achieve their goals – a win-win.

If only the City would work with the rest of the West Side with a similar level of consideration to achieve a win-win scenario.

In the past 18 months, annexation discussions have included all / parts of both the Castaic (Valencia Commerce Center / Hasley Hills) and the West Ranch (Six Flags, Westridge, Lyons Canyon) communities. We hear a lot of why these annexations would be good for the City and the One Vision One Valley goal. But what is missing from these discussions is the other side of the win-win equation – What’s in it for the West Side?

In business, whether the transaction is a merger or an acquisition – the discussions all work towards a win-win. Both parties negotiate to a deal / compromise that satisfy each of their goals. If one side doesn’t believe it is getting a fair deal – the discussions reach an impasse and may end.

There have been past attempts at information exchange towards annexation. These get lost in the minutia of comparing County / City services that ultimately are likely to be equivalent or represent minor cost differences. During the latest of these efforts the City just stopped scheduling next step meetings. We hear that any community should be grateful to join the City. We see continued interest in large parts of the West Side – in particular the business and commercial components that generate the revenues the City needs to grow and improve. But the most important part of these past discussions is what has been missing – How does the West Side benefit?

Will the West Side gain a larger voice and a stronger ability to determine their future direction than we have today? Will there be more parks, more recreation facilities, paseos, Mello-Roos relief / compensation, a stronger focus on traffic improvement and safety, better growth management and planning, and other tangible efforts the City could take to use the value brought in by the West Side to benefit both the West Side and the City and not simply deliver what the West Side already has today.

We need to change the tack and tone of the discussions regarding annexation – and start to look at how this option can create a win-win for both the West Side and the City if annexation is to be a viable option for the West Side. Our advantage is that we have self-determination and with it control of our future. We can select the best option that provides us the best return for the value of our community and change only if it is to our benefit.

Ron Mechsner