Alerts Button
Podcasts Button
Youtube Button
Traffic Button
ListenLive Button


Increasing Clouds
Increasing Clouds
High: 86 °F
Low: 60 °F


Partly Sunny
Partly Sunny
High: 82 °F
Low: 62 °F


Mostly Sunny
Mostly Sunny
High: 82 °F
Low: 61 °F

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.



   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


   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 (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