On Bedroom Communities and the future of Santa Clarita
Written by Jeff on July 1st, 2008When I started this blog over two years ago, the first article I ever published was titled, “Is Santa Clarita still a bedroom community?” In that article, I wondered if Santa Clarita had progressed beyond the derisive title of “bedroom community,” considering that so many companies had moved to our valley in recent years and that residents truly had local employment opportunities. That was way back in March of 2006.
And boy have times changed…or have they? Today that term “bedroom community” is enjoying something of a rebirth in the local chattering classes. Not only is it being used to describe what Santa Clarita is today, but it’s a title some in the community actually seem to be proud of.
“Our Neighborhoods are under seige,” the YouTuber named “Frankenferry” breathlessly writes in one video under the cloak and safety of anonymity. “Our existing general plan, created decades ago, served to create and protect our Suburban Bedroom Community,” he/she says in another video.
And then in blog posts and at City Council meetings or in Letters to the Editor, this term “bedroom community” is being bandied about, as if it’s not only an accurate description of Santa Clarita, but something to be proud of, something to protect.
Fundamentally, I couldn’t disagree more. The idea of Santa Clarita as a “bedroom community” has never been something I’ve been proud of. I have always considered it an insult. This city is not just a place I come to lay my head when I’m done doing important things elsewhere. It’s not the place I close my eyes to when the day is over, safe in my bed. It’s not a place I experience primarily while asleep.
No, Santa Clarita is something way beyond the derisive and insulting descriptor of “bedroom community” for me. Santa Clarita is the place where I grew up, where I graduated high school, learned to drive, bought my first house, got married, etc. It’s a place I love to explore, to talk about, to write about, and occasionally, to make an impact on.
So what explains this discrepancy? We all live in the same valley, we see the same news, we go to the same council meetings, why the different perception of what Santa Clarita is and ought to be?
To some degree, I think there is a generational difference at play here. Many of the people I see endlessly complaining about the San Fernando Valley-ization of the SCV or Ken Pulskamp’s alleged comments about urbanization are, frankly, older than me. They’re my parents age. Some in their 40s, some in their 50s, 60s, and even 70s. They moved, no escaped is a better word, to Santa Clarita long ago, in the 1960s or 1970s or 1980s in order to avoid the problems they say they lived through in the terrible San Fernando Valley.
Their original motivation for moving to Santa Clarita was that it was, back then, a sleepy bedroom community of like-minded people.
Their entire perspective on what Santa Clarita is and what it ought to be is completely different from mine and many of my friends who not only grew up in this valley but have chosen to make our homes and lives here. I can’t possibly relate to their hatred of the SFV or what it represents since I’ve never lived there, nor have I experienced the problems they routinely cite.
That’s not to discount their worries about crime, runaway and poorly-planned growth, or any of the other issues in SFV. But the fact that they moved here from supposed bad places doesn’t give them any more qualifications to speak about Santa Clarita than people like me, who grew up here.
Likewise, I would argue that some believe their financial interests are tied into the idea of Santa Clarita being a bedroom community. These folks don’t view mass transit as an asset to a city; they view it -and its users- as a liability to their personal property. They refuse to see past their own personal financial interests when considering a denser project that might include high-rises yet have less of an impact on open space. They don’t want denser projects built near their ranch-style homes -as is the case in Placerita Canyon and the North Newhall Specific Plan- because they say the city promised 20 years ago to protect their “rural” (left unspoken is affluent) lifestyle.
Hence their acceptance and defense of the idea of Santa Clarita as a “bedroom community.” They believe they have their personal financial fortunes at stake, so they naturally defend the status quo and attack anyone who even hints at a different future.
And future is what all this about, is it not? We all know the predictions that Santa Clarita may someday be home to twice as many people as it is now. The question everyone is talking about and the City and County are addressing specifically is what will Santa Clarita, population 450,000, look like?
Will our hillsides be devoured by more single family home developments the way Stevenson Ranch was built out in the 90s? Will the pattern of life the bedroom community proponents defend be the pattern we use to double the population in Santa Clarita? Will Santa Clarita in 2050 be a 300 square mile city of gigantic ten lane arterials with thousands of cul-de-sac streets?
To some extent, Santa Clarita 2050 will be shaped by forces way beyond the residents of this valley or even the big bad Mr. City Manager’s control. As I have relayed in my Daily Briefs, many think the “bedroom community” way of life is obsolete, made impractical and almost impossible by sky-high energy prices and the reality of global climate change. Alarmists, however, are a dime a dozen these days, so I take a more reasonable approach.
The future of Santa Clarita is not black and white. It’s not Ken Pulskamp’s supposed “Urban Center” vs. FrankenFerry’s “Bedroom Community.” It’s not a simplistic debate about either vs or. Rather, it’s possible that we can build a community that has both the best elements of an urban city (two jobs per household, good mobility options, its own distinct culture and entertainment, and yes, density) while retaining some of that bedroom community feel that attracted many people in the first place.
As a younger person in Santa Clarita, this is what I expect of my city. I have a voice too, I am one of “We the People” as are my friends, colleagues and fellow 20-30 somethings stakeholders who call this place home. I want it to expand and more importantly evolve into something beyond a “bedroom community” and if that means I’m going to be known as a stooge for the city, then so be it.
Loading ...
1
AM
I’m one of those ‘older’ folks you refer to Jeff and yes we moved out here 20 years ago after marrying. My ‘other half’ and I were ‘Valley Kids’ (born and raised). We were products of the LAUSD and knowing that one day we would raise our own kids, we wanted the best education we could get for them. Unless we sent them to private school (and could afford it), then they too would be LAUSD students. What attracted us to this area was hereing from people who grew up here (like yourself), how great the school system was. They were right! Ever since our 14 and 18 year old’s have been attending SCV schools, we’ve been thanking our lucky stars! The parent participation within the schools has been awesome; something rare when we were going to school in the SFV. We’ve had nothing but praise for their teachers (just about all!) and the staff at their pre-schools, elementary, J.H. and High Schools…..and now C.O.C.
What I don’t want to see happen Jeff is that the growth out here gets so ‘carried’ away, that it will drive out those that moved here for what they ‘wanted’. If you want to lable it “Bedroom Community”, then so be it. I like the idea of a “Family Community”. That’s why we moved here and I’ve always encouraged friends from the SFV to move here for the same reason.
It’ll be tough to keep a balance between “Bedroom Community” and “Urban Center”. Also, I think we need to keep in mind that this valley has probably the worse ‘air quality’ because of it’s size and the fact that it’s a ‘bowl in the middle of ocean, desert and the SFV. The air will only get worse out here as more homes, buildings and (of course) traffic increases!
1
AM
Really good, Jeff. Spot on!!!
1
AM
Jeff, very well put, and I agree with just about everything. There is a certain generational rift, but there is also a noticeable division in attitudes between those for whom this is truly a bedroom community and those who live here 24 hours a day. Some people have a selfish indifference towards economic development and see no link between local economic growth and their well-being. That’s not to say that there aren’t 30-somethings that live an work here that don’t want a bedroom community either, but place of employment and age seem to be the main fracture points.
The city manager and the city council have a duty to have their nose pointed in the direction of economic self-sufficiency. It would be irresponsible to behave otherwise. We are facing the very real possibility of the price of gas making so many people are unable to work 40 miles from home and we need more jobs. Some more culture and variety wouldn’t be such a bad thing, either.
1
AM
I kind of like the idea of an “urban center” in the middle of our “bedroom community” so I don’t need to travel so far to get to an “urban center”. I’ve been here 30+ years.
1
AM
the initial plans for the donut hole sound good, higher rise, higher density, intact open space and the linking of several major roads.
1
PM
Fo all of those who don’t want the SCV to stay as it is, why don’t you move to the SFV? Woodland Hills would work for you, what about Glendale…get going! The rest of us who enjoy a peaceful, safe, planned community can bulldoze your house for open space
1
PM
You know, if the city wants “urban” then why not build 3-5 50 story condo buildings in the center of the city after they clean up Whittaker-Bermite. Think about it. Beautiful, tall, art deco condo buildings. We can leave all the neighborhoods alone and we can build a super center with a batch of high rise condos with a ring of green belt all around it.
It can have beautiful shops and restaurants on the ground floors with the street grid like a mini downtown. Major roads leading into it can bridge right to the center point of the area with parks and trails and paths connecting into it from circle J to canyon country so every area can hike, ride bikes, and run around the beautifully landscaped greenbelt around the downtown. They would sit in the basin of the Whittaker property and would have open space terrain circled around it.
The city could find a good location to build a new City Hall that’s designed to make a statement that we’re unique and modern. Or give it a capitol building look. Why not? Have fun with it.
Just imagine how cool it would be to have these condo towers being the center focal point that you can see wherever you are in SCV. Downtown can have that art decor and public friendly terrain making it an urban/suburb mix of smart growth and recreation all within the very heart and center of our valley.
With towers we wouldn’t need to build over every foot of those hills in the middle of town. All those who prescribe to an alternate American dream of owning their own box connected to everyone else’s box can live that dream. While others, who’s American dream is to own their own land with a house and backyard can live everywhere else. It would be housing people up and leave our environment open to enjoy together. Make the Whittaker-Bermite location a model of smart growth and unique open space recreation where it complements the rest of the community by separating land use. By placing different ways of living in locations where people can exist together without mingling their issues is better then adjoining them together like the Avenue. Take the 60’s drawing of what didn’t work in Valencia http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/nl6301.htm and give it a go!!
Building this in the Whittaker-Bermite location where it’s a clean slate would enable us to plan it correctly, meanwhile, we can leave our existing neighborhoods in peace. Just a thought.
—————————————————————
Follow up,
Jeff I have respect for you and you know that. We’ve spoken before and we have no beefs. I will tell you I know this urban stuff has, in large part, become a liberal party ideology. It’s almost a religiously followed ideal that has been propagated by groups like the Sierra Club, the most visible among them, who have been trying to shape the social concepts of how people should live so as not to pore any more concrete. These groups and their holier then thou, self absorbed, environmentalism has grown into a hate and disdain for progress and development. (and those who consume that progress) They fight profit making corporations who want to give people what they want - A home, a yard, a driveway (Concrete), room to throw a ball with a child, or pitch a tent for that first camp out, and have room to breath.
Isn’t this quality of life a liberal ideal? Yes! Isn’t this what you, Tim and others advocate for? Yes! This has been in the blood of every American ever since the government gave citizens flag sticks as they lined up with their horses and heard the crack of that Colt .45 and raced off to stake their claim of land.
Don’t Democrats believe in less congestion and locations that are car magnets? Yes! Don’t democrats believe that big developers and big money is corrupted and politicians are unrighteously influenced by money? Yes! Don’t you fight for political consistency and rule keeping? Yes!
So why do you never question these developments? Why do you always take the side of thick heavy density projects like we have looming here when it will produce exactly what you and your party are so against? Why when zoning is so grossly disrespected? Even your Senate candidate for the 19th district, Hanna-Beth Jackson is appalled at the Avenue development. Why, because she gets it. She is close enough to the party’s understanding of what liberals believe that she doesn’t tout the radicals urban agenda that you and Time have bought into.
That’s right Jeff. I like you a lot and only tell you this because I care.
Your carrying the battle cry of urbanization that only exists in the minds of a few extremists who have convinced the average liberal, and left leaning news guy or gal, that this is what you need to write about and push on the public. If you do it enough then maybe you can reprogram the public to this “Utopian world of density villages”. Thus less concrete. This seems to fly in complete contrast to what you seem to believe as a democrat. So why do you do it? Who’s agenda are you pushing? Is it the Sierra Club or other environmentalist groups? To them people should live in condensed villages while they live in their own homes on their own property. That’s called a Hypocrite by the way. They have pushed legislation federally and state legislatures for state building subsidy’s to developers who will build density projects. Why? Because many in your field have been fed this Urban stuff by networks of extremist liberals who are trying to mainstream this factitious belief that we need to surrender our desires for home ownership and land ownership to live in density village developments where you won’t work, wont shop, and still drive everywhere else. That’s right. They’re based on human behavior remaining confined within WhoVille and not one development so far has proven anything except more traffic results.
The Promenade is a perfect example. It was sold as a live, work, shop development. I walked the whole retail section and talked to every business and asked how many people they employed from the apartments attached. How many work and lived in the same place? 4. That’s it. Most drove from the valley and Palmdale/Lancaster and their customer base is about 98% all off site people. Hmmm… what about your vision of Live, Work, Shop, Play? It’s the proven reality all over the USA where these government motivated density projects are built. They produce more traffic, more bad air, more crime, more vagrant activity, more material pollution, noise pollution, more local frustration and fatigue, the rich getting richer, yet you fight for this mentality as if God gave it to you on some tablets.
Another area you leave out is the local population who need to change their lifestyle to accommodate this false notion that this new environmentally friendly monster is really their newest friend. Why do you throw under the buss all those vast populations here in SCV. Are they republicans who need be miserable because they got educated and worked hard to buy a house, while less fortunate get to cram into their backyard because some developer will get local and state bonuses for building density projects thanks to environmentalists? Put these places where they belong. Away from residents, and if their isn’t room, tough luck to them and the city. We have people, property, and equity to protect from vultures and you, Jeff, should be watching out for that. Thats what democrats fight for is that correct? Or is it the new liberal battle cry to convince people that because they’re not good enough, rich enough, educated enough, or worthy enough they should relinquish their dream of a family bedroom community for the more modern vision of village life where we can reach out and touch our neighbor, smell there quizen, hear each others arguments, TV’s, sigeret smoke, and the lack of space for guest and family to visit. Not to mention the super high HOA fees (Extra taxes)that kill you every month. That can’t be your vision Jeff. I don’t go for it at all. Your smarter then that.
Love ya, this is not meant to be mean or disrespectful to you. I just felt I needed to shed light on your thinking.
1
PM
Jeff,
I’m just trying to say that people in my 8 neighborhood just don’t want this stuff here. They just don’t want it.
Why are they wrong?
Why should they be required to change their wants to align with someone else’s greedy desires?
These zoned areas where set to wisely protect the lifestyle of their prospective areas. The wisdom behind those zoning choices hasn’t changed nor has residents rights to have those maintained. When thousands have signed on the doted line, in a neighborhood(s), for a mortgage based on the home and the quality of life intended to be lived, then area maintenance is a vital right we all should respect and protect. Why do you miss that part of it? That’s a democrat ideal isn’t it? I really want to know because it seems that you agenda supersedes the rights of everyone else so a few can cram into a village. I’m not seeing your objectiveness on the issue. Please explain what all current residents should think and do. That would be a welcoming commentary. Thanks Jeff
1
PM
But, but, but, the Avenues!
Sterling, you’re conflating issues that have nothing to do with one another. The only way to respond to this method of thinking is to accuse the author of being brainwashed? Is it as though a small pocket of conservationists speak for every non-Republican in America? You are so intolerant of an opposing viewpoint that you have to attach it to a grand conspiracy and call your opponents vultures?. Your post is filled with so many half-baked generalizations, I don’t even know where to start.
Don’t Democrats believe in less congestion? Whoever said that? The most congested areas in the nation are also the most liberal. It’s far more a matter of personality than political ideology. There are both liberal and conservative pockets of anti-growth people throughout the country. The people in your crowd seem to be a mix of both.
When was the Promenade pitched as a work/live project? It’s a strip mall with a rear entrance, nothing more nothing less. There happens to be a completely unrelated apartment complex or three behind it. But at least those residents don’t have to drive to the grocery store, do they? I find it nearly impossible to believe that the majority of workers in the Promenade don’t live in this valley. At these gas prices, it would cost more to commute, almost! There is also no way 98% of their business comes from areas other than the adjacent developments. Like before, I’ll give you $100 is you can prove either allegation to be true.
“Are they republicans who need be miserable because they got educated and worked hard to buy a house, while less fortunate get to cram into their backyard because some developer will get local and state bonuses for building density projects thanks to environmentalists? ”
What does this even mean?
Translation: we need to build more schools for adults that teach 8th grade English
Why all this talk of boogeymen? The secret cabal of mansion owners in the hills feeding people a new religion based on the fear of concrete just so they can be snug in their retreats, free to sacrifice hippos and baby kittens while burning fossil fuels. These people live somewhere else. Thankfully, our mountains are relatively free of homes. In part because the county says it’s okay to loose the mountain to build a home, but that’s another issue.
This city can do better than seas and seas of homes with poly-directional roads and disappearing ridgelines. Nobody’s house is getting torn down so that some greedy developer can build two more. This is about making better decisions in the future, in some cases building upward instead of outward.
Best line: “Your smarter then that.”
1
PM
Mike stated:
“I find it nearly impossible to believe that the majority of workers in the Promenade don’t live in this valley. At these gas prices, it would cost more to commute, almost! There is also no way 98% of their business comes from areas other than the adjacent developments.”
Actually Mike, there are quite a few people (I’ve ‘chatted’ with many on occasions) who work here in Santa Clarita yet live in outside areas (ie, SFV and Antelope Valley), just as many people who live here work in the SFV, AV and LA.
I still don’t believe that we will have a ‘community’ where EVERYONE will live, work, play and yes…..sleep. It’s just not feasible.
When we moved here, we already had established careers (which allowed us to buy our tiny little “Village Homes North” home ) and we couldn’t find jobs any closer that allowed us to continue to live here. The salaries we were making, were just not found here. I don’t know about now; perhaps there are ‘high paying’ jobs that are available to those college educated individuals that want to live, work play and yes…..sleep here in the SCV.
I’ve always thought there was a city ‘ordinance’ that buildings couldn’t exceed a certain height, but I guess that’s not the case considering the heights of some of the new projects that are being presented to the city these days.
1
PM
lvogel,
I don’t doubt that some people from elsewhere work here. I doubt that most people in the Promenade live out of this valley.
The city does have a height restriction which they’ll make exception to if persuaded, but it takes a vote of the council. I like that’s a problem, particularly in the Industrial center, where some denser commercial development could help the city with very little negative impact on the community.
1
PM
Mike, Mike Mike,
Let me share your favorite line with you, “Your smarter then that”. You are and your post is just to hear yourself type.
First of all,
you an I have both read books and found sentences half a page long. Please don’t rip on that unless that’s the only faulty thing you can find with my literary masterpiece.
Second,
These developments draw more traffic then the trip reductions they claim. How? Let me remind you. I took 4 hours out of my day 2 weeks ago and I walked to every business in the Promenade. I talked to every business and I asked personally how many people live and work there. I also asked how many EE’s live out here and the large majority said their EE’s drive from outside the Valley. That wasn’t every EE from every business but it was the majority of all the shops that shared that with me. They had no reason to lie about it. Does this sound like a guy who is into making “half-baked generalizations”? No, it’s a guy who wants to know some real facts about a development that is very much attached as any other density development is to residents and shops. Where you born yet when that was built? Do you know what was being said about it when it was proposed? Ya, back then they weren’t as themed and decorated as they are now. Please save your $100. I don’t need it. You don’t have to believe anything you don’t want but that’s what I discovered at the Promenade and it’s going to be the same anywhere else. Not to mention I had 10 businesses freely offer their experience of people within the apartments who have come over and ripped off their stores. Ya, that’s called more crime. It came from them, not me. If you would like mike, I’ll walk all the stores with you and we can replay the whole experience if you really think I’m here BSing you. If your calling me a lier then that’s a different issue all together.
Third,
You are clearly uninformed in what is going on politically in our state and country amongst the agenda pushing crowd in the liberal environmentalist population. Please don’t lecture me about things you know nothing about. If you know what was being done to trudge this agenda forward and pushing the suburb vs urban argument you would not have tried to put me down. It’s called social manipulation and if you don’t think that is a giant environmentalist strategy then your grossly uneducated about Enviro Lobbyists and activism.
Why does 87% if Republican and democrat alike want us to drill our own oil out of our own reserves?? O I forgot, it’s against the law to drill for our own oil reserves? Why? Because of environmentalists strong arming federal law makers over several years of hard work to make it illegal. They made them fear loosing their next election because if they didn’t vote against environmental bills excluding us from drilling they would be targeted as anti environment politicians. I have a $100 for you if you can find that 87% statistic Mike.
Non of these trends come out of thin air and each of them have an ideology that stems from demonizing the old style (suburbs) and those who want to live in them. The only way to move urban villages forward is to tell the rest that they are living to well and they’re part of the problem. At the same time, telling the sheep that we have a new fad in town called urban developments. It’s a systematic brow beating with guilt. That’s the ideology but it’s hidden behind subtle articles & editorials around the country. It spreads throughout the journalists and writers, thus facilitating the mentality, on down to local towns like ours. (It’s a legitimate way to build but only in the right locations with lots of public participation in the process.) Lobbyists then pull out these articles and use them on legislators to make the argument that it’s public opinion because all these editorials have been written. That’s one large way these things morph into a largely liberal ideologies. Come on mike, don’t play clueless about this stuff. That won’t be honest of you.
Fourth,
Urban thinkers feel it just fine to let these projects move right on into area like Newhall. You may hate hearing us talk about the Avenue but let me remind you that it’s 2.5 million Sq Ft on about 30 acres now. It’s 400+% over what zoning had determined would be safe and appropriate for that area. It’s the Largest project SCV has ever been faced with. It’s a 100 year flood zone with a river running through it. It has now, several 6-10 story buildings planned and ZERO reduction of any residencies. Thomas Properties has reaffirmed their need to build this big only because they can’t make the $ they need if it was closer to zoning standards. All the required targets for zoning bonuses were not in the proposal. For instance, 40% of housing for seniors, or 20% housing for low income, or 10% for very low income (parole halfway house low income). These where not there yet he was gunning for those density bonuses. Did you know these shenanigans where being played? Do have any clue what 6-7K cars would do to 8 tightly knit neighborhoods with one road for everyone to share from Valencia & Nehall and Wiley Canyon School? Our city manager doesn’t even like that scenario. However, you and Jeff and Tim seem to think that we home owners need to be taught a lesson. We lived long enough over here with the opulence of a home and easy travels to the store and freeway. I guess we need to share in the congestion others are relegated to who can’t buy a house and property. Your saying we deserve to have this plopped into our laps? Is this a way of showing home owners that it take a Village today and were all in it together? Is that what your saying? Mike if you all want to move over to NoHo or any number of places in LA or SF Valley your welcome to go. When you get older and see the wisdom in a nice quiet community you will begin to see what I’m talking about as well as others who believe like I do.
I don’t hold any bad feelings against you Mike. Do me one favor, please don’t talk like you know what I’m saying until you have your own home and your own children your trying to raise. If you have these things and you feel this way then I may not believe you. I would strongly urge you to move elsewhere. You still didn’t answer any of my questions in the previous post. I don’t believe you can, however, your better off trying rather then looking for long sentences that you can’t read and understand.
1
PM
Mike,
Need I remind you that you stated:
“Some evidence would be prefered over conjecture.” (Spelling on preferred)
Is a physical interview of every business in the promenade considered evidence or Conjecture?
———————————————————–
Mike Says:
July 1st, 2008 at 2:43 pm
“Not much an environmentalist really,”
Please don’t pretend to know about environmentalist politics mike. It’s not going to hold water with me when you admit this.
2
AM
Sterling, if time permits, I’ll gladly offer a longer reply later on today. But to be brief, I have two kids, a wife and a house, it even has a yard. It’s in Saugus, in a sea of sprawl. Four years ago, it wasn’t a matter I gave much thought to, but I’ve learned the problem with this method of development first hand. My perspective is not that of someone whose primary concern is to make Lyons Avenue or McBean Parkway denser and denser. I think that Valencia and Newhall are well designed neighborhoods which are surrounded by massive gluts of homes that were built without any thought to neighborhood and with the idea that everyone would drive two miles into town.
I think the Avenues is a bad idea not because of density per se, but because of it’s juxtaposition to the rest of the valley. A project like that won’t meet its intended purpose because of its single, narrow access point. I think it’s unrealistic to think the owners will turn it into a park, but as it was previous proposed, I’d come to realize that it was unworkable, and probably would be at half the size.
2
AM
It’s good to see that we have common ground Mike. A project of some kind there would be nice to have. I wish that the proponents of the Avenue would fight for honesty and a scaled back project. The same goes for the project out in Placerita canyon area. It’s this giant stuff that makes no sense to anyone. Scaled back, respectful building would be welcome I’m sure but not this stuff.
2
AM
It’s a crap shoot as to whether The Avenues will go in or not. If they stay at the original proposal (even with modifications) it won’t be approved. If they scale it back to the legal zoning limits and to what we will accept it won’t pencil out. There is way too much involved in upgrading the infrastructure, dollarwise, for the developer to make a necessary profit out of an acceptable project. It’s going to be interesting to watch what kind of “deals” will be made to accomodate a workable project there.
As for the Casden project we haven’t even seen the worst of that yet. The only part that has received a lot of attention so far is the access. Without access it’s a no-go project. A lot will need to be settled with the at-grade crossing at Lyons and the extension of Dockweiler.