Voters Split on Benefits of Annexation to Santa Clarita

If her Canyon Country neighborhood were annexed by Santa Clarita, says resident Nancy Grass Hemmert, she would have a greater voice in local affairs--and a greater chance of finding solutions to local problems.

But to Bruce K. Bell, annexation by Santa Clarita would create another layer of government in a nation ruled by too many governments already. Bell wants his neighborhood to remain an unincorporated part of Los Angeles County.

Hemmert and Bell represent conflicting views on Measure Q, a proposal that would add 1.6 square miles of county land--and 5,000 residents--to Santa Clarita. The area’s 3,449 registered voters will decide the matter at the polls Nov. 6.

The election was prompted by a protest against annexation spearheaded last February by Bell, a seven-year Canyon Country resident who describes himself as “definitely a Libertarian. I look for private, free-market solutions before resorting to government solutions.”

The annexation of the area, known as Pinetree-Timberlane, had been approved by the Santa Clarita City Council and the Local Agency Formation Commission.

The annexation would have become final had not Bell and a small group of neighbors gathered signatures on protest petitions from 21% of the area’s voters, well over the 15% needed under law to force the election.

Proponents of Santa Clarita’s incorporation three years ago had hoped that Pinetree-Timberlane would be included in the boundaries of the new city. But for reasons that are still unclear to the incorporation leaders, Pinetree-Timberlane was omitted from Santa Clarita when LAFCO, which oversees annexations and incorporations, drew the final boundaries of the city.

Councilman Carl Boyer III said the 25 candidates who ran for Santa Clarita’s first City Council in 1987 all pledged to support annexation of Pinetree-Timberlane if the cityhood drive succeeded.

Boyer, speaking at a forum on Measure Q that attracted 50 area residents Thursday night, noted that more than 50% of Pinetree-Timberlane voters signed incorporation petitions three years ago. The council was confident the area wanted to join the city, he said.

But Bell and some neighbors complained that the city launched its annexation drive without consulting the residents first.

“As a staunch Jeffersonian, I’d like to register a complaint,” said John Hassel, a 22-year Canyon Country resident. The city’s unilateral action, he said, was “quite similar to Kuwait being asked to annex to Iraq.”

Councilman Howard P. (Buck) McKeon conceded that the council had moved too hastily. “I think we made a mistake,” he said. “We just assumed people wanted to be in the city.”

Bell and annexation opponents have circulated flyers charging that city government will be no better than county government: “We don’t want higher taxes and less freedom! Like you, we just want to live our lives the way we want to, not the way City Hall wants.”

McKeon and Boyer denied that cityhood would mean higher taxes. They and other annexation supporters stressed that belonging to the city provides political power unattainable by the residents of unincorporated county territory.

“The city may have problems, but at least you have a chance with the city,” Hemmert said.

Allan Cameron, a former member of the city formation committee, noted that two city councilmen attended the forum Thursday night to answer the questions of Bell and others. How many times, he asked, had residents seen Supervisors Mike Antonovich and Pete Schabarum in the Santa Clarita Valley together?

“I saw them in a parade once,” responded resident Dave Doughman.

Most of the residents attending the meeting appeared to favor joining Santa Clarita. Others remained unconvinced. “I don’t see any clear-cut advantage under cityhood,” Hassel said.