Creating a new tax in order to purchase land in and around the City is a non-creative and awful way to preserve open space. It will cost the City $92,500 just for the “establishment process of the District and the design, production, and mailing of notices, ballots, and educational materials to all City property owners.” This is on top of the money already spent by the City during the last go-round when City residents voted the proposal down. Instituting yet another tax is a bad idea for the community. Here is what it will actually cost the City residents over the next 30 years:

For example, at the proposed FY 07-08 maximum assessment rate of $25.00 per benefit unit, a single-family home would be assessed $25.00 (for 1.0 benefit units per single-family home), a condominium or apartment would be assessed $18.75 per dwelling (for 0.75 benefit units per dwelling), a vacant parcel one acre in size would be assessed $18.75 (for 0.75 benefit units per acre), a vacant parcel five acres in size and larger would be assessed $18.75 (for a maximum of 3.75 benefit units per vacant parcel), and developed non-residential property one acre in size would be assessed $75.00 (for three benefit units per acres).

The Engineer’s Report describes the annual adjustment to the maximum assessment, which would be $1.00 per benefit unit each year after FY 07-08, and identifies exempt properties such as school fields and other existing open space and recreation providers. The Engineer’s Report incorporates a description of the City’s Open Space and Parkland Program and how the assessment district funding fits into the Program. Pursuant to the Engineer’s Report, the portion of the Program to be funded by the Preservation District in FY 2007-08 shall not exceed 28.5% of the Program’s budget. The District and levy of assessments will terminate after 30 years.

Why not instead use the City funds earmarked for the ballot initiative to establish and seed a Land Trust in which land owners can donate land and residents could voluntarily donate money? This is an idea that has worked quite successfully in other parts of our Country. Typical land trusts are locally driven and something that the community takes pride in with volunteers making up many of the board of directors or overseers.

With a Santa Clarita Valley Land Trust there could be annual fund raiser to add to the trust for purchases and the event itself would promote the benefits of gifting property and cash to the trust. This type of an organization could include all residents of the Santa Clarita Valley; city and unincorporated residents. It is very possible that such an entity could actually generate more than the aggregate of the proposed tax.

Creating another new tax that would run for 30 years is simply a bad idea. There are other alternatives that should be explored and investigated thoroughly before attempting to squeeze tax payers for anymore cash.

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.