I recently participated in a panel discussion on the Open Space Preservation District, the ballots for which are currently in the hands of Santa Clarita property owners. As usual before such an event, I did my homework. I dedicated a few hours for preparation, brushing up on the Engineer’s Report and other materials, and making note of specific details that might help answer burning questions.

I also reviewed Internet posts and editorials created by those in opposition, so that I could provide information regarding their objections. What I found in the ensuing discussion, however, is that no amount of information will satisfy those who argue against this proposal cynically. They tend to conflate reasonable concerns with innuendo, speculation, and accusations. It’s a scattershot approach intended to plant doubt, not to clarify and inform.

Don’t get me wrong. Healthy skepticism and open discussion are essential to good government. But so is critical thinking. And with that in mind, I offer you my own FAQ to help you with your decision.

What is the Open Space Preservation District?

The Open Space Preservation District is a funding mechanism designed raise about $1.5 million per year, expanding upon the City’s existing Open Space, Park and Parkland Program.

How will District funds be used?

The City Council will use these funds to accelerate the purchase of vacant land in and around the City, 90% of which will be permanently preserved as natural open space. (Up to 10% of the acres purchased could be used for active parkland.) These uses are spelled out in the Engineer’s Report, which is a legally binding document. The funds cannot be commingled with the City’s general funds and they cannot be used for anything other than the stated purpose.

You can’t buy much land for $1.5 million. What good will it do?

The City would use this guaranteed annual $1.5 million revenue stream to finance an even larger fund of up to $30 million. Next, approval of the District right now would allow the City to tap into money available under recently approved state bond propositions and available grants. All told, the City might be able to leverage that $30 million into about $90 million. Now we’re talking real money.

Why not just set aside some sales tax funds, or use property tax money?

The first option could be rescinded by a future council, meaning there would be no guaranteed revenue stream. The City, then, would not be able to leverage those funds into a useful amount (see previous question). The second option would require cuts to existing services and programs, because the City’s portion of property tax revenues isn’t sufficient now to cover these expenses.

What will this cost me?

The annual fixed assessment rate for a single family residence would be $25. Condominium, town home and apartment owners would be assessed at $18.75 per unit, and mobile home parks would pay $12.50 per space. Nonresidential properties would be assessed on a per acre basis.

How long will the assessment last? Can these rates go up?

Unlike a prior ballot measure which contained no sunset clause, this assessment will expire in 30 years. Assessments could not raise automatically. Increases would be limited to one per year, and be subject to a public hearing, at which time the City Council could consider an increase of no more than $1 per year.

Who will oversee the use of the funds and how will the City select properties?

The City Council will establish a Financial Accountability and Audit Panel which will  advise the City and operate under the Brown Act, as do the Planning and the Parks, Recreation, and Community Service Commissions. The Panel would review and approve the annual work program, review fund accounting, and designate an annual auditor to ensure that land acquisition priorities are pursued and expenditures are consistent with established priorities.

How would I benefit here in the city from the purchase of undeveloped land in unincorporated areas of the valley?

By permanently removing properties from the development inventory, we can preserve vistas; reduce traffic, noise impacts, and light pollution; decrease crime; improve our air quality; increase opportunities for passive recreation; develop a small amount for active recreation; and generally maintain the quality of life we all enjoy. And with good quality of life comes higher property values, something from which all property owners benefit.

In additions, these lands, whether developed or preserved, may be annexed into the city in the future. If they have been developed, the ultimate expense to taxpayers (in the form of infrastructure and services, including law enforcement) could be many times higher than the $25 annual assessment proposed here.

I’m already overtaxed. Why should I support this assessment?

We’re all feeling the pinch these days, but for some things, it’s just worth spending a little money. This investment, which is less than the price of one Starbucks visit per month, will create immediate benefits and leave a lasting legacy in our community.

I just don’t trust City Hall with my money.

To quote Joe Edmiston, Executive Director of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, "My response to that is, throw them out if they're not doing a good job… The recourse is directly with the voters. Get more people out to vote and kick them out, but don't hamstring good things from happening just because there's a potential for bad politicians to get in." (Daily News June 8, 2007.)

This article cannot possibly answer all of your questions, but the information you need to make this decision is available on the City’s website and on the SCV Save Open Space web site (www.scvsaveopenspace.org). If you still have questions, speak with City staff or the Council, email the Committee, or call the Planning Department and leave a message for me.

I support the Open Space Preservation District because I believe it is my responsibility to invest in the future of the community I love. There is no better time to make that commitment than right now.

Please vote YES on the Open Space Preservation District.