It’s taken me a long time today to calm down after reading The Signal’s “new districting” article on your front page in the March 3 edition. The article was deceptively titled “Residents weigh in on map of council districts,” and I’m shocked that anyone in charge of The Signal’s “news” content allowed it to be published as is.
During the “public” hearing, which your reporter claims “was attended by about 30 people,” the majority of the speakers were speaking out against district voting in any form. As presented, there were absolutely no pros to districting, but plenty of cons. Let me spell them out for you:
It blatantly favors the far-left voters in the Santa Clarita Valley. Period.
It encourages further separation by race, gender identity, and other irrelevant factors.
Attorney Scott Rafferty, and the plaintiffs, Michael Cruz and Sebastian Cazares, have absolutely nothing to worry about regarding the damaging results of districting. In fact, the plaintiffs have already collected a great deal of money in their pursuit of districting.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the city paid another group (approximately $600,000) of taxpayer money to stop this madness five or so years ago. How many taxpayers know about that?
There’s simply not enough space in one letter to list all the cons of voting by district.
Many residents want to stick with at-large voting as it was before machines were introduced over 20 years ago. Using machines connected to the internet opens up a huge opportunity for fraud by any group, but that’s a story for another day.
Just look at how “districting” worked out for the Santa Clarita Valley school boards! The track record of districting in the SCV school boards speaks for itself. The district candidates who get elected to represent the districts with the most school-related problems proceed to push programs that keep those students and their parents reliant on the government more and more and discourage picking themselves up and learning to take care of themselves. It’s clear that districting does not serve the best interests of our community.
And let’s not forget the horrendous acoustics during the “public” meeting. Many attendees complained about the awful acoustics in the room. This was particularly bad at the last meeting held there, but not many complained. This time it was horrendous! Hopefully, the organizers will take the advice to go back to City Hall’s largest room for the next public meeting on April 13 at 6 p.m.
I have so much more to say.
I have always considered The Signal “fair and balanced” in its actual news reporting. Definitely, NOT this time.
Diane Zimmerman
Santa Clarita
