Image not recovereddebate001_s.JPG
Scores of Santa Clarita residents turned out to hear advocates and opponents debate the City of Santa Clarita's open space measure at Vincenzo's pizza in Newhall on Thursday evening.
The debate, organized by the Democratic Alliance for Action, included City Planning Commissioner Diane Trautman who argued in favor of the measure, Jim Farley, who organized the opposition to the measure, and Sterling King, the man who has created several YouTube videos in opposition to it. com exclusive report.At issue in the debate was whether homeowners ought to approve the city's proposed assessment of $25 per year to purchase land outside the city and set it aside permanently as open space. The assessment addresses concerns about over-development in Santa Clarita, a concern never far from the heart of many of Santa Clarita's residents. City homeowners received a ballot in the mail on May 25 and have until July 10 to vote on the assessment. Sterling King and fellow opponent Jim Farley didn't see the need for the assessment, which they call a tax. King said he had examined the city's budget and revenue for the last few years and said that, "the City has plenty of money," to purchase lands without assessing homeowners. But Trautman and fellow advocate Bill Bailey disagreed, saying that the land may not be affordable or available later. "Twenty years from now, the land costs will be doubled," Bailey said. "$2 a month is cheap. You lose that much money in the sofa." "The city can find the money in their own couch," King replied. At the beginning of the debate, each side was given five minutes to make opening remarks. Bruce McFarland, president of the DAA, sat between the four debaters and moderated. Trautman opened by saying that the assessment was the best way to buy land and preserve open space for future generations in Santa Clarita. She echoed city leader's assurances that the land purchased with funds from the assessment would be "deed restricted" and never sold to developers. After the panelists' opening remarks and brief rebuttals, McFarland allowed the audience to ask questions. One resident asked Trautman what assurances homeowners have that landowners outside the city won't inflate their sale prices if the measure is passed. "The city won't identify the properties it is interested in yet for that reason," Trautman said.
Image not recovereddebate002_s.JPG
On its website, the city has posted a map outlining in red a large area around the city it calls the "Benefit Area Boundary." Inside the red boundary line are mulitple plots of land marked as "Vacant/Undeveloped Properties." Most of the Vacant/Undeveloped plots are located in north Saugus and Canyon Country. Areas south of Castaic and west and east of Newhall are also marked as Vacant and Undeveloped.
King doubted the city could buy the land cheap. "The jig is up. Every land owner knows their land is being looked at," he said. "The city is going into uncharted territory," by hoping to purchase large areas of land, Farley added.
Another homeowner asked about the open space campaign itself and who was paying for it.
"Can you explain the heavy handed marketing material that showed chalk outlines of murder victims? And who is funding the committee that sends out these mailers?"
A few days before homeowners received the open space ballot in May, many received a campaign mailer that showed a murder victim's chalk outline on asphalt with a gun nearby. "It could happen in Santa Clarita..." the flyer said. Inside the flyer, the SCV Save Open Space committee -a separate committee distinct from the city- argued that the open space measure would reduce crime and murder in Santa Clarita.
Trautman admitted that she didn't like the flyer and even found it offensive. "We didn't like the approach that was taken," she said. "I found the crime flyer pretty offensive." Trautman is on the Save Open Space committee, but says most members were not involved in making decisions about the design of the mailers.
Scott Wilk, a local political consultant, made the decision to use the image, according to a June 3, 2007 article in the Daily News. Wilk said he used the provocative imagery to entice the reader to open up the mailer.
As for the funding of the SCV Save Open Space committee, Trautman said she didn't necessarily agree with keeping the sources of the committee's funds hidden, but said that she and other committee members believed in the measure enough to donate their own funds.
"I've put money into it. I wouldn't be here and put money into it if I didn't believe it was good for Santa Clarita," she said. Trautman is running for city council and has given presentations about the open space measure to groups around town.
Another debate attendee suggested that the city could work with the County of Los Angeles to preserve open space in areas outside of the city's boundaries. Trautman insisted that the city had tried that in the past. "We are virtually ignored by the county supervisors," Trautman said.
"There is much more [development] coming down the pike," she said, referring to new, county-approved developments outside the city's boundaries.
In 2005, the City of Santa Clarita tried to pass a similar measure, but it failed. Trautman said she supported that measure, but was pleased that the current open space measure addressed the weaknesses of the old one. The current measure, unlike the last one, has a 30 year sunset clause, and an oversight and financial audit panel.
Trautman noted that the city faced no organized opposition the last time it tried to pass the measure. She said "It's a toss up" as to whether the assessment will be approved by homeowners.
After the debate, King denied that he was reflexively anti-tax, saying that as a homeowner, he's willing to pay taxes for services the city provides. But he said that the "burden of proof" is on the city to prove to residents that they ought to support the assessment.
For more information, visit the following resources:
Open Space Preservation District Website: Link
Sterling King's Videos on the Open Space District: Link
Open Space Measure stirs debate