Annex talk picks up new vocabulary; Negotiation on boundaries, discussion of city charter predicted — The West Ranch Beacon

Image not recoveredWestSide-Logo-300x231.png

(Posted by admin with permission from The Signal) The suggestion in this article that “negotiation” is a new term to the west side decision process is erroneous. The fact is that any change that may or may not occur as a result of the advisory vote outcome in November will be done via a negotiation. The self-determination process has discussed for years the concept of a negotiation for any change that may take place; it is not new but rather a core requirement. As the communities straddling the western and northern edge of the Santa Clarita Valley prepare to recommend the type of government they want in the future, several words, including “incorporation” and “annexation,” have been part of the conversation.

The newest word in the dialogue – and perhaps the word with the greatest effect on the outcome – is “negotiation.”

“Whatever happens, there will be a negotiation,” said Robert Kelly, Castaic Area Town Council member.

Kelly’s words came after a public meeting last week that annoyed two members of the Castaic Area Town Council.

Annexation consultant Beverly Burr had stated that Castaic couldn’t be cheaply annexed by Santa Clarita.

Residents of Stevenson Ranch, Westridge, Castaic and Tesoro will be asked to cast a nonbinding vote in November, choosing among forming their own city, joining the city of Santa Clarita or remaining in unincorporated Los Angeles County.

Read more here: Annex talk picks up new vocabulary

Comments

1 · as published

Ron
Ron Says: September 28th, 2009 at 10:40 am As David indicates, the position of the West Ranch Town Council has always been based around negotiations with the City regarding any possible annexation into the City. There have been editorials and commentary within the Beacon that defines the need for negotiations. The challenge has been that the City’s position has been a consistent – ‘We don’t negotiate.’ This needs to change. The other inaccuracy within the article from The Signal is with the reference around the boundaries of Study Area 1 – Pitchess and Tesoro. The author of the story indicates that the study required a contiguous border from Castaic to Tesoro for the latter’s inclusion in the study. Actually, this rule wasn’t defined by the study, but by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Governance Act of 2000. This Act is the law defining incorporation and annexation in California. As a reminder, the non-binding advisory vote is not a final step for the City or the Westside residents. It is a snapshot of the viewpoints of the residents of the Westside at this time that is very important for your local representatives to know. Any decisions regarding a change in governance will require additional research / reports, additional meetings, new boundary definitions, and additional votes by the communities before anything becomes final.