SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
April 26, 2013· santaclarita.com · SantaClarita.com (SCVTalk 5.0) · Wayback capture

Save us Carl Boyer! SCV getting screwed by LA County again

Back in January, aging City founder Carl Boyer once again argued that Santa Clarita and other high desert semi-arid communities separate north of the SFV secede from Los Angeles County and form our own new county. Call it High Desert County or Mountain County or Land of the Dry Rivers County -whatever- we need to secede from Los Angeles County Boyer said in January, just as he argued in the 1970s.

After this week's news, who can argue with him? On multiple fronts, from water quality issues, to elections, to the leasing of a public good to a private entity, we're getting the shaft from LA County. 

The County registrar says he won't permit every SCV school district, from elementary schools to College of the Canyons, to hold elections in even-numbered years, when turnout is high. It's too difficult and too much work, the registrar seems to be saying in today's report. He's going to recommend to the County supervisors that they deny our petition, that they deny what every school district & one water district in this valley want just because it's too much work. 

And on the chloride issue, what has Supervisor Antonovich done to help defend our interests against the interests of those down river? Practically nothing, other than approving a nearly $1 million public relations campaign that also happens to benefit a PR firm Councilwoman Laurene Weste sits on. Oh, and in 2009 he called the chloride mandate "unreasonable." 

And finally, just last night, the LA County Metro Board of Directors voted to move forward with their shady and hastily prepared plans for a public-private partnership toll lane project on I-5, a project we've already paid for with Measure R dollars. Supervisor Antonovich -who is board chairman- didn't even have the courage to vote yay or nay; he abstained saying he felt "conflicted." 

Regular day-to-day County services we use remain, at least, dependable even as cuts have been made.  We've seen more fire stations open in the SCV in the last several years which is great considering how fire-prone our area is, but we have no visibility into the future of the Civic center, or whether we'll ever get another Sheriff's station. The one proposal from the County a year ago or so was to build a new courthouse and Sheriff's station near Castaic Junction, far away from all population centers in the SCV but close to Newhall Ranch. The City even offered the County free land in Golden Valley for a new Courthouse, but that was turned down. 

Meanwhile services offered by our Courthouse have been cut and SCVers have to travel over the hill to do routine legal things, like file small claims or answer for jury duty. We're told we should not expect those services to ever return, even as we grow. 

It's time to face the facts. Boyer's been right all along. We're a big city now,but we're a small fish in Los Angeles County's sea of 10 million people. Those of you who live outside City boundaries are represented by Supervisor Antonovich, who also represents 2 million other unincorporated County residents. That's right; the unincorporated County population is about equivalent to New Mexico's population, and people in New Mexico get two Senators and three Congressmen!

We have no power to sway the County; our influence is weak, our leadership unwilling to even vote on a controversial issue. It's time to consider Boyer's idea again. 


Save us Carl Boyer! SCV getting screwed by LA County again

Comments (21)

  1. Two-one and LewisFriday, April 26th, 2013 at 10:19 am
    Canyon County?
  2. JeffWilsonFriday, April 26th, 2013 at 11:24 am
    Works for me. Though it'd be confusing. College of the Canyons, Canyon High, Canyon County....
  3. Two-one and LewisFriday, April 26th, 2013 at 12:53 pm
    There's a fine line between "confusing" and "consistent."
  4. mikeFriday, April 26th, 2013 at 3:21 pm
    sup
  5. KGSaturday, April 27th, 2013 at 9:48 pm
    Does anyone know if the areas that would be affected by any succession generate more in tax revenue than the cost of services we currently utilize? That would really answer the question if this idea is even feasible or not.
  6. Timothy Myers, Sr.Friday, April 26th, 2013 at 10:44 am
    Nice sentiments, but since the County succession wars of the 1970's (there were also County formation movements in the San Gabriel Valley and the South Bay, among others) LA County has gotten the legislature to enact laws that make it even more difficult to separate. The City Council was wise in deciding not to put any money towards what would be a quixotic endeavor.
  7. Bella SilversteinFriday, April 26th, 2013 at 10:53 am
    Again, please include a byline with your blog. You must be able to stand by your words. We would like to know if only one person writes this, or if a staff of several people do. Thanks.
  8. SantaClaritaDotComFriday, April 26th, 2013 at 10:56 am
    @Bella -- responding again... Every blog entry at the bottom has a "Posted by" statement. Click the name listed there and you'll get this info.
  9. JeffWilsonFriday, April 26th, 2013 at 11:20 am
    I don't understand Bella. This is a blog. A blog is a written by a person or a team of people. I happen to be the only writer on this blog right now. I've been blogging about Santa Clarita for several years and just started with SantaClarita.com. I live in Newhall, have a 5 month old son, a rambunctious hound/spaniel mix and a wife of 10 years.
  10. Timothy Myers, Sr.Friday, April 26th, 2013 at 12:17 pm
    Your wife is 10? (Ha)
  11. InkGigoloFriday, April 26th, 2013 at 11:33 am
    I'm about to give Bella a "thumbs down" .. and you know where that will lead .. "Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!" (It never gets old to me folks).
  12. SantaClaritaDotComFriday, April 26th, 2013 at 2:55 pm
    Pardon the mess...testing some code.
  13. Jay HarnFriday, April 26th, 2013 at 3:48 pm
    Great idea, but since the whole county gets to vote on it, it would have the same result as what happened in the 1970s. Thus the SCV did the next best thing with cityhood.
  14. bbcalvinFriday, April 26th, 2013 at 3:51 pm
    For the most part I agree, but your information for toll lanes is not exactly correct. We have not paid for I-5 car pool lanes in the SCV yet. While the project was included in Measure R in 2009, the monies for the project do not even come available until at least 2020 and was spread over 20 years. Even when Measure R tax ends in 2040, there was still a $100 million shortfall to complete the project. Metro could build a portion of the HOV project starting in 2020 and then still have it unfinished in 2040 or look at other ways to make up the shortfall which is the public-private partnership. Personally, I do not think tolling is the way to go here. I dont see how the tolls on this stretch is going to bring in the revenues required to maintain it. I find the recent issues in Santa Clarita perplexing to me in regards to the private sector. Typically, Republicans are for the private sector to do things more efficient and cheaper than the public sector and hey if that means the private sector makes a buck or two along the way, more power to them. But with the library issue and now the tolling, where government bodies are looking at ways to deliver projects or services faster and cheaper, there is a lot of uproar about the private sector getting involved. Maybe the republicans in this Valley do not know the ideologies of being a republican or just are too afraid to label themselves as being a democrat in fear of being chastised by their neighbors and the community.
  15. Ella CummingsSunday, April 28th, 2013 at 6:24 am
    Personally I all for this. LA county and city government are so corrupt. We can do much better!
  16. LANE LEAVITTSunday, April 28th, 2013 at 6:00 pm
    My newest gripe is the proposed rain tax the city wants, it will cost me almost $100 per month on top of my already high property taxes. Yet I will receive zero benefit from it.
  17. BertaMonday, April 29th, 2013 at 5:50 pm
    It is not the city of Santa Clarita that is trying to tax our rain water and other water runoff before it reaches our rivers and the ocean, it is Los Angeles County.
  18. Coastal SageSunday, May 5th, 2013 at 3:40 am
    No Bella, it's the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, a state agency, which is insisting that LA County Flood Control District upgrade their storm drains at a cost of roughly $500 Million. The County is broke, and would have to borrow the money to do the work on the storm drains. Each property in LA County was supposed to be taxed or eufemistically "charged increased Flood Control "fees" to raise the money to repay the loan. The problem LA County is having is with storm drains south of Newhall,where Santa Clarita's storm drainsdo not "contamination to beach and marine" contamination. Santa Clarita's storm drains are in good working order. So Santa Claritans would be "double taxed" to pay for improvements not needed and not even buing bult in our valleyl.. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association in riding herd on LA County, to make sure that if such a tax or fee is proposed to be charged, that the tax or assessment is approved by 66.6% of the County's Registered Voters in a real, live election with a Sample Ballot with arguments for and against, and real voting booths where people physically go and vote. Under Proposition 13 and its later iterations. A "real election" is what is required before a tax or assessment tied to land ownership is enacted. HJTA understands what is needed, and if the Supervisors vote to increase "fees" for property owners without such a "real" election and 66.6% voter approval, obviously there will be a lawsuit. The last thing I heard about that new fee was that procedural moves to head a ballot measure to increase the storm sewer taxes/fees was headed towards the ballot, but then the Board of Supervisors tabled the matter. So everyone will have to say what's going to happen next.
  19. Coastal SageSunday, May 5th, 2013 at 3:42 am
    Hi Berta, yes I can spell your name, and apologize for the typo. While my brain still works my eyesight is shot. Regands
  20. BertaSunday, May 5th, 2013 at 11:13 am
    Hi J! Bella means beautiful so even though inaccurate, I like that better, lol...
  21. BertaSunday, May 5th, 2013 at 11:16 am
    Oh wait, there is a Bella Silverstein posting so no thanks...

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