Candidate Mitch Green provided the following write-up regarding the proposed Waste Management Landfill Expansion:
Aug 18, 2010
I attended the Simi Valley / Moorpark Democratic Club meeting tonight, hosted by Richard Carter, the newly elected Ventura County Democratic Central Committee Chair. The topic tonight was the Waste Management landfill expansion plans. As many know, I am against the current expansion plans and I have publically stated so.
The speaker at the meeting was Lou Pandolfi of the Simi Valley Landfill Expansion Task Force. Also present was Simi Valley Council Member Barbra Williamson who has worked with Lou on the Task Force for the last two years.
As it now stands, the landfill easily handle’s Ventura County’s daily waste requirements of 2100 tons on a permit of 3000 daily tons. Waste Management fills the remaining 900 daily tons with trash from Los Angeles County. Waste Management is asking to up its daily tonnage to 6000 daily tons so it can take in 3900 daily tons from Los Angeles County over and above Ventura County’s more constant 2100 daily tons.
The up side to the City of Simi Valley to the dump expansion plans is what? Maybe 8 more jobs and another tractor? Some benefit to the City. Yet the downside to the City of Simi Valley includes dramatically increased dump truck traffic and the inherent noxious fumes that go along with a mega dump.
And as I hear it, while the City takes the downside impact of the dump, the County reaps all the money. And only the County, not the City, gets to take a vote on it. So where are our Council members when we need them to take a stand and lobby on our behalf with the County?
When it comes to the dump expansion plans I hear Council Member Barbra Williamson loud and clear. She’s against the dump expansion plans and that makes her for Simi Valley quality of life. But what of the other Council members? Why so quiet? Why not come out and take a stand, one way or the other?
Me, I’m against the dump expansion plans. And when elected, I promise to do my lobby on behalf of the City at the County level to let the County officials know what you think about the dump. I hear you loud and clear. You too are against the dump expansion.
I’m Mitch Green. I’m a Democrat, I’m running for Simi Valley City Council, and I’m against the current dump expansion plans.
I don’t think its campaign rhetoric because the landfill expansion is a legitimate concern for Simi Valley. I do think it would be good for Mitch to check out the Landfill tour and ask questions about how the landfill operates. I took the tour and found it to be a real eye opener.
all caps…. wow
Wayne, rather than take pot shots at people who are trying to make the City a better place to live, why don’t you try to understand how the City actually works? Two years ago I was the Assistant City Attorney for Civil Litigation and my job was to defend the City on civil matters. I was aware of the landfill expansion plans at the time like everyone who works in City Hall. But my job at the time was to defend the City, not run for political office.
Today I am running for political office and that means taking a stand on issues that matter to the constituents. And the dump expansion plan is an issue that matters now and well into the future.
Rance, perhaps you need to do some research. Go to the websites for Michelle Foster, Glen Becerra and Steve Sojka as I just did in the last ten minutes and you will find nothing, nada, on their sites about taking a stand, one way or another, on an issue that means so much to the future of Simi Valley, being the land fill expansion.
Yes, you will find a lot of fluff on the incumbents sites about being for public safety and for quality of life and for government transparency, but then what candidate wouldn’t be for that?
But when it comes to the hard issues like the Waste Management Landfill Expansion plans, all you get is public silence from the status quo.
With me, you know exactly where I stand. I’m against the current dump expansion plans.
Rance, you stated….
But he is saying the other councilmen haven’t spoken up. Yes they did. They drafted a letter of “request for denial” and sent it to county mgr. If I remember right, the Mayor and city mgr will appear when it’s on county agenda. Mr. Green should do some research apparently…..
Mr. Rance….You are so totally wrong. 1) Aside from me, no other Council Member has taken a position on the landfill issue. 2) You are wrong, the City has NOT drafted a letter of “request for denial” and 3) there has been no discussion regarding the Mayor and/or the City Manager addressing the County when the landfill appears on their agenda, so again, you are wrong.
I don’t know where you’re getting your information, but clearly you are batting a 1000 percent on providing wrong information.
Mitch,
There are other benefits to the City. Waste Management has constructed very nice educational zones for discovery and education for school kids on environmental issues. They are a responsible company. I agree we shouldn’t be LA’s dumping ground, but the money they bring in goes to the city in tax revenue, and let’s face it, were gonna need it with Farmers leaving and Super Targets jeopardizing old target. . Then there is the issue of the Police Department not having a place to shoot and train the cops, at what is said to be a 200,000 dollar plus cost every year they shoot in Los Angeles. Mike Judge raised this issue last election, yet the incumbents don’t address it. You have to admit, there has to be a balance here, to be business friendly and benefit the community. What if you turn the screws tight enough on waste management, and they decide to leave. Where’s the trash gonna go then?
Monty I know your question was directed to Mitch, but if you don’t mind I would like to respond…
WM isn’t going anywhere soon. And I so totally agree with you about them being a great corporate citizen, Mike Smith and Scott Tignac are the best representatives WM could ever hope to have. But this isn’t about them. It’s about the community of Simi Valley and what will happen to our community if this expansion is allowed to go through as currently planned. Sure Waste will give the city some land for a shooting range, but at what price? Do we sell our soul for a 10 acre parcel for a shooting range? The money generated by the landfill goes to WM in Houston and the County of Ventura ($4M). The City of SV gets barely anything. We do, however get charitable donations to non-profits, which are appreciated but shouldn’t be a trade-off for the expansion. Look, the landfill is there and there isn’t much we can do about that, we can, however control our own destiny by being involved and telling them we don’t want LA, San Fernando, Riverside, Burbank and San Bernardino’s garbage. Let them be responsible for their own trash because we aren’t and shouldn’t be their dumping ground.
“Destruction”? Mr. Mackel’s credibility erodes more and more every time he writes. People who read this blog should begin turning their bullshit detector dial to 10 when they see his comments.
Who is to say Unocal would have ever built? Many builders have approved projects they walked away from, or sat on as the worst recession in our lifetime set in. The historic recession has caused businesses to close throughout the United States of America.
When was the Casden project at LA Ave and Madera approved? Why is it not done yet? The final phase of the Pardee project in Moorpark has been approved for years. KB Home owned it and chose not to build. They sold to Toll Brothers. They’re still not building. Approved, graded lots with completed streets and sidewalks. No homes being built.
Mervyn’s as a company went bankrupt.
No need to waste time getting into everything else, because Mr. Mackel will ignore it just like he does the national economic climate. Everything including global warming and the Gulf oil spill is the fault of the Simi Valley City Council in his mind.
Amen……….
There is an old saying. “If you don’t stand for something, then you will fall for anything”. You’re pretty tough hiding behind a moniker Max. Afraid to put your name to what you stand for?
Who cares if Unocal would have held off on the build, they still would have owned the land, they still would have been an additional community partner contributing to our charities and community events. They would have control of the property surrounding the dump. They owned the property for over 100 years. They would have waited another 5 to 10 to build.
Mervyns’ vacancy is our problem, not Mervyns’ bankruptcy. We are such a retail attractive city and for some reason we can’t fill our vacancies?
Barbra and I pretty much see eye to eye on some of the problems affecting our vacancy problems.
Moorpark unfinished projects aren’t our problems. Casden, will build when they feel they can sell the units. Let’s just hope they don’t sell it off and the city tries to get in there and force the corner to go commercial like they did the first time around.
I was wondering what your issue was with H-1B Visa workers?
On a side note I thought I saw the city council on the grassy knoll in the Zapruder Film.
Unocal could have built a really nice project, but instead they got greedy. They didn’t give a darn about the residents or our hillside protection ordinance. They thought if they threw enought money at the project the Council would bend..well they didn’t, which put the ball back in their court….Actually, in my opinion they had the wrong person spearheading this project from the get-go. They should have had a project manager who had experience in landdevelopment, not a corporate sales person, but then that’s just my opinion.
Barbara,
Thank you for the response. I agree the City should not sell its soul, and I don’t want us to be the dumping ground either. You have been on the forefront of this issue, and for that, you get credit for holding the line. I’ll then re-shift some of the focus of my point back to you, and ask you to address it. If the Cops need a place to train, what are you as Council members doing about it. My information says we have been fiscally irresponsible for years due to Sedell on that issue, and have no current plan to change it. I’m not at liberty to take as stance on Unocal.
Monty,
I can tell you that this has been and will continue to be a top priority for the Council.
I, along with other Council members have looked at several different locations for a shooting range, (one was off Tierra Rejada that I specifically remember, another at Runkle Ranch, another out Tapo Canyon Road), however the land owner(s) were not willing to sell. You can’t just put a shooting range anywhere. It has to be pretty secluded, and I have to agree, the WM property would be perfect but I am not willing to engage in that conversation until the landfill issue is settled. It would be of sufficient value to the city and its police department to have a range, so to say that Mr. Sedell is not interested in finding a range is just not true. It is a top priority with him and has been for about 15 years. Anyone who has an idea of where the city might look, we welcome the contact.
Hope this answers your question.
Tim, you have me at a disadvantage regarding the indoor range………my memory has faded on that one, but I will take your word that it did happen (was I on the council at that time?)I am not so sure that an indoor range is what they want, I know a couple of years back there was a place on Easy Street that they could go an qualify, but that was strictly indoor. If there was a business interested in locating a shooting range in Simi Valley, I’m sure the City would take it seriously, however there are a couple of things that may pose a problem, first since it would be “private” enterprise, they would have to open it to the public to make it profitable, and I am not so sure the PD would like that, and the second is what I already mentioned, it would have to be a combination of indoor outdoor…I think….
I am sure the City would be open to any discussions regarding a range.
I was elected fall of 92…..
Well I can assure you that the Council has this on their radar..
along with a cemetary..(probably shouldn’t have the two conversations on the same page…o well) LOL
Not entirely honest, Mr. Mackel. The City purchased a portion of the overall property up there, essentially where Best Buy and Lowe’s now are located, to protect the overall property for a regional shopping center that Simi Valley voters had asked for that location for a long time. Where Town Center, and its “Town & Country” adjunct center to the west where Best Buy and Lowe’s is located, sits, that property was exempted BY VOTERS from the Hillside Protection Ordinance when voters enacted the law in 1986. The voters stated clearly that the property would be held for a mall and only a mall. Voters basically said it would be okay to build on that property only if it was a mall.
The reason the City purchased the smaller Best Buy/Lowe’s property is, Walmart had threatened to impact the ability to get a regional mall by proposing to build a Walmart on that same smaller piece of property (a proposal the voters eventually denied). The reason we got to vote on Walmart is because of the approved 1986 ballot measure – the vote was not against Walmart, per se, but asking permission to build something besides a mall on that property. Voters said no, we do not want the potential to get a mall impacted by having a single retailer up there.
The City purchased the Best Buy/Lowe’s property because a deal surfaced (it’s not every day that a valuable piece of property is put up for sale, as you know), and because it was in the spirit of the vote of 1986, to continue to fight to deliver a regional mall to the people who had been clamoring for it since 1986.
Where Simi Valley Town Center, the mall proper owned by Forest City, now sits, the City did not purchase. Nor did it purchase the land where the apartments to the north sit, nor the unbuilt pads to the south along the freeway. And of course when the mall developer was found the City sold the Lowe’s/Best Buy land back so in the end it cost taxpayers nothing. Basically the City just held the land to make sure we got a mall, and didn’t have to deal with further proposals such as the Walmart idea.
Previously I claimed lack of credibility for you; in this instance I will cite strategic omission of pertinent facts.
Oh come on Ted.you can do better than that.
MH,
Actually you read too far into what I am discussing.
I am simply making the case that the city has participated in projects when they want to.
There is much discussion that the city cannot create incentives or do things that might attract retailers. The Mall site is proof that the city gets involved when it wants to.
In terms of omission of facts, should we bring up the connection with that property and the late former Simi Valley Councilman Bill Baker? The deal just did not surface.
Should we bring up the rush to close escrow on that property before the city lost it’s ability to purchase the property?
Max, notice how I emphasized “TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO THE DEVELOPER”?
This is was I have suggested time and time again about attracting business, but as people respond back that it would be irresponsible for the city to provide such assistance. I am merely pointing out that the city has done it in the past.
And thank you for pointing out that sometimes the voters will come out and vote exceptions to the HPS if presented with a compelling case.
The tooth paste is already out of the tube; if the voters were presented with approx 1400 homes, an industrial park that provided (as originally estimated) 7000 jobs or an expanded dump that is going to take 3900 tons of trash from Los Angeles county, I believe everyone would think twice about how this whole mess has turned out.
I don’t have a problem with how Barbra is fighting this issue.
I have an issue with how the city deals with these issues which later put Barbra in the position she is in now, all alone out front fighting probably a impossible battle.
Hi Barbara,
In your response to Monty you stated “WM isn’t going anywhere soon”. I have hesitated laying any blame for Farmers leaving town at the feet of our City Council since that seemed to be a corporate decision.
Yet years back Farmers considered expanding classrooms behind the five story building to accomodate training their employees, our city basically gave them such a hard time they moved that operation to Calabasas. With many people coming to that facility from around the country for training, which in turn translated to hotel rooms rented, restaurant tabs and rented cars; if we only consider that it would have been a poor decision. But! Maybe at the time the Council would have said “Farmers isn’t going anywhere soon” as well. Instead of letting them expand training classrooms that may have had them thinking twice about moving 1200 jobs out of Simi in 2010!
The question now is Ms. Williamson; could this be the same shortsighted leadership that could see WM leave Simi in the future as well?
And while we are talking about revenue to the city the fact that many of the employees from that facility live in Simi Valley would most certainly have an impact!
Mr. Green:
I hope that while you trumpet your stand on not supporting the WM expansion that you will be listening to the citzens of this City…of which I can remind everyone that you are only “tecnically” considered a citizen.
I agree with Ted, this council has a history of double standards. And I have always considered the project at Town Center to be “selling their souls” as a legacy! The term “regional” suggests larger support from surrounding communities, well it doesn’t take much to figure out that citizens from TO and the Valley that both support malls that put the Town Center to shame will NOT be driving to Simi to spend money. That is exactly why the Town Center is struggling! A veritable ghost town everytime I walk through it with my family. Except for the Apple Store of course which is always packed and by the managers account there says it is one of their lowest performing stores!
Time to take on City Hall, term limits, three seats can change this year and in 2012 we can end Ms. Williamson’s 20 YEAR hold on a another council seat!
Well if Waste leaves our community one can only hope they take their garbage with them. The jobs they provide are minimal at best.
How many times to I have to repeat myself? Farmers was NEVER turned down on any building request because they NEVER requested one (I don’t care how many times Ted has brainwashed you about it)………period. Yes, the City has certain building requirements, just like we placed on Target and were held to comply with those building codes. People like you, Mr. Fishman complain that you don’t want our city to look like the San Fernando Valley, and in the next breath you complain because we hold them to a higher standard than when the County was here allowing anything to be built. Well Mr. Fishman that just isn’t acceptable any more.
And Ted, I am not fighting this alone. I have approximately 120,000 residents who are opposed to this expansion. I was the only Council Member who opposed the placing of Wal-Mart on the Mall site. It finally went to a vote that the residents sided with me…or I with them; however you want to call it.
Barbra,
You think you have every single resident on your side? I am not doubting you having a huge majority support. How about 119,995?
I meant that you are the lone person on council out slaying this dragon.
Barbara
Ted is not the only one with the information about Farmers, maybe there was no formal building request; like any business if they flet that the enviornment was unfriendly then why would they spend money making formal building requests. The desire of any business owner would be to make those determinations early in a decision making process…it saves money!
By the way most people don’t even know that building exists; behind the post office, next to the freeway and behind the ally of Trader Joes would be hardly what I would consider San Fernando. That building could double in size and most people would still probably never notice it.
This is part of the business climate in Simi that needs to change, I am simply a business person in Simi but there are always relationships that are gained when people are engaged. For a council member to say that they don’t know the temperature of business in the community they serve is unacceptable; if I know what is going on then you should as well…there doesn’t need to be formal requests!
FYI – There are other ESTABLISHED businesses in Simi Valley that are considering leaving because of the poor business climate! That didn’t come from Ted it came from the owners of the businesses which would include mine! For you not to know that is unacceptable, business is the lifeblood of tax revenue in this city…you need to be plugged in.
Maybe engaging someone like Ted would help lead you to problem areas in this city instead of trying to villify him!
Yes, Ted, I totally understood what you meant. I ws just having a little fun with you. sometimes its lonely at the top. LOL
Fishman,
To blame all the city woe’s on the Council is just unacceptable. Do we have some problems in the city with regards to being more “user friendly?” absolutely…? Are we working on it? Yes, and have been for quite some time. The only way the City Council can fix anything is to know it exists. Getting business people to come forward is like pulling teeth, and I know you’re going to tell me that they are afraid because of retaliation, but that being said, if they don’t come forward how are we, the Council suppose to fix it? When a business person calls me with a complaint, I am there, first and foremost to help them. If they won’t come to us, why not complain to the Chamber and have them run interference? Of course we don’t want businesses to leave, but if they don’t tell us they are having a problem please tell me how to help them because without them letting us know they need help I can’t do much.
When you say poor business climate what does that mean? Is it lack of customers walking in the door or something the City has done?
Fishman says,
“Mr. Green:
I hope that while you trumpet your stand on not supporting the WM expansion that you will be listening to the citzens of this City…of which I can remind everyone that you are only “tecnically” considered a citizen.”
Technically, Mr. Fishman? Care to tell me how I am only “techincally” a citizen? Do you have some inside knowledge that I am unware of? I’ve researched the California Election Code, have you?
Once again, I have a residential lease inside the City which more than “technically” qualifies me as a Simi Valley resident. Is that a problem for you?
I also have an ownership interest in two houses outside the City limits. Is that a problem for you?
Do you know the legal definition of a domicile? Do you also know that you can have as many “residences” as you want but only one “domicile?”
Does it even matter to you that my legal domicile is within the Simi Valley City limits?
Or do you just one more who gets their kicks taking pot shots at people who try to make this town a better place?
But back to the issue at hand;
Yes Mr. Fishman, I do listen to the people of the City of Simi Valley, and they overwhelmingly tell me that once educated, the recognize that there is NOTHING in the current expansion plans for the City.
Nothing.
Oh, yes, the people of Simi Valley get it Mr. Fishman.
And not just “technically.”
They don’t want the current dump expansion plans.
Hi Barbara
Thanks for engaging and I do appreciate you as I said in the last blog we engaged in. I have known your family for a long time, have lived here since 1971 and do realize this isn’t an easy job and definately will rub someone the wrong way almost all the time.
It is not directly you that I am contending with, it is the “climate” that has taken years to come about. After working for the city for years it was something that I became very familiar with…council members that have pet projects so that they can grandstand in the local media and newspapers.
The business owners that I know are being given a hard time by the city at large…the agencies that work under the city managers direction; who is supposed to be getting direction from YOU and the other 4 council members. There is no way that I can believe that you can turn around the problems that face this cities business community by yourself, the problems need to be fixed from the top down; you can see the function of B&S, Planning, Public Works on a daily basis if you would like and how they deal with the public who is your CUSTOMER!
Mr. Green
There is no doubt that you are an attorney, your lingo bleeds of attorney rhetoric. Legal this and legal that. As I said above I have lived here for 40 years. The landfill has been nothing but a great help to me and everyone that I worked with in the city. Imagine how shortsighted it would be that we make a mistake with WM at this point, sometime in the future they decide it isn’t worth it to keep this facility running; where are all the public works dump loads going to go?! All the poop that comes out of the sanitation facility is dried and dumped by the truck load at the WM facility. All of the street sweeper loads that are scooped and dumped there daily, all the concrete, asphalt and other trash? How far will we have to go to dispose of that? You would be fine with tacking that onto the already $200K the city spends in traveltime and OT to get our PD trained. You are full of Attorney BS, that is why you would make a terrible city councilperson!
Keep looking for the throngs that are in opposition to WM, I personally don’t know one except for you and Barbara! I grew up here, graduated here, worked for the city and own a business here…but of course I know nothing about what the people of this city want do I Mr. Green! You LIVE too far away from the city obviously!
Good morning Mr. Fishman,
Lovely day here in Simi Valley this morning, eh? My wife and I took our morning walk through East Simi and fleshed out your comments, just so we could be clear on your message.
From what I can gather, you’ve lived in Simi coming on 40 years, you don’t like lawyers, and fancy terms like “domicile” fluster you.
OK, no problem. The one thing great about this election cycle is choice. And if the qualifications you seek in a candidate is 40 years residency and non-lawyer status, then you are in luck. There are several candidates, both incumbents and challengers, who fill the bill.
However, your comments about the dump need to be challenged. Fishman, do you really believe that if the current dump operators are not allowed to double their operations and spew noxious fumes into our air and choke our roads with 800 more dump trucks a day that the dump will close? I mean, really?
The dump is not going anywhere. If this operator were to leave the county would contract with someone else and then someone else would get to ship their profits out of our town instead of the current operators. Which is exactly why the current operators will not be leaving town any time soon.
And as far as your [fancy word alert] ad hominem attacks, is that the best you can do? Attorney BS?
Hey Fishman, if you don’t want to vote for me, that’s OK. I’m learning a lot through this election cycle, I am qualified to be a council member and if elected I pledge to serve honorably.
And one thing I know, the people of Simi Valley do not want the current dump expansion plans.
I don’t have a problem with the dump in it’s current operational status.
I don’t have a problem with the dump, upgrading and expanding for Ventura County use only.
I have a problem with the loads. Is it 3900 tons coming from Los Angeles County? LA can find somewhere else to dumps it’s trash.
SOAR tried to get all that property taken out of the city of Simi Valley’s area of influence and I along with many others fought that.
One of the big issues with those of us who fought SOAR that election, was that if SOAR was able to take that land out from Simi Valley, the county could then expand the dump, build a prison or a number of other undesired uses without much for Simi Valley to say.
The issues of the dump expansion were known back then and I will keep bringing it up as we had the chess piece on the board to block it.
This is why many of us are looking to get some new blood on council this election. We need to get the long term entrenched incumbents out and some new people working on the issues facing our city.
I think that new blood may actually help Barbra with many of the issues she takes up that are unpopular with the others on council.
This idea that the council circles the wagons, protects it’s own with control through appointments and then elevates it’s next predetermined leader to Mayor, as it has done for years, has got to stop.
The economy has a long way to go nationally and locally, we can’t keep doing the same thing expecting different results.
Ted’s comments………..
“don’t have a problem with the dump in it’s current operational status.
I don’t have a problem with the dump, upgrading and expanding for Ventura County use only.
I have a problem with the loads. Is it 3900 tons coming from Los Angeles County? LA can find somewhere else to dumps it’s trash.”
Barbra’s comments, I totally agree with Ted on this analysis. The dump is here, ok..but we don’t need to take LA garbage.
Mitch
For you to take credit for using fancy words such as domicile doesn’t suprise me!
DOMICILE:
ONES LEGAL RESIDENCE; of course a legal manuver where your mail lands.
DOMICILE:
THE PLACE WHERE ONE LIVES; In true lawyer fashion, using a word that covers whatever you want it to mean at any given time…but you don’t LIVE there; so we will go ahead and leave it with the aforementioned definition…see I know big words too!
As for WM…if this valley is around 10 miles long then I live about 6 miles closer to the landfill than you so it would be hard to believe that you would smell anything from…almost Chatsworth! As for me I smell nothing and see nothing and when I worked down at the Public Works development located about a stone throw from the dump I never smelled trash…only the rank poop that the city currently pulls out of the wastewater.
You should roll down your window on your drive to Westlake sometime, if you smell anything that smells like poop you will now know where it is coming from!
For you to say “WM isn’t going anywhere” how do you know? And how do you prepose to deal with all the Public Works waste if in fact WM decides this BUSINESS propositon doesn’t make sense anymore sometime in the future?
Fishman, you need to get your facts straight.
Neither you nor your handlers have been to any of my homes.
I do now work in Westlake.
I do not live in Chatsworth.
The dump is not going anywhere.
Make that: I do not work in Westlake.
You may not smell the odor at PW, but I can assure you that the residents of Big Sky do. Even WM recognizes there is a problem as evidenced by their “spritzers” around the perimeter of the property.
Also Mitch…
If you don’t work in Westlake; where do you work?
And if we use the second definition of DOMICILE that I listed…where is it that you LIVE; is it within the boundries of incorporated Simi Valley?
Mr. Fishman, Actually the EIR for Big Sky should have picked it up, but it didn’t, unfortunately, which by the way is happening with the EIR for the expansion. I certainly agree with you that the landfill is there, but does it have to grow another 856 acres, and that doesn’t include going up. I am not trying to be argumentative, which I always seem to be accused of, just asking the question. (I am not complaining, I am a big girl and can take the heat)
Was WM invited to the talk? If not, why not? Does it not make sense to hear both sides of the issue?
Clearly, there are those with an agenda and based on what I have heard, the “facts” do not match up. Perhaps people need to investigate and hear both sides before making a decision. If the expansion is not approved, the current site that has been approved for a landfill will be used, but I don’t think that most people know what that means.
Also, I was shocked to learn that the landfill is not what I expected it to be. My view, before seeing the facility, was that there would be huge areas of trash, but I learned that all the trash is covered each night and the size of the landfill area is 7500 sq. ft., the size of many residential lots.
The only people who like landfills are those who own them, those who work there and perhaps those who also get money from them (reason for annexing the property to Simi Valley?). The problem is that trash has to be dealt with. We should try to reduce the total trash generated, but that does not seem to be a priority in our society.
There is talk that Simi Valley does not get money from WM, but the property is in Ventura County and has been, but now people want to change that in order to get the money. If you owned the business, would you really want the Simi Valley City Council to make decisions that affect the business? I know of businesses who have said if they had to do it over again they would locate in another city.
It is also mentioned that there is nothing positive about the expansion. Is that really true? Not based on what I have heard.
There is no mention of anything negative if the expansion is not approved. Perhaps because people have not looked into the issue and are basing their decision on only one side.
If the task force is being honest, then why is there the claim that they have some conditions in which they want in order for the expansion to go forward? One is that Simi Valley annex the land so that Simi Valley gets the money. Why not just say that there is NOTHING which is acceptable that can be done for the expansion?
It is a nice issue to rile the public with misinformation. It can help a person to get elected.
Personally, I think it is best to have all the information before making a decision (which I do not have and therefore have not made a decision). From what I have seen, there are positive and negative issues both with the expansion and with not allowing the expansion.
The task force does not have a web page that you can document what exactly they are claiming. WM has a web site:
http://www.keepingventuracountyclean.com
which has information. If their information is false, then something should be done to get it corrected. It is stated that the total daily tonnage is not changing, although the percentage of the type would be. The total tonnage is also a bit deceptive since some of that material, such as green waste and recyclable materials are removed from the site.
As a side note, I would suggest that you look at some of the people involved and other things that they are involved in. I have heard that in Bridlepath that the most recent HOA election had over 100 ballots (around 40%) turned up missing, which then meant that one side got elected to the board. I have heard this from several people. If I got elected under those conditions I would demand a new election. Right now if the residents took action, they would basically be suing themselves since the money to defend this action would come from the HOA, which they paid into, instead of those involved.
Mr. Sandberg, I know you and I have not seen eye to eye on many things, but I want to personally invite you to a meeting of the Task Force so you can ask any question you have regarding us and or the landfill. And yes, we have met with Mr. Smith and Tignac on the expansion. We are a grassroots organization and don’t have the time or financial resources to have a website, however, we can give you the research documents we gave to the County.
Yes, trash has to be dealt with, and we (the county) are doing so. As it stands right now, and this is documented in the EIR report, there is no need for the expansion at this time. Our landfill is good til 2034 IF we only take responsibilty for Ventura County trash, which the Task Force has no problem with. So, I hope you will take me up on getting together to discuss our findings regarding the expansion.
Thank you
Just as an added note, the other City Council Candidates/Mayorial have met with the Task Force. We welcome you as well.
Web sites are cheap and easy to do, as least at a simple level.
Please point me to the document in which you speak of. I would be interested in seeing those, as I am sure others are as well.
Go to the Countyh’s website and look up the EIR.it’s pretty simple
Fishman,
I went to College in Denver at Federal and the I70. You could smell that dog food plant all the way across the city of the wind was blowing in the right direction. Pretty Nasty.
How do you feel about the dump increasing their loads from LA county by 3000 tons?
I think that the city and the opponents are going to get a lesson on the opposition to the Unocal project when this thing is all said and done. What really sucks is taking all the trash from LA.
Ted
I respect the insight given from both you and others on all the additional trash from LA. I don’t know enogh at this time to comment adequately about additional LA trash.
I think it would be wise to do all that we can to keep the revenue for Simi, Ken brought up the possibility of annexing the land and that seems like it would be worth a look.
All said and done I think there a challengers this year that are commited to looking at the present problems that the current city leadership has brought us, and have a better vision of how to move us forward in the future. I think new blood will look at current problems in new and fresh ways, and not be dogmatic about their direction based on protecting past failures.
Sorry I don’t know more about Unocal.
Did anyone see the show Undercover Boss recently…if you did you see that WM is a class organization that deals with something that none of us like; trash. It seems that if our city had good leadership to not put housing in bad places, did what it took to keep that revenue in our city, then maybe expanding the dump wouldn’t be such a bad idea and our city economy would thrive because of it!
Thanks Ted, I wouldn’t be bummed at a little insight about Unocal.
Barbra, I would suggest that you take the time and effort to put up a web site, if you really want to inform the people of all that you want to say, if you don’t mind having a record of what you are saying. I have looked at the County info, I thought that you had something additional.
As I understand it, right not WM is not at the max for tonnage, so what makes you think that suddenly there is going to be a large increase? The trash from LA is a valid issue, but it seems to me that the desire to get the land into Simi Valley is a greed issue. Yes, it would help Simi Valley, but you have to ask why.
I have seen questions about why WM wants to do the expansion, but ignored are all the reasons outside of the trash. I suspect that one issue is that if they move from Easy St, then Simi Valley will lose money. Reduced traffic, especially on Easy St, due to parking the trash trucks up at the landfill itself seems like a good thing to me.
Honestly, it seems to me that the real reasons are not being said and instead emotional arguments are being used in order for some to get what they really want.
I saw a comment that some of the view might be reduced from the freeway if the expansion happens, but then what do all those sound walls do? The view is reduced and the sound is worse since the walls reflect the sound back at the vehicles. Then, consider the view that will occur if the expansion does not occur as the permitted land will be used.
Then consider if the landfill is not expanded and eventually closes, what is the cost of trash removal going to be? Is everyone going to want to pay that? Where will the people responsible be then and will they admit their mistake and do something about it?
It is not all black and white, but as I said, it is best to try to get the facts, not the emotion, before making a decision. No, I have not made a decision, but I do see the good and the bad both ways.
Well Ken, I am just to busy to build you a website. I suggest you read the EIR and then you won’t have to take my word for anything.
Props to you Ted on a great article in the Acorn last week. Couldn’t have expected bettter from a guy educated in Colorado!
I actually attended Colorado Christian, not far from where you were…I love that we are fighting for the same great city in California now!
There will be a discussion about the Landfill on the City Council agenda for Monday night. The agenda and the landfill EIR should be posted on the City’s website later today.
Don’t be surprised if the Landfill comes up late on the agenda, like around 10:00 p.m. on Monday when most people have either gone home or turned off the cable broadcast.
Not sure why the City would want to bury the Landfill issue for late in the night, but its the City Manager who sets the agenda. And who can ever figure out what the City Manager’s agenda is.
Actually Mitch, the CM may have imput to setting the agenda, but in the end the Mayor has final say.
Barbra,
Thank you for the correction. I learn something new every day. Why the Mayor would want this issue brought up at the end of a packed night when most have gone home or tuned out is beyond me.
Regardless, the agenda is now up and posted on the City’s website. And it looks like the Landfill issue comes up as Item 7.D., towards the end of what may be a very late evening.
Here is the link to the agenda for the August 30 meeting.
http://simivalley.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=5&event_id=180
And here is the link to the staff report re Review of the Revised Sections of Ventura County’s Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Expansion of the Simi Valley Landfill.
http://simivalley.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=5&event_id=180&meta_id=32982
Dry reading, for sure, but the staff report gives the latest analysis of the revisions to the EIR and the draft letter to the County at the end of the staff report gives the best indication of what stand, if any, the City might take in the future on this issue.
Barbra, yeah, you are too busy to create a web site. That says to me one of two things. This is not an important issue to you or that making the information available would not help your actual agenda. You could get someone else to actually create the web page, so your claim of being busy does not hold water.
Yup, you’re right Ken, you’re not important to me and I don’t care if you have any information regarding the dump. You probably wouldn’t understand it anyway. Now shoo
Barbra, you need to take a close look at your attitude and your comments. I know you think you are better than me and everyone else most likely.
Clearly, you don’t want people to know what the task force’s issues are and when backed into a corner you resort to insults and childish responses.
I hope that others see your response and reconsider their positions, as well as understanding that your position is biased with an unknown agenda.