Contact SCOPE by clicking HERE
Schools and developer smear campaigns
Everyone wants good schools. Education is the foundation of our society. Democracy doesn’t work without an educated voter base that can make good decisions. A democracy requires its citizens to think critically about issues, to debate new issues and change direction when a given strategy does not seem to be working. Criticism and discussion from the loyal opposition brings that change and growth. It is the fertile soil that keeps our democracy healthy and productive. Without an educated society, none of this is possible.
Folks that care about the environment also, if course, care about ensuring good schools and a good education for all our children. After all, how can society understand the significance of planning issues: how can they appreciate the beauty of nature and the interconnectedness of all life? Without education, how will they make good decisions about our society’s future? People that care about our environment are often parents that want their children to grow up in a healthy environment where the air is clean, where kids can play at recess without having exercise curtailed by smog alerts. They want schools that children can safely walk to in the morning. They want schools were clean water comes out of the drinking fountain and doesn’t have to be purchased from a machine.
In 1992, Santa Clarita Org. for Planning and the Environment, joined by the Sierra Club, challenged Newhall Land’s Westridge project (now being built on the west side of I-5) for exactly those reasons. We were worried about school over-crowding in spite of the County’s Development Monitoring System that was supposed to require adequate classroom space for new development. We were worried about the increasing air pollution levels and we were worried about the Valley Oaks Savannah (Significant Ecological Area 64) and its treasure trove of beautiful old native oaks.
A year later, in a landmark decision, the Court ordered the developer back to the drawing board to investigate the issues of school and library funding. The result was the formation of a library assessment district to fund new books and facilities as development is approved, and the tripling of school impact fees. It was a huge win for our community and for the County as a whole.
As our Valley has developed, SCOPE has continued to comment on school issues. We have tried to bring new concepts that are being promoted elsewhere to our Valley. These include the “Safe Routes to School” campaign that promotes siting of schools where children can walk or ride their bikes rather than being driven by their parents. We have promoted siting schools away from high traffic areas so that children are not exposed to sources of high air pollution. We helped organize a presentation to school facility managers of the “Cool School” concepts being used in the LA Unified School District. This program promotes a method of bringing down the costs of new facilities by incorporating trees, natives and unpaved areas into school design.
Four years ago, SCOPE filed suit against the West Creek project in San Francisquito Canyon because of concern over an inadequate water supply and impacts to San Francisquito Creek, one of our major sources of ground water. The developer, Newhall Land and Farming, said we were merely trying to stop the school and posted a sign on Copperhill claiming that it was our fault that the school was not being built. The Court agreed with us about the water supply issue and set West Creek aside for further review. The 2300 units are not there, but the Rio Vista Jr. High is built and children are attending.
Two years ago, SCOPE commented that the location of the Pico Elementary School was the only school in the Valley sited on a major highway. Children would be exposed to traffic noise and air pollution and would not be able to safely walk to school. The developer harangued us for trying to “STOP” the school and the public seemed to fall for this ludicrous tactic. Recently, community school parents demonstrated to try to downsize Pico Canyon Rd., because they were concerned about exactly these issues, safety and the effects of noise and air pollution on the children. They were complaining about the very health issues that SCOPE was chided for bringing up during the planning process. We support their efforts to downsize Pico Canyon Rd. and will help where ever possible
Why is it that when SCOPE or any other environmental group wants to preserve a stream or save oaks or not have schools placed where children can’t walk to them, are we accused of stopping schools? Because it is often a little more expensive to build to save the stream. Or perhaps the optimal place for the school is really where the developer would like to make more money on a shopping center. In short, our concerns don’t have anything to do with stopping schools. They just cut into the developer’s profit margin. It is a ludicrous, but unfortunately effective tactic, to say the environmentalists are stopping schools. It is a way of obscuring the funding, safety, health and planning issues that school boards and our community should be addressing.
After all this hard work and the proven fallacy of questionable PR campaigns saying that environmentalists are stopping schools (there stands Rio Vista Jr. High to prove it!, in spite of Newhall Land’s smear campaign), it is amazing to me to see the Newhall County Water District or anyone else harangued by developers for “stopping schools”. I am sure our community is too smart to fall for the use of this ludicrous tactic again.
In short, people who care about the environment also care passionately about good schools and healthy children. If a developer or the Building Industry Association tells you differently, just look at the history of this issue in our valley. I ask you to judge for yourself who is telling the truth and who is merely running a smear campaign to push their project forward and increase their bottom line by avoiding good planning.
Lynne Plambeck,
President, SCOPE
Upload and copyright© Jan 2006 by SCOPE