As expected, a lot of pushback from readers over my post yesterday:
If you read through the document, you may realize that your essay is dependent on a straw man argument. The neighborhood has objections to the developer’s plan, but does realize that something will be built there. They simply want to affect what that something is.
If the people of Santa Clarita cannot petition their government and make their voices heard, please tell me why we made the effort to form a local government in the first place. Participation in local decisions affecting their lives and their neighborhoods would be something that I think is a public good.
Does anybody teach Civics anymore?
First of all, I welcome all this debate. In a land of apathy, it’s good to see groups like OVOV form. We need debate and discussion about Santa Clarita.
And I think SCVTalk’s core mission is encourage just that. Isn’t that in the best tradition of civics?
Another:
Some day you will realize that a lot of people moved here because of its family-friendly neighborhoods. A lot of those same people like to ride bikes too. Check out any area of this town and you will find a lot more people who like it here than want your urban chauchemar. They moved away from your vision.
And what’s wrong with involving people in planning for the future for their neighborhoods, city, and region? Are you anti-democratic or something? Is it only people who learned about planning and development by playing Sim City that you trust? Wow, take a look around at IRL and get out of the game in your head.
Wait, so I’m anti-democratic because I use my blog to question the motives of the Our Valley, Our Vision group? I should just shut up and not ask questions or point out inconsistencies?
That’s absurd.
I have a stake in this valley too. It’s not just your valley. If your vision for the future of the SCV is strong, it should be able to stand up to questioning, debate, and analysis. So, convince me! Convince me Santa Clarita can survive the next oil shock. Convince me that it can remain a viable community in its present form when gas goes up to $5 per gallon and there are few local jobs.
Convince me that the scholarship on the decay of suburban America is wrong.
I Heart:
But basically, I view Santa Clarita as a paradise lost. It was once a dry, disaster-prone valley with relatively few big roads and relatively few people, which was lovely. I have little faith in the wisdom of planners, having known too many, and as such have little hope for a better future.
At least you’re honest I Heart. I suppose I underestimate the revulsion in the SCV character to people. The “Too Many People,” theme underscores a lot of this debate. And for some, the revulsion is to a particular type of people: those with lower income. Perhaps I’m late in realizing it, but we’re really still a white flight community, aren’t we?
TimBen:
It is not if you build, it is what you build and where. Very few neighborhoods ever come out and say, “don’t build anything”. They simply want something that fits in. They like living in a suburban community. That is why people move here. The urban lifestyle is available just over the hill for those people who want it.
Building space for good paying jobs like the new Disney Studios is a big plus, however do not think that all the people who work there will be living here. Just like building high density on the rail line would not mean that all those people are going to ride the train to work, and walk or bike everywhere else.
Too much density means gridlock with polluted air due to the increase in auto trips. The State has stalled the County version of the OVOV for just this reason, it does not address the air pollution from all of the extra traffic.
It’s my understanding OVOV doesn’t address greenhouse gas emissions properly. Which is different from particulate emissions.
But regardless of that, the pollution is occurring now as huge numbers of SCV residents drive south for work. Shouldn’t we be trying to get those people off I-5 so that their commutes are shorter, they stay in town and spend money here, and they come to view Santa Clarita as more than just a place they rest their heads at night?
Otherwise, you’re just exporting traffic and pollution elsewhere. And I really want to know how your SCV can survive intact when (when, not if!) gas prices go up again like they did in 2008.
Good stuff here people, keep it coming! Your thoughts are helping me sort through my own SCV existential crisis.
Loading ...
I am total agreement with TimBen’s comment above.
It’s about “what you build and where”. I don’t have a problem with ‘high rises’ or the height of buildings, if its consistent with the established area. The new building on McBean and Singing Hills that is going to be built, is a high rise in a residential area. The MOB’s and Parking structures on McBean, between Orchard Village and Alegro, will be 3 to 4 stories, in a residential zones area.
The ‘growth’ is not consistent with the area.
Perhaps a bit of irony, but the spouse and I have been discussing what to do with ourselves when the nest is completely empty. We have seriously concidered moving to a ‘city’. We can downsize; get rid of a vehicle; walk (which we both enjoy) to dinner, entertainment, shops, etc.; and we won’t have children anymore that we want to provide a safe, walkable, ‘child friendly’ environment for…the reason we bought in this neighborhood in the first place.
I believe that we need to build both up and out. Those who have pointed out that SCV can and should be a location that attracts singles, couples without children and couples with children have already won this argument in my book.
I am not anti-development. I have read studies that say the population of the greater Los Angeles area will grow by approx 9 million people by the year 2020. Many of these will be single, married with and w/o children. Some will be in domestic partnerships. It’s not a matter of do we develop or not, it’s a matter of responsible development. Do we put a large office building in the middle of single family homes? Maybe not. When we talk about development, we need to look at the existing neighborhoods, and make sure it fits.
Again John B.(NickelDime), I’m not against growth in this valley and I believe that the diversity you speak of if great. However, that ‘growth’ in commerical development (I believe) should not take place in residential areas.
This is a large valley that I believe can handle both the housing and commercial development, as well as keeping those neighborhoods that have been established as ‘single family residents, as is.
Believe me, I miss the diversity of the city and what it offers.
We haven’t done a whole lot of research yet into where we may want to relocate, due to the fact that we still have a child to raise here; it’ll be a few years yet til we’re able to move.
Silverlake, Pasadena, sound nice on a smaller scale. San Diego, L.A. SanFrancisco on a larger one…as far as ‘in state’. If we can afford to, NY would be a wonderful place to retire.
But hey, we may end up just staying put, depending on what the immediate future holds for us.
How our SCV will survive intact when (not if) oil prices go up:
1) People will drive less.
Fewer people will complain about traffic
2) More bike lanes will be put in.
3) More bikes will be sold.
4) More scooters will be sold.
5) More electric cars will be sold (and more golf carts too)
6) People will walk more
7) People will move closer to their work, or will move their work closer to their home
9) Public transit ridership will go up. No more empty buses on the road!
11) People will adjust. They always do. Life will go on.
12) Jeff will finally be able to say: I told you so. And then he will go on as well.