COMMENTARY : INFRASTRUCTURE IN A SQUEEZE STOP DEVELOPERS WHO EXPECT TAXPAYERS' SUBSIDY.

Recent news stories described the concern facing officials with the William S. Hart Union High School District over the availability of schools for the proposed 25,000-home Newhall Ranch project in northern Los Angeles County.

Overcrowded schools have become the norm in the upscale ``family oriented'' community of Santa Clarita despite developers' advertising to the contrary. Why? Los Angeles County has approved development projects that far outstrip the infrastructure necessary to service them, and the local taxpayers will no longer foot the bill.

Just as the infrastructure deficit of roads, schools, libraries and fire service began to grow in the building frenzy of the '80s, a settlement was reached with the county in a lawsuit brought to ensure that adequate infrastructure would accompany new development.

This court-ordered settlement created the Development Monitoring System by ordinance in 1987. The stated purpose of the DMS was to implement the mandate to reduce the cost of government given the county by voters when they passed Prop. 13. It was ``to ensure that new development within urban expansion areas will occur in a manner consistent with stated policies, has adequate infrastructure capacity and will pay for the expansion costs that it generates,'' according to the county General Plan.

The DMS was implemented and then, under pressure from developers, promptly ignored by the county. This continued until 1992 when a local planning and conservatory group, Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment, challenged the approval of Westridge, a 2,000-home Newhall Land and Farming Company project that was approved without adequate classroom space to accommodate the students it would generate and despite inadequate library materials to serve the community.

SCOPE won that case and the Westridge approval was set aside until such time that schools and libraries would be adequately mitigated.

The school districts estimated that new development generated a cost to schools of $4.58 per square foot of living space. They had been receiving $2.72 per square foot, far less than required.

Developers, such as Newhall Land, reserved space for schools but required the school districts to purchase the land at prices the developer would receive if the land were entitled.

The county had continued to routinely approve massive developments in spite of the requirements of the DMS. No wonder there wasn't enough classroom space

After the Westridge approval was set aside, Newhall Land negotiated a settlement with the Newhall Elementary District that would require the district to go on a year-round school schedule in its new schools and support new school bond measures to help Newhall Land keep its school mitigation costs down. Buyer beware

If you don't want a year-round school schedule for your children, don't purchase in one of these new developments. The Hart District refused to make this agreement and is still working to have schools fully mitigated as required by the DMS.

But the county hadn't learned its lesson. In 1995, it again approved a Newhall Land project despite school district complaints that classroom space was not available and over protests from the Los Angeles County Library that a funding mechanism must first be created to pay for books. Again, the project was challenged by SCOPE and set aside by the courts for failure to comply with the DMS. Earlier this year, a 2,500-home project in San Francisquito Canyon approved by the Regional Planning Commission would risk yet another successful court challenge on the same issue.

The people of the Santa Clarita Valley have refused to pass a bond measure for new schools or roads for more than five years. It's simply a taxpayer issue. They are tired of paying for the costs of new development.

Many small-business owners will explain it quite simply: Development is a money-making business. No one helps us pay for expansion costs in our business. Why should we subsidize the big developers?

According to the county DMS, they shouldn't have to. But the county's past actions in this area are certainly good cause for the Hart district's concern.