Pilots and Airport commissioners planning scare tactics and a campaign ignoring the fair political practices act, the truth and the community needs
This are electronic versions of the newspaper with the editorial contact only
Complimentary Circulation 7500 via US mail and 1500 via pickup - Adjudicated in LA County PS 000268 for legal notices - Copyright C. Brink, 1995 All rights reserved.
Recommendations in the March 7 election
Airport Issues
30 Students killed in noontime crash Agua Dulce - The
near future
Agua Dulce Civic Association position
Agua Dulce Town Council's Position
Agua Dulce vote on airport expansion cartoon
Before and After the airport cartoon
Block the airport commission waste
Comments about Fred Austin's letter
I will always side with our children and their safety.
Thanks to the Agua Dulce Town Council
The pro airport liars have had a field day with the truth.
Van Nuys Home Owners Association on airports
Vast increase in airport use
School board race
An open letter to the Acton/Agua Dulce communities.
Fate attacks school kids
Fate and Barofsky opposed unification
Field on Fate and Barofsky
Lying to people about the recall
No on Jim Duzick
School Board Election
Student at Vasquez High School
Tana Lampton about Duzick
UP FRONT - SUN
Vote no on recall
When I first got a glimpse of Duzick
Candidate's Statements
Charles Brink
Dennis Dee
Laurie Browning
Richard Anderson
Stacey Nickels
Val N. Jensen CPA
WAYNE A. WILSON
School Issues
Brink demanded private water line
Developer mitigation
Drawing of a four classroom building at Wallace Canyon
Now Wallace Canyon is the best and least expensive site to build
on
Scholastic Aptitude tests
State funding approved for Wallace Canyon
There is NO LOCAL TAX, NO MELLO-ROOS, there never was one.
Wallace Canyon water line approved
Vasquez High School
General Stories
Bicycle Helmets
Palmdale's palace
Video Arcade
This election on Tuesday is local issues only and they are very important issues. In the Agua Dulce area the County is trying to purchase and expand the small airpark into the Santa Clarita Regional Airport. This will totally change Agua Dulce
The School election pits an anti-unification and anti High School group against a Pro group and, as added interest, we have a recall, financed by one man just to block a High School from being built.
It will be a watershed issue, get out the vote as if your life (style) depended on it. It does..
Opinion by Charles Brink
S.U.N.
SUN has reared its ugly head again. The group which calls itself Save Unification Now, but is really Stop Unification Now, has surfaced with another slick glossy mailing, filled with lies and meaningless slop, to the community suggesting you vote for Barofsky, Fate, Duzick, and yes on recall.
They have rented billboards and virtually control the County Journal and use it as their paper to spread lies and half truths in the community. I am sure you will see a blitz of illegal signs all over the community before the election is over.
The question is, who is funding them and what are they buying?
As of the writing of this column no new financial disclosures have been filed. SUN's existing financial disclosures show it is paid for almost entirely by Mr. William Spears, who lives near the Wallace Canyon site, and has publicly stated "I will spend whatever it takes to block a High School".
He has funded the campaign for recall and now the election campaign and bought his candidates to block the High School. The teachers' union is now backing the SUN candidates. These two special interest groups intend on spending whatever they need to buy this election and get a majority on the school board to do their bidding.
If you vote for Barofsky, Fate and Duzick, you are electing three candidates whose election has been fully paid for by Spears and the Union. These candidates, who have always opposed unification and a local high school, will now control the school board and be able to dictate it's operations and decisions, placing Spears' and the Unions' desires above the communities! Think about it.
Do you want a school board owned by one person and the Union? To index
NO on the recall of Lauire Browning
Browning was one of the founders (with Becky Small and Joyce Fields) of unification.
Browning obtained a donation of 2.9 million dollars in land and improvements for the Vasquez High School.
She co-led the successful drive to implement unification immediately after the landslide vote for unification.
Browning stood up to the nasty negs and pressured LA County to allow a private water line to the High School.
And she did many other positive items.
What did she do wrong?
She, along with all of the other board members, when state funding was in doubt started planning a Mello-Roos district and held public input meetings. After hearing public input, all including Browning voted to drop the Mello-Roos proposal.
Dennis Dee
Dee has headed the Construction committee, served on the Finance committee and backs a High School for our community.
Charles Brink
As this is his paper, of course he recommends himself. Brink served on the Finance, Construction, and OBE committees. He opposes the Mello-Roos tax as premature and is the leader in the drive to separate Acton and Agua Dulce totally from the crime ridden Antelope Valley. He is the only candidate who is a graduate of the district (1952).
NO on the County purchase and expansion of the Agua Dulce Airport.
While this vote is only in the Agua Dulce Area, the airport places all the students in Agua Dulce at risk. The natural take off route is directly over the school. If Airports are good, why did the City of Santa Clarita refuse to allow the airport in their town?
Vote no and kill this airport before it kills your kids. To index
Tom Brown announced that state funding was available for a High School at Wallace Canyon. The State normally funds all school at 50% of the approved costs with the local school making the other 50%.
The local contribution, in the case of Wallace Canyon, includes the donated site cost and water line improvements. The only action needed is for the State to fund school projects, and our school is ready. To index
LA County Department of Public Works finally, after a two year battle, approved on February 9th a single user water line (Private non-conforming system in their terms) for the Acton-Agua Dulce Unified School District. The line provides water only to the Wallace Canyon High School site from the termination of the L A County water line.
Watt Industries has committed to pay and build the line to the school without cost to the Acton-Agua Dulce Unified School District.
SUN and the rest of the Negs claim various lies, such as the water line will cost 4 million dollars, that Watt will never pay for the line and other lies.
Watt will pay for the line as its construction has been already pre-approved for over 3 years as part of their properties' CFD-6. The funding has been approved and all that was needed, after the School's request to build the line, was L A County's approval.
SUN and the negs have lobbied L A County to require the school build a full developer line at a cost of 4+ million dollars. This would provide enough water to build 20,000 condos in Agua Dulce. This anti community position was taken as part of their continuing effort to block unification and the construction of the High School.
The Country Journal which amounts to a house organ of SUN, the Agua Dulce Chamber of Commerce and other pro Antelope Valley crowd, prints lies, half truths and misinformation as truth in the last edition which claims:
CJ lie: - "Under present economic conditions and other circumstances in the District the District's ability to raise funds for watering (sic) this particular site is questionable at best."
Facts: - Watt Industries has committed to install the water line without cost to Acton-Agua Dulce Unified School District. The connect fee is site independent and with internal fire flow storage only capable at Wallace Canyon would save $2,000,000 over the alternate sites.
CJ lie: - "Reviewing these proposals and their associated costs reveals that the $900,000 non-mandatory contribution promised by Sierra Colony developer Don MacAdam to improve the Wallace Canyon site is but a fraction of the funds necessary to bring water to it."
Facts: - Besides the water line paid for by Watt, the only expense left is the connection fee for a 4" meter. That charge is site independent and is reimbursable by the State when State funds are available.
CJ lie: - "Add to the water cost an estimated $3,000,000 for grading plus the cost of obtaining easements, road improvements and other utilities. All just to prepare the site to receive even the temporary bungalow school."
Facts: - The spurious claim that road easements are needed is L A County improperly requesting road improvements violating the Agua Dulce standards district. All other utilities will connect for free except the Gas Company. They want a $15,000 deposit and will then provide a $15,000 usage credit netting a zero cost.
CJ lie: - Mrs. Laurelyn Browning envisions and it becomes painfully obvious that school district property owners, in regard to Wallace Canyon, would face a very large financial burden before a dime is spent on the $20,000,000 proposed campus buildings."
Facts: - The cost to build the first increment of the High School for 600 students is less than $15,000,000 including grading quality permanent classrooms and other necessary facilities. No road easements are needed for roads conforming to the Agua Dulce standards district.
There is no cost to the district than for any other site, in fact, all other sties are more expensive. To index
In a campaign piece, Fred Fate claims that "the Board has brought over 200 kids from the Antelope Valley into our schools. They bring with them drugs, gangs"...
The facts are as follows: State law requires all districts to accept transfer students if the district is not overcrowded. As Acton-Agua Dulce Unified School District is keeping its class sizes small it is not "overcrowded" by State standards which is the "bad" news.
The good news is that the school can be very demanding in the type of transfer student it accepts. You can deny enrollment for students that have been expelled from other districts. If the transfer student needs any special education or care, the transfer can be denied. If the transfer student does not meet the behavioral standards of our district, their transfer can be canceled.
In simple terms, any transfer student has to be as good or better than our residents. Tom Brown stated "nearly all of the transfer students enrolled in classes in the district are in the top portion of their class". As to the economics, the district makes more money from transfer students as they do not receive any transportation services or have any special education costs.
These kids are brought by their parents and picked up by their parents. Some come as far as a 60 miles round trip twice a day. What parent and student would go to such effort if they were not motivated for a quality education?
In interviewing a few of these transfer students, some expressed fear of crime in the Antelope Valley schools as their reason for transfer, some wanted better educational standards and some were for both reasons.
Instead of damning our schools and the Board for all the transfer students, Fate should recognize that these transfer students are a vote of confidence in our district because they voted with their feet to leave the crime filled Antelope Valley.
Fate is wrong in his count, Vasquez has 35, High Desert - 27, K-6 - 36, and most of Home School 127 out of 177 are transfers.
Fate should be ashamed for claiming these kids are druggies and gang bangers. Even though I have been very critical of the union at the school, I never believed for an instant that any union rep or any teacher would allow any transfer student to upset their classes.
It seems unclear why the Union would support him if he claims they allow drugs and gangs in their classes?
It fact, its a shame we can not use these methods to remove resident students that are disruptive. To index
Since the inception of unification of our school district, there has been controversy, misinformation and misconceptions regarding the high school.
Generally speaking, one could say that confusion reigned. This is not unrealistic, as all worthwhile things take time to organize, deal with the "growing pains," and iron out all the wrinkles. However, the school district is alive and doing quite well ironing out the problems and making improvements, particularly with the high school.
The current enrollment of Vasquez High stands at 220 students, with an estimated enrollment the next school year of close to 400 students. They offer a good college prep course with classes in Biology, Physical Science, Algebra I and II, Geometry, and Spanish. Their Math, Science, and Language departments are equal to or better than any of the schools in the Antelope Valley.
The school will be improving and expanding their academic, athletic and extra-curricular activities for next year as the Board of Trustees has given the high school the implements to upgrade in various areas.
The academic plans are to add Trig, Calculus and Chemistry next year with a Physics course planned for 1996. Also, in the works for the future are various Computer and Accounting courses. There are plans to expand the elective choices to include Home Economics and Shop classes. Improvements of the Library facilities are also a priority. The school intends to take advantage of the Two Plus Two program which enables high school students to take, and get credit for college courses.
Presently the school has the basis of a full fledged competitive athletic program with Football, Basketball and Baseball for the boys, and Volleyball, Basketball, and Softball for the girls. They will be adding Soccer to both the boys and girls program next year.
They have a cheer leading squad now and are in the planning stages of adding a drill team and band, hopefully by next year. They already have various clubs and organizations on campus and hold the fun social activities such as dances and Pep Rallies.
Vasquez High School has everything positive to offer that the big schools have, but on a smaller scale.
One thing they can offer that the larger, over-crowded schools of the Antelope Valley can't and that is a safe, secure campus and an atmosphere that is conducive to learning.
To ensure a safe and positive atmosphere, the school has hired a security guard to discourage the negative, violence prone outsiders from disrupting the campus. Due to the present location near the busy freeway, this was deemed a necessity to add a guard for the protection of our students.
It is important for our communities of Acton and Agua Dulce to support the district in the building and furnishing of Vasquez High School. We did vote to have a high school and nothing worthwhile comes without hard work and some sacrifices.
Even if you don't have school age children, a good local school system with
grades K through 12 is an asset to an area as it increases the value of our
homes
and the quality of our life-style.
Once the high school has it's own campus there will be no limits as to what can and will be accomplished.
The staff is as enthusiastic and prideful of the school as the students and that's a combination that will make this school system a credit to any neighborhood. Let's get behind Vasquez High School and our district and give them the support and encouragement they need and deserve. To index
Fred Fate and Marty Barofsky have been lying when they claimed to support unification. They never supported unification and ridiculed Joyce Fields in public. They never collected signatures for unification and never signed the petition calling for unification.
Fred Fate was appointed to the Board while his wife was on the Board with Barofsky. Fate declined to run for the next election. Barofsky refused to take a position on unification and Barofsky was soundly defeated.
Both were leaders in the fight to block implementation, repeating the claims we were not ready and Palmdale was better than our district.
After the decision was made to keep our kids home, Fate and Barosky started to oppose Wallace Canyon as a "poor" site.
Now, as their last ditch attempt to block unification, they are running for School Board to "save unification".
If any of you believe these liars, you deserve them as representatives.
Read the letter of Joyce Field who led the drive for unification, the letters from the community and the students of our schools.
If you believe that unification is safe consider this scenario. The nightmare team is elected and immediately passes the "Meadowlark" plan. There is no funding for it and the school is unable to house all of the High School students and goes into debt. The LA County office of Education, then by law, takes over the district and merges it into the adjoining district (Palmdale).
We then lose not only a High School but our elementary schools. If you do not believe that Fate would do this, look at his track record. He gave away the money raised for an independent Acton Boy's Club to the Antelope Valley.
His handlers from the "greater" Antelope Valley appointed him as a director of the Antelope Valley Boys Club and opened a branch on the Antelope Valley Boys Club in Acton!
On the Town Council he lead the phony recall and the phony ballot stuffed elections. He voted for Ritter Ranch in the annexation of thousands of acres of Acton to Palmdale.
Fate claims to be a community leader. He is, but his community is
Palmdale. To
index
Joyce Field on Fate and Barofsky
Dear Community Members,
Let's support the current School Board and fill the two empty seats with new blood. Let's fortify the current program.
The former members who are running, Fred Fate and Marty Barofsky, have been making false claims as to their support of unification. As founder and President of the Unification Committee, I can tell you I approached them while they sat on the School Board and after.
Fred Fate and Marty Barofsky NEVER supported unification even before Wallace Canyon became an issue. I approached the Board when Cheryl Rodiger was president. She was polite, but said she had tried a unification effort and it failed, due to lack of public/community interest.
I discovered lots of public/community interest and provided proof to them. The Board, including Barofsky and Fate, laughed and ridiculed me, the committee, and the whole community. They said the community was not ready (indicating the community were sheep that had to be led and incapable of intelligent decisions). Why would anyone not want to go to Palmdale to school?
Barofsky and Fate said this community could NEVER have a decent high school.
Watch out for "conflicts of interests," and private agendas. In the past, Fred and Peggy Fate, husband and wife, sat on the Board at the same time. Also, while Marty Barofsky was on the Board, his wife was a Classified employee of the school district and a union representative. She is still an employee and Marty is running again. Just think, when the Board votes for raises, he certainly benefits!
The past Board sold us into Teacher's Union problems and then walked away and
dumped them on us, the present Board.
They took medical benefits at a time at a time when the students needed programs
and paper.
Board members are elected volunteers, so shame on them for taking benefits when the money needed to be spent on the students and they knew it. A moratorium on benefits exists now, (thanks to Laurie Browning) but if Barofsky and Fate are elected back, and with Duzick on their team, they can vote the benefits back in, diverting money needed for education to themselves.
How about Duzick, I sat on a couple of committees with him. He investigates and investigates and his conclusions are incomplete and in some cases way off base.
Watch out for people paying for people to stop Wallace Canyon.
Watch out for people who always say "It can't be done," rather than looking for a way to do it.
We need people on the School Board who will continue the momentum and get things done and get our district a high school. I have been there, I know, I speak from my experiences and from my heart.
Sincerely,
Joyce Field,
Founder of the unification effort, Former unification President, past President of the Soledad-Agua Dulce Union School Board of Trustees, Vice President of the Acton-Agua Dulce Unified School District, School Volunteer, Art Teacher at Acton Elementary, member of various community organizations, i.e. Girl Scout and 4-H leader, Vasquez High School Boosters, and the Presbyterian Church. To index
The L. A. County Sheriff's office has announced that they intend to start enforcing the bicycle helmet rule on January 1, 1995. This means any child sixteen or under not wearing a helmet would be ticketed for an infraction. This is a $100 fine and will be prosecuted ..
These helmets are necessary for safety and should be worn at all times because there are numerous things that you can hit your head on when you fall. Even adults should be encouraged to wear these protective hats when riding a bicycle To index
On the street in front of the Agua Dulce Fair, they were soliciting a woman to sign the petition. They told her that it was to block the school at Wallace Canyon. They said absolutely nothing about the recall of Laurie Browning.
In interviewing the woman just after she signed, she stated that all she was told was that it was a petition to block the high school at Wallace Canyon and she signed that. She said she was not offered anything to read about why they are trying to recall Ms. Browning nor read Ms. Browning's response to the recall.
She doesn't want a high school in the community anywhere, because it will hurt the rural atmosphere of the community and all the kids should be forced to go to school outside the community.
Another pitch I overheard was "Don't you want to put the School Board President on the ballot in November". Again nothing said about the recall.
A third pitch was sign this to block higher taxes.
It appears the recall was sold with the big lie method. To index
Deare, Wows! I just saw your letter in the Acton/A.D. News! Thank you. Thank you, thank you ! Yours is the first and only public voice of Support of the Agua Dulce Town Council and it's initial (and merely draft form) of the Community Plan.
Because of Jim Duzick's actions in fermenting furor at the 4-H meeting in the Autumn of '93 (just prior to elections), a great many irate and, sadly uninformed neighbors and parents came to the Town Council meeting furious and "loaded for bear". I was perhaps the Council "Bear" who received the major bashing that night.
I won't comment on Mr. Duzick's track record as a Council person. But I will tell you that being on something like the Council really is the job for two people working 80 hours a Week!
How he expects to also become a School Board Member simultaneous to Town Council just blows my mind! He will never see his kids for the next couple of years and I question if anything will get done (from him) for either organization.
I was furious with Jim when I found out he had gone to the 4-H without disclosing his motives (which it appears in retrospect were to look good and noble for the upcoming Council race.)
I was furious because, ironically that night, the then Town Council was working their heads off hurrying to get a draft community plan out for public input so that more people would perhaps feel better informed before another election.
All they got for their pains was to be furiously beaten up and because of his actions, the Agua Dulce Town Council was smeared with mud! The whole Agua Dulce Town Council concept suffered a serious set-back that evening because of his half-truths and poorly researched data. On the strength of the notoriety of those half-truths, he went on to run and was elected.
I'm furious now that he should take the concept of Town Council so blithely and carelessly that he feels he can take on all other major undertakings such as the School Board! I'm filr(cur)ious to know: WHY? What call be the real reason for his running for School Board?
Only one thing kept me from quitting that night 15 months ago at the infamous Agua Dulce Town Council /4-H meeting. A very wise young woman whom I know and love came up to me and said comfortingly... ".just remember, Tana, that the Pioneers took all the arrows!".... Kept me going! To index
The results of the 1994 Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS) were reported to the School Board at a meeting earlier in the school year. This particular exam is given to students in Grades 1-9 to objectively measure academic progress of all students from one year to the next. The CTBS is not a state mandated test but is given by the school district in order to measure the overall success of academic programs and to be able to report individual progress to parents.
The test scores shown below reflect total scores in major subject areas by grade level. Scores are shown using a grade level format for easier understanding and interpretation. For example, a total reading score in the fifth grade of 7.2 means they are reading at a seventh grade, second month level.
An average score for fifth grade is 5.8, because the exam is given during May, the eighth school month.
Similarly, a language score at the fourth grade of 6.1 stands for sixth grade, first month level.
| Grade Level | Reading | Language | Math | Science | Social Studies |
|
First |
1.8 |
2.0 |
2.1 |
nt |
nt |
|
Second |
2.9 |
3.3 |
3.8 |
4.8 |
3.9 |
|
Third |
4.1 |
4.4 |
4.5 |
4.1 |
4.2 |
|
Fourth |
5.5 |
6.1 |
5.6 |
5.7 |
5.4 |
|
Fifth |
7.2 |
7.5 |
6.8 |
7.5 |
7.5 |
|
Sixth |
8.5 |
8.6 |
8.3 |
8.9 |
10.0 |
|
Seventh |
9.1 |
10.3 |
9.4 |
11.3 |
9.6 |
|
Eighth |
11.1 |
12.6 |
11.5 |
12.9 |
12.0 |
|
Ninth |
10.5 |
11.5 |
10.8 |
12.9 |
11.1 |
Areas of strength identified for this exam are mathematics, sciences, and language arts consistently scored well above grade level in all grades in the district. Margaret Gonder, school principal, who had the privilege of reporting the test scores indicated math application, written expression and science as specific areas which have significantly improved over the year at all levels!
Teachers at all schools were commended for their dedication and hard work as reflected in these scores. To index
I first got a glimpse of how Jim Duzick works several years ago when he appeared at one of our 4-H meetings. He arranged for time to speak and stirred us all up telling us the Agua Dulce Town Council was going to change the current agricultural limits for animals.
Furthermore, they were gong to tell us what kind of fencing we could have. As many of us are interested in raising, riding and showing animals we were alarmed. We sent a letter to the Town Council and showed up to reply at their next meeting
Much to our embarrassment, we discovered that the Town Council had not determined any of these restrictions. They were merely asking for public input for future planning. That is when I discovered Mr. Duzick had not come to our club as a private citizen but as a candidate, which he had NOT disclosed.
After the smoke cleared and the truth came out, Mr. Duzick had already been elected, based on misinformation. He had unfairly gained an advantage over his opponents by not telling the truth or disclosing his candidacy.
Once again we are faced with Mr. Duzick spreading and staging a recall campaign against Laurelyn Browning, presumably as an interested private party, when in fact he was after her seat on the School Board.
Knowing this might have caused people to more seriously question his motives for the recall and examine his statements for truthfulness.
When the smoke clears, we don't want to have Mr. Dazick on the School Board and then find out what he is all about.
Sincerely,
Anne Dinsdale, Agua Dulce To index
Serving Agua Dulce since 1957
SPECIAL ELECTION TUESDAY MARCH 7, 1995
This is a very important election to all of us in Agua Dulce. Watch your mail for your sample ballot and VOTE!
Airport Advisory Measure!
The Board of Supervisors wants your answer to the following ballot question...
"Should the County of Los Angeles acquire the Agua Dulce Airpark encompassing the operational area of approximately 70 acres and operate it as a public use, general aviation airport?"
Read the question very carefully! The County is proposing to purchase the airpark for a "Public use, general aviation airport"!! If we allow the airpark to be purchased by the County of Los Angeles its operations will be expanded and it will become part of the National System of Airports. It will be listed in all of the aviation sectional charts and be available for use by any aircraft that is capable of landing here.
The County is proposing the use of FAA monies. This restricts the County from
discriminating its use! The daily take off and landings can easily increase to
over
100 per day! The County cannot limit the number of take offs and landings. There
are no binding agreements in the proposal to limit the future size (in acres) of
the airport, nor is there a binding agreement as to the maximum number of based
aircraft.
Therefore, any representations that the County will try to keep the airport small, need to be taken knowing that there are no guarantees for the future! Don't miss this opportunity to once and for all express your opinion on the County's proposal to purchase this airport!
RUMOR CONTROL.
Residents report receiving calls from a survey company refusing to identify its sponsor, implying that the airport owner has received approval for a large housing development. That the Airport will be smaller if the County buys it. And that we will lose water rights to the Aquifer if the County does not buy the airpark!
FACT
The airport owner received permission for 19-ten acre parcels. The County would buy the entire airport area, only it will be far busier and we don't need the airport's water rights for Agua Dulce's future!
Save Agua Dulce's Water from the County!
Do You want County Water?
The pro County Airport group is trying to deceive you! Local pilot Tom Sopar's letter, apparently sent to registered voters, wants you to think that it will be good if the County owns and controls the largest remaining portion of our Aquifer.
Why in heaven would we want the County to control our water!!!
The County could shut down our private water wells at any time and make us buy back our own water! Do you want to be taxed for a County Water System? Let's leave Agua Dulce's water and our aquifer rights where they belong, in the hands of Agua Dulce residents, not Big Government.
The out-of-town developer the pilots refer to in their letter is long time airport owner Jim Annin, of Acton. His tract map is hardly 190 acres of tract homes or runaway development as the pilots say.
His plan, approved in January, is for only 19 beautiful ten acre ranches with a dedicated equestrian trail system for all of us to use! He is leaving the runway in place which will be privately owned by ten of the ranches. This is development Agua Dulce Style! And this way, the water rights stay in the hands of homeowners, just like us, not in the hands of the County!
The pilots are very cleverly trying to deceive you into thinking that the County will purchase only 1/3 of the Airport and that the County will be operating an airport only 1/3 of its current size. This is an utter falsehood! The airport has never occupied over 70 acres.
As a matter of fact, the County's original plan was to buy all of Jim Annin's adjoining properties, and sell the excess land for airport compatible development to provide additional revenue to the County! If you vote yes, the County will buy the entire airport, every inch of it.
Please, don't be fooled, the County can jam tons of airplanes onto 70 acres. L. A. County's General Aviation Airport in beautiful downtown Compton is only 77 acres. It has two parallel 3600 ft. runways, two taxi ways, room for over 400 planes and lots of industrial aviation businesses!
Why are the pilots pushing for a County Airport which will be used primarily by out of town pilots? Why do they want the County to control our water? Let's look to see who stands to gain.
Some of our local pilots will benefit from the aviation business opportunities that a County Airport will bring. One has purchased industrial property here on which to locate his helicopter business. Another sells aircraft. Yet another has an Air Charter Service! Flight Schools will not be far behind!
The pilots and Aviation Commissioners acknowledged that the airport will be used for business flights in their ballot argument!
We all know that a busy and noisy County Airport, right in the center of our little town, is a terrible idea.
Jim Annin's approved plan for just 19 ten acre ranches, with it's trail system and private runway is far superior to the County Airport plan, which transfers local water rights and control of the airspace above us to the bureaucrats downtown. We hope we have cleared up some confusion.
But you are probably going to be bombarded by more of the pro County airport group's false claims and clever scare tactics. If you have any questions, contact us at 268-0765 or 268-8628. Stay focused! Vote "No" County Airport on March 7th.
We'll try to stay in touch to help you see thru the clutter.
Sincerely,
The Civic Association, Ad Hoc Airport Committee To index
As they know that a very small percent of the community would approve the purchase and expansion of the airport, they are covering their tails by claiming that 100+ airplanes and up to 1000 flights a day are really no problem compared to the terrible pollution caused by 19 private homes now approved to be built on the site. Regional Planning even required the Developer to pay the full cost of necessary school expansion for his "development" of 19 homes.
Their advertising campaign, with Vic Crow's return address, is being done without filing the proper disclosures with the Fair Political Practices' Commission. Crow, at an Aviation Commission Meeting, stood up to say that he had no intention of filing the report as it did not apply to him and his fellow pilots.
When you see a group of people in such obvious lies, who can believe anything they say? Mr. Crow, why don't you want to tell the community who is paying for the printing and mailing for all the pro airport "information" being spread from your pilot's lair?
Back to the full legal development instead of the airport.
Their phony claim is that 190 acres of houses are meant to sound like 190 houses. The standards district requires 2.5 acres gross, that limits it to 76 houses. To do these, as they are on less than five acres, full "improvement" that includes a permanent water source from outside the community has to be installed. This would certainly preserve Agua Dulce's water as these 76 homes would not pump a single gallon from the aquifer. Their sewage has to connected to a treatment plant, so a full "development" of 76 homes would not dump a gallon of sewage in Agua Dulce.
The homes would be less damaging than the Airport and would actually add external water, where the airport would take away water. The water used to water grass and plantings would percolate into the Agua Dulce aquifer .
Even if the County buys the 70 acres, then 120 of the 190 acres would be developed. The pilot liars fail to even mention the fact that 63% of the property will still be developed even if the County buys the Airport! Forget the phony PR campaign by the Pilots and ask them where they were when the community was fighting Pratty's 330 home development just north and west of the airport?
And most important when one of their play toys crashes into our school we will have to live through this story.
Do you want that future story or do you want to close the airport. To save our Kids, VOTE NO on airport purchase.
The following is an extract of the draft EIR, the last effort of L A County to take over the Agua Dulce Airport. Please note that the mitigation was to take all the run-off from the Airport and process it through a treatment plant because pollutants from the airport are toxic and will contaminate the ground water far worse than a residence.
If the County buys the airport, then you will have a treatment plant in your community and I bet the County will want you to pay for it for the "benefit" of the Airport.
Quotes from the Airport EIR
The Agua Dulce airport overlays the Agua Dulce groundwater basin. Further impacts at Agua Dulce due to airport improvements must be managed to control additional contamination.
Environmental consequences Groundwater
Groundwater basins at the site could be impacted by degradation resulting from percolation of airport-related run-off, and by the decline in available groundwater due to pumping to accommodate an expanded facility.
Recharge of the saturated zone occurs by percolation of water from the land surface through the unsaturated zone.
Agua Dulce will experience increased impervious surface areas overlying its groundwater basin which will restrict infiltration.
An increase in airport- related run-off could occur (e.g., oil, grease, detergents, fuel spillage). These constituents, if allowed to percolate into the ground, might cumulatively contribute to the degradation of the ground water basin.
The pumping of ground water to accommodate an expanded airport facility will contribute to the decline in available ground water resources. This is particularly true at Agua Dulce airport.
Mitigation measures
No water that has a constituent should be discharged into a waterway from the proposed airport facilities. Contaminated water should be contained by a catch basin and diverted to a drainage system that terminates at a treatment plant. To index
Agua Dulce - The near future - 30 Elementary students were killed today when a small twin took of in the normal takeoff pattern for the Santa Clarita Valley Regional Airport (Formally known as Agua Dulce Airpark). The recommended takeoff pattern was to make a quick turn and climb over a small mountain to avoid the School. In this case the pilot apparently failed to follow the pattern.
As school was at lunch, over 400 kids were in the playground. Many were burnt and maimed. They were transported directly from the school yard by med evac helicopters............. To index
PUBLIC NOTICE: AIRPORT VOTE
The County of Los Angeles has placed an Airport Advisory Measure on the ballot in the Special School Board Election being conducted Tuesday, March 7, 1995. The County wants to know if you want them to buy the airpark and operate it as a Public Use, general Aviation Airport.
The Sample Ballot sent to all registered voters, contains the ballot arguments against this proposal which this Council co-authored.
Do read and analyze the arguments. A County Airport offers:
Increased safety hazard
Increased Noise
Property devaluation
Inability to limit the number of daily take offs and landings
No meaningful local control
These alone are reason enough to vote "No"
The airport was closed to outside traffic in 1992. It will become a beehive of activity if it becomes a publicly owned and operated facility! Airport proponents are attempting to shift your focus from the real issues above to fears of tract homes, water supply and sewage treatment. Don't be misled. These are the facts:
The 70 acres that the County would buy, lies within a flood plain. If the County does not purchase this property, development would be severely restricted because the County will not allow ANY homes to be built within the floodway!
Ground water pollution associated with airport activities, not a few additional homes is the concern.
The County's Environmental Impact Report with regard to airport pollution in Agua Dulce concluded that... "An Increase in airport-related runoff could occur (i.e. oil, grease, detergents, fuel spillage). These constituents, if allowed to percolate into the ground, might cumulatively contribute to the degradation of the ground water basin ... Contaminated water should be contained by a catch basin and diverted to a drainage system that terminates at a treatment plant."
Also, you should be aware that if the County buys the airport, Caltrans, has recommended that Public Works construct a flood control project to channelize the floodwaters, in an effort to mitigate flood damage to the Airport.
Further channelization of the creek bed will reduce the amount of water that is allowed to recharge the aquifers thus depleting our water supply and resulting in a dramatic increase in downstream flooding. The cost for this public works project and who will pay the bill has not been determined .
Don't be misled by the rhetoric - 70 acres is more than ample room for hundreds of aircraft. The County Airport in Compton has only 77 acres but room for over 400 aircraft.
Don't let fears of runaway development distract you from the real issues. Please note that the airport owner received approval on January 4, 1995 to divide his entire 190 acres into 19 - ten acre ranches with public equestrian and hiking trails. Under his proposal the runway will be privately owned by ten of these ranches.
We cannot over emphasize how critical it is that you cast your "No" vote!
If we do not send a clear and overwhelming "No", the County will proceed in its efforts to purchase the Airpark. As your Council, we have consistently represented the majority in its opposition to a County Airport.
However, we cannot take your place in the voting booth. This is something that you must do yourself. Your "No" vote is vital. If you have any questions, please feel free to call Council President Lou Beck at 268-1540 or Council Member Nolan Henderson at 268-1070.
The polls will be open on Tuesday, March 7th, from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm. Only registered voters within the Agua Dulce Community Standards District have received ballots and are eligible to vote on the airport issue. To index
I would like to thank the Agua Dulce Town Council for their efforts to educate the electorate about the dangers of an acquisition of the Agua Dulce Air Park by the County of Los Angeles. The issue is not about nitrates, sewers or so-called "out of town developers." The issue is about tens of thousands of flights annually in the skies above our school and our homes.
S. C. Schmidt, Agua Dulce, CA To index
Mr. Lou Beck, President, Agua Dulce Town Council
Dear Mr. Beck:
I am writing to you concerning a letter that was addressed to you and sent throughout the community by the pro-County airport activist and pilot, Mr. Tom Soper.
I am appalled at the scare tactics being used in this letter from an author who is known to be extremely biased concerning this issue. I find it irresponsible of him to suddenly, a week before this most crucial vote concerning the County purchase of the Airpark, make a hysterical claim that Agua Dulce will get a regional sewer system if the County doesn't buy the Airpark.
It is my understanding that when the study concerning nitrates in our groundwater was presented to the Town Council, they stated that there are naturally occurring nitrates in our area and in light of this, the original suggestion for a sewage treatment plant as an option to deal with this problem had dropped to the bottom of the list.
The County purchase of the Airpark would be the worst thing that could happen to our quiet rural valley.
The Airpark is currently not busy because aviation maps since 1992 show the Agua Dulce Airpark as closed. If the County purchases the Airpark it would be open to the public and there would be a significant increase in traffic. Think of where other County airports occur: Palmdale, Compton, Pacoima, El Monte - Do we want to add Agua Dulce to this list? People should take a drive and go look at the residential areas surrounding these airports.
Our property values will decline tremendously due to the noise, pollution, aircraft related industrial businesses and safety hazards. It's not a place I'd like to live.
I moved here because I wanted a nice, quiet, safe area. All the small plane crashes that have occurred around the country in the last year, in addition to the two at the Airpark, have only served to prove an airport in our midst endangers our safety and the safety of our school children who attend school in the fight path.
Mr. Annin has subdivided the Airpark property into 19 ten acre parcels. I would love to see 19 homes with equestrian trails. It would allow me much more open space for riding my two horses and would give all the residents of Agua Dulce a safer non-highway route to Vasquez Rocks and beyond. As it is now, you cannot ride through the Airpark property due to fencing of the "open space", and who would want to, due to the noise.
I pray the good people of Agua Dulce are not fooled by scare tactics and unsubstantiated last minute claims by pilots.
I want to thank you and the rest of the Council for supporting the majority of residents in their Opposition to a County Airport.
Justine Turner, Agua Dulce
I was asked at the February 16th candidates' forum where I stood on the Airport Issue. I answered by saying that the question forced me to choose between the airport and the safety of the children at Agua Dulce School. As a candidate and as a board member, I would always side with our children and their safety.
You may be interested to know that the reason State approved the Wallace Canyon site for a new high school and elementary site is because state regulations will not allow new school construction within 2 miles of an airport.
The Wallace Canyon site just meets this criteria. This criteria also explains why there are no new buildings at Agua Dulce School, only temporary buildings to handle the overflow.
Dennis Dee, Agua Dulce To index
I am an Agua Dulce resident. I enjoy flying and have about 25 flight hours towards my pilot's license. I don't mind the small airport in Agua Dulce as it is operated now, and I think that it should stay that way.
The reason that I am writing this letter is because I feel that most residents have not been made aware of the seriousness of the airport issue and the potential impact that may result from having a Regional County Airport in the middle of our peaceful ranch community.
Probably the most far-reaching consequence of a County airport would be the permanent and complete loss of any control by the citizens of Agua Dulce over the activities of the airport, the airspace above their properties, and even their private property.
The County, by eminent domain, may annex any private property that the County feels necessary to carry out the operations of the airport. This means that the County could take adjacent private property, expand the airport, change zoning to include industrial and commercial areas, or do whatever they please.
There was once a quiet ocean-front residential area where LAX is now located. That property was taken for an airport by eminent domain. If the County gains control of our airport, it will be irreversible, permanent, and the citizens of Agua Dulce will be unable to regulate it.
Another consequence of a County airport would be the vast increase in airport use, and the accompanying noise pollution, air pollution, ground water pollution, automobile traffic, airplane crashes and accidents resulting in an overall diminution of the quality of life we now enjoy, not to mention decreasing property values, as our community will become a less attractive place to live.
The proponents of the airport should be telling us why a County airport is a valuable and attractive asset to our community, and why we should all be so happy and fortunate to have one.
It appears that they are unable to do so.
They have attempted to shift the focus of the debate to issues like water and sewage treatment.
On the issue of sewage treatment, the County's own study recommends that the waste water leaving the proposed Agua Dulce County Airport be routed to a sewage treatment plant due to the volume of waste, toxins, and benzene.
One can therefore conclude that if the County does acquire the airport, we will be assured of being taxed for the building and operation of a sewage treatment plant to handle the waste and tonics generated by airport use.
As far as ground water is concerned, the proposed 19 ten-acre single family houses will not impose any danger to Agua Dulce's water supply. Furthermore, the runway area itself lies in a flood plain, and no development will be approved on that land.
Even if what the proponents say about water and a sewage treatment plant was true, and it is not,
I can live with a sewer and water system, I cannot live with a County airport.
Bill Perry, Agua Dulce. To index
Fred is a resident of Agua Dulce. He is also a local pilot and outspoken advocate of a publicly owed and operated general aviation use airport!!! Now I know Fred, he is a nice guy, except when it comes to this `airport.' He and all the local and out of town pilots want County Aviation to buy our little airpark and turn it into a general aviation airport.
Now to address his lies, scare tactics and threats to you if you don't vote his way.
There is no developer, conning Agua Dulcians, who wants to control the remaining aquifer. There was quite some time ago a "proposal" which has gone by the wayside, which is why you are now being asked to vote on this dang thing again. There is no escrow, no offer to purchase, no deposit money, nothing, nada. Our ground water is not "high in nitrates and chemicals."
Fred has been listening to too many rumors and is guilty of spreading gossip along with trying to scare the living daylights out of you. There is absolutely no "testing" showing new housing will force Agua Dulce to install a "community wide sewer system."
OOPS Fred, you are way off on cost, the water committee research when last estimated was about $30,000 for sewers, and $30,000 for water. Our consultant Ken Schmidt and Associates basically concluded that as long as we kept our 2 acre c.s.d. there should be no need for a sewer system.
But, and I repeat but, if local special interests get their way, we'll have sewers and water and destroy our c.s.d. The government owned airport will also own our water. It is just the beginning of the end for us.
Don't lie to folks Fred, the airpark as you say will no longer be an airpark, it will be a general aviation airport. There are no guarantees in writing of "open space" like you're being told, no guarantee in writing that it will remain 70 acres, as a matter of fact, there are already plans, as soon as they get the airport, to buy an additional 34 acres. Is this not expansion?
There are no guarantees in writing that only locals can use the airport, no guarantees that we will never see night flying here, and no guarantees that they will not get as many as 400 planes to use this airport, all of which can fly in and out of here at will!!!!
I am afraid of the aviation development that will occur more than homes. For just a moment, let's address this issue of "I don't want any more homes here, now that I've got my little nest."
Folks, let me be real honest here, the longer we try to keep homes out of here, the bigger the chance of us loosing our community standards. The absolute best guarantee we have of not losing our ordinance is to get as many homes here on 2 to 5 acre parcels as we can.
And, yes, I am a Realtor, but first and most important I am a resident. I am the Realtor who was the chairperson of "our" standards district, and who spent most of my waking hours for over 4 years getting it adopted. So don't you dare say I want houses on the airport so I can make a buck. Myself and many other realtors and community members are the reason you moved here and have your 2-5 acre parcels.
The big promise of "open space" the pilots are promising you is a big nothing, no planned park space, no guarantee of the remaining airport property remaining untouched, nothing but empty promises. But I will guarantee you that if the airport becomes a public airport, many realtors, including myself, will be selling many of our residents' homes. I have testimony from clients to prove it.
If you keep trying to keep all new homes out of Agua Dulce, you come off like fools and you'll get exactly what you deserve, loss of your c.s.d., loss of a quiet rural life-style, loss of what you and your neighbors moved here for.
If everyone had this attitude, none of us would have been able to live in this beautiful place in the first place. There, I finally said what I've wanted to say to many of you for a long time. Now, back to Fred:
No developer has incited anyone in Agua Dulce, we're not stupid Fred, the residents of Agua Dulce have voiced their vote on the airport being bought by the County for valid and responsible reasons presented to them. We don't want to, as you say, "dump the airpark" because a developer incited us. Most of the residents don't mind the airpark "as is" but you cannot promise us this in writing, and that's where you guys are the ones inciting folks to vote for a general aviation airport, not a small locally owned airpark as we have today.
As I stated before, there is no proposal by any developer at this time, and besides Fred, that concept should be presented to the community prior to any contract or proposal to the County, don't you agree?
A yes vote means
A general aviation airport with no guarantee of any kind to protect "our" aquifer, open space, limits to air traffic, expansion, nothing for us, everything to the recreational needs of a select few, at our expense. It means a possible loss of our c.s.d.,"our water being under public domain", then possibly a $30,000 sewer and $30,000 water system fee.
A no vote means
We save our sanity, save our c.s.d., save our children and most of all our water remains in our possession, not under public domain, as they propose. The absolute maximum number of homes will be approximately 80, not the 190 Fred and their latest cartoon would have you believe. It means no protection of "our" water from industrial pollution. No bull puckey lying $30,000 sewer tax.
With a publicly owned and operated general aviation airport, the influx of more aircraft, industrial toxic pollution, more air traffic, more airplane crashes are imminent.
The air traffic, noise, crashes, pollution will not stop at the 70 acres. Aviation fanatics won't be happy until all the 190 acres or more is taken by eminent domain and rezoned to industrial aviation related use.
Imagine selling out your and your neighbors' water rights, the safety of your school children, the quiet and rural lifestyle, and your sanity, just to get a public airport, and deal with the influx of more flights, more fuels, industrial solvents, oil spills, and your own public safety.
Now Fred, quit lying to folks, as long as Agua Dulce residents vote with their minds and not vote because of some ridiculous unsubstantiated promises of open space, we will never, never, have runaway development like Santa Clarita and Palmdale. We will have "runway" development!!!!!
Please join me and hundreds of your neighbors who refuse to believe lies, threats, rumors, and innuendoes being mailed to you, and vote "no" "no" "no" on County Aviation's purchase of the airpark.
The alternative will most assuredly be the most destructive vote you will ever cast and most importantly, take away the rural lifestyle that makes "us," Agua Dulce, a special community and the best and most beautiful place to live in California. And that's the truth, pppphhhhhaaaa!!!!
Linda Kirk, your truthful Agua Dulce resident To index
I did not vote in the March 7th election because I didn't like all the name
calling and did not bother to see who was right. Now I have no equity but still
have to pay the mortgage To
index
Official request was made to have water committee member Tom Soper removed from the Agua Dulce water committees, and the appointed position of technical advisory committee person for the current study being conducted by the University of California, Riverside in conjunction with California Regional Water Quality Control Board.
It appears that we have a traitor among us. Tom Soper was appointed to this committee to help Agua Dulce residents avoid an unnecessary and costly sewer system. Now it is Tom who is telling you, the Board of Supervisors, and other special interest parties, that "much of Agua Dulce ground water resources suffer from nitrate contamination" just to scare and threaten you so you'll vote for County aviation to purchase the airpark.
This is a direct conflict of interest and cannot and will not be tolerated. He, by his recent actions is telling the Supervisors, the State, and other special interests that we need a sewer system, when in fact, quite the contrary is true.
We already have in place "lot size restrictions" and if need be, we can make them even bigger than the standards district calls for, if that is the recommendation. The so called "Regional Sewer and Water System" would be a blessing to the special interests Tom copied his letters to, in addition to our Supervisor, Mike Antonovich. It is also one of the least considerations at this point of the study.
I quote Ken Schmidt our geologist and hydrogeologist, who the community has hired and paid for his expertise. "Nitrogen isotope ratios in the well water suggest strongly that natural sources are the predominant cause of the high nitrate concentrations." "In addition, the organic form of nitrogen and fertilizer particles were not used in the study." "The isolated high nitrogen well sites could be primarily due to well construction (i.e. No annular seal opposite all of the weathered zone), as opposed to "localized nitrate sources". If there is such a large contribution, "why do most of the nitrogen isotopes for well water fit the range of natural soil nitrates?"
As past co-chairperson, (at present their have been no official changes to the committee), I am demanding that Tom Soper be removed from the technical advisory committee on the basis of conflict of interest and because of the lack of notification or approval from the committee, or the residents of Agua Dulce, before he wrote this "piece of work."
Linda Kirk
Editor's Comment: Soper's letter was written as an official letter of his employer A.E. Schmit who is managed by local resident Richard Lang, who started and still controls the Agua Dulce Chamber of Commerce. The letter is unbelievable as Soper makes these statements as a "professional engineer" and apparently is willing to stake his license on very questionable research and what appears to be a pro airport opinion. To index
Note: this letter was sent to the chief administrative office for LA County to highlight the improper action of the Aviation Commission. As yet no response has been received.
Ms. Sally Reed
Chief Administrative Officer, Los Angeles County
As a community activist in the rural areas of Acton and Agua Dulce, I see many strange things in the County government.
The worst I've seen so far is a group called the L.A. County Aviation Commission, which works out of Public Works. This group was set up initially to be an advisory agency on the general aviation airports in Los Angeles County.
It has turned into an airplane and airport booster's club that serves no purpose to the general public in Los Angeles County, but is in essence a paid lobbying arm for the general aviation industry.
In Agua Dulce, their enterprise fund which comes from general aviation revenue, is being used to pay for an election to find out whether or not the people of Agua Dulce want their small private airport purchased by the County and converted into a general aviation airport. The idea of the advisory election is very good and one the community requested and is supported by our Supervisor Antonovich.
What is terribly wrong is the Aviation Commission has been utilizing public funds to lobby for the airport against the wishes of the community. Two of the Airport Commissioners signed the ballot argument as Commissioners, supporting the County purchase of the airport. They also committed, in the ballot arguments that the County do various acts and spend various funds to improve the airport and in some cases, make agreements not to do other acts. This board being advisory only and has no legislative power.
Another one of their crazed operations is the attempt to lower the price of aviation fuel sold at the County airports and, in essence, have the taxpayers in the County of Los Angeles subsidize the rich private pilots by reducing the cost of aviation fuel by forty cents a gallon, and letting the general public pay for it.
I would particularly want to make sure that if this ever came before the Board of Supervisors, that I would be put on an interest list to be available to testify relative to the waste of public funds in this proposal.
Further, I would recommend that you abolish this Commission immediately, and if the private airplane owners wish a lobbyist to sell their proposals to the Supervisors, then let them pay for it themselves.
Also, I would request from the Public Records Act, a complete copy of the budget of this Commission over the last five years. I would be pleased to testify in any manner, or provide any support to any agency investigating sun setting this Commission and others like it.
Charles Brink, Acton To index
Note: this letter was sent to the County Journal and they failed to publish as it shows how a general aviation airport grows like cancer.
To: The Country Joumal
Throughout Southern California, homes that border airport grounds generally sell more often, show less pride of ownership, take longer to sell and appreciate at a slower pace than homes which are located further distances from an airport.
Airports breed slums.
When the Van Nuys Airport was taken over by the City of Los Angeles few, if any, residential neighbors expected the severe noise impact that they are forced to live with today. In fact, when the airport authority used eminent domain to take and demolish 600 single family homes in order to expand the length of one of the runways to approximately 8,000 feet, few people envisioned the additional noise impact it would bring to the homes nearby. Van Nuys airport is now the busiest general aviation airport in the world and averages over 500,000 takeoffs and landings a year. Even though the total based aircraft has recently decreased to less than 900 from a high of 1,372 the annual operations are still in excess of a half million.
Don't be fooled by the false promise of controlled growth or that the airport will stay exactly as it is. Many communities have accepted those arguments only to find out later that they are destined to endless fighting with the bureaucrats to keep a lid on their airport's growth, and ultimately the communities always loose.
The basic lesson to be learned is simple:
Once an airport falls into the control of a city or county entity, promises of future noise control, numbers of aircraft and hours of operation fall into an indescribable area of unaccountability.
The FAA will tell you that the airport is responsible for operations, the airport authority will tell you that the FAA is accountable and the pilot will tell you that safety must prevail (as he flies noisily over your home).
Don't be lulled into a false sense of security. The airport that has little or no impact on neighboring homes simply does not exist. You love living in a quiet rural type of atmosphere!
Allowing the county to take over your local airport will change your life-style. You will become a frustrated citizen activist like myself.
Believe me: I would much rather be in your position now, than in mine, trying to right the wrongs later.
Don Schultz, President, Van Nuys Homeowners Association To index
Jim Duzick is the first paid lobbyist to run for school board. Duzick in his S.U.N. filings, shows that all his revenue and income and expenses have been paid by Mr. Spears, and it is widespread notion in Agua Dulce that he is given his office rental space free by Dick Lang and the Agua Dulce Chamber of Commerce, another anti-community group.
It seems very interesting how he supports three children out here in Agua Dulce without a job, and in his own campaign statements he specifically doesn't talk about his employment or business.
Therefore, a vote for S.U.N. and it's candidates Barofsky, Fate and Duzick, is a vote against the community and is a vote for the destruction of the local school district which has been here for 125 years.
It is a vote to make us part of Palmdale which is something dear to the businessmen's heart. It is a vote for higher taxes, and less value in the homes in your community. Instead, look for the people who demanded that unification be implemented immediately and those people who are willing to force developers to pay their fair share and will take control of the schools back from the unions. Look for Dee, Brink, and vote against recall. To index
1. There is NO LOCAL TAX, NO MELLO-ROOS, there never was one. The tax issue was voted down unanimously last summer.
2. We qualify, as of last summer, for State Bond Funds to build our high school at Wallace Canyon (Owned free and clear by the District).
3. We DON'T NEED LOCAL TAXES NOW. We need to fight for our entitled State monies. We need a bungalow school at Wallace Canyon until our entitled state monies come through.
4. Highland, Littlerock, and Lancaster High Schools were all built with State monies, and Vasquez will be also. Patience, focus, and hard work are required at this point.
5. The water issue is rapidly coming to a close. In a recent letter from the Director of Public Works, four (4) proposals were made to the district concerning Wallace Canyon water service. Proposal #4 matches the District's request made by engineer Forest Switzer, and is as follows:
Proposal #4 (Non-Conforming Private System)
"This proposal as described in your December 9, 1994 letter, is essentially the same as Proposal #3 without the condition of participating in future main extensions and relocating the school's meter. This proposal would force the school district to maintain the private water main in perpetuity. If the school district were to construct private water tanks, we would not take over maintenance of these tanks even if a public water main was extended and dedicated to the district, as in the previous proposal.
Because this would be a PRIVATE WATER SYSTEM, no one else could be connected to it, and this would eliminate the financial participation which the school district would have received from benefiting properties, had a public system been extended".
"After we have had an opportunity to review these proposals and the various issues and costs associated with each, please contact us again regarding the school district's desired approach to the provision of water service to the proposed Vasquez High School."
Other issues need to be addressed and they will be. Wallace Canyon is unique in it's ability to produce it's own fire flow requirements "on site". NO alternate site possesses the ability to meet fire flow requirements "on site", and the County system lacks the force to service these sites, as well.
The district is succeeding in it's quest for a tax free, local high school as requested by the community. PLEASE SUPPORT THE CURRENT SCHOOL BOARD. PLEASE ELECT TWO PRO-UNIFICATION, PRO-HIGH SCHOOL, CANDIDATES ON MARCH 7th. PLEASE VOTE NO ON RECALL.
PLEASE SUPPORT VASQUEZ HIGH AND OUR LOCAL STUDENTS. Laurie Browning To index
Note this letter was sent in Mid December.
To: Harry Stone, Director, Department of Public Works, County of Los Angeles
Re: School water line for High School at Wallace Canyon for the Acton-Agua Dulce Unified School District.
There is so much misinformation and School site, I felt this letter would clarify some of the issues.
The small group of people opposing the water connection to the High School are in fact trying to block unification by stopping the High School from being built on the site which the School owns free and clear.
They have various misleadingly named groups as smoke screens claiming to support Unification and a Local High School. The first is "The friends of Vasquez High School" - with friends like them who needs enemies; plus SUN (Save Unification Now) - which in truth is STOP Unification Now; and they have the Alternate site committee - they have 13 sites some of which do not meet state criteria to build a High School.
The District owns Wallace Canyon which is a fully approved site and does not have the money to buy a new site.
All of these groups' main goal is to stop a High School from being built anywhere and to merge our schools with the Antelope Valley Schools.
The same individuals control all three groups and are represented by the same Beverly Hills attorney named Joel Kanter. These groups have little support in the local community. The election to unify and build a local High School was overwhelming with 80% in favor and 20% opposing.
The following is as best I know the facts concerning the water supply to the school.
As you know when our group met with District 37, we were told "that a request for meter service would eliminate engineering concerns" blocking our District from connecting a water line to the High School site at Wallace Canyon from the existing end of the District 37 line at Red Rover and Sierra Highway.
Since our High School will draw water from District 37, regardless of where the school is built, it is certainly not a supply issue as the existing aquifer is more than adequate.
The High School is necessary to meet the needs of existing students and even if expanded to ultimate capacity will not be adequate to house all the students from homes which can be built on existing parcels. It can not be increased to house all the students from developments created by approved parcel maps and tract maps. The school must have priority to water over any new developments.
All the engineering work will be done by the school's engineers. The school requires no facilities from Waterworks District 37 except a normal meter connection. It can be served at off peak hours and requires no fire flow capacity.
The Wallace Canyon site has sufficient space and elevation to store both drinking and fire flow water. For maximum safety for the students and to serve as a community emergency shelter, the plans for the High School include storage for potable (about 100,000 gallons of drinking) and fire flow (about 1,500,000 gallons) water supplies. These storage facilities can be filled and landscaping water used only during low use times (12 am to 5 am). In this way it will not tax your overburdened pumping and inadequate storage systems in District 37.
Part of the criteria for selecting the High School site was that is was located midway between Acton and Agua Dulce and for safety, not visible from the Freeway or Sierra Highway. Because of these criteria, the High School site is located in an undeveloped area between the communities.
While prevention of leapfrog development is good policy in controlling residential developments, a High School cannot be considered as "development" but, in fact, is necessary infrastructure for the community.
As you correctly pointed out, this is a policy decision as to whether or not a school has to provide the same infrastructure expansion facilities at a site as a developer would for the same site.
I understand that decision is not going to be made by Dean Efstathiou or Dave Howard at District 37's Water Works. Policy decisions are set by you as the Director of Public Works and if you decide you do not want to make it, then it is set by the Board of Supervisors.
In the community, the "negs" as we call them for being negatives without any positive ideas, have been circulating letters saying that Efstathiou and/or Dave Howard claim we cannot have the meter connection.
As this is a policy decision, you should instruct them to make no comments until you make the decision. The practice of underlings issuing letters under your rubber stamp "signature", as David Howard did in his letter to the attorney for the "negs" dated December 5, 1994, is improper. His letter is full of errors and attempts to make policy which Mr. Howard is not qualified nor authorized to do.
As the school district is willing, with the support of enlightened developers (Watt Industries through their CFD-6), at no cost to the County, to install and pay for it's own water line and meet it's own fire flow requirements, then the County should not stop the school district by placing unreasonable requirements on them.
Any requirement that the district would have to put in infrastructure permitting more homes to be built is lunacy, when there already is inadequate mitigation from the developers for schools.
The 2 to 4 million dollar infrastructure wanted by your growth promoting Water Works personnel will kill the needed High School from being built and place our kids at risk.
While the decision is not "a done deal" because the policy decision
has not yet been made, it is certainly a done deal from the standpoint of both
capacity and ability to do the job. I would appreciate your written confirmation
that there is sufficient capacity to provide water to the school contingent on a
favorable policy decision and the school constructing its
own line and providing for it's own fire flow from internal storage.
As to the policy decision, I would like to know as soon as possible whether or not you are going to make the decision or in the alternative that you wish to have the matter set before the Board of Supervisors.
From a common sense stance, it cannot be any more clear to anyone that a school district should not have to provide infrastructure for developers' future needs, when in fact the developers do not have to fully pay for the school facilities needed for their developments.
In conclusion, it is your job to assist in building schools (which are in fact true Public Works) for our district. No one is asking for a single cent to be spent by the County.
If you, as the new Director of Public Works, could change policies to require developers to install infrastructure to support facilities like schools, that make a quality life style, then you could become a real asset to the residents of LA County.
From a public policy standpoint, you must approve the meter connection for the school without any additional infrastructure beyond the school's direct needs.
The cost for a 10" meter for fire flow at any of the alternate sites would be six times as much as the 4" connection for Wallace Canyon.
As usual, the politically biased Alternate Site Committee totally ignored the actual water connect cost for their sites!
The connection line from District 37's main storage tank (above Santiago) is too small to meet the fire flow requirements even if the school was located next to the Santiago Shopping Center. All other alternate locations are even worse.
If the County could not meet fire flow requirements at an alternate site, it would cost even more, as a separate tank site at an appropriate elevation would have to be purchased to meet fire flow requirements. None of the locations proposed, except Wallace Canyon, have any areas at the proper elevation to locate on site storage for fire flow. Every other alternate site location would require a remote tank site to be purchased and the necessary connecting line. To index
Now that Wallace Canyon has the necessary approvals for all utilities including L A County water, with its internal location for fire flow storage, and the water line paid for by the developer, it is the least expensive place to build a High School in the community.
It is even better as the school owns the site free and clear and does not have to purchase it. All environmental documents have been approved and the State approved the site subject only to the approval for the water line, which we now have.
All of the alternate sites would cost more
because the school site land, the tank site and the line connecting the alternate site to the tank site would have to be purchased by the School District. There would be a delay of up to two years for new environmental studies at the new locations.
The delay in building a High School has been caused by Duzick, Fate, Barofsky, Kelso and their comrades.
Had the School Board not been harassed by this group trying to block unification for the last two years, we would have had at least a bungalow school already open at Wallace Canyon. They and their conspirators have hounded L A County not to serve water to the School and to stop the project.
They have forced Joyce Field, who started Unification and fully supported a Local High School, off the Board.
They have spent many thousands of dollars using paid solicitors to stage a phony recall because Laurie Browning could not be forced to resign.
These stooges (Duzick, Fate and Barofsky) want you to believe that they are pro-School and Anti Tax. They are just front men for Wayne Spears, who has publicly stated, "I will spend whatever it takes to stop a High School from being built". They do not give a Damn about the community and it's kids.
They still want to close our District and make us a part of the "greater" Antelope Valley.
Stop them and Vote for Charles Brink and Dennis Dee. To
index
Wallace Canyon water line service approved
Private system approved by County
On February 9, L A County Department of Public Works wrote a letter to the School District offering four proposals for water service to Wallace Canyon.
Proposal four approves the School District's request for a Private Line or in the County's language "Non-Conforming Private System." The County has recognized that a school is not a developer and has allowed a private line to Wallace Canyon for the High School for the benefit of the community. This is the same approach that I have personally, along with others, championed for the last two years. Harry Stone, Director of Public Works, is to be commended the his pro community position.
The private water line to the school is being paid for by Watt Industries via CFD-6, which applies only to their properties. The only cost to the School District is the standard connection charge, ($480,000) made up of District 37's connection fees, AVEK's capacity fee and a pro-rata share of the existing District 37 improvements.
According to L A County, these fees are the same charges for a 4'' meter that would apply no matter where the property was located in the Water District. The "lower" cost of these fees compared to the alternate sites are the result of the decision to permanently store fire protection water on the Wallace Canyon High School site instead of relying on a questionable supply from District 37. It is possible the fees might still be decreased.
Alternate Sites
If any of the sites proposed by the Alternate Site Committee had been used, assuming L A County could provide fire flow from the County water line, the meter would have to increase to 10" and the connect charge would be $2,880,000. To index
I have never written a letter to the editor before in my life. I hope this one makes print.
I wanted to express my Opinion on the latest twist to the school board election. I have just seen the Acton-Agua Dulce Teachers Association "Has Spoken for the first time since anyone can remember (Approximately 14 years ).
What did they say? They decided to endorse Fred Fate, Marty Barofsky, and Jim Duzick. How nice, right?
Well, How Dare They!
I have to guess it's the major statement that they know better than the voters and residents of our communities.
They are the teachers, I heard them loud and clear. It said they know better than we do. I guess I don't blame them. Historical facts can show us why they would feel this way.
Two of these candidates served on the board when teachers picked them.
Two of these candidates served on the board when these same teachers were given a 7% raise each year over 3 years. The biggest pay raise in the history of our district. The raise this district is Still trying to pay off!
Two of these candidates served on the board when working conditions worsened for the teachers.
Two of these Candidates served on the board when School supplies were rationed.
Two of these candidates served on the board when beggar letters started coming home from the classrooms.
Two of these candidates served on the board when the P.T.O. had to fund more and more and more.
Two of these candidates served on the board when toilet paper was rationed for the students.
Two of these candidates served on the board when the restrooms were kept locked against students at High Desert.
Two of these candidates served on the board when there were violations of the health code.
Two of these candidates served on the board when the district' s cafeteria was penalized and fined for thousands of dollars.
Two of these candidates served on the board when the mishandling of a district employees' termination cost thousand of dollars.
One of those candidates has never run in a school board election. He was appointed to the board while his wife held a seat on the same board.
One of these candidates ran for the school board in 1991 and didn't even come close to taking a seat. This same candidate did not receive an endorsement from the union then. Why the change of heart now?
Two of these candidates never supported unification while the vote showed that the majority of the community did.
These same two candidates always stated that it was "premature" to unify.
Do we want these candidates' spouses so involved, seeing intimate materials contained in board packets?
One has to wonder if there is a conflict of interest with these candidates and their spouses with loyalty and friendships to the union. As has happened when one of these candidate's spouse was extremely accommodating to union members by way of a private viewing in their home of video tape of parents at a school board meeting resulting in a confrontational situation between union members, parents, and students.
One of these candidate's campaign literature states he will not surrender the control of the educational process. Surrender to who, you may ask, parents? (since he is endorsed by the union).
How dare this teachers' union try to hi-jack the school and school board for which they are employees and dictate to voters and residents whom they and the school board work for. You should also be aware that only a small percentage of the Acton-Agua Dulce Teachers Association members live within our district's voting boundaries.
Trying to influence the vote only serves as an effort to control our schools.
I agree it is important to know who really wants to run the school and spend your tax dollars. You should look these candidates in the eyes and ask them how unification is at stake, because we are unified. It is a done deal! The only way I can see losing unification is if board members negotiate the return of our high school children back to the Antelope Valley. This could be done in as little as 3 to 5 months.
Now on the recall effort. There have been so many statements, misstatements, innuendoes and mud slinging that I don't think any of us have all of the true facts.
"The Acton-Agua Dulce Teachers' Association encourages every citizen of the Acton-Agua Dulce Communities to vote in this most important election. The future of your child's education and unification are at stake".
As an over eighteen year old adult registered voter in this community, I refuse to be duped into voting for any of these candidates. We Need Our Voting Power Now To Keep Our kids Home !
Please note that I am not insinuating you vote for anyone in particular - just check out the history.
Eugene Mott, Acton To index
RE: School Board Candidate, Stacey Nickels. As no doubt you have been reading my letters to the editor of late, my support for candidate Stacey Nickels running for our local school board is a 2-fold concern
A - The educational process of academics with a higher standard of BASICS.
B - The elimination of `Components" of Outcome Based Education (O.B.E.)
1. Parental rights as should be ours
2. Surveys of personal intrusion into our private lives. I know she would like nothing more than to see the school board well connected with each other and hopefully see the issues moving on to a meaningful conclusion.
My other daughter, Lisa Heckel, has also been a great supporter and wrote letters to the editors with her opinion on this subject in greater detail. I, as a grandparent, have been noticing the decline in the educational process for a good many years, which I believe to include modifying students' work to meet the standards if the student is not quite up to the rest of the students in his or her class.
So while watching their school work, when they bring it home, "I Caught on". Just take time to read your newspapers, listen to talk radio, watch C-Span on CNN. Education is a problem over the country, check it out, ask questions, get information, then become informed. I know this is what my daughter would like to see parents do, as well as all grandparents.
With respect to Parents, Grandparents, Educators, and Administrators,
Eleanor Brown, Mother of Stacey Nickels To index
Dear Community,
I'm a student at Vasquez High School. I'm writing this letter in concern of the recall of Laurie Browning.
I feel that this recall is tearing Laurie apart.
She is the most devoted school board member I know.
She helps out with every activity at Vasquez High School.
She is putting all her effort in trying to build our new high school. All she does is try to help the students at Vasquez High School.
If she wasn't on the school board the community wouldn't be as far as it is now. I wish the people of Acton would open their eyes and see the many things she has accomplished and will continue to accomplish with the help of her family, friends, and you, the community.
PLEASE VOTE NO ON RECALL!!
Sincerely, Joel Roberson To index
Palmdale now plans to spend twelve million dollars on a 48,000 square foot office building for city administrators and other departments. It is intended to expand within ten to fifteen years to 125,000 square feet.
It will be paid for by 6.9 million dollars funded by Kaufman and Broad and Ritter Ranch Associates. This is a legal bribe offered by the developers to the city for their permission to develop urban projects in rural areas. In other words, for the ability to build new homes they are paying the city 6.9 million dollars to build a new city "palace".
The rest of the money will be on bond financing which will of course be paid by the citizens of Palmdale. The question lies, does Palmdale need a twelve million dollar palace for its' administrators or do they need improvements in the city such as lowering the cost of parks and recreation funding and landscaping funding and to provide more Sheriff's to try to stamp out the rampant crime in Palmdale.
It seems Palmdale has made a decision to have high crime, but have a palace
for the city, which I'm sure will have proper security to keep the councilmen
and mayor safe within their palace. To
index
First developer agrees to full mitigation
During the early days of unification, we had a good and very active finance committee to advise the school. This committee decided that one of the issues which was very important was to make sure the developers fully mitigated their developments. This means simply that developers pay 100% of the cost of the additional facilities needed for the students which are created by that development.
This means that existing residents in the community don't have to subsidize the profits to developers by building schools for the additional kids the developer's projects generate, while the developer gets away with only 10% to 20% of the costs.
In an initial success the County has now added a condition for the Acton-Agua Dulce School District which requires the developers to join whatever community facilities district the school puts together to mitigate the impact of their developments.
It will allow the School Board to put this together and minimize the taxes on the residents and place the tax squarely where it should be, on the homes which require new school facilities. This undertaking has been going on for about a year with Regional Planning. The first project with a restriction happened to be the subdivision of the airport by Annen into nineteen homes.
Your editor and community activist has been working with the County over a year on this issue, backed by a letter from the school district authorizing him to negotiate for full mitigation. When this was announced at the January 12 board meeting as the first one that succeeded, most people were pleased except for Becky Small again, who said "who authorized you to do this", and demanded that anything done for the benefit of the school be cleared through her first.
Note, she said "her", not the school board but cleared through her personally. The fact the board had already acted to request full mitigation didn't seem to interest her, but she now wanted every conversation with the developers, to be pre-approved by her in advance.
When asked from the floor didn't she want the developers to mitigate, her comment was "I don't know".
I would consider the developer mitigation a major block in keeping any assessment to the taxpayers in this community as low as possible while still providing quality schools. To index
Keep fighting the good fight.
The good fight is to keep Acton rural and to block the out-of-town developers and their hanger-on-ers, the Acton Town Council.
In the ongoing battle over the video arcade in Acton, I can report a partial victory. The Regional Planning Commission approved, on February 21, a Video Arcade in the "downtown" Acton Shopping Center with a number of restrictions.
At the hearing, the LA city based developer, KMK incorporated, wanted to have a stand alone video arcade with an unlimited number of machines, open at night up to 11 pm.
The Acton Town Council supported the out-of-town developer's request with the only change being a 10 pm closing.
Kathy Howal stated the Acton Town Council "prefers that it [the video arcade] be an independent business, not connected to any business in the center." "We also have no problem with any number of video machines".
Both of these positions are counter to the public position (if you can call any of their meetings public), which was to oppose a video arcade.
The Acton Town Council still refuses to represent the views of the residents of Acton. It is just like their support of the 50,000 square foot, 24 hour Ralph's store, they now support a stand alone video arcade of unlimited size.
The good news is that the hearing officer agreed with my testimony and stated "I believe that Acton does not need a stand alone video arcade" and disregarded the Acton Town Council support of the video arcade.
What was approved by Regional Planning is an arcade as an adjunct(1) to the next door business (now Captain Video). If Captain Video closes, it will still be a part of whatever business opens in that location. The hours were limited to a 9 pm closing or earlier with a 15 machine limit.
A requirement that graffiti be removed within 24 hours, that all lighting be shielded from shining off the property, and that the property be maintained with County Codes were added at my recommendation.
The Acton Town Council did not object to my request. The Acton Town Council's only request, that I joined in, was to add a hitching rail behind the center.
The bottom line is, the Acton Town Council does not care what the residents in Acton want and have their secret agenda to promote growth and businesses at the destruction of the rural community. Of course, they have to stuff the ballot boxes, as they have little support in the community. To index
Stand up to these liars who want to destroy our school system.
A small Anti-Unification group backed by the Anti-Wallace Canyon site group combined with the pro airport group are trying to recall Laurie Browning. According to public records the groups are fully funded by Wayne Spears, who has publicly stated "I will spend whatever it takes to stop a High School from being built."
This move against Laurie Browning is a political drive by these splinter hate groups to hand control of the schools over to this man who has single handedly funded "SUN" and the "friends of Vasquez High." His whole stated purpose is to block us from building a High School on land owned free and clear by the school district. The group is trying to shut down the district and merge it into the Antelope Valley Schools. SUN should be called SUNWP which is there true goal "Start Unification Now With Palmdale".
The recall is based on lies and half truths published as alleged news stories in the "Country Journal." This same paper has been paid to oppose the High School and support this moneyed political group.
When the facts are reviewed, the whole recall is based on these lies and innuendo. The specific complaint in the recall is:
"You have formed instead, a closer relationship to development and developers, which could negatively impact the communities, rather than pursue the best interest of children and the goals of excellence in education." It also claims violation of district policy 9200. The District's legal council has opinioned that this policy was not violated and the groups have refused to bring proper charges.
The facts are clear. The gift of the Wallace Canyon site was NOT mitigation
for any development . Neither the School District nor its residents will ever
have to pay a cent for the Wallace Canyon property. Until Watt sells homes in
Rio Dulce and Sierra Colony, WATT is paying for the property themselves! If it
takes 15 years to sell Rio Dulce then Watt will have paid most of the
"sales price" themselves.
As to the "high sales price," LA County's independent appraisers set the price according to State law. Watt then "bought" the Property from another entity of Watt. No gain occurred, as they added debt equal to the sales price. The "cost" of the land is less per acre than the High Desert and Meadowlark sites. And best of all, the District did not have to pay a cent for Wallace Canyon
Now what exactly did Laurie Browning do? Her "closer relationship" got Watt to give the School District, totally free of cost and debt, 50 acres and $900,000 of improvements. This gift is above and beyond any legally required mitigation which Watt will still pay when they develop their land.
The School, Agua Dulce Town Council and I demanded other developers such as Pratty give the District something above the legally required minimum as Watt did. LA County Counsel opined that "A developer cannot be required to give anything above legally mandated limits" e.g. the $1.65 fee.
What she did is get 50 acres free and $900,000 in improvements for free. God bless her and I hope she can get real friendly and get developers to give us more than the legally required mitigation for our kids' benefit.
And a word to the liars trying to sell this recall, crawl back under the rock you came from. You are part of the same anti-community and pro Antelope Valley group, including ACERT, Agua Dulce Chamber of Commerce, Acton Town Council and your paper the "Country Journal" who values advertising over a fair presentation of the truth.
To get signatures on the recall they lied to people about its purpose.
On the street in front of the Agua Dulce Fair they were soliciting a woman to sign the petition. They told her that it was to block the school at Wallace Canyon. They said absolutely nothing about the recall of Laurie Browning.
In interviewing the woman just after she signed, she stated that all she was told was that it was a petition to block the high school at Wallace Canyon and she signed that. She said she was not offered anything to read about why they are trying to recall Ms. Browning nor read Ms. Browning's response to the recall, which is a legal requirement.
Another pitch I overheard was "Don't you want to put the School Board President on the ballot in November." Again, nothing said about the recall.
A third pitch was sign this to block higher taxes.
It appears the recall was sold by the big lie method and their election campaign is more big lies.
In their expensive and professionally prepared campaign sheet they say "stop Mello-Roos Taxes." Browning voted NOT to go forward with any taxes. Duzick and Fate are proposing millions of dollars of taxes for their Meadowlark Plan which mainly builds gyms and playing fields, academics are given a short shift by the candidates.
They cannot even tell you the truth about their position on Taxes, so why should you believe anything they say?
Joyce Field, who started the unification drive 8 years ago, said it right about Fate and Barofsky:
"Been there - had them - don't want them"
Vote NO on recall on March 7. To index
Do you want a quality High School or an overcrowded freeway trailer school. Vote
No on recall and for Brink and Dee. To
index