A group calling itself “Low Density – High Dignity SCV” announced Thursday that it would formally file a lawsuit against the City of Santa Clarita’s One Valley One Vision master plan for what it called a “ghoulish high density cemetery plan.”
The group -consisting of scores of residents from Newhall, Valencia, Canyon Country and Saugus- said the OVOV plan represents an unacceptable increase in high density cemetery stacking.
“We moved to Santa Clarita first and foremost because no one lived out here and because we wanted to escape the San Fernando Valley,” an elderly gentleman said at a press conference at City Hall. “But now these out-of-touch City Planners want their high density dreams to follow us right into the afterlife!” he shouted.
A map from the OVOV Planning document shows corpse density requirements throughout the SCV's various communities
Buried in a subsection of the City’s Land Use document -itself a part of the 8000+ page OVOV plan- is an obscure reference mandating an increase in the density of cemetery plots throughout the City of Santa Clarita.
“As the population of the living increases throughout the One Valley One Vision planning area, a corpse density increase of 4.0 will need to be made at the valley’s numerous burial grounds to account for population increases of the inanimated,” the document says on page 1,427.
Currently the number of inanimate corpses allowed per burial plot in the SCV is 2.0. Husbands are allowed to be buried atop wives; children, however, need to be buried in a separate plot, and family pets are not allowed to be buried with human corpses at all.
Under the new OVOV plan, which is currently under intense debate at City Hall, cemetery plot density will be increased by 4.0 corpses per plot, so that entire families can be buried together along with pets. The document says the increased density will allow for one acre of in-fill cemetery land to house 1,200 inanimate corpses, rather than 200 under the old plan.
“In order to make the best use of open space in the One Valley One Vision planning area, corpses shall be stacked atop one another until a maximum density of six corpses per cemetery plot is reached,” the document continues.
A graphic from the City's OVOV planning document shows existing corpse stacking regulations on the left. Two corpses are buried atop one another. The new Six Corpse Stack rule, shown on the right, increases the amount of bodies a cemetery plot can hold.
The so-called Six Corpse Stack has outraged community members.
“Jake’s Way wasn’t enough. The high density condos of Newhall and Valencia weren’t enough. Even the build out of Mayo Hospital didn’t satisfy these high density evangelists. Now we’ll be packed like sardines even when we’re dead,” said Edna Prendergast of Canyon Country on Low Density – High Dignity’s Facebook page.
City planners note that many other communities facing space issues have implemented corpse stacking in public and private cemeteries. And they note that corpse stacking will only be required in so-called “infill” areas. Lower density cemetery plots will still be available on the outskirts of town.
Planning Director Paul Brotzmann says the residents are misinformed. “What we’re trying to do with One Valley One Vision is manage an orderly and smart build-out of the SCV not just for half a million living people, but also their dead loved ones.”
He continued. “If we didn’t implement corpse stacking, it’s possible there will be low density cemeteries stretching out across Santa Clarita’s beautiful hillsides. The new rule is just a better, more efficient use of space. ”
Special standards districts, like those in Placerita and Sand Canyon, will be exempt from the Six Corpse Stack rule. Noting the special character and history of these areas, Brotzman said residents there can be buried on land on their own ranches, individually or alongside their families, horses or farm & barnyard animals if they wish.
Other members of Low Density – High Dignity say they’re concerned that increased corpse density may lead to more crime. Local business owner Atom! Freeman of Newhall’s Brave New World comic book shop said corpse stacking can have terrible safety implications.
“Just as we see that high density clusters increase crime in living populations, so too do high density cemetery plots,” Freeman said. “During a zombie apocalypse scenario, the living will be quickly overrun and consumed by thousands of reanimated corpses clawing their way out of these high density cemetery plots.”
Freeman said that zombie researchers who have studied the matter have concluded that low density cemetery plots like the ones Santa Claritans are buried in now offer a much lower level of risk in the event of a zombie apocalypse.
“It’s simply a matter of numbers. It’s much easier to organize against 200 zombies than it is to fight off zombie swarm of 1,200. Let the San Fernando Valley keep their high density cemetery plots; the SCV should remain low density.” Freeman said.
The OVOV plan is currently under public review, with the City Council expected to vote on it by Spring 2011. Low Density – High Dignity SCV said it will seek a declaratory injunction against OVOV in San Fernando Valley Superior Court by October 31.
Happy Halloween!
Loading ...
Brilliant. The “zombie apocalypse scenario” and the “thousands of reanimated corpses clawing their way out” will keep me awake at least a fortnight.
Freeman is being a bit hysterical with the math. The ratio of the low vs high density corpse stacking is 2:6 therefore there would now be 600 zombies as opposed to the 1200 quoted. That being said, I’d still hate to have to fight off 200 let alone 600.
Jeff, where is the special plot for the top 51 and the residents of Valenica? If you have to increase the stacking in others areas from 6, to 8 or 10 to make room, so be it.
One more thing, the stacking plan is problematic and it is sure to create major disagreement. Perhaps you should work on a bottom to top ranking proposal.
One more thing, please don’t discriminate other than to require men to be on top.
Jeff, I know that high density living is one persons take on what the allowable quality of life should for Americans but do you have to berate and make fun of those who feel the OVOV has massive inherent differences to most of our valleys residents? I know and can see the humor in what you wrote but I can also see the underlined dismissal of a lot of peoples hard work in discovering the issues.
Huh?
Sterling, the problem really is that people believe they can actually stop urban sprawl by simply willing it to end. The population of large metropolitan centers may spread a commutable distance away from those centers but there is only so much of that area. The people of the SFV likely had these same gripes decades ago. If people really wish to avoid high density altogether they need to move to more legitimately rural areas and be willing to sacrifice their proximity to those metro centers.
The fact is that people want to have their cake and eat it too, they want to live close enough to LA to commute to good jobs, attend sporting events and concerts and go to the beach from their bedroom community… they just aren’t happy with any “new” people building their bedrooms here and enjoying those same benefits.
You don’t have to be excited about things becoming more high density, but you’re simply not going to stop it.
Love the zombie apocalypse humor BTW.
Very well stated.
I fully understand your input here but people do have a very significant sphere of influence in the neighborhoods and towns where they live. Based on their own purchase of land and home gives residents total right to assert that influence in the transformation of their area. Planners, city managers, and corp development interests don’t have Pope status over and above the residents of any town. The days of passive civicly ignorant civilians is over. People here can only take so much before they begin to reshape the leadership at the top to better reflect our needs and wants.
The essence of your argument would make Adam Smith roll over in his grave and is the same that underpins socialism.
Socialism? Explain wise one.
Private property rights don’t extend past one’s property.
Asserting influence in ones area is not a civil right and responsibility if circumstances effect quality of life ?
Ones investment is not impacted by factors beyond the property line?
Social involvement is equal to socialism?
Please help me understand.
I’m just trying to understand your logic here.
Speaking up is one thing. Asking your government to curtail the private property rights of someone else is quite another. Anti-capitalist.
“Socialism”. Oxford English Dictionary.:
How far does your influence go?
It’s a slippery slope. Socialism doesn’t have to happen at the national level to be so. It can most certainly happen at the local level.
So under that example, all citizens should site home and watch public officials change and open flood gates for massive grid restructuring for massive interests to buy localities for liberal High density theologies that will diabolically appose citizens way of life?
These people have the communist power to blow you off the influence map as if you don’t exist? Is this your argument for neighbors sharing their desires?
I’m not sure where you get liberal=high density.
You love to advocate for an invasive, heavy handed government and a command economy on the local level.
Jeff, this is one of your best. Way too funny!
Mandatory cremation would allow for even denser stacking without the zombie consequences. I’ll have to suggest that to Brotzman . . . .
Hysterical, worthy of The Onion. Well done (and thanks for the interjection of humor into the debate)
Sterling:
The slope gets slippery very fast.
The fact is, the same folks waving ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ banners in this town are the very same that opposed growth at COC and our hospital. Some of those same individuals are railing against OVOV, citing the SFV as the evil example of our future should it be ratified.
The sweet irony is SFV the epitome of a lack of planning.
So you believe that higher density pre square mile in SCV at 450,000 people will not result in San Fernando Valley type of living? If not exactly?
Where do you propose to put all these people and their 2 cars each?
Why do you propose a hostel take over of our standards that will allow by city policy? Are you for this?
I would like to know these answers from one who believe all is well in Zion.
“All is well in Zion”? Is that some Mormon code for something?
This thread is hanging by a thread.
To answer your first question, I define “SFV-type living” as a poorly-planned overlay of industry and commerce on top of homes. The parking at commercial establishments is abysmal. It is extremely difficult to traverse SFV at almost any hour. Many homes and neighborhoods, which are predominantly single family residences, are cute – then you turn a corner, and it’s a factory or a commerce center.
In short, it wasn’t planned properly, if at all. There are 1.8 million people across 260 square miles, or 6900 people per square mile.
I believe it is possible for an area the size of SFV to have 1.8M people without having the issues that SFV has, yes. It takes planning.
SCV is 57 square miles with 240,000 residents – a current density of 4210 people per square mile. If we grow to 450k, it would rocket our density past present-day SFV by 1,000 people per square mile. That level of population will require high density living (condos, townhomes, etc), no question. It will require the type of homes that you’re seeing in West Creek, Creekside and forthcoming Newhall Ranch. If we are smart, it will also involve local jobs and mass transit so we reduce our collective dependency to drive over the hill for work.
You call it a ‘hostel (sic) takeover of our standards’, I call it urban planning. It is precisely what was missing in the SFV that contributed to its very nature.
So…
Do you believe the population is growing?
If so, how do we go about coordinating that growth?
NicKel,
On the road
I want to respond
In simple, maintain a general plan that doesn’t allow certain building levels for the maintenance of existing neighborhoods. Grow only when roads are appropriate for added autos and keep a stoplight timing standard below the current levels that are set to socially train our patience for long traffic backups and intervals.
Simple, decide that we are going to stay at slow growth standards and when we max out we stop. Burbank is anexample. The only reason we coud grow that size would be be wise of a handful of people. Not cool and not right without extensive public imput in the vision we have.