SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
June 10, 2010· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

Humbling the Haves because there are many Have Nots

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

I often complain on this blog about the lack of bicycling and pedestrian infrastructure in the SCV. Clearly I’m not alone.

And then there’s the other side of the coin: those who complain about too much infrastructure. I’m looking at you Decoro, with your wide, high speed streets, your lovely Paseos and ped bridges, and your shiny new bike lane!

Some parts of the city actively refuse ped-friendly infrastructure. Placerita likes its “rural equestrian” atmosphere, and the Happy Valley part of Newhall recently decided it didn’t want sidewalks either. That’s all fine; those people have other options.

But then there’s another, largely voiceless group of people in Santa Clarita who lack even basic infrastructure.

I was talking with another cyclist yesterday about my recent post on “Frank” the man who got hit by a car on Rye Canyon Road. This particular cyclist lives on Newhall Avenue near the Green Thumb, and he felt that cycling & walking infrastructure in the rest of town was luxurious compared to what he’s got in his neighborhood. To wit:

This is Newhall Avenue, formerly San Fernando Road, north of Highway 14. This part of Newhall has lots of high-density housing. Condos, apartments and town homes line Newhall Avenue and Valle Del Oro. It also happens to be one of the poorer parts of town, with higher crime rates as a result.

Nevermind riding your bike through here (which is a terrifying and bumpy affair), it’s simply a chore to walk through this part of town too.  Go grab a coffee at the nearby Starbucks and have a look for yourself: mothers pushing strollers or carrying their children on the bumpy dirt path adjacent to the road. People carrying their laundry to the laundromat with barely a curb (and not even that in some places) separating them from cars driving at 60 mph. Want to cross the street? You’ve got to hike for a few blocks to get to the nearest cross walk.

And this corridor is one of the main gateways to our City.

One would think that in 23 years of City-hood, our City could have built the most basic piece of pedestrian infrastructure for the thousands of residents who live near here if it cared enough. Especially when they endlessly tout their “60 miles” of off-street paths in brochures and videos. I’m sure there’s parts of Canyon Country like this too (Sierra Highway comes to mind).

Don’t get me wrong. I think the City has done a wonderful job remaking Old Town Newhall with the Community Center, the Metrolink station and Main street. But the lack of even sidewalks just a half mile away is just shameful if you ask me. And it definitely puts some of my complaints in perspective.

Comments (25)

  1. BrianJune 10, 2010 at 10:15 am
    The city is, has been and probably will remain Republican despite the constant bleating of non-partisanship. This is not a Republican area of our city and the campaign contributions likely reflect that. Streets? Sidewalks? Bwahahaha! Care to guess who they name this library after? Ferry?
  2. Bill ReynoldsJune 10, 2010 at 10:29 am
    Jeff says: This is Newhall Avenue, formerly San Fernando Road, north of Highway 14. This part of Newhall has lots of high-density housing. Condos, apartments and town homes line Newhall Avenue and Valle Del Oro. It also happens to be one of the poorer parts of town, with higher crime rates as a result. Maybe now, Master Jeff, you understand why many folks protest these type developments in the SCV?
  3. mikeJune 10, 2010 at 10:50 am
    Translation: “Jeff, this is why I crack racist jokes and make race-baiting videos on Youtube”
  4. JeffJune 10, 2010 at 11:28 am
    No. There’s plenty of condo, apartment and town home developments in Valencia. I don’t see you protesting them Bill. Where were you when the Madison got built? Or Santa Fe?
  5. Bill ReynoldsJune 10, 2010 at 3:34 pm
    Oh, so it’s now okay to continue high density construction because it’s already happened, eh Master Jeff?
  6. MikeJune 10, 2010 at 11:30 am
    Please note, Bill, the comment that this “also happens to be one of the poorer parts of town, with higher crime rates as a result”. It’s not housing density that results in higher levels of crime, it’s poverty. I’ve lived in the Madison at Town Center for the last year, also in a center of high-density housing with condos, apartments & townhomes surrounding me, and haven’t seen anything of the sort. Maybe what you should be fighting, rather than urban development, is poor people?
  7. mikeJune 10, 2010 at 11:47 am
    “my name is my name” -Marlo Stanfield
  8. MikeJune 10, 2010 at 11:59 am
    damn you for being similar! note my use of the capital “M”, however
  9. Bill ReynoldsJune 10, 2010 at 3:36 pm
    Mike, Mike, Mike… high density housing, especially “affordable” housing is a magnet to poverty and crime. Wake up and smell the coffee…
  10. Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogJune 10, 2010 at 3:05 pm
    Bill Says: “Maybe now, Master Jeff, you understand why many folks protest these type developments in the SCV?” What, you mean housing for poor people, I guess it fits your MO to protest them having housing, a little harsh even by your standards though. I suppose a tent city would be more to your liking?
  11. Bill ReynoldsJune 10, 2010 at 4:37 pm
    Hey Not Jeff, it’s Master Jeff’s observation/story, I simply pointed out the obvious.
  12. Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogJune 11, 2010 at 10:25 am
    The obvious being that you are opposed to housing for the poor??? I guess not answering the question is one way to keep from admitting that. Keep fighting against poor people and teenage swimmers though, I suppose someone has to carry that torch.
  13. navigatorJune 11, 2010 at 10:48 am
    I think BR was referring to the fact that affordable housing sometimes draws certain people who are of the opinion that since they are poor they can take whatever they want by any means necessary.
  14. JeffJune 11, 2010 at 10:53 am
    uh-huh. The poor stealing from the rich? What percentage of poor people are like that navigator? I’ve been planning for awhile to post a run-down of all the white collar scammers and flim-flam artists who have fled the SCV after falling out of the good graces of the local elites. Maybe now is as good a time as ever.
  15. navigatorJune 11, 2010 at 11:04 am
    Jeff, the poor stealing from the rich??? Actually the poor stealing from other poor would probably be closer to the truth. Percentage?? Does it matter? 1% or 50% it’s too many. Your list of SCV white collar rip-off artists won’t surprise me either. I’ve known most of them and could add a couple more.
  16. Kevin D. KorenthalJune 10, 2010 at 11:00 am
    What are you talking about Jeff? The picture clearly shows a beautiful earthen sidewalk on the right that can be utilized for many urban conveyance purposes. Quit your bitching dude. *Lest there be confusion and hate mail, I am being sarcastic*
  17. navigatorJune 10, 2010 at 11:18 am
    Hang on for a while longer. We’re working on it!
  18. Need for Involved CitizenryJune 10, 2010 at 12:26 pm
    The City can’t afford to put in sidewalks here because they’d want the property owners to pay for them – but they can upgrade the intersection of Sierra and Newhall with Federal money and build a new skate park and spread 21 point money around town and….. Priorities, priorities, priorities
  19. gregJune 10, 2010 at 1:49 pm
    Jeff, You have to remember that Newhall Ave (formerly San Fernando Rd) was a State Highway 126 until a few years ago. This would have certainly complicated matters in far as getting the appropriate approvals and working with Caltrans. I’ve been told that the City is proceeding with a project to install sidewalks along Newhall Avenue and its included in the new capital improvements project budget that will be adopted. I think it will still be awhile since it still has to be designed but at least its in the works. If I remember correctly, the third lane on Newhall Avenue is wide enough to accomodate a bike and its classified as a bike route.
  20. JeffJune 10, 2010 at 2:08 pm
    A fair point. Thanks for the note. I’ll look for it in the budget.
  21. navigatorJune 10, 2010 at 2:36 pm
    Told ya we were working on it!
  22. mikeJune 10, 2010 at 2:09 pm
    That’s right! I remember many a Ferry rant about the trouble in modifying anything along 126.
  23. navigatorJune 10, 2010 at 2:37 pm
    How could you remember? There have been so many rants!
  24. Jeff (But not the one that runs this blogJune 10, 2010 at 3:08 pm
    That’s good to know, I worry as I travel that stretch and watch mothers with children trying to cross it, it’s only a matter of time before some small children wind up paying the price for it. Things don’t happen over night but I commend Jeff for posts like these that help spread the word to make things priority.
  25. JaneJune 11, 2010 at 2:20 pm
    Now I thought for sure this post would bring Berta out of hiding.

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