33 Comments

1. Jennifer Fischer says:

   Friday, Aug 1, 2014 at

   Thank you so much for continuing to highlight this issue. As a Val Verde resident, I am hoping the County listens and that our voices will be heard. The landfill has way more money, power and legal steam than we do, but a previous agreement guaranteed that the landfill would be coming to a close. I, along with so many other Val Verde residents as you note, hope they will honor their existing agreement. As you saw, we don’t want another expansion. I wish I could have been there last night, too, but had little ones at home to care for. Thanks again.

   Reply
2. Cynthia Kimura says:

   Friday, Aug 1, 2014 at

   Thanks Darryl for coming out to the meeting and reporting on it. Your right, one of the speakers said that the sweet pungent odor is reminiscent of vinyl chloride. The speaker said that vinyl chloride and hydrogen sulfide are not tested locally in Val Verde. They also have the same side effects that many residents are complaining of. Coincidence?

   Reply
3. Steve Lee says:

   Friday, Aug 1, 2014 at

   I am one of the members of the VVCA. I cannot speak for the entire board, but I would like it closed. I was a little, well more then a little pleased to see, that not one resident that was pro landfill was from Val Verde. At least the ones who spoke. That is a big testimony, some of those speakers will be walking away from scholarships for college if the landfill closes. That to me is sacrifice.

   Reply
   • SCVNews.com says:

     Friday, Aug 1, 2014 at

     Steve – of course the “VVCAC” would have to be a Brown Act body (subject to the state’s open meeting law). You, or anyone, might want to requisition the 700 Forms, which must be filed annually by each member, under state law. At least they would tell you where the members say their money is coming from; and if they haven’t been filed annually in a timely fashion, you (or anyone) could file a complaint with the FPPC.

     Reply
4. Abigail DeSesa says:

   Friday, Aug 1, 2014 at

   One note of correction if I may. The CATC = Castaic Area Town Council did take a position last night loud and clear. The president, Flo Lawrence, stated he is in full favor of this expansion. The total three people mentioned in this commentary were either from the town council or from Castaic outside of Val Verde. The two CATC members that represent the area of Val Verde spoke in opposition. One of the in favor people was so rude as to compare this landfill expansion with people opposing a golf course – how can he belittle this issue like that? I will tell you. The CATC stands to gain 30% of any of those negotiated fees with Val Verde if that is what ends up happening with another expansion. Castaic has already negotiate their money. They have not lived in it like the residents of Val Verde, but with the proposed size increase they are so in favor of, they just may get. Then it will be too late.

   As a Val Verde resident I want the truth, and my family and neighbors health protected. Our property value already stinks and there is no repairing that for years to come.

   Thank you for covering this very important issue.

   Reply
   • SCVNews.com says:

     Friday, Aug 1, 2014 at

     Are you saying the Castaic Area Town Council is actually selling out Val Verde? For cash?

     Reply
   • SCVNews.com says:

     Friday, Aug 1, 2014 at

     If that is the case, you might be looking at a civil rights lawsuit. And with the civil rights attorneys who’ve been hanging around the SCV lately, it could be a snap. What are the demographics of Val Verde nowadays?

     Reply
5. SCVNews.com says:

   Friday, Aug 1, 2014 at

   Please do. Or I will. -Leon

   Reply
   • SCVNews.com says:

     Friday, Aug 1, 2014 at

     Well, no, if County Counsel says it’s not subject to the Brown act, I will have a conversation with the FPPC and the Attorney General. It certainly would not be the first time I’ve had to go that route to get an LGA to comply with state law. (And yes, I served on enough similar agency bodies to know the correct answer.)

     Reply
6. Abigail DeSesa says:

   Friday, Aug 1, 2014 at

   In regards to the ones who live outside of Val Verde, that is for the people to decide. One way or another in time it will come out and be judged the same way the people of Val Verde have been judged for more than a decade and a half.

   The people of Val Verde have been accused of taking hush money all along – it was you are losing this battle money from what I have seen.

   Reply
7. SCVNews.com says:

   Friday, Aug 1, 2014 at

   Just to get a time frame in my head, when were you planning to talk to county counsel?

   Reply
8. flo lawrence says:

   Friday, Aug 1, 2014 at

   Just to be crystal clear. The CATC did not take a position last night. Four current council members spoke, two in favor, two opposed. I’m pretty sure I mentioned that I was speaking as a community member, and not in any way representing the CATC. But Abigail, how can we have a reasonable dialogue when your version of reality is so far from what actually happened? Saying the CATC took a position at this hearing is irresponsible and untrue. But people reading that on this news site don’t know that. Let’s be accountable for what we say, and what we post, shall we? Thanks.

   Reply
9. flo lawrence says:

   Friday, Aug 1, 2014 at

   And while we’re focused on accuracy, somebody tell Darryl that the CATC is elected, not appointed. And we are not a government agency. Rather, we are all volunteers. We have no authority. Also, the CBFC has over a million in the bank – so much for “it doesn’t seem to have any extra money”. Finally, the CBFC works with the VVCA to distribute funds in the community. So, while “the glue” gets no “fanfare”, they are the community leaders and you can be damn sure they have input on the use of the mitigation funds. Val Verde has strong leaders and they look out for their community. Good! But lets paint an accurate picture. Is there any fact-checking going on over there at SCV News? Or is a good story just that?

   Reply
   • SCVNews.com says:

     Friday, Aug 1, 2014 at

     You are a “public agency” as defined within the context of the Ralph M. Brown Act. That’s why you file 700 forms annually. One hopes.

     Reply
   • Greg Kimura says:

     Saturday, Aug 2, 2014 at

     Flo,

     Can you clarify what you meant when you wrote “the CBFC works with the VVCA to distribute funds in the community.”? Before I respond, I’d like to know where you’re coming from.

     Thanks

     Greg

     Reply
   • Greg Kimura says:

     Saturday, Aug 2, 2014 at

     Flo, you also state that these funds are “mitigation funds”. I would like to clarify this point.

     The current Val Verde funds are not mitigation fees. These funds were not given to Val Verde to replace the funds that are typically paid to the county (a mitigation fee). Please read the agreement and you will see what I mean.

     Fast forward to today and we know that the community leaders are attempting to come to an agreement with the landfill and the county, regarding mitigation fees. These mitigation fees are typically given to the county, however they have graciously offered to allow the community(s) to work with the landfill and come up with a way to give the money directly to the community(s). The county, the landfill, the CATC, the VVCA and the VVCAC have all called this money “mitigation fees”.

     I made a statement at the last CATC meeting regarding the current money Val Verde receives and that it is not mitigation money.

     Just a clarification.

     Thank you.

     Greg

     Reply
10. Abigail DeSesa says:

    Friday, Aug 1, 2014 at

    I don’t understand why you are so upset Mr. Lawrence. Please do not sink to name calling and degrading comments as they are not a form of productive communication. “reality”

    If I did not hear you state you were only representing yourself as an individual that may be due to the microphone not picking up your comments very well at the beginning. You certainly could have pointed that out in a more civil tone. But let’s recap some facts even with that in mind. Are you the president of the CATC? Are you for the landfill? Did you participate in negotiating 30% of whatever is negotiated would go to Castaic already; an area that claims there is no negative issues with the landfill?

    I don’t see how I was inaccurate other than who you say you were representing last night, but I do see you are very nasty and I am very glad you do not represent me. You have been rude here to someone you do not even know. Thank you for showing your true colors as you are not capable of explaining your point of view politely. Very bad representation for Castaic in any form you want to put it. Very sad.

    Try to have a great day while your air is still not as disgusting as our air here in Val Verde. You will get to enjoy it soon enough when you get your 30%. You will be held accountable by the people you say you represent when that does happen.

    Reply
11. SCVNews.com says:

    Saturday, Aug 2, 2014 at

    Just in case anyone ever has any question about what type of body is or is not subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act – which is even MORE directly applicable to the VVCAC because, as enumerated in section 3.4 of its bylaws, all members are APPOINTED BY THE COUNTY SUPERVISOR, thus making it an appendage of the county. Note that the Agua Dulce Town Council was also organized as a nonprofit corporation, and that its members mistakenly thought the Ralph M. Brown Act did not apply to them.

    Agua Dulce Town Council

    SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

    Case No. BS 096594 Petition filed May 9, 2005 JUDGMENT.

    Petitioners – Mary Johnson, Mike Gibbs, Brendon Cangiano, Richard Dyer, Denise Holland, Mike Holland, Timothy Alan Rosenberg, Aline Rosenberg, Lorene Cangiano, Connie Spears, Eric Harnett, Melissa Harnett, Jeffrey Pierce, David Aiello, Crystal Blackstone, and Stephen Chang, individually and as residents of the Town of Agua Dulce,

    DATE : July 15 , 2005 TIME: 9:30 an DEPT. 85

    V.

    Respondent- Agua Dulce Town Council, a nonprofit public benefit corporation.

    The above proceeding came on regularly for trial before the undersigned on July I5, 2005, Richard A. Fond and Judith M. Sasaki appeared for Petitioners and Christine M Kudija appeared for Respondents. Petitioners asserted, and Respondent denied, that Respondent is subject to the Brown Act (Government Code §54950 et seq. and that Respondent has violated the provisions of Government Code §54953.5. Respondent asserted, and Petitioners denied, that if Respondent violated any provision of the Brown Act the violation has been cured and that, as a consequence, the Court is required by Government Code §54960.1(e) to dismiss this proceeding, with prejudice.

    The Court has read and considered all of the written arguments submitted by the parties; has read, considered and received in evidence all of the declarations and exhibits submitted by the parties and the parties’ written Stipulation re: Facts and Documents (“the Stipulation”), filed herein on June 23, 2005; and has heard and considered the oral arguments of counsel at the July 15 trial. Having done so, and based in part of the facts and documents that are the subject of the Stipulation, the Court finds and concludes as follows:

    Findings

    1. The Court is commanded by the preamble to the Brown Act (Government Code §54950) and by the appellate case law interpreting the Brown Act to construe the Brown Act liberally in favor of coverage. In interpreting the various provisions of the Brown Act, the Court is also commanded to give meaning to every word and to avoid making any term surplusage or nugatory. People v. Craft. (1986) 41 Cal. 3d 554, 560.

    2. Respondent, the Agua Dulce Town Council was created in 1991 by the approval and adoption, by the residents of Agua Dulce, an unincorporated town in north Los Angeles County, of the “Charter for Agua Dulce Town Council”. Respondent is an active California non-profit public benefit corporation, incorporated in 1994. A copy of the “Charter for Agua Dulce Town Council” was received in evidence as Exhibit A to the Stipulation.

    3. Petitioners are all legal residents of the Town of Agua Dulce who, in accordance with the provisions of the Respondent’s Charter, are “eligible voters” who are entitled to vote in elections for Councilpersons and to participate in proceedings held by Respondent.

    4. Respondent has adopted By-Laws, which have been amended from time to time. A copy of Respondent’s current By-Laws was received in evidence as Exhibit B to the Stipulation. By-Laws Article 6(3) states that the Respondent Council’s Secretary’s duties include electronically recording all regular and special Council meetings”.

    5. Prior to the commencement of this proceeding, the only electronic recordings of Respondent’s meetings made by Respondent were made with a cassette tape recorder. Respondent’s audiotaping ceased in February 2005. Between then and the commencement of this action, Respondent did not successfully create any electronic recordings of its meetings that were audible, complete and comprehensible.

    6. Prior to April 27, 2005, members of the public were permitted to audiotape and videotape the meetings of Respondent.

    7. On April 27, 2005, Respondent passed a motion that “Agua Dulce Town Council meetings are not to be electronically recorded by any outside entity or entities.” This resolution was not on the agenda for Respondent’s April 27, 2005 meeting.

    8. In passing said April 27, 2005 motion, Respondent and its members acted in good faith, based on advice they had received to the effect that Respondent is not subject to the provisions of the Brown Act.

    9. On May 18, 2005, after this proceeding had commenced, Respondent passed a motion rescinding the April 27, 2005 resolution banning public recording of its meetings.

    10. Notwithstanding its rescission of the April 27 resolution banning public recording of its meetings, Respondent has asserted that it is not subject to the Brown Act and, therefore, that the question of public recording of Respondent’s meetings is a matter that lies exclusively within the discretion of Respondent.

    11. Respondent is regularly contacted by people with applications pending before Los Angeles County for land use permits involving property located in Agua Dulce. These applicants report that Los Angeles County staff or the Los Angeles Regional Planning Commission or the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has directed them to present their projects to Respondent and to seek Respondent’s support. The applicants report, further, that the County would not consider their applications further until after they had presented their projects to Respondent and Respondent had made a recommendation to the County. When requested to do so, Respondent sets aside time at one of its regular meetings to allow the applicant to present his project. If asked to do so, Respondent then informs the appropriate County department, board or commission, in writing, of Respondent’s position regarding the applicant’s project. Petitioners presented testimony regarding five such applications, which testimony was received in evidence.

    12. Respondent has, for the past five years, been preparing a proposal for a revised Community Standards District Ordinance. Respondent intends to present this proposal to the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Department and the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission for ultimate adoption by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. If and when Los Angeles County adopts the revised Community Standards District Ordinance, it will become part of the Los Angeles County Code and have the force of law in Agua Dulce.

    13, Referring to itself as “the Council,” Respondent has posted the following statements on its website, http://www.aguadulce-ca.com:

    a. “‘The Charter does require the Council to act as the community’s representative, and in doing so, the Council has historically functioned as a conduit between the community and the County of Los Angeles, its various departments and Section Heads, and the Supervisor’s office. The Council also meets on a regular basis with developers, environmental groups, law enforcement agencies, individual constituents and various representatives to the State Assembly and Congress in order to gather information or request action on issues of importance to the Agua Dulce community.”

    b. “There is no other organization or individual in Agua Dulce which operates with the official portfolio of the Agua Dulce Town Council.”

    Conclusions

    1. The unincorporated Town of Agua Duce is a “town,” as that term is used in Government Code §54951; and, therefore, a “local agency” within the definition set forth in §54951.

    2. Respondent is a “legislative body” within the definition set forth in Government Code 54952(b), in that it serves in an advisory capacity to the community of Agua Duce and to the County of Los Angeles, and was created by a Charter, as that term is used in §54952(b).

    3. On Apri1 27, 2005, Respondent violated the Brown Act, Government Code §54953.5, by passing a motion that “Ague Duce Town Council meetings are not to be electronically recorded by any outside entity or entities.”

    4, On May 18, 2005, Respondent cured its Brown Act violation by rescinding the April 27, 2005 resolution described in the preceding paragraph.

    5. Respondent having cured its Brown Act violation, the provisions of Government Code §54960.1(e) require that the Court dismiss, with prejudice, Petitioners’ claim based on Respondent’s Brown Act violation.

    6. The dismissal of Petitioners’ Brown Act claim is not intended to violate the Court’s conclusions that (a) Respondent is subject to the Brown Act and ( b) that prior to the commencement of this proceeding Respondent violated the Brown Act.

    Judgment

    Based on the Findings and Conclusions recited above, and good cause appearing therefore, it is adjudged and decreed that

    1. Upon the entry of this Judgment, this proceeding shall be dismissed, with prejudice.

    2. Petitioners and Respondent each shall bear their own costs, expenses and attorney’s fees incurred in connection with the claims and defenses asserted in this proceeding.

    Dated: August 1, 2005

    Dzintra Janavs, Judge of the Superior Court

    Reply
12. Steve Lee says:

    Saturday, Aug 2, 2014 at

    I want to make this public, just in case. I would like the news to be informed.

    Monday night after our VVCAC meeting Arturo and I were winding down out back with a glass of wine. A white car with two people in it slowly drove up our street, passed our house and then turned around. Except we never saw them drive down the road. I waited about 5 minutes and thought what the hell. I walked around the house and low and behold they are parked in my driveway at my closed gate. They saw me, backed up there car and took off. I mean really took off.

    Today, one of the people fighting the fight with us, was visiting me and low and behold a car comes up our street, this time a black Mercedes. When my friend sees the face, she says, “Oh, my god that is the guy that was pro landfill at the Castaic meeting. He passes my house, and he to turns around, passes our house and parks in the field next to our house. My friend leaves. The guy gets out and just stands there and smokes a cigarette on this vacant lot, the whole time looking at my house. Well a co-member of the board I sit on, (VVCA) drives up and I tell him the whole story. The man gets in his car, my friend gets in his car, and the Mercedes takes off and moves fast down the street.

    Intimidation?
    I thought I was getting an offer on my house. I guess I am going to have to stay.
    I am enjoying how this is playing out.

    Reply
    • SCVNews.com says:

      Saturday, Aug 2, 2014 at

      What are the county rules for putting a big (anti-landfill) yard sign in front of your house?

      Reply
    • SCVNews.com says:

      Saturday, Aug 2, 2014 at

      And on an only slightly more serious note, what would it take for the VVCA to conduct a straw poll of Val Verde residents, as Mr. Manzer suggested (a “vote”)? Our position on the landfill is quite simply this: We are here as the voice of the community. We support what the community wants. Think Cemex. The community of Agua Dulce (and some others) don’t want it, so we don’t want it. We give no quarter to any “outsider’s” opinion on that. With respect to the landfill – which, as defined in the funding agreement, is *in* Val Verde (by virtue of including Township 4 North, Range 17 West, S.B.M.) – we want whatever the community of Val Verde wants. There seems to be some confusion on the part of people who are supposed to be “liasing” between the landfill and the community — which means they’re supposed to be expressing the community’s wishes when meeting with the landfill representatives. Well, we might think we know what the community wants, based on the overwhelmingly one-sided comments we see, but it’s difficult for us to be dead-certain we know what the community wants without some sort of a poll or a vote. Then, whatever the community says it wants, we would be happy – no, it would be our responsibility – to fight for it whole-hog.

      Reply
13. SCVdad33 says:

    Sunday, Aug 3, 2014 at

    Is the person trying to intimidate you wearing white as well? Sounds like someone has been watching too many episodes of The Leftovers!

    Reply
14. Greg Kimura says:

    Friday, Aug 8, 2014 at

    I need to correct an assumption Flo made, regarding the VVCA.

    The VVCA has zero input into how the CBFC distributes money in Val Verde. The VVCA President sits on the CBFC Board and receive no vote, just like Chiquita Canyon Landfill, Newhall Land and Farm and Mike Antonovich’s rep.

    I do look out for the community and I do my best to insure that there is no misuse of funds. I help guide the CBFC, regarding operations and business matters, but the decision on how the money is spent does not come from me. I report my findings to the community during our monthly meeting.

    I hope this clears things up.

    Greg Kimura
    President, VVCA

    Reply
15. Marty Kreisler says:

    Friday, Aug 8, 2014 at

    I testified at the hearing in favor of the landfill. Flo was the first to testify and I followed him. Both Flo and I said we were on the CATC and were testifying as individuals and not for the CATC. The record will show that. As a resident of Hasley Hills, I was testifying that the view from this area should not be changed or impacted. There are pictures from Hasley Hills in the DEIR in section 15. I said most people don’t know the Chiquita Landfill is even there and making a final home for the trash that leaves their homes. Isn’t it interesting that none of those against the landfill expansion have any problems using their trash barrels. There are proposed mitigation fees being proposed if and when the landfill expansion is approved. I indicated that nobody wants to discuss the mitigation fees because it sounds like hush money. So we won’t talk about them, but everybody who is living in Val Verde and Castaic needs to be aware that this is an opportunity that is VERY unique. In other areas, that money goes into a county black hole and never serves the local community. I also believe these expansions are a fact of life, and they have every legal right to make the expansion. Check the record in other areas. I know that is difficult to accept, but it is true. I am aware that the managers at Chiquita Canyon use every possible technology to make odors, dust, noise and traffic non issues. I heard the complaints that Val Verde residents were very vocal about, however, the landfill provides for every opportunity to complain and have somebody from the landfill or AQMD actually visit their homes and determine for themselves if there is a problem and then make sure efforts are make to eliminate the problem. Funny thing about that…while the calls have gone up from a FEW people, there has been no problems when AQMD or the landfill actually come out to determine what the problem actually is…that tells me there is an effort to flood the call centers and then there is no problem to actually prove. Fortunately for everybody, there is a process for proving problems and the landfill is very sensitive to actual problems if they exist. There was also some thought about polling the people of Val Verde. I believe that would be about 2,000 people. Make sure they understand all the facts before asking them to take sides. Tell them what they would lose if the expansion is not approved. The money Val Verde receives now goes into a number of very important services being uniquely provided to the residents of Val Verde. The proposed Mitigation Fee will more than double what is being received at this point. No expansion means it is all gone…nobody gets anything!

    Reply
16. Cynthia Kimura says:

    Friday, Aug 8, 2014 at

    Marty –
    I am a Val Verde resident who has called on 3 occasions for odor complaints. These were actual odors I smelled. On one occasion, I smelled a sweet, pungent odor. According to ATSDR, a governmental agency, this odor may be indicative of vinyl chloride. I would never falsify a call, “to flood the call centers”. Remember that the landfill was scheduled to close in 2019. It is also currently one of the largest landfills in the country. If the expansion goes through as planned, the footprint will double. We will then have the equivalent of 2 of the largest landfills in the country. The elevation will increase about 13 stories higher than currently capped at. Do you really think that with the increased elevation and tonnage, the odors will not affect additional residents? It’s very easy to look at the money involved when you don’t live in the area and really aren’t affected.

    Reply
17. Abigail DeSesa says:

    Friday, Aug 8, 2014 at

    Cynthia – if Marty gets his way and the landfill does double its footprint he will get to enjoy the lovely smell of vinyl chloride you do.

    It is okay when it is in some other person’s backyard, but what he fails to understand is it really will make it to Live Oak, the industrial park, and Hasley Hills facing the industrial park. The money is clouding his vision and unfortunately he and anyone else who thinks the landfill does EVERYTHING they can to keep the odors contained will find out the hard way. That is after their money has been spent and there is nothing left to keep them comforted by the stench that permeates every corner of their homes unless they close it all up. They will get to have an outrageous electric bill while living like a mushroom entombed in the dark. No more children practicing sports in their yards, swimming in their pools, swinging on their swings, and fun BBQ’s for everyone.

    WE DO NOT WANT THE MONEY – we want our health and property values to improve. If our property values improve we wouldn’t need the money you feel so strongly we need.

    Sadly, you simply do not know what you are welcoming into your own neighborhood – the air your going to breath, your children, your spouse, your best friend down the street, etc…

    As for Val Verde filling up our trash cans – we recycle like crazy out here. We have done our fair share of taking the trash for this entire area plus outside of it for 42 years. It really is time for someone else to enjoy these amazing benefits you feel come with living next to a landfill. We need to share :-)

    Sorry – but you called me personally a liar here and you have no right to do that as you do not know me. Funny, the AQMD guy today told me he did smell it when he was driving into Val Verde and that he knew we were not making it up – I guess he is a liar too…

    Reply
18. Steve Lee says:

    Friday, Aug 8, 2014 at

    I wish the landfill took the smells as seriously as Marty say’s they do. Marty, come and walk the streets with me and talk to the neighbors who live in the stench. Talk to the 3 families who have had miscarriages, 7 of them between the 3 of them. Talk to the people who actually do have scholarships from the CBFC and are willing to walk away from them. It is easy to be for money coming your way, when you do not have to smell the daily smells. The funny thing is, I get letters in my mailbox that say I live in the town of
    castaic, when in fact I am part of Castaic, but I live in Val Verde. I am what you spit on.

    Reply
19. Greg Kimura says:

    Friday, Aug 8, 2014 at

    Marty,

    I don’t think you’re making an informed decision. One night last week, I went to a resident’s home on Lincoln (right where it turns the corner and heads toward Chiquito Canyon). After about 10 minutes in the odor, I began to feel nauseous. I thought it may have been something I ate, except my friend made that comment that he wanted to leave, because he was feeling sick to his stomach. The odor wasn’t that strong, however the constant rotting smell did something to me to make me feel sick.

    Marty, you’re a real estate agent. In good conscience, could you sell a home like this to a person? I don’t know you well, but my gut tells me that you’re an honest man and you would feel horrible if you sacrificed someone for money.

    I ask that you come visit the homes right near the corner where Lincoln turns toward Chiquito Canyon. Come around 9:30-10:00 pm after a 95-100 degree day. At first, you’ll say that the smell is there, but it’s not that bad. If you walk around, you don’t get that sick feeling – it only happens when you’re standing still. Stand in front of the two homes across the street from the hillside for 15+ minutes and talk to the residents (Steve or Darcy). Those are homes of families – people who work hard to earn a living and they deserve to live without the nuisance of landfill odors.

    Are your ethics and morals high enough to do what is right? You and I know there is a lot of money involved, but are you willing to trade the money for the lives of these people?

    Reply
20. Steve Lee says:

    Friday, Aug 8, 2014 at

    Marty I was out hiking, and I got to thinking, You said 4 members of your board spoke at the meeting. 2 for the land fill, and 2 against. I think all information should be included, the 2 opposed were Val Verde residents. Leaving out the all the facts is a little deceiving. Just thought that should be pointed out.

    Reply
21. Cynthia Kimura says:

    Friday, Aug 8, 2014 at

    Marti – You said, “…the managers at Chiquita Canyon use every possible technology to make odors, dust, noise and traffic non issues.” Do you realize that you made a false statement? The Chiquita Canyon Landfill does not purchase the same anti-odor machines that Sunshine Canyon does, so how are they using “every possible technology”? By the way, do you know why Sunshine takes the extra step? Well, they were forced to purchase them. Their community sued the landfill and they were forced to buy the machines. Our community hasn’t sued Chiquita Canyon Landfill, so we don’t get the additional equipment… just the reassurance they are doing everything possible?

    Reply
22. Brandi says:

    Saturday, Aug 9, 2014 at

    For those of you who think we are making these odors up I wish you were at my house right now. It takes a lot of time and energy to make the calls. We call not just the AQMD but also the landfill and the Val Verde board. I get emotional when people say we are making this up. You need to understand that when the AQMD comes out it is almost always 3 hours later. Most of the time it does not smell for 3 hours straight. When they come out again it is more time and energy. Why would we do that? money? Are you serious!! That money does not come to us it goes directly to community programs. I guess our health mean so little to people that they would trade it for a couple community programs!! All we are asking is that the Landfill honor there contract with us and close in 2019. They have already extended their time open and now they want to expand!! How is this fair we the community had a contract and now we are told it means nothing!!!

    Reply
23. Greg Kimura says:

    Monday, Aug 11, 2014 at

    Steve Roter,

    Shame on you for believing the landfill propaganda.

    Reply
24. Roger says:

    Wednesday, Aug 13, 2014 at

    Has anyone with all this information of wrong doing called the landfill to ask about it? Guessing not… so shame on everyone here. I really think everyone needs to hit the reset button. I’m not sure why everyone has to be so adversarial to each other. Perhaps those who believe something wrong is happening at the landfill should contact the landfill and have a conversation before blurting out stuff as facts. Just a thought…

    Reply

Leave a Comment