Point / Counterpoint : The Issue: Santa Clarita Cityhood : AGAINST

On Nov. 3, Santa Clarita Valley voters will decide whether to create a separate city. At the same time, voters will chose among 25 candidates for a five-member city council. To shed light on the issue, The Times asked representatives for and against the proposed city of Santa Clarita to write guest columns. Anthony J. Skirlick Jr. of Valencia is a founder of the Citizens Against Cityhood, which opposes incorporation. He is an air traffic controller. Connie Worden of Newhall is spokeswoman for the City of Santa Clarita Formation Commission. She is a planning consultant.

The panic in the voices of those “for” cityhood in the Santa Clarita Valley seems a bit overstated. It has a familiar ring to it.

This cityhood idea is the half sister of the now-defunct Canyon County drive that swept through here a few years back. Unsatisfied by that outcome (Canyon County defeat), it seems the same individuals are at it again, but only under a different name. Santa Clarita Cityhood Formation Committee (this year’s name) wants the rest of us in this area to also jump to our feet and experience their same level of communal anxiety over sovereignty issues.

Let’s examine life in this valley as it is today. There is development, but, despite some bottlenecks and foot-dragging on San Fernando Road improvement and the Cross Valley Parkway concept, it is rather easy vis-a-vis Los Angeles to get around.

I cannot understand how developers will have it any easier or harder getting building permits under a city rather than a county. If a developer somehow “bought off” the new city council, then what would be the difference of what we have now? Though Mike Antonovich has been accused of folding in to developers at times, I rather trust the chap, though I am a Democrat. There is no mistaking the responsible party, good or bad. I rather like that. By creating a giant city council, it will be difficult to keep track of how many are getting bought off. They can diffuse their guilt by narrow majority votes. If we need more representation out here, possibly a new supervisorial district should be created, but a new city?

The county is a little bit like Rome was portrayed in the Monty Python movie “Life of Brian.” The county has provided us with beautiful wide boulevards and streets and, when pressured, expensive street signals. We have an excellent sewage and trash removal system. The streets are machine swept once a week (at least in Valencia). The Sheriff’s Department, CHP, paramedics and fire departments are the best money can buy.

So, in terms of basic services, what’s the beef? Why should we fix what isn’t broken? If there are some street problems, zoning problems, these can be remedied already through the Board of Supervisors. Maybe Mr. Antonovich needs to listen a bit more closely to his constituency.

The area is dotted with several safe county-run parks with excellent facilities. The school system, at the elementary level at least, is academically superior to most in the state and runs quite well. We have a local county court, county offices, DMV and excellent county-run library system. We have a good postal system that is starting to draw up major expansion plans.

As a former resident of Saugus and now a resident of Valencia, there is clearly a distinction in life styles and community priorities from one side of this valley to the other. There are at least seven completely different communities within this area. How can all these come under one name called Santa Clarita, though we are promised for postal purposes that individual non-city cities such as Valencia can retain their names?

Why would a resident in Canyon Country want to subsidize the neat flower-lined paseos in Valencia? Likewise, can you imagine the “no-R.V.-or-boats-on-the-street” ordinances in Valencia being applied to Saugus or Canyon Country?

So now we’ll create the situation wherein all these present non-issues will become nightly entertainment as our newly elected city council battles disparate (and maybe desperate) causes from these diverse communities.

But the best argument I have against cityhood is the way it’s been done. A few citizens, who gained filing experience from the defunct county plan, adopted this bureaucratic expertise to keep pushing for “local control.”

This, however, doesn’t make their cause “right.” All that it shows is that they are a bit more clever than the rest of us who are too busy with our jobs and kids to pay these people any heed. The fact that they barely got this on the ballot and the fact there was only one day in which candidates could file for a November election brings the entire premise of the democratic process into question.

It was within the power of Antonovich and his friends on the Board of Supervisors to allow two weeks or so in which there would have been enough time for qualified candidates to file their intent to run. But, no, just one day on the calendar was allowed. It seems a bit suspicious to my way of thinking because “why the rush?”

So the candidates that are now on the ballot are certainly there because they were more “clever” than others, but not necessarily more qualified, though there may be some excellent citizens who slipped in under the wire.

No Debate

But the fact there was not debate or even a primitive selection process vis-a-vis mainstream political parties casts grave apprehensions on the fact we may have let loose on the voters the biggest parade of amateur political and managerial municipal candidates in California history. We are essentially stuck with list of candidates who were clever enough to file on the Friday.

On just this fact alone, I am voting against cityhood. Somebody wanted this done quickly and they wanted it done with the people of the old county-formation political machine.

Then, why rush? Since this proposed 40-square-mile city is so diverse, why rush into melting them down into one glob when, at some date in the future, individual cities would be a better idea. Finally, who are these people in the city formation committee and what do they really want?

The Santa Clarita City Formation people first started out with a city approaching the size of the county they tried to form. They said they were there to control local developers. Then LAFCO pared down their city to 42 square miles, leaving almost all undeveloped land out of the new city. So who can they control? What can they control?

Because of the “at large” aspects of this election, it is possible that the entire city could be run by five council people from Canyon Country!

Values of City

This brings us to the final point. A city is more than just a few people gathering around issuing permits for a church or a Burger King. A city is a representation of close cultural and economic ties and values in a specific geographic area. A city should be no larger than that. The values of that city will manifest themselves in a variety of manners, from land use to rules of what can be parked on public streets. From Sand Canyon to Valencia, cultural values are sufficiently divergent to invalidate the entire concept of cityhood.

To undo what these people are about to plunge us into would be virtually impossible. The citizens of the communities of Valencia, Sand Canyon and Newhall should take great concern in this vote. By being silent or not voting, you may end up in a brave new world not of your selection!

I can only urge you to make your vote count on Nov. 3--or sooner, by using the convenient method of the absentee vote. Get out and vote!