Today
It is forecast to be Clear at 10:00 PM PST on December 22, 2014
Clear
75°/48°
Home » Santa Clarita News » Santa Clarita Resident Upset With Antonovich

Santa Clarita Resident Upset With Antonovich

The following is an open letter to KHTS and the Signal from Santa Clarita Resident, Pauline Harte, who attended the meeting held for Stonecrest homeowners by Supervisor Antonovich’s office on May 23, 2006.

 

Editor:
   On Friday,  May 26, a letter opposing the proposed annexation of
Stonecrest was published in this paper, written by L.A. County Supervisor
Michael Antonovich.  I found this to be quite surprising in light of the
fact that L.A. County claims to be neutral regarding the Stonecrest
annexation.  In fact, out of the more than 20 annexations this city has
ratified bringing these L.A. County areas into the City of Santa Clarita,
the proposed Stonecrest annexation is the ONLY annexation the county has
opposed.

   I am not sure what Supervisor Antonovich means when he accuses this city
of dishonesty regarding the reasons why the Stonecrest annexation would be
beneficial to all concerned parties. Other than the obvious benefits of
local representation, Councilman Bob Kellar was quite clear (and honest) at
L.A. County’s Sulphur Springs meeting regarding the fact that the Stonecrest
annexation would provide a much-needed land-bridge connecting this city to
the Cemex mega-mine site.  In the event that Cemex is allowed to mine
without limiting the size and scope of this mega-project, this city would be
in a better position to deal with mitigation problems from a mega-mine of
this size and scope.  Cemex has a long established history of causing
horrendous damage to regions that have the misfortune of being too close to
their projects.  Considering L.A. County signed a binding court order that
obligates the county to assist Cemex in any way possible, it is quite
obvious that the Stonecrest community, which is situated right across the
freeway from the proposed mega-mine site, would be much more successful
taking their project complaints to five local city council members than
appearing before county representatives who are bound by a court order to
assist Cemex.

   If L.A. County cared about this city, L.A. County would have fought for
this city all the way to the Supreme Court.  L.A. County didn’t.  Simply
put, we were sold out. And in a (thinly veiled) attempt to continue to
assist Cemex, L.A. County is very actively opposing the Stonecrest
annexation, when they have never interfered in any of the other annexations
by this city.

   Why did L.A. County plan the Sulphur Springs annexation meeting on the
same night as this city’s regularly scheduled city council meeting? All lame
excuses aside from L.A. County, the REAL reason was because L.A. County
wanted as little input from this city as possible, proving the county is not
only anything but neutral regarding this annexation, they are working for
Cemex.  But, proving how committed this city is to representing us, Mayor
Pro-Tem Marsha McLean and former Mayor/Councilman Bob Kellar left the city
council meeting and showed up anyway with a great many city staff employees.
There was not one supervisor from L.A. County. The school site’s
multi-purpose room was available other evenings, but the regularly scheduled
city council meeting night was requested by the county.  Hmmmm……..

   When this city appeared before the L.A. County Board of Supervisors many
times, hundreds strong, to fight the mega-mining project, Suprvisor Gloria
Molina and Supervisor Yvonne B. Burke left their seats during many meetings
for lengthy periods of time while we were pleading our case before them. 
They were not interested enough to even bother listening to us.  Think these
supervisors would care about Cemex mitigation complaints when they couldn’t
be bothered with us then?  The main reason this city received a unanimous no
from L.A. County for the mega-mine was because of Cemex arrogance, and lack
of truthfulness from Cemex reps representing this project.  Cemex reps
challenged L.A. County’s soverign authority by telling them their opinions
didn’t count, the mine was going in anyway, and L.A. County gave Cemex the
heave-ho. However, those fences  have since been mended.

    Asserting that “many residents” of Stonecrest oppose annexation is
simply not true, as was apparent at the last meeting with the constant
applause from pro-annexation residents for pro-annexation speakers.  Going
door to door in Stonecrest is proof that the majority of residents want this
annexation.  The real question here is why is L.A. County so aggressively
fighting the Stonecrest annexation when the county has never before
challenged any others?  Looks like we are right back to L.A. County signing
a court order binding them to assist Cemex in any way possible.  County
attorney Deborah Fox’s double-speak aside when trying to slide around the
written word of the court order, that is exactly where L.A. County will
always be, assisting Cemex.  Based on the facts of L.A. County’s current
Cemex-friendly position, no reason to believe the county’s position will
ever change.

   Thanks to Signal reporter Kristopher Daams for such excellent coverage of
this issue.  Thank you Signal, for an excellent editorial regarding this
city’s need for (successful) protective legislation from Congressman Buck
McKeon, and thanks to KHTS at hometownstation.com (click onto Local News,
edorial: Antonovich not helping Santa Clarita) for presenting the truth of
L.A. County’s not so neutral stance regarding their Cemex-friendly
opposition to the Stonecrest annexation.

Pauline Harte
Newhall

Santa Clarita Resident Upset With Antonovich

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

About hometown