According to Wikipedia generic “heart disease” is the leading killer in the United States, accounting for 25.4% of all deaths in the US. So its rank as the number one killer of both men and women in LA County is hardly surprising.

But who would have thought homicide and motor vehicle crashes account for the #2 and #3 causes of premature death respectively for men in LA County? Do men get into that many crashes in LA County that it ranks as the #3 killer of us? Apparently so.

Sadly, homicide ranks as the #1 killer of blacks and Latinos in LA County, according to the report. Lung disease is the #2 killer of whites behind heart disease, followed by motor vehicle crashes. As the report notes, risky behavior contributes heavily to these causes of death.

Speaking of health and motor vehicles, there’s another aspect to the report that applies to us here locally. I don’t think Santa Clarita is more or less obese than any other community, but the report notes that obesity “is one of the greatest challenges facing Los Angeles County” and that, taken together with diabetes, “threatens to halt and even reverse the gains in life expectancy we’ve achieved.”

As many planners and so-called new-urbanists have argued for years, increased obesity rates are a direct result of suburban, car-friendly and pedestrian-unfriendly development (see this 2003 NYT story “As Suburbs Grow, So Do Waistlines” for a sample). And this report takes that same line, arguing that city planners and decision makers ought to “increase access to safe places for residents to walk, bike, play and exercise” and “incorporate health considerations in General Plans, transportation plans and redevelopment activities.”

And I think “incorporating health considerations” is one thing the City of Santa Clarita (and arguably Newhall Land with Newhall Ranch) is trying to accomplish with its “valley of villages,” ped-friendly concept. Of course one SCV man’s ped-friendly, jobs/housing balanced development is another man’s high density OVOV nightmare (that they moved here to escape from!) so therein lies the crux of the matter.

This is one of the reasons I choose to live in Newhall and one of the reasons I’d live in Valencia: they are relatively walkable compared to other areas of the SCV like Stevenson Ranch. And this report backs that idea up: living in walkable communities contributes to a healthy, more active lifestyle.

Are all developments inherently bad?  Is it possible to pave nature in a responsible way, perhaps even balance out some of the irresponsible development in SCV?

The concept of Newhall Ranch is a live/work/play community, facilitated by local jobs and smaller homes in what is known in developer parlance as “high density”  (synonymous with “multi-family residences”: typically condos, townhomes, zero lot line or patio homes).  The project will likely take at least two decades to complete.

Some have been quick to draw comparisons between Newhall Ranch and Valencia; while both are Newhall Land communities, the two share a number of differences.

Master Plan	1960′s	1990′s
Size	15,000 acres	12,000 acres
Open space	4,500 acres	7,800 acres
Homes (at build out)	24,000	20,885
Residents	60,000	60,000
Jobs (est)	60,000	60,000
SFR:Multi-family ratio	65:35	40:60
Trails	30 miles	50 miles
Landscape	Mostly non-native; fescue	Native, drought-tolerant

The high density plan:

• Lowers the price point for NR homes, which translates to lower commute times
• Makes the project more proftable
• Allows for more open space and more walkable villages
• Mitigates a chunk of the environmental concerns

Since land is a fixed cost, packing more homes in a tighter space results in a higher return for the developer. In recent years Newhall Land has migrated to a higher mix of multi-family units.  With the exception of West Hills, all of their recent villages are primarily high density.  For example, Entrada, NL’s nascent village adjacent Magic Mountain will feature 1,232 multi-family units vs. 408 SFR, a 3:1 ratio.  Newhall Ranch will continue this trend.

High density housing also satisfies a price point that should create a more attractive live/work balance.  That stands in sharp contrast to Valencia, whose homes generally have values that demand higher incomes than this valley can support.

A byproduct of nearly all development involves changing what Mother Nature intended (check out SCVTalk’s photo montage for a glimpse of the property today).  However, in dedicating a huge chunk of permanent open space, paying specific attention and care to the Santa Clara river, targeting 51% water recycling, planting native/drought tolerant landscape and building primarily high density homes (which make efficient use of space, use less water and are cheaper to heat/cool), Newhall Land deserves credit for environmental sensitivity.  NR’s environmental impact report (EIR) is the largest and most extensive in CA history.  Clearly, Newhall Land has learned lessons from the usual cast of opposing characters: I can’t think of a development on this scale more sensitive to environmental issues.  The average Newhall Rancher will have a smaller carbon footprint than the rest of us Claritans.


However, the environmental mitigations won’t matter if NR fails to attract reasonably paying jobs and an educated work force that desires high density living.  Failing that, residents will join the rest of us on 5 freeway for a job beyond the dreaded Newhall Pass.  I would be more optimistic if mass transit were an essential component of the project–despite providing right-of-way for Metrolink, there is no guaranteed light rail, something we lamented earlier this year.  But if Newhall Land continues its success in attracting more local jobs, perhaps that won’t matter.  Without a sustainable source for job growth–a research institution, for example–that success is predicated on a pro-business stance from the City, enterprise-zone status and an unfriendly business environment in Los Angeles.

If we trust Newhall Land and their plan for Newhall Ranch, this will be a great addition to our valley.  If it doesn’t quite work (jobs don’t materialize; high density doesn’t resonate), the results could prove to be a serious drag on our transportation and water infrastructure.

-Aldo Leopold

I’m conflicted on Newhall Ranch. On the one hand, I probably wouldn’t have an affordable home in this nice community if it weren’t for Newhall Land’s Valencia development. In fact, the Santa Clarita Valley would be little more than a backwater land of inchoate, thoughtless developments if it wasn’t for Newhall Land and their high quality “master plan” which shaped the landscape of the SCV decades ago. This fact gives Newhall Land credibility to develop Newhall Ranch in my mind.

There’s also this other feeling I have as someone who has lived in the Western United States all my life. It’s in our nature as westerners and Americans, as beneficiaries of Manifest Destiny, to expand and to grow. On a gut level, I look at the landscape of Newhall Ranch and I think to myself, “It’s not doing much now. Let’s make it productive and build something great” which is pretty much the story of how the Western United States -and the Santa Clarita Valley- grew and became prosperous. And I admire Newhall Land’s ability & vision to take that risk and to create something out of nothing.

On the other hand, I tend to think that developments like Newhall Ranch (and Valencia for that matter) may be obsolete. With global climate change, increasing fuel costs, difficulty in getting water, and ever-increasing traffic, is there a market for far-flung suburban development in 2010? How about 2020 or 2050? Oh sure, Newhall Land promises that the Ranch will be different, it will not be sprawl, it will be built with local jobs available, but is that really the case? They also promise that much of the land back there behind Magic Mountain will be left as open space, but isn’t it all open space now? Why change it?

I had all this in mind as John B. and I asked to go on tour of the SCV’s back country, the property Henry Mayo Newhall and his sons received from the Spanish. It’s gone by many names over the years: from Rancho San Francisco to Portrero Valley to all the new names Newhall Land wants to apply to the various communities it hopes to build starting in a few years.

John and I wanted to document the landscape before it gets developed and we wanted to learn whether Newhall Ranch is feasible in an economic sense and responsible in an environmental sense. This post will feature photos of that back country with detailed captions; John will follow up with his more specific thoughts on what Newhall Land is planning later.

Hope you enjoy.

Our tour started in some pepper fields just south of Highway 126. This area will be the site of Landmark Village, the first development in Newhall Land's 21,000 Newhall Ranch project

Our tour was hosted by two Newhall Land developers. They helped us visualize where each development would go, and emphasized the amount of open space NL will preserve

One of the concerns SCOPE and a myriad of others have expressed about Newhall Ranch is that it will impact the river. The two developers we were with were quick to point out that Landmark Village development won't be that close to the river; they compared the proximity to what is currently built in Bridgeport, where there is several hundred feet between the riverbed and the streets

We spotted a lone coyote patrolling the fields as we entered the Ranch, a not-so-subtle reminder that this is a largely wild landscape

To get to the back side of Newhall Ranch, you have to cross some locked gates and cattle guards. Looking at the territory on a map, you get the feeling that it's a really large space, but once we were actually back there, it felt significantly more constrained by the hills and mountains. And yet you couldn't help but feel that this is what parts of Santa Clarita must have looked like before Valencia

A shot of what is called Potrero Valley, which is the site of Newhall Ranch's last (and possibly largest) Potrero Village development in Newhall Ranch. As you can see, even in the back country there is no escaping Edison's electrical lines and towers

From parts of Potrero Valley, you can see evidence of the SCV, which was rather disconcerting. We drove so far back into the ranch we thought we were miles from the SCV, but in reality, Stevenson Ranch (developed by NL's rivals) was just over a ridge

In the center of Potrero Valley is a rather strange little series of buildings. Keep in mind Newhall Ranch is an "active ranch" as NL reminds everyone; these buildings are used by authentic cowboys as they go about their authentic cowboy business. Yes. Authenticity in the SCV at last!

Another shot of the buildings on Potrero Canyon road

John B. skillfully shot this 360 degree panoramic photo. Click to enlarge

Cattle freely roam much of the territory back there, hearkening back to Newhall Land's earlier core business. Does anyone remember when we used to see cattle grazing where West Ridge is now?

In addition to cattle ranching, the Ranch is used for other purposes too. Both petroleum and natural gas are extracted in Newhall Ranch (the equipment above has to do with natural gas production I'm told). These wells will be capped off eventually as homes are built (interestingly enough, one of the plans to deal with excess chloride in the Santa Clara River involved dumping chloride down these wells)

This home is still used by cowboys and ranchers. It was built in 1945 for Barnsdall Oil Company, according to SCVHistory.com

SCVHistory.com Link

This building was once used by oil and gas employees. I think it is largely abandoned now and sits near the southern edge of Potrero Valley

This photo was taken from the top of Potrero Canon Road on the southside of the valley. Just a mile or so down the road from here is Mentryville. In other words, we had driven on back-roads all the way from Highway 126 back to Pico Canyon Blvd. Eventually this may be a major thoroughfare

NAFF’s latest video provides a good summary of Tuesday night’s council meeting and confirms, to me at least, that the rage over the Mayo expansion, the G&L donations, the campaign contribution changes and a myriad of other issues and problems has reached critical mass and boiled over.

It’s taken quite a while to get to this point. Let’s review where we are and how we got here.

For years we’ve heard from TimBen Boydston, David Gauny and others on that side of the camp that something is sick in the City of Santa Clarita. They (Boydston more than Gauny) have alleged, along with many others, that the City’s Staff and its Manager (Ken Pulskamp, or as Bruce McFarland calls him, “The Don”) have too much power and influence over City affairs, over development and such. They allege that, contrary to the natural structure of a Council-Manager form of local government, it is Ken Pulskamp who is calling the shots and directing the Council to do things.

Oh sure, it’s probably more subtle than that, this group would say. It’s not like Ken Pulskamp calls up the City Council and tells them how to vote. It’s more like KP and the professional City Staff exercise an inordinate amount of influence by determining what rises to the Council’s attention, and they, as a result, get what they want.

Which isn’t always what the people of Santa Clarita want, at least according to TimBen Boydston and David Gauny.

So what about this theory? Well, consider this from the City staff’s point of view. These people are professionals, having trained for years in their respective disciplines. They went through what by all accounts is a pretty rigorous hiring process. They obtained certifications, credentials and advanced degrees specific to their disciplines and to local government and, what’s more, many of them live here as well. They win awards. Magazines write about them. They’re justifiably proud of their accomplishments.

The City Council, in contrast, only works part time and has a few weeks off during the summer. Some of them are pretty adept at the technical odds and ends of city planning, finance, and perhaps traffic and transportation. Few are probably adept at engineering or interfacing with other technocrats in other segments of government. The bottom line is they are part time citizen representatives, and they depend on the staff for professional and informed advice because, let’s be honest here, they’re largely clueless when it comes to running a city. But they love showing up at ribbon cutting ceremonies.

The staff, meanwhile, is interested in furthering their local government careers. They read the planning and transportation journals, they attend society meetings and conferences, they educate themselves further. In general, they know their stuff, they want to do a good job and put some cool projects on their CVs.

And -this is key- no professional planner thinks generic, low-density suburban projects have a real future in our community or elsewhere.

And so, as technocrats are wont to do, they think big and dream up big plans. Like One Valley, One Vision. Like the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan. Or the North Newhall Specific Plan. And a dozen other large-scale, multi-year planning efforts that, in their considered opinion, rationally address the economic and infrastructure challenges facing Santa Clarita in the years and decades ahead.

And Ken Pulskamp is their voice to the City Council. I repeat that: Pulskamp is not just in charge of the staff, he is the public face of the staff.

Which is why the Gaunyites and Boydston camps hate him so much. Because they look at these big plans and think, “Holy shit! The City staff is remaking us brick by brick into the San Fernando Valley! They are planning to bring another 250,000 people* here! What about we the people?”

To some extent, I see their point. Is it right for a City Manager to not just implement policy, but to formulate policy as well?  After all, Ken Pulskamp is not elected by the people, but Bob Kellar is. Shouldn’t policy making be left up to the elected officials?

In our case, I’d argue that the City staff and Pulskamp can and should attempt to formulate policy for the reasons I cited above. The City staff is professional, educated, and knowledgeable. We should consider their plans, opinions, and knowledge.

Why? Other cities do it. In a 1997 survey of City managers, the International City/County Managers Association reported that 80% of City Managers think they should be involved themselves in policy formulation. What’s more, a 2001 survey of City Councilmembers in Council-Manager cities revealed that a majority of elected council members considered the City Manager to be a very important part of the policy formulation process.

On the Council side of things, a National League of Cities study in 2001 reported that Council Members of cities with populations between 75,000 and 200,000 spent only about 25 hours per week working “on council related matters.” My bet is that number would be even lower in Santa Clarita. Does anyone honestly think the five of them spend 25 hours a week working on policy matters related to Santa Clarita?

I can send you the sources I cited by email if you like (they are not linkable), but the point is this: many cities depend on their staff and management to formulate policies. The elected leadership, in contrast, has neither the time nor the chops to really create successful policy in all circumstances. This is the reality, and it’s not just in Santa Clarita.

And so there you have it. The vocal and boisterous discontent  we saw at Tuesday night’s City Council meeting is a direct result of the City of Santa Clarita’s Council-Manager form of government. It is a form of government that relies heavily on a full-time, professional staff to not just manage city affairs but also to create responsible policy for the entire city.

And the discontent is also a direct result of having part time Councilmembers who lean, in a big way, on the City staff for ideas to solve problems.

This feels undemocratic to some. It feels particularly undemocratic when 100 people show up in the Council Chambers and are ignored.

But guess what? This structure works for most of us, at this time. Life is pretty good here. I think we under-represent some segments of the population and I’m tempted by the idea of Districts, but by and large, I see the City staff making good-faith efforts to plan for the future of the SCV, to grow it economically in an era of rising gas prices and increasing environmental awareness. Whereas Gauny and Boydston see Mayo as a canary in the coalmine, I look at a revitalized Old Town Newhall with a Metrolink station, a community center and a new library and see smart planning paying off. Whereas Bruce McFarland claims The Don is ignoring the will of the people, I see a survey that says most people are happy and want more local jobs, businesses, and things to do (I also see a lot of silly people claiming traffic is a problem and the City, as a whole, cowering in the face of that absurdity).

So in the end, Boydston and Gauny camps are right. The City manager & staff do push policy**, but it is, by and large, good policy that most of the community probably supports.

* The Signal headline that has made more NAFF videos than any other is the one that says SCV will someday have 400,000 people. NAFF and his pals think that’s what the City staff are doing: trying to build out the SCV so that an additional 150,000 people move here. The reality is the staff is responsibly thinking about a future in which 400,000 people, of their own volition in a free market, might want to call the SCV home. And they are planning for that in a rational and logical way.

** And yes, I suppose you could say the staff have an interest in having the people they like on the City Council, because the councilmembers have shown themselves to be amenable to the staff’s good policy

I’m glad you got my note! I got your reply today and I’m excited about our next steps together on July 20th.

And I didn’t realize Tesoro and a slice of West Hills were outside the City Sphere of Influence – that makes this whole thing that much sweeter (eat your heart out, Dave Bossert)!

Love always,

Tesoro, West Hills, West Creek

ps Don’t let the haters get you down!

And if you enjoy a spot of cartography served with a side of LAFCO legalese, spend some time on this bad boy (courtesy Santa Clarita Planning):

West Creek Tesoro Initial Study

I suppose this is cosmic justice for me: I’ve often criticized the NIMBY neighborhood groups in the McBean area for their outspoken and hyperbolic reaction to the hospital’s expansion (along with the proposed Singing Hills MOB). Now look what’s being built up in my neighborhood: a ginormous Walgreens building at the corner of Lyons & Valley that completely blocks views of the mountains to the south east.

Is it ugly? Yes. Do I resent it? Kind of. Is the pharmacy industry over-represented in my little slice of Santa Clarita? Most definitely.

But you won’t catch me complaining about it too much because, in general, I support “in-fill” projects like this. Better that we build a Walgreens here, in the city, on vacant land, than tear up a hillside and build it somewhere on the edges of town. And while the architecture (if you could call it that) of this building is likely to be as plain and boring as the CVS Pharmacy and Ralphs shopping center across the street, I recognize that my views are subjective and not shared by everyone in town.

And believe it or not, I like that this building is facing the street, that it’s right there on Lyons  Avenue and not set back behind an acre of parking like virtually every other strip mall in the SCV.

But if the reaction to that store (now nearing completion) could be termed snobbish, their reaction to what’s going into the old Circuit City space may be off-the-charts hysterical.

Ross.

Yes, that’s right, Ross Dress for Less, the home of budget-conscious shabby dressers like me and a magnet for poor-mannered customers nationwide, is opening a store in Stevenson Ranch.

There goes the neighborhood.

Oh SR, how far you’ve fallen. It was only 10-15 years ago that you thought yourself on par with Valencia. Oh sure, Wal Mart is bad for any community’s rep, but it was pretty nice back then, and while you had no paseos like Valencia had, you had one thing going for you the people across the 5 didn’t: shiny newness! That plus all those wonderful big box retailers- cha-ching! You were the new hotness in the SCV. Showtime even made a TV show based off your community!

Alas SR, I think your days atop the SCV’s planned communities  are coming to an end. You’re all built out now, aging, and all the new development is going to the east and north sides of town. And let’s face it, if people wanted to live near a Ross AND a Good Will, they’d just move to Saugus.

Yes. As unpleasant as that sounds Stevenson Ranch, you are now a newer version of Saugus.

We here in Newhall understand your pain. We, like you, wanted a Trader Joe’s to move into an old vacant space. Instead, without even asking us, “the invisible hand of the market” (whatever the hell that is) determined that we needed a Vallarta. I don’t know what a “Vallarta” is, but I do know that the people who would shop at a Vallarta are better off on their own side of town! I know you feel the same about Ross and Goodwill shoppers.

Maybe you SR folks should take a second look at that barrier wall Dave Bossert was thinking of building.

Okay so it wasn’t really a party, but something landmark happened in the SCV last night. I’m talking about the Chamber of Commerce “Mixer” in Newhall. Yes Newhall. And it didn’t take place in some bland conference center either. No, they actually partied on the street.

Which is really crazy for this place we call home, isn’t it?

Seriously can you imagine us holding outdoor, private-function, events like this on streets in Santa Clarita 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago?

Sure we’ve had the Street Art Festival (or whatever they’re calling it now) for a few years in Old Town Newhall, which is great. And we have the weekly farmer’s market on Main Street as well.

But this is a little bit different. We actually closed down a street just for a few hours so people could gather, hang out, eat and drink and have fun outside in a public place. We actually used a street for more than just the conveyance and temporary storage of cars.

And it looks like people had a blast.

This is a triumph of the City’s/NRC’s and OTNA’s vision for Old Town, in my opinion, and proof that those who fought the routing of vehicle traffic onto Railroad were wrong.

And it’s only going to get better when we get the new library.

More please (a BBQ contest on Main Street would be grand, wouldn’t it? Or a concert?) And next time invite me.

That’s the word that came to mind when I read The Signal’s story today on the “postponed” or “paused” Lyons Avenue railroad crossing. The City says money is to blame; they’d rather wait for a developer to contract with the city to fund (in part or whole I suppose) the estimated $7.5 million cost of building a railroad crossing at the eastern end of Lyons Avenue. The purpose of the crossing would be to 1) replace the obsolete and dangerous crossing at 13th Street & Railroad and 2) ultimately link Lyons Avenue to Dockweiler, thus bypassing Placerita Canyon and its fussy homeowners.

But now that link, that crucial piece of infrastructure for Newhall that has been in the planning stages for decades, is “paused.”

Come on, don’t bullshit me. It’s dead isn’t it?

And we all know why it’s dead. It’s dead because the Placerita Homeowners, the most powerful NIMBY special interest group in the SCV with their own sphere of influence, their own special standards district and their own high-powered attorney, thinks that that link will lead to the development of high density housing that threatens their safety and makes it difficult for them to use golf carts in Placerita Canyon.

Indeed, that was the gist of this story on Friday afternoon, when Signal Publisher Ian Lamont teased today’s story  for Saturday’s Signal via the Qwik-E email:

This story should have appeared in Saturday’s Signal, and as you can see from the tease above,  funding challenges weren’t mentioned as a cause for the “pause” of the Lyons Avenue rail crossing. In fact, the tease all but says the city is killing off the rail crossing “in light of public outcry, primarily from Placerita Cnayon Residents.”

Yet come Monday morning, we learn that it’s actually funding challenges that’s “pausing” the rail crosssing. What changed between 3:02pm on Friday and this morning? Is there another version of this story sitting on a  Signal hard drive that didn’t get published?

No surprise that the P-Canyon homeowners are pleased by this development, whatever its cause. Val Thomas tells The Signal that “Our point has really not been to stop the thing [Lyons crossing] but to get the whole picture,” by which she means that, to P-Canyon residents, a Lyons rail crossing necessarily means that 500-700 safety-threatening condos will be built at the entrance to their rural-equestrian paradise.

What she (and The Signal) leave out, however, is that the condos can’t be built now because the existing 13th Street Railroad crossing is totally and completely inadequate. Thus, from the P-Canyon resident’s point of view, if you kill Lyons Avenue crossing, you kill the 500-700 condos.

The City has always rightfully looked at the Lyons crossing on its own, because that’s how it should be looked at. It’s a piece of infrastructure that will lead to a four lane road connecting Old Town Newhall to Sierra Highway. It has nothing to do with Casden’s condos, that’s just the foil the P-Canyon people use to fight progress.

And progress, make no mistake, is what this is about. It’s about building a road that puts traffic into a revitalized Old Town Newhall. A road that would eventually allow Disney Studios at the Ranch workers quick and easy access to businesses in Newhall. It’s like Newhall’s own Cross Valley Connector.

And now it’s dead because of a handful of rich property owners in Placerita Canyon, a group of homeowners who have veto power over just about anything in this part of the SCV. A group of homeowners who practically own us.

They win, we lose.

And the Lyons Crossing is dead but the City doesn’t have the courage to say it.

Love him or hate him, Frank Ferry has got people talking and thinking with the comments he made above.

For starters, it’s reprehensible for a City Council member to call constituents in this community -our neighbors- “terrorists.” That loaded word isn’t something to be abused, it’s not a term that should ever enter our lexicon unless someone is using violence for political ends. It’s way off base and he should apologize for that.

That said, it’s about time we had this conversation.

There is a tendency among the anti-density folks in this community to extrapolate their hyper-local issues to the rest of this valley, as if a single medical building on McBean is proof that the City is rotten, that the sky is falling, and that the SCV’s best days are behind it, even as things are relatively good elsewhere (and indeed, getting much better in my neighborhood).

They tend to look at a given project and see tall buildings, torn down trees, lots of people, and traffic while others see new job opportunities, fewer trips over the hill,  shorter commutes to services and businesses and more local commerce.

They, good Republicans & free marketers (and even Tea Partiers in the case of Bob Kellar) when it comes to state & national issues, want an activist and interventionist local government when it comes to determining what a property owner does with his commercial property.

They act as if they represent a majority of the SCV, when in reality they are but one constituency of many, as proven by the last two City Council elections.

And some of them, not all, but some viciously attack the professional staff at City Hall (they justify this by saying that it is the staff that is in charge of the City Council, not vice-versa).

Lest I be accused of just picking on the anti-density folks, there’s plenty of hypocrisy to go around. Frank Ferry mocks the press even as he implores them to expose Boydston and Gauny and the neighborhood groups, but it was Frank Ferry just a few years ago who wanted the Signal to stop reporting crime statistics. It didn’t reflect well on the SCV to report such things in the paper, he said. Hey Mr. Ferry, either we have solid, responsible and exhaustive journalism or we don’t. You don’t get to tell The Signal they’re asleep on the job in one breath, then say they’re reporting too extensively in another.

To Ferry’s specific point: that development projects are being filibustered & slandered out of existence by these groups before they’ve had a fair shot before the Planning Commission or the City Council, I think he’s right.

He seems to think it’s unfair. I don’t.

Raise your hand if you think developers in Santa Clarita are unfairly put-upon by citizens? Anyone?  Didn’t think so.

It’s called democracy Mr. Ferry, and it’s often times messy. And yes, interested participants in democracy may have agendas. I recall you did too before you were elected to the Council, you said no one on the council was representing people like you, you said there weren’t enough parks and things for kids to do (don’t make me dig out the quotes from that food article I posted about last year!)

If the developers are finding it hard to compete with Facebook groups that -overnight- have hundreds of members, they need to step up their game. Like, I don’t know, maybe meet with neighbors earlier in the process.  Maybe address their concerns before it makes the front page of the Signal. Maybe the developers need to bribe the neighborhoods they want to develop in, like the oil company bribed the Placerita homeowners decades ago.

Whatever the case, the developers and Ferry shouldn’t feign shock and surprise when neighbors get aroused and angered by a 60 foot tall building they just learned about in the Planning Commission agenda.

Speaking of The Signal, they share some blame too. Occasionally they are brilliant (as they were in today’s piece on Ferry’s comments). But much of the time they’re mediocre. I’d happily trade the occasional brilliant articles away for more consistent, solid journalism that answers who, what, when, where, why and how and talks to as many stakeholders as possible.

It may not be fair to make The Signal arbiter of this old development & growth debate, but they’re all we got since the Daily News and the Times left town. On that point, I agree with Ferry.