SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
April 26, 2010· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

Coming out of the closet

Dear SCVTalk Readers:

I must admit, I was a bit surprised at all the blowback I received for my piece about the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association last week.

At first I thought maybe I was a little hard on those poor, put-upon P-canyon people, because, believe it or not, I respect your opinion  and I constantly challenge my own.

But then the comments kept pouring in. By the dozens, you supported the Association’s fight against the new railroad crossing at Lyons. You even doubted how terrible the existing 13th Street Railroad crossing is. And you invoked the unholy specter of high density housing in the heart of Newhall to convince me I was wrong, or perhaps, recruit me as an ally to fight that threat.

Here’s the thing many of you apparently don’t understand: high density doesn’t scare me. It’s not something I say with fear and dread in my voice; in fact, it doesn’t even give me night terrors.

Actually, truth be told, I rather like it.

I know you don’t like it. Or let’s be more accurate. You’re probably okay with two or even three story buildings (after all, that’s how tall your houses are); what you really don’t like is the extra people who would populate said buildings. In other words, you don’t like people like me.

Yes. People like me. Here’s another shocker: I’m not just an advocate of high density living, I’m also a member. I currently live in a condo assocation with about 50 units,  on probably just 7 acres of land. Guess why I live here? Because it’s affordable, and I enjoy living within walking distance of many shops, restaurants and amenities. Yes, I share a wall with my neighbors. They happen to be a lot like me: nice, pleasant, working folks. We watch out for each other, keep our common areas clean, and we know each other’s names.  I even have a little park-like open area outside my balcony, right here in the heart of Newhall, and yes, I share it with others.

I guess you could call it a commune.  It’s wonderful!

Are there scummy renting tenants? Sure. But life isn’t always clean and antiseptic. I take the good with the bad and I keep the security company phone number on my speed dial. And it’s not like low-density single family home neighborhoods in the rest of Santa Clarita are crime free (Lookout for that crazy Stevenson Ranch shooter guy! Or the professional hits on various people in Valencia and Westridge).

I look at it this way. If Santa Clarita has to grow (and anyone who says they can stop people from moving here is lying to you), then better it grow inside our City borders where we can manage it effectively than outside our borders. In other words, I’ll take a high density “infill” condominium/town home project housing 500 families over 500 single family homes on a torn up hillside in Newhall Ranch any day of the week.

Especially if it has shops, restaurants and places of employment built right in.

And you know what else? I, and a lot of other people, might like some of these innovative “valley of villages” style housing projects. Some of us hate driving just as much as you hate high density living . Imagine that! We might actually think it’s beneficial and positive to live near a  rail station, a bus depot, and within walking distance of a redeveloped Old Town Newhall.

Now that I’ve outed myself, I just want to say that I think there’s room enough for both our lifestyles in Santa Clarita. I hope you’ll keep reading my blog even if my lifestyle offends you. I promise to maintain an open mind, I hope you do the same.

Sincerely,

High Density & Proud and Not Shutting Up and Representing all my neighbors in my affordable condo association

Coming out of the closet

Comments (45)

  1. CCApril 26, 2010 at 10:40 am
    Jeff, I know you are a proponent of high-density living and in certain areas, I am too. However, the great San Fernando flight wasn’t to pursue more high density living, It was to get AWAY from high density living. Those who prefer this life style certainly wouldn’t choose SCV as their home. To turn SCV into this sort of environment will certainly drive people further out to get away from it. While I respect your opinion on the wonderful qualities of this style of living, I think you are off the mark in pushing it on those who are escaping it. I am certain those people who live in downtown L.A. will tell you how great it is and I am happy for them. But for most people in SCV, that isn’t what we have chosen for our home.
  2. CCApril 26, 2010 at 12:28 pm
    So there is a nice option for those that prefer to live in high-density communities.
  3. CCApril 26, 2010 at 1:39 pm
    I don’t have anything against HD Living. Heck, I think I might like a few years in Manhattan. What I am saying is that most people who came out to SCV, did so to avoid the HD living you advocate. I like to go out into my yard and hear nothing but the birds. I like to garden and hike. I don’t hang out at coffee-shops, I don’t frequent restaurants. I like to visit with my neighbors and enjoy the peace that I pay for with my daily nightmarish commute. If this turns into the HD nightmare I escape every night and weekend, then why would I live here?
  4. WalkerApril 26, 2010 at 12:49 pm
    I think I’ve already come out of that closet I’m a fan of HD-housing as well. We’re not in SCV for the sprawling lawns. Like John said, we’re here for the safe and family friendly community w/in a reasonable commute to employment. And CC, the people will come whether we plan well for it or not. We can either HD in ways that are innovative, people friendly, pleasant to look at, convenient for the new and existing residents, or we can build little stucco boxes 8 feet from one another without a thought to master planning and call is suburban living. I for one would much rather have more Bridgeports than more of the HD spewing all over CC (the Jakes Way through Fair Oaks area comes to mind….even if we ignore the trashy apartments, that’s poorly planned HD at it’s finest).
  5. CCApril 26, 2010 at 1:44 pm
    I understand what you are saying Walker and I like a good plan as well as I don’t much care for the sprawl either. However, to say that HD living will end sprawl is a bit naive as people will still buy the McMansions and sprawl will continue. Only managing building permits will end sprawl. What I don’t like is changing people’s standard of living in mid-stream. If the people moved to horse property in Placerita Canyon to enjoy this lifestyle than why are there so many who want to change that? To what purpose? Once you sink your life savings and spend many years in a community lifestyle that you enjoy, why would you put up with some outsider who wants to change it because it is the way THEY want to live? What gives you the right?
  6. ReaderMamaApril 26, 2010 at 1:08 pm
    Jeff, while your choice of high density housing over torn up hillsides is a worthy one, we don’t really have such a choice. Building high density housing within the city will not prevent torn up hillsides on the outskirts. The “American Dream” for most people is owning a house with a yard, not owning a condo with common walls. People with kids only buy condos when they can’t afford to buy a house. Those without children usually buy condos because they don’t want the responsibility of keeping up a yard. I don’t have a problem with high density housing, per se. I live in a townhome myself and I quite like it. But more high density housing in the SCV will just mean more people, more traffic, more crime, more crowded restaurants and malls, more strain on infrastructure and a reduced quality of life for those of us already living here. We have ours already, let the rest move to downtown L.A.!
  7. ReaderMamaApril 26, 2010 at 1:19 pm
    Pretty well, I think. Now get off my lawn!
  8. JeffApril 26, 2010 at 1:29 pm
    Ha! Good catch. Anti High Density is little more than chic new position to avoid the title “no growther.” If you ask me, the most consistent no-growther is Lynne Plambeck. She opposes it EVERYWHERE. The anti high density folks don’t really seem to care about Newhall Ranch or Tejon Ranch or 1,000 home developments way out in Castaic.
  9. CCApril 26, 2010 at 1:47 pm
    Did Lynne oppose the mall expansion? No, because it was sane growth. Without Lynne, you would definitely have the high-density Van Nuys living you so enjoy.
  10. CCApril 26, 2010 at 1:49 pm
    Also, are you really saying that Lynne and others who don’t like high density living have been silent on Newhall Ranch and Tejon? If you are saying that, well then it is obvious you haven’t been paying attention.
  11. ReaderMamaApril 26, 2010 at 2:16 pm
    Not true, Jeff. SCOPE vehemently opposed Newhall Ranch. The water needed for those developments doesn’t exist, but that doesn’t keep developers from playing games with the numbers and buying seats on the water boards.
  12. CoastalSageApril 28, 2010 at 3:27 pm
    It really doesn’t matter what density housing is built in the coming years. Castaic Lake Water Agencies lies about well water availability, to benefit Newhall Land and other homebuilder, are on the verge of being exposed. The ground water contamination plume coming out of Bermite is getting bigger and bigger, with no stopping means of stopping it on the horizon. The Health Department won’t approve the drink-ability of water coming out of the remediation equipment CLWA bought. The Regional Water Quality Control Board won’t let CLWA dump the salty water in the river either to “recharge the aquifer”. Wells are running dry east of Bermite. By and large, Santa Clarita has far less well water than it did 10 years ago, and that situation won’t change. Two judges in the Bay Area have permanently restricted the flow of State Water Project water southwards, for use in urban areas south of the Grapevine. There is no other water supply. As a result, the L.A. County Department of Regional Planning has stopped the preparation of the EIR for their part of “One Valley One Vision” because they simply cannot figure out where the County will get more water for home/condo/apartment owners. So it may end up that this debate over future high density housing vs. future single family housing is largely academic.
  13. SCVFan BillApril 26, 2010 at 2:33 pm
    Jeff, do you have children?
  14. Timothy MyersApril 26, 2010 at 2:55 pm
    WIFIDO!!!
  15. drive66April 26, 2010 at 2:59 pm
    And Ricky Martin is gay…who knew?
  16. navigatorApril 26, 2010 at 3:12 pm
    I’m with Jeff on this one. Give us more high density housing near mass transit. Just make sure that none of the units have garages and no parking within 1 mile and a stall for 2 bicycles.
  17. JeffApril 26, 2010 at 3:16 pm
    No need to be insulting. Curious: Did the complainers have a problem with the Madison apartments on McBean across from Town Center? Or with Bridgeport? How about the town homes across from Placerita Jr. High? Did you all say that those buildings would mean the end of life as we know it in Santa Clarita? This is high density to me. Not some sky-rise in West LA; that’s completely out of place at this point.
  18. navigatorApril 26, 2010 at 3:29 pm
    I wasn’t trying to be insulting Jeff. I own 2 condos in the SCV and the parking around either one is abominable because folks load up their garage and park on the street. The masses are all commuting somewhere in the morn and back again in the eve. Mass transit just doesn’t work as well here as it does back east. The more people you pack into an area means the more autos in and out.
  19. mikeApril 26, 2010 at 3:58 pm
    Quite a land-holding empire. What would you trade for a get out of jail free card?
  20. WalkerApril 26, 2010 at 5:46 pm
    Totally off topic but this is a pet peeve of mine. I wish all HOAs would take this kind of thing seriously. I’m sure most of their insurances plans (for those that carry group insurance) prohibit such use. You can tell which neighborhoods in the SCV consider this a priority and it really does bring down the desirability of the entire neighborhood.
  21. WalkerApril 26, 2010 at 5:34 pm
    I for one love Madison If they had a better system for storage, I’d be there in a heartbeat
  22. Love Santa ClaritaApril 26, 2010 at 3:25 pm
    One additional point to put into this discussion. AB 32 and SB 374 are requiring this type of infill high density development and the use of more transit. Supported by groups like the State Sierra Club. Then the local Sierra Club opposes Lyons. Why? Could it be that one of their officers lives in Placerita and is a Board Member of PCPOA? I agree with Jeff. Not consistent.
  23. AnnetteApril 26, 2010 at 4:55 pm
    Why can other cities like Ventura have just so many water meters and when they are taken that’s it! AB32 and SB374 do not require the high density near existing homes!
  24. JeffApril 26, 2010 at 5:01 pm
    It is the nature of our free market system to expand. When capacity is reached, new markets are opened.
  25. AnnetteApril 26, 2010 at 9:39 pm
    In Ventura (no, I do not want to move there)they must not have a free market system then. To build you must find an existing water meter before you can build. I like that idea to some extent. If Santa Clarita had a planning department that supported the water meter allowance method we would not have to worry so much. There is a way to not build, build and build more than we can support!
  26. Robert GardnerApril 26, 2010 at 4:44 pm
    I dont think many of you understand. Those of us that have been here in SCV for more than 5-10 years moved here because we didn’t want high density. If you want that try Stevenson Ranch or the Valley or LA. Why you gotta change our town? Same goes for my country. You like social care, go to France.
  27. Timothy MyersApril 26, 2010 at 4:47 pm
    Who were you trying to write in again?
  28. WalkerApril 26, 2010 at 5:41 pm
    Oh goody. I’ve been here 32 years so I’m allowed to have an opinion. Woot! Since we’re making up our own rules, I vote only those who have been here longer than 30 years get to have an opinion You’re welcome. I don’t live in the SCV because I’m afraid of high density. That’s just silly. I live here because it’s safe, attractive, well planned, convenient, family friendly. Sure there is low density if you’re into that, and lots and lots of medium density, but there’s no reason some tastefully planned high density shouldn’t be offered as well. I’ll agree that the SCV has no need for another Jakes Way, but there are some great models for attractive high density in our own city and others, why not strive for a mindful approach to a desired housing rather than just pissing about how ‘we’ don’t like HD housing and ‘we’ are the only ones that get a say because ‘we’ have been in the SCV long enough to warrant an opinion (which, again, requires 30 years of residency )
  29. mikeApril 26, 2010 at 8:04 pm
    Rob, I’ve been here so long, you used to bag my groceries.
  30. GangFangApril 26, 2010 at 11:20 pm
    Wait, I thought it was MY country. I’m so confused now.
  31. AnnetteApril 26, 2010 at 4:51 pm
    Walker said: “We can either HD in ways that are innovative, people friendly, pleasant to look at, convenient for the new and existing residents…” Then plan you high denisty away from existing neighborhoods! The problem some of the existing neighborhoods have with HD is, the planning department will not tell you the truth about a high density projects especially near existing homes. They WILL make the homeowners do all of the research because the planners fudge the numbers with fuzzy math and then tell you that there is an overlay no one knew about. In the case of the Smiser property, we were not told about an overlay of 700 homes until the last minute. No one had seen or heard about he overlay document! It is all in the language! Just as example of calculations; 1 Acre = 43,560 square feet 38 Acres x 43,560 equals 1,655,280 square feet 1,655,280 x .5 (far) equals 827,640 square feet of development. Since residential would require less additional parking/square feet, using the middle number of spaces required 3320 times 250 square feet for the space it would equal 1,975,400 square feet. So, 830,000 square feet of development plus 1,145,400 of parking equals 1,975,400 square feet. Then, do not forget about the additional 700 homes and there square feet add to that. Wow now you have 2 plus million square feet of HD development near existing homes! Remember that Paul Brotzman and Jeff Lambert Lobbyist came from West Hollywood after changing many of their zoning laws. Placerita has the same unknown fcats and figures and the same concerns as the rest of us. They just happen to be a special standards district and that too should stand for something. Good planning does not ruin existing neighborhoods.
  32. WalkerApril 26, 2010 at 5:32 pm
    I didn’t suggest to support ethically challenged development/ers I wasn’t aware that this was a targeted (PC) discussion. I’m speaking of HD housing in general, which I support. Housing near jobs, food, retail, walking trails, and yes mass transit. Do these types of developments belong in every neighborhood? Obviously not. Are their appropriate places for such development, yes.
  33. AnnetteApril 26, 2010 at 5:43 pm
    We do get our panties in a twist when HD, “ethically challenged developers” threatens our neighborhoods :/ I really do like the new description “ethically challenged developers” Thanks for the comments!
  34. SCVFan BillApril 26, 2010 at 7:34 pm
    Jeff, helloooo. Do you have children?
  35. JeffApril 26, 2010 at 8:35 pm
    Who’s asking? And why is it important?
  36. SCVFan BillApril 27, 2010 at 6:04 am
    IF you had children I suspect that you would have a different perspective.
  37. JeffApril 27, 2010 at 6:22 am
    Lots of people in my condo complex have children. Is something wrong with these parents?
  38. SCVFan BillApril 27, 2010 at 3:24 pm
    I don’t know those parents; perhaps they prefer a typical suburban home if it were affordable. Have they also “come out of the closet”? I’m just sayin’ that if you had kids you would likely prefer a different lifestyle. But then maybe your income is such that you’re doin’ the best you can; meanwhile you’re satisfied justifying your status. I’m just shootin’ spitballs here, but I’d bet you could achieve more if you were a bit more ambitious. }
  39. Need for Involved CitizenryApril 27, 2010 at 6:25 am
    High density development is not bad – in the right place and with the right infrastructure. The high density proposed under OVOV at Smiser, Placerita and Sand has none of these attributes. These locations are not where good planning has decided to locate high density because it makes sense but because that is what the property owners\developers want to do with the parcels! Ask the residents of LA and West Hollywood about all the high density that has been added to their neighborhoods along with the traffic and see how they feel. Whether the City allows high density or not, the fact of the matter is that OVOV is predicated on most of the growth happening within the City areas while the County areas have their densities reduced. This would work if we could depend on the County to maintain the the proposed densities. But the reality is that for the 30 years that Mike Antonovich has been in office, he hasn’t seen a development project he didn’t like. Rather than focus on high versus low density housing in the SCV, whey aren’t we pushing the City to use all those infill spaces to create workplaces with wages that would allow folks to not commute out of the SCV. That is the real problem!
  40. proscvApril 27, 2010 at 11:26 am
    High Density also reduces water usage per capita as the areas needed to landscape by individuals is drastically reduced or all together eliminated. High density is smarter growth than low-density sprawl tract housing. I think Santa Clarita should support higher density developments, however how high I’m not sure. The plan for North Newhall to me looks like a good development. The Smiser Ranch one looked too dense and conceptual to me.
  41. CCApril 27, 2010 at 12:42 pm
    I don’t think anyone here is against high density living…in the right place. The wrong place is to infring on existing neighborhoods where people built the lifestyle they enjoy.
  42. alohascvApril 27, 2010 at 2:51 pm
    I think that the North Newhall area is a really good place for some higher density living.
  43. Linda SApril 27, 2010 at 2:56 pm
    Your statement makes no sense. Based on that, no place would be okay. The area near Newhall is prime location for something a little more dense.
  44. CCApril 27, 2010 at 3:39 pm
    Sure, it is great as long as you don’t have horse property in the area. I’m with the Placerita folks on this one. They came out here to have horse property and open spaces. Then others feel the need to cram buildings into the space because we just can’t accept having any open space and they want commuting property that nobody will use anyway. Then we can bitch to the County & City that there are no parks for their kids to play in. When we get parks we wonder why it costs so much to maintain parks. Honestly, people never learn.
  45. Linda SApril 27, 2010 at 4:41 pm
    Nothing is changing in Placerita Canyon and I’ve never seen horses along Railroad Avenue in the 32 years I’ve been here. The reason why we dont have open spaces and parks is because we keep building tract housing that takes up a much larger footprint. Higher density projects tend to have more open space because footprints of buildings are smaller. I guess our viewpoints are different and I understand that. I just hate to see Santa Clarita stuck in the 1950s way of thinking.

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support