This blog hasn't been updated. I have a brand new blog with lots more good things in it.
Visit it at www.darlavanderlip.com/blog/
Monday, September 17, 2007
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Stonecrest annexation protest fails
This Story First Appeared in The Daily News, Saturday July 22, 2006
A long waged battle has come to a close where neighbors pitted against one another, the City vs the County all for a smidge of land next to a very hot parcel.
The Stonecrest neighborhoods in Canyon Country - the closest homes to the planned and contested Cemex sand and gravel mine, will be annexed to Santa Clarita, Officials announced Friday that an insufficient number of protests were submitted, which means the annexation will go through.
The jest of it, the City wanted this land in a big way!
The City of Santa Clarita wanted jurisdiction of the neighborhood to extend city boundaries toward the planned 56.1-million-ton quarry the City is seeking to regulate.
Sandor Winger, executive officer of the county Local Agency Formation Commission, which determines municipal boundary changes, is quoted as stating: "will recommend that the full commission approve the annexation, the 28th since the city formed in 1987".
Several residents withdrew their objections, reducing protests below the limit to force for a vote.
Santa Clarita already has purchased land at the mining site and, while it doesn't own the mining rights, it seeks more oversight and hopes to reduce the scope of the Cemex operation.
Cemex plans to mine 177 acres over 20 years on the southern slope of a ridge just off Soledad Canyon Road - about a quarter-mile-long stretch - east of the Antelope Valley Freeway. The Mexico-based company expects to begin operating there in 2008. The property is a mile from the 600-plus Stonecrest homes.
Santa Clarita's attempts to annex its land above the mine - on hold pending the Stonecrest annexation - is not possible because the land is not contiguous.
If the Stonecrest annexation is finalized, though, LAFCO will proceed immediately to consider annexation of the city land, Winger said.
City spokesperson Gail Ortiz is quoted "Cemex is one of the (Environmental Protection Agency's) top violators, so we're very concerned about having them as our neighbor," said Gail Ortiz, the city's spokeswoman. "We want to make sure all the appropriate ordinances are in place to regulate them properly. If they're in the city of Santa Clarita, there will be no free ride for them."
A spokeswoman for the worldwide conglomerate disagreed.
"Yet again, the city has chosen to engage in gross mistruths and unsubstantiated allegations," Cemex spokeswoman Susana Duarte said Friday. "Cemex conducts its operations in compliance with all laws and regulations and engages in responsible business practices. This is an unfortunate use by the city of the annexation process. As project obstruction, it's not the type of objective the annexation laws were designed to achieve."
In December, Cemex filed a lawsuit in state court challenging the environmental review in the annexation papers. Duarte said the company will continue to watch the process with interest and will continue pursuing all legal recourse.
The city has spent more than $6 million battling the mine. U.S. Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, Santa Clarita's first mayor, introduced a bill in May to cancel Cemex's lease and limit any future mining operations on the site to historic levels of 300,000 tons a year. The measure will probably not be considered until next year, though, and McKeon has said its chance of passage is slim.
The county had rejected the mine, but conceded when Cemex filed a lawsuit in federal court in 2002. County supervisors granted the mining permit in June 2004 under a court-approved consent decree. The decree was upheld in February in spite of the city's appeal.
LAFCO tentatively approved the Stonecrest annexation in January, but when more than 300 protests were received just before the decision was finalized in February, a protest hearing was set.
In March, Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich intervened on behalf of a group of Stonecrest residents who protested the annexation but failed to follow LAFCO's protocols, asking that they be given a second chance. After a procedural error by LAFCO, a new public hearing was needed.
"The supervisor's position has consistently been, the will of the people shall dictate their destiny," said Tony Bell, a spokesman for the supervisor, noting that Antonovich has opposed the mine since the proposal's inception.
Although 253 Stonecrest residents lodged protests with LAFCO by the June 28 hearing, the letters were offset by 62 protest withdrawals and 48 ineligible protests. The remaining 143 valid protests accounted for about 12 percent of eligible residents, below the 15 percent required to trigger a vote.
About two years ago, city officials and staff members began canvassing Stonecrest residents, urging them to support annexation, and in April the city hosted a community meeting touting the benefits of cityhood, which was followed in May by a meeting hosted by county officials.
Some Stonecrest residents questioned the outcome.
"I find this very suspicious, considering the forces against the residents only asking for a chance to vote for the measure," said resident Daniel Henriquez, who e-mailed a critical letter to LAFCO on Friday. "The entire process was handled in a manner nothing less than deceiving and fraudulent and as such, I believe the tally to be incorrect and should be recounted and verified by an outside independent agency."
In 18 years of cityhood, this is only the second time an annexation protest was lodged.
"The city of Santa Clarita is pleased to welcome the Stonecrest community as the 28th annexation and looks forward to providing them with outstanding levels of public service," spokeswoman Ortiz said.
A long waged battle has come to a close where neighbors pitted against one another, the City vs the County all for a smidge of land next to a very hot parcel.
The Stonecrest neighborhoods in Canyon Country - the closest homes to the planned and contested Cemex sand and gravel mine, will be annexed to Santa Clarita, Officials announced Friday that an insufficient number of protests were submitted, which means the annexation will go through.
The jest of it, the City wanted this land in a big way!
The City of Santa Clarita wanted jurisdiction of the neighborhood to extend city boundaries toward the planned 56.1-million-ton quarry the City is seeking to regulate.
Sandor Winger, executive officer of the county Local Agency Formation Commission, which determines municipal boundary changes, is quoted as stating: "will recommend that the full commission approve the annexation, the 28th since the city formed in 1987".
Several residents withdrew their objections, reducing protests below the limit to force for a vote.
Santa Clarita already has purchased land at the mining site and, while it doesn't own the mining rights, it seeks more oversight and hopes to reduce the scope of the Cemex operation.
Cemex plans to mine 177 acres over 20 years on the southern slope of a ridge just off Soledad Canyon Road - about a quarter-mile-long stretch - east of the Antelope Valley Freeway. The Mexico-based company expects to begin operating there in 2008. The property is a mile from the 600-plus Stonecrest homes.
Santa Clarita's attempts to annex its land above the mine - on hold pending the Stonecrest annexation - is not possible because the land is not contiguous.
If the Stonecrest annexation is finalized, though, LAFCO will proceed immediately to consider annexation of the city land, Winger said.
City spokesperson Gail Ortiz is quoted "Cemex is one of the (Environmental Protection Agency's) top violators, so we're very concerned about having them as our neighbor," said Gail Ortiz, the city's spokeswoman. "We want to make sure all the appropriate ordinances are in place to regulate them properly. If they're in the city of Santa Clarita, there will be no free ride for them."
A spokeswoman for the worldwide conglomerate disagreed.
"Yet again, the city has chosen to engage in gross mistruths and unsubstantiated allegations," Cemex spokeswoman Susana Duarte said Friday. "Cemex conducts its operations in compliance with all laws and regulations and engages in responsible business practices. This is an unfortunate use by the city of the annexation process. As project obstruction, it's not the type of objective the annexation laws were designed to achieve."
In December, Cemex filed a lawsuit in state court challenging the environmental review in the annexation papers. Duarte said the company will continue to watch the process with interest and will continue pursuing all legal recourse.
The city has spent more than $6 million battling the mine. U.S. Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, Santa Clarita's first mayor, introduced a bill in May to cancel Cemex's lease and limit any future mining operations on the site to historic levels of 300,000 tons a year. The measure will probably not be considered until next year, though, and McKeon has said its chance of passage is slim.
The county had rejected the mine, but conceded when Cemex filed a lawsuit in federal court in 2002. County supervisors granted the mining permit in June 2004 under a court-approved consent decree. The decree was upheld in February in spite of the city's appeal.
LAFCO tentatively approved the Stonecrest annexation in January, but when more than 300 protests were received just before the decision was finalized in February, a protest hearing was set.
In March, Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich intervened on behalf of a group of Stonecrest residents who protested the annexation but failed to follow LAFCO's protocols, asking that they be given a second chance. After a procedural error by LAFCO, a new public hearing was needed.
"The supervisor's position has consistently been, the will of the people shall dictate their destiny," said Tony Bell, a spokesman for the supervisor, noting that Antonovich has opposed the mine since the proposal's inception.
Although 253 Stonecrest residents lodged protests with LAFCO by the June 28 hearing, the letters were offset by 62 protest withdrawals and 48 ineligible protests. The remaining 143 valid protests accounted for about 12 percent of eligible residents, below the 15 percent required to trigger a vote.
About two years ago, city officials and staff members began canvassing Stonecrest residents, urging them to support annexation, and in April the city hosted a community meeting touting the benefits of cityhood, which was followed in May by a meeting hosted by county officials.
Some Stonecrest residents questioned the outcome.
"I find this very suspicious, considering the forces against the residents only asking for a chance to vote for the measure," said resident Daniel Henriquez, who e-mailed a critical letter to LAFCO on Friday. "The entire process was handled in a manner nothing less than deceiving and fraudulent and as such, I believe the tally to be incorrect and should be recounted and verified by an outside independent agency."
In 18 years of cityhood, this is only the second time an annexation protest was lodged.
"The city of Santa Clarita is pleased to welcome the Stonecrest community as the 28th annexation and looks forward to providing them with outstanding levels of public service," spokeswoman Ortiz said.
Every One Wants The Magic
This story first appeared Friday July 21 in the Signal.
West Ranch Wants in on Magic
Now it seems that every one wants a piece of Magic Mountain. West Ranch Town Council voiced concerns about being "left in the dark" after the City of Santa Clarita stepped up to the plate a couple weeks ago and wants to assist the folks at M.M.
As Magic Mountain is in an unincorporated portion of the County, the City has no formal right to anything in regard to the decisions for the future of the park.
The article goes on to state "The city of Santa Clarita's outreach process to Six Flags concerning a potential annexation of Magic Mountain has a county town council complaining of being left in the dark". West Ranch council president Dave Bossert is quoted as: "I would commend (Santa Clarita) on (its) ability to try and save the business or work with Six Flags in order to secure jobs for the area but I wish they would partner more with the town councils in the unincorporated areas surrounding the city,"
"It's all in the talking stages," said city spokeswoman Gail Ortiz. "No letter's been sent. No call's been made" and the city's main focus is to keep the park open. Ortiz continued saying that once they have a plan formulated then they will consult with neighboring communities and is quoted, "We have no intention of going behind anyone's back on anything."
Apparently both the City of Santa Clarita and the County of Los Angeles are going to jockey for position on this one.
The city's trump card is hoping to win over Six Flags toward annexation would be cheaper taxes. The city spokeswoman Gail Ortiz is quoted as: "The absence of a business license tax, an admission tax or 5 percent utility user tax could save the park "hundreds of thousands of dollars" annually,"
Now hang on a minute, Castaic is jumping on this late bandwagon too,
Lloyd Carder, president of the Castaic Area Town Council, said "the county should take a look at its utility tax. The county's going to have to re-evaluate this 5 percent utility user tax," Carder said. "This seems to be a real tool the city's using. Maybe it's served its due because now it seems to be more of a thorn."
[Well, I applaud the City of Santa Clarita for devising this proposal, now the outlying City Councils want a piece of the pie where were they 3 weeks ago when this story first came to light?]
West Ranch Wants in on Magic
Now it seems that every one wants a piece of Magic Mountain. West Ranch Town Council voiced concerns about being "left in the dark" after the City of Santa Clarita stepped up to the plate a couple weeks ago and wants to assist the folks at M.M.
As Magic Mountain is in an unincorporated portion of the County, the City has no formal right to anything in regard to the decisions for the future of the park.
The article goes on to state "The city of Santa Clarita's outreach process to Six Flags concerning a potential annexation of Magic Mountain has a county town council complaining of being left in the dark". West Ranch council president Dave Bossert is quoted as: "I would commend (Santa Clarita) on (its) ability to try and save the business or work with Six Flags in order to secure jobs for the area but I wish they would partner more with the town councils in the unincorporated areas surrounding the city,"
"It's all in the talking stages," said city spokeswoman Gail Ortiz. "No letter's been sent. No call's been made" and the city's main focus is to keep the park open. Ortiz continued saying that once they have a plan formulated then they will consult with neighboring communities and is quoted, "We have no intention of going behind anyone's back on anything."
Apparently both the City of Santa Clarita and the County of Los Angeles are going to jockey for position on this one.
The city's trump card is hoping to win over Six Flags toward annexation would be cheaper taxes. The city spokeswoman Gail Ortiz is quoted as: "The absence of a business license tax, an admission tax or 5 percent utility user tax could save the park "hundreds of thousands of dollars" annually,"
Now hang on a minute, Castaic is jumping on this late bandwagon too,
Lloyd Carder, president of the Castaic Area Town Council, said "the county should take a look at its utility tax. The county's going to have to re-evaluate this 5 percent utility user tax," Carder said. "This seems to be a real tool the city's using. Maybe it's served its due because now it seems to be more of a thorn."
[Well, I applaud the City of Santa Clarita for devising this proposal, now the outlying City Councils want a piece of the pie where were they 3 weeks ago when this story first came to light?]
Money Magazine Names Best Places To Live
For this years Money Magazine Best Places to Live contest, Santa Clarita, CA received place 18 out of the top 100. The competition was steep as many fabulous cities were in the running. To see how they arrived at the decisions and the criteria, visit this link, http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2006/faq/
Friday, June 23, 2006
Sale Of Magic Mountain Possible
Magic Mountain sale possible
Six Flags struggling with low earnings
Daily News Staff and Wire Services
VALENCIA - Citing hurdles in its efforts to attract families instead of just teens to its theme parks, Six Flags Inc. said Thursday it will consider selling Magic Mountain, Hurricane Harbor and five other properties.
The New York-based company's share plummeted 19 percent after Six Flags' announcement that it might fail to reach a previous earnings forecast, and the need to modify terms with lenders.
The family strategy was expected to bring in a customer base that would spend more money than the teens who flock to the parks for the white-knuckle rides.
"What has been unexpected thus far is that the families we are targeting to replace those teens have been harder to attract than anticipated," said Mark Shapiro, president and chief executive officer. "Make no mistake about it, families are coming back - as evidenced by our solid increase in per capita guest spending - but not as quickly as we had hoped."
Read The Six Flags Magic Mountain Article
Six Flags struggling with low earnings
Daily News Staff and Wire Services
VALENCIA - Citing hurdles in its efforts to attract families instead of just teens to its theme parks, Six Flags Inc. said Thursday it will consider selling Magic Mountain, Hurricane Harbor and five other properties.
The New York-based company's share plummeted 19 percent after Six Flags' announcement that it might fail to reach a previous earnings forecast, and the need to modify terms with lenders.
The family strategy was expected to bring in a customer base that would spend more money than the teens who flock to the parks for the white-knuckle rides.
"What has been unexpected thus far is that the families we are targeting to replace those teens have been harder to attract than anticipated," said Mark Shapiro, president and chief executive officer. "Make no mistake about it, families are coming back - as evidenced by our solid increase in per capita guest spending - but not as quickly as we had hoped."
Read The Six Flags Magic Mountain Article
Friday, May 19, 2006
Surge in Listings Balances Santa Clarita Valley Home Resale Market
Sales of existing single-family homes and condominiums throughout the Santa Clarita Valley have slowed from the record-setting pace of recent years, but activity remains strong as a larger inventory of homes listed for sale offers unprecedented opportunities for buyers, the Southland Regional Association of Realtors reported on Wednesday, May 17.
There were 1,929 active listings at the end of April on the Multiple Listing Service operated by the Association. That was a 247.6 percent increase from a year ago when the MLS reported fewer than 555 active listings.
Read the entire press release here
There were 1,929 active listings at the end of April on the Multiple Listing Service operated by the Association. That was a 247.6 percent increase from a year ago when the MLS reported fewer than 555 active listings.
Read the entire press release here
Saturday, April 22, 2006
Unpermitted bathroom will likely cause grief for home sellers
Inman News Features
Friday, April 21, 2006
Q: We put a second bathroom in the basement of our home, without getting a permit. A well-respected contractor did everything to code. Our concern is what happens if and when we want to sell. Can we advertise it as a two-bathroom house? Do we face any fines? --Matt A.
Read The Inman News Article Here
Friday, April 21, 2006
Q: We put a second bathroom in the basement of our home, without getting a permit. A well-respected contractor did everything to code. Our concern is what happens if and when we want to sell. Can we advertise it as a two-bathroom house? Do we face any fines? --Matt A.
Read The Inman News Article Here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)