Sunday Signal Opinion page hits on all cylinders
Written by Jeff on July 13th, 2008Today’s Signal Opinion page featured several excellent opinion pieces on the hot topics of growth, density, sprawl and even -dare I say it- “small-town cronyism.” For local news geeks like me, it’s an opinion page I’ll save, or perhaps even frame.
For the main Opinion pieces in today’s paper, the Signal went to two sources who are quite in the know on local issues: Mayor Bob Kellar and Tim Myers, who’s column marks the first time we’ve heard from him in the Signal for several months.
Headlined is the question, “Urban or suburban? The future of the SCV,” and the two writers wasted no time jumping into the fractious, emotional debate over who we are and what we are to become.
Bob Kellar
In his column, Kellar said its incorrect to frame the matter in an either/or way. He says it’s “been a long time since Santa Clarita was a bedroom community,” thanks to all the businesses that have selected Santa Clarita as their home. But we’re not quite an urban center either, Kellar says, nor are we just a simple suburb to Los Angeles.
Kellar mentioned twice in his article that Santa Clarita needs to be a sustainable community, one where a balance between jobs and homes is achieved and where “dependence on the automobile” is reduced.
In trying to achieve that goal, Kellar says in the column that tools such as “mixed use [projects], greater density, and urbanization in specific areas” may need to be used to “create more livable and walkable neighborhoods…while at the same time reducing the sprawl of subdivision development over every hillside in the Santa Clarita Valley.”
Hot damn! Did he say what I just think he said? Our population is expected to swell to around a half million people, and Kellar seems to believe that we ought to build “up” rather than “out” in some places in order to combat sprawl. Yes, that’s right, our Mayor Bob Kellar, who made his fortune selling suburban bedroom community homes, has seen the light!
Overall the goal, Kellar says, is to build a community with a “strong jobs-and-housing balance” that creates wealth and generates higher property values.
Tim Myers
So now that we know what Kellar has to say on the matter, let’s look at Myers’ column.
Myers digs into the power and misleading nature of each catch phrase, that being “suburban bedroom community” versus “urban center.”
“Now these two terms possess a similar factual construct, but one’s feelings about them depend on one’s point of view,” Myers says, mentioning that to some, an “urban center” means a place for liberal elitists, while to others, a “suburban bedroom community” means a place devoid of life, a cultural “wasteland.”
Myers seems to agree with Kellar in that this isn’t a question of either/or. He cites a recent Economist article in which Valencia was different from other suburban communities in that its planners “actually brought industry that did provide some jobs for the local population.”
Mysers wonders if its possible that “city planners put Santa Clarita on a road to a good mix of both” urban and suburban elements.
The future looks like the past?
Above both columns is an excellent archive picture from a 1963 edition of the Signal. In it, an artists conception shows a real city with towers in Valencia. The caption reads, “The future civic center of Valencia, seen from McBean Parkway, rises beyond a chain of lakes.” Below Myers’ column is another photo, this time from Newhall Land and Farming, that shows a high density commercial urban area on the corner of the then-uncompleted Valencia Blvd and McBean Parkway.
The caption reads, “The original plans for Valencia called for a centralized urban area; residents were expected to get around locally by way of electric carts that could be driven on paseos.”
On the absence of other positions
If you’ve read through both columns, you may be wondering what’s actually being debated here. Neither writer is arguing that the traditional low-density suburban model is the way to go forward in all cases and in all places. That’s because, I believe, most of us have moved beyond that. Despite the letter writers who decry the idea of “urbanization” or Not a Ferry Fan who tells us that our homes are under “seige,” few actually believe that it’s wise to use available land in the way we have in the past. As with many political issues in this city, the volume with which some groups speak does not equate with how many people actually hold that view.
In other words, I suspect that if The Signal were to actually conduct a scientific poll, you’d find a significant majority of Santa Clarita’s residents agree with the Mayor’s argument, as he states it in this Sunday’s Editorial.
The Good Ol’ Boy Network now includes Female Secretaries
Moving on, I enjoyed the Signal’s official Editorial this Sunday, which decried Frank Ferry and Laurie Ender’s selection of commissioners for the Parks and Planning Commission, respectively.
The editorialist says that the Signal generally gives the benefit of the doubt to our elected officials. “We believe in the good intentions and integrity of each council member,” The Signal writes.
But when Ferry selected his personal secretary as a Parks Commissioner and Laurie Ender selected a comrade on the PTA as a Planning Commissioner, they made a “childish show of insider-ism and one-upsmanship” that “smacks of small-town cronyism, legitimizing scrutiny and criticism of the City Council.”
“Trust,” the Signal says, “is not a given; it must be earned.”
Ouch!
LTE Section
Finally, there’s two decent Letters to the Editor in this week’s opinion pages, both of which add some more fuel to the urban/suburban debate. Linda Pedersen, a frequent Letter writer, says that some planned “Urban center” developments defy existing General Plan zoning regulations and therefore threaten existing neighborhoods. Valerie Thomas of Newhall seems to echo that, stating that neighborhoods near such higher-density projects will suffer “catastrophic” effects.
Overall, today’s opinion page made for some excellent Sunday morning bagel-and-coffee reading. If you don’t get The Signal, go buy a copy and check it out!
Loading ...
14
AM
“In trying to achieve that goal, Kellar says in the column that tools such as “mixed use [projects], greater density, and urbanization in specific areas” may need to be used to “create more livable and walkable neighborhoods…while at the same time reducing the sprawl of subdivision development over every
hillside in the Santa Clarita Valley.”
Of course Kellar supports this, he and Jim Backer are working to create such a development at Sand Canyon Road and the Santa Clara river. It is not difficult to understand Mr. Kellars motivation. The thought that a city plan that promotes greater density will do something to reduce sprawl is silly. The sprawl will continue within and outside the city. More density will only lead to just that, more density, be it sprawl or high rise buildings. This issue of conflict of interest comes to mind anytime the good mayor comments on growth. Mr. Kellar and his Sand Canyon friends are protected from the impact of his density position.
14
AM
“…..That’s because, I believe, most of us have moved beyond that…..”
Please define “most.” I don’t believe there is ANY scientific data to back up the claim that “most” believe this but that’s just me, I always demand legitimate data to support assertions.
Speaking for myself (the only person I CAN speak for until such scientific data is presented regarding how “most” feel regarding future development in this city) I have no objection at all to development progressing up as long as existing neighborhoods are not destroyed in the name of this kind of “progress.” I think that is fair. Turning once quiet neighborhoods into freeways when new developments are built is NOT fair. Plopping a mega-sized high rise development that is 6 times bigger than the Las Lomas project (that received unanimous opposition from our city council WITH SUPPORT FROM Buck McKeon and George Runner and Cameron Smyth) right on top of an existing community is NOT fair. Let’s try to BE fair and find appropriate locations when we build mega-urban centers. There should be considration and appreciation for ALL styles of living - that is fair. Not everyone wants to raise their children in apartment-style living and those people who desire single family homes with the backyard for swings and a patio and a barbeque and even a pool should not be labeled “evil” oR selfish simply because they wish to raise their children in a single family home environment and have worked hard to provide their family with this style of living.
Oh, and there is a “little” problem going totally unaddressed as this anti-suburb “Borg” movement attempts to assimilate every SCV resident into the anti-suburb frame of mind - existing road systems in this city are woefully inadequate NOW but this is going virtually unrecognized by some as they cheer the prospect of loading up our city with mega-sized projects that will produce mega-sized traffic problems.
Remember that little old lady that got famous for the fast food commercial (a couple of decades ago) when she opened up the bun and screeched, “WHERE’S THE BEEF?”
Well, the same can be said for our gridlocked roads when touting the advantages of high-rise urbanization plans for this city.
“WHERE’S THE GRID?”
Getting an adequate grid in place BEFORE the urbanization of SCV begins is a must, but that is not happening and I have never been a supporter of the cart before the horse kind of planning.
Let’s also be fair about the coalitions that are forming - the people I know that are forming coalitions to protect their neighborhoods have not said no to proposed mega-developments. They simply request that huge developments be pared down so their nearby communities will not be completely destroyed by a mega-development plopping right down on top of them. Requesting respect and consideration of existing communities, as SCV progresses into the future, is more than fair.
Time to understand that EVERY resident and EVERY neighborhood should count when planning the future of this city, not only because this is fair, but also because not everyone can afford to move when their neighborhoods are sacrificed on the altar of progress.
15
AM
Claification:
“…..Plopping a mega-sized high rise development that is 6 times bigger than the Las Lomas project (that received unanimous opposition from our city council WITH SUPPORT FROM Buck McKeon and George Runner and Cameron Smyth)…..”
It was SCV City Council’s unanimous opposition to the Las Lomas project that received support from Senator George Runner, Congressman Buck McKeon, and Assemblyman Cameron Smyth, when Runner, McKeon, and Smyth joined SCV City Council to officially oppose the Las Lomas project because of this project’s unmitigatable size and scope and negative impacts. (The Thomas Properties/
Monteverde project, The Avenue at Santa Clarita on the Smiser Mule Ranch and being opposed by the Calgrove Corridor Coalition, is 6 times larger than the Las Lomas project)