East Santa Clarita Land Conservation Concept Plan etc

Page references are taken from the version shown in Adobe Reader format at http://www.aguadulceinfo.com/.

This proposal is an effort to benefit lucky people in the name of enhancing the 'quality of life' of residents and others in the Santa Clarita City (City) area valleys east of the City limits.

By what right or authority, do people working for the City, propose to regulate the behaviour of people outside City limits? What is the legal authority or jurisdiction claimed for mandating compliance with environmentalists' objectives noted (p10) under the heading, 'Santa Clara River Upper Watershed Conservation Plan', second paragraph, in the areas targeted by this Plan? For turning 'shoulds' (p1) into 'shalls'?

Who are the lead agency on this Plan? The City? Los Angeles County government (County)? California State government(State)? United States government (US)? Or some other agency?

Is this an effort to drive up the price of privately-held open space land east of the City limits? Eric Harnett has noted, in a letter to the Country Journal some years ago, that as the City's density increased, adjacent open-space land prices could increase due to their relative scarcity. Indeed, if the proposed acquisitions of targeted open-space land do occur, whatever land that was not acquired could be marketed as premium land due to its proximity to the City and to the other open-space holdings. So, is this an effort to benefit lucky land-owners at taxpayer expense?

Is this also an effort to provide playgrounds at taxpayer expense for affluent users? In my experience, the proposed recreational uses of hiking, trail-bicycling, and horseback riding are all typically enjoyed by people of higher-than-average socioeconomic status. Rather than let these users pay their way, government employees appear to want the acquisition costs to be borne by both users and by non-users, including people who are unable to afford to indulge in such recreational activities. Is this perception accurate?

At the same time, proponents seem eager to bring about a loss of habitats and recreational uses for people of lower socioeconomic levels (p16). The RV parks and campgrounds, targeted for removal or relocation, were/are places where people could enjoy living and recreating in rustic settings for relatively modest payments.
What provisions exist for replacing these particular habitats for people within the Plan area?

Productive use is also to be discouraged (p16). Mining and industrial uses enable people to make money. Why is that a bad thing? Why aren't property owners competent to manage or address open space concerns without punishment, threats, or bribery?

written 2.27.2008 posted here 8.11.2009