The City of Santa Clarita is again asking property owners to approve an additional assessment on our property tax bills to pay for this very ill conceived proposal. They just can’t take “NO” for the answer they received the last time we voted on this. The city/citizens committee is spending a lot of money to promote this measure with a slick marketing campaign. They are not allowing the opposing argument in any of the materials, or the ballot packets they are sending. We are now presenting the “argument against” that the city does not want you to see:

Argument Against

The $25 - $55 dollar assessment the city is asking property owners to approve is an unnecessary tax.  Annual tax revenues to the city coffers have doubled in the last five years due to a good economy and a big run-up in property values. Our city has all the money it needs to run the city and pay for any pet projects. Wouldn’t it be nice if all of our family incomes had doubled in the last five years? We have to let our council and all government agencies know we are not going to keep approving tax increases every time there is an “urgent need”.

The tax is unfair to the homeowners in the City of Santa Clarita.  Council members by their own admission have said there is no longer any land within city limits to be preserved. Any land purchased will be outside city limits. The homeowners of Santa Clarita will be paying the burden, but those living outside the city will have the benefit, at no cost to them. How fair is that? This is likely a violation of Prop 218 that states property tax assessments must only be used for an improvement or service that directly benefits the property, such as street lighting or flood control. The city spent a lot of money on an engineering report to attempt to justify the fairness of this assessment. The facts above speak much louder than the engineering report.

The Open Space Preservation District will do little or nothing to preserve the “greenbelt” around our valley. Don’t believe all the bucolic pictures in the slick marketing promotions. The wording of the measure is vague and full of loopholes. It does not guaranty that land purchased would be land that can’t be developed anyway, such as river bottom. The claim is that the money will be used for purchasing land only. If this is the case why is there wording in the proposal that states money can be used for maintenance of parks?

The claim that the land will be guaranteed to be preserved forever is a lie. Any land “preserved” will be held as open space only as long as the city has no compelling reason to change its designation or to sell it. No law, on anything, can guaranty something forever. Another law can simply be written to override the first one. Governments have had a bad track record managing open lands, this one will be no different.

We just can’t trust our city council on this. This measure has been conceived behind closed doors, away from public scrutiny, by an alleged “grassroots, broad-based citizens committee”. The committee is supposed to be independent from the council but is actually more like a Siamese twin attached at the hip. Its members were all hand selected by the council, and council members Laurene Weste and Bob Kellar are leading it. Members include our City Planning Commissioner who is running for council, our former Sheriff Chief who is running for council, members of the Sierra Club, and a real-estate financier. This group is hardly broad-based and it’s definitely not grassroots. On top of all this the council will be hand picking the 5 members of the oversight committee that is supposed to make sure the funds are used properly.

The campaign for this measure refuses to disclose their source of funding. Somebody stands to benefit greatly from the passage of this measure. Nobody donates money to this type of campaign out of the goodness of his or her heart. The reason they refuse to disclose is they know that disclosing it would result in more “NO” votes. The campaign organizers are shady and sneaky, but not stupid.

Please join our committee in voting “NO” and mailing your ballot in today. When the measure fails donate the $25 you saved to your favorite local charity where the money will actually do some good.

Santa Clarita Citizens Against Open Space Assessment Tax
Contact:
JimFarley@NoSCAssessmentTax.com

Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment

TO PROMOTE, PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENT, ECOLOGY AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE SANTA CLARITA VALLEY
POST OFFICE BOX 1182, SANTA CLARITA, CA 91386

As SCOPE moves into the celebration of its 20th year in the Santa Clarita Valley, we would like to begin with the promotion of our PLAN to preserve open space and create a green belt around our Valley.

SCOPE has promoted many of the suggestions below with presentations to the community and to the City Council almost since our inception as an organization in 1987.

1. Support and adhere to zoning regulations that were approved to protect Significant Ecological Areas, hillsides and oaks.  These zoning regulations have been on the County books since the early 80s and were passed in the City in the early nineties with strong public input and support.  Unfortunately, City regulations don’t protect significant ecological areas to the extent that the County does, so the City should approve changes that adhere more closely to county rules.  Both the City and the County are negligent in their enforcement of these rules.  If they followed them, we would have more open space in the Santa Clarita Valley already.
2. Follow the plan that was developed with strong community support and outreach for the Santa Clara River in the early 90s .  At the very least, find that plan and review it.  Establish categories of important open space to be acquired with a ranking system based on desired qualities for acquisition.  For instance, oak woodland, important viewshed, presence of endangered species, multiple public benefits, etc.  These attributes were established and considered when designating Significant Ecological areas, so preserving the remaining SEAs would be a good place to start. This should be developed with input from ALL stakeholders.
3. Establish a watershed council that includes ALL stakeholders on the Santa Clara River.  Such Councils have already been established for the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers and are necessary to the application for grant funds from the State of California.
4. Once the watershed council is established, apply for Prop 50 and Prop 84 grant funds for local parks and watershed protection
5. When a grant is received through this process or by other means, move forward to use that funding for the acquisition or purpose designated in the grant.  (For instance, $1 million in County funds to acquire a buffer zone around Placerita Nature Center from 1992 Prop 1A funds, appear to still not have been used for that purpose.  A grant received form a negotiated settlement by SCOPE for $25,000 in 2003 for restoration along Bouquet Creek has still not been used by the City for that purpose.)  Proper use of funds will ensure continued support for bond funding.
6. Do not use public funds to acquire open space that can not be developed anyway, such as river bottom or open space required to be dedicated as part of a development approval.  Build in protections to avoid this problem in the open space acquisition plan to ensure public support.
7. Work with local groups that have been trying to protect open space for many years.  When there is a dispute, the City should side with the community group rather than supporting the developer.  When a community group has negotiated a settlement, the City should support that settlement agreement.
8. Make sure that all parts of the acquisition process are fair and open to public review. Full public disclosure of the open space campaign funds is a requirement to ensure public trust and support of any proposal.
9. Negotiate with owners so that particular parcels slated for acquisition can be identified in any funding mechanism.  These negotiations should provide a broad base of support for any land acquisition that is proposed.