My friend that clips bits for me from the local fish wrap couldn’t wait to get the latest column from Darryl Manzer to me Sunday afternoon. He said that it wasn’t another attack and but felt I needed to see it sooner rather than later. I read it immediately and thought; “okay, who wrote this and what have they done with the real Darryl Manzer!”
Finally there was a column that was decent and acknowledged the other side. It was a column that was advocating a dialogue, something that I and many others have wanted all along, and didn’t attack any of us for the sake of selling papers. It was a column that actually had some constructive suggestion and some downright good points about how the city could jump start talks with the unincorporated areas.
Darryl asked a great question, why would those of us living in the West Ranch area want to trade five County Supervisors for five City Council members? He went on to suggest that the City of Santa Clarita may want to consider expanding the number of City council members. This, by the way, was a talking point that some of us in the unincorporated areas have brought up in the past. It is worth discussing because all organizations need to look at where they have been and where they are going. How an organization started out is not always how it can stay as it grows and the environment changes around it. The City of Santa Clarita may need to change how it operates if it wants to continue to grow.
One only needs to look at other cities, as Darryl pointed out in his column, like Suffolk, Va. which has seven council members or Chesapeake, Va. which has eight council members and a directly elected Mayor. You could also look at New York City which has 51 council members from 51 different council districts throughout the five boroughs that make up the city. Looking around the country many of these cities have changed the city charters, some multiple times, as the needs have arisen.
Darryl goes on to suggest that the City of Santa Clarita council members start to be more inclusive and respectful of the outlying town councils. Again, this has been a basic request that many of us have had for some time. Having a civil relationship with you neighbors is a good thing for the entire valley. Unfortunately, the City has not felt a need to have a good relationship with its neighbors to date. Remember, Councilman Frank Ferry bellowed that if the West Ranch area “didn’t annex, we’ll (the City) bury you!” Many of us are still waiting for Frank to shovel the dirt; he’s certainly been shoveling the bull crap up to this point though!
The column continues with the point that both sides should listen to one another. This is just a very basic part of a decent relationship. Again, I have advocated having discussions and that the city should be patient with those discussions. Everything needs to be put on the table regardless of what it is. Comparing services and asking questions is just a basic right in any discussion regarding annexation. Sadly though, when I did attend a City Council meeting to speak out against the City’s duel park fees Councilman Ferry, red faced, yelled out me for five minutes about annexation!
Generally speaking I thought that Darryl Manzer’s column this week was a good piece that had some excellent suggestions at moving the dialogue forward. No doubt there are going to be folks that think his suggestions are out of line or not possible. There are going to be a lot of excuses why the City can’t expand the council or why it is not possible to invite in representatives from the town councils. They’ll be city council members that will say it would be too hard, too difficult, and too expensive to make changes. There will be people that are incensed with outsiders suggesting changes to their City. All of that highlights why the City Council should probably look at these issues. Maybe it is time for the City to hire an outside consultant to evaluate these issues and make some unbiased recommendations.
Dave Bossert