SANTA CLARITA: PUBLIC FORUM : HOMELESS SHELTER WOULD DESTROY SAFE-CITY REPUTATION.

The very idea of the city wanting to have a homeless shelter is so ludicrous; we don't need to be a city such as L.A. with a midnight mission or a Skid Row - definitely not in Canyon Country. If the church wants to help, by all means do so, but do it in your church.

During the day, we will have alcoholics and drug addicts sitting under all our oak trees or begging on the street - not to mention the crime. We definitely will go from America's fourth-safest city to the bottom, and that will be guaranteed.

We here in the Santa Clarita Valley moved out this way to get away from all that: bag people pushing shopping carts and the harassment. And why is it always Canyon Country? Why not Stevenson Ranch, or maybe the Valencia High School gym at night? But then, word will be spread all over L.A. ``Come to the High Country - It's a gold mine!'' They will destroy our area as they did Hollywood, L.A., south and east L.A. - in other words, everything over the hill.

SuAnn White

Canyon Country

Newhall Land's role in poll questioned

Usually, Santa Clarita is a well-ordered town with not too much of a scandalous nature spoiling the processes of the community. This is generally true except when The Newhall Land and Farming Company detects local activities that might hamper its plans for exploiting the area. Then, watch out!

One really outrageous example of Newhall Land's determination to dominate was during the Measure A campaign about six years ago when it spent over a quarter-million dollars to defeat a growth-control measure that city polls had shown the majority favored.

The latest outrage is the troubling election of the Newhall County District Water Board. Here Newhall Land and the Castaic Lake Water Agency, the latter through its president, Bill Cooper, joined to defeat the independent incumbents in a malicious campaign of unprecedented mendacity. It's probably the first campaign in local history where a challenger succeeded in lying on the record about her own previous falsehoods. This was when one of them told the press that the incumbent's lawsuit about the challengers' falsities in their ballot statements was dismissed by the court because it was without merit. In actuality, the complaint was dismissed reluctantly by the court over a technicality - it was filed several days after expiration of an obscure deadline. The court's reactions, in reality, were sympathetic to the merits of the case. It was a shame it did not go to trial.

We might well be surprised at the feat of the three challengers showing up with a little over $10,000 in each one's kitty for a total of over $30,000. All of it was allegedly contributed in bits and dabs of less than $100.

The challengers were unique among the 286 candidates in the state. The three of them were the only ones who completely ignored the voluntary state campaign expense limitation law. Each challenger garnered about $10 of campaign funds for every vote received. Some say that was only one-fifth as bad as the Measure A campaign where Newhall Land spent $50 for every vote it got.

Since the challengers' campaign was orchestrated with the help of Newhall Land and Bill Cooper, it was apparent that the challengers intended to neuter, if not destroy, the Newhall water district. Two of the three challengers had already participated in CLWA's notorious Water Issues Committee and had voted to give to CLWA complete control of the groundwater that Newhall water uses to serve its customers. This was a triumph for Newhall Land, which wants to acquire, through CLWA, access to Santa Clarita's groundwater to supply Newhall Ranch's potential 70,000 souls. In times of drought this would increase the demands on city groundwater by 50 percent at the expense of city residents who currently rely on it.

While I have no personal animus toward the challengers, I am puzzled that some of our good burghers congratulate them on their gaining three seats on the Newhall water board. Are they congratulated for being very special friends of Newhall Land or the CLWA? Or maybe for being the only candidates in the entire state of California to completely flout the campaign spending limitation statutes, or for each being given $10,000 in bits and dabs in one way or another through help of their corporate sponsors compared to the normal $2,000 each incumbent raised. Or, on the other hand, is it for abusing the political process by spending $10 for each vote they got? One wonders.

Robert Lathrop

Newhall

Returning to nature best vision for city

Share the Vision II,

From 1951 ``cow town'' . . . voom, voom, voom,

To 1997 goodbye rural, hello conglomerates, condos, housing tracts, gated communities, cars, cars, cars . . . people, gangs, crime . . .

Vision II?

Save what's left of the oaks, the hills and the valleys . . . and our river

Ruth Arnold

Newhall

Canyon Country's a diamond in rough

I just finished reading the article by Teresa Jimenez, ``Canyon Country collecting prestige.''

My family and I moved to the Santa Clarita Valley in 1982, mainly because I wanted the best for my children. We purchased 2-1/2 acres in Canyon Country in 1985, where we are building our golden years' dream home. We have a gorgeous view and all the quiet living we could ever ask for. I would not pick any other place if I had to do it over again.

Unfortunately, throughout the years, Canyon Country has been a verbal dumping ground and on various occasions there have been some not-so-desirable programs situated in our community. But, you know, Canyon Country is a diamond in the rough, and I think it is only a matter of time before the rest of Santa Clarita will realize the importance and value of this beautiful little community.

On behalf of all the people and myself, thank you for writing such a wonderful article.

Angie M. Jaramillo

Canyon Country