12 Comments

1. Natalie Tate says:

   Sunday, Nov 16, 2014 at

   Mr. Manzer the percentage of people who showed up or were able to even vote is extremely interesting. In today’s world it is amazing that people take the time show and voice their opinions. Thank you for your opinions and opening important discussions. Here’s to a beautiful windy day!

   Reply
2. Jennifer Fischer says:

   Sunday, Nov 16, 2014 at

   Thank you for continuing to highlight this important issue. I hope more and more residents of the Santa Clarita Valley will educate themselves about what the landfill expansion would truly mean and the potential hazards and will make their voices known. It will take a large number of residents making it clear to Michael Antonovich’s office that we don’t want this expansion to keep it from happening.

   Reply
3. Susie Evans says:

   Sunday, Nov 16, 2014 at

   Thank you for bringing more light to this entire situation. It is sad that more of the Castaic proper residents had no idea of the vote for the CATC nor are they aware of the landfill expanding in their direction. All those expensive signs for certain candidates did nothing for them. I wonder who exactly paid for those wonderful expensive banners that were placed all over Castaic proper for incumbents that lost on such a small percentage of voters.

   I actually sat and watched the voting for CATC reps for about three hours. The process amazed me. Two young people were paid by a CATC member to sit and do the intake of the voters, mark them off the register and hand them their individual ballots for their area. They had no experience in verifying actual residents versus those who claim to live in the area. They only had printed lists of registered voters for the three areas that had more than one candidate. I could have said I was a friend of mine who lives in Castaic and voted. I didn’t see anyone asking for verification or proof of who you are.

   There were only three boxes to place your votes. There were four openings on the board. I was turned away and not allowed to vote simply because my rep was running unopposed. I wanted to show my support and vote for me rep no matter what, but they wouldn’t let me. I heard from a few of my neighbors they were denied their voting rights based on the same reason.

   There were CATC reps watching the boxes and a hired county employee to watch also. Not sure who paid the county employee.

   Granted this was not a vote for the Governor or the President, but it seemed to me to be run a little loose, leaving the opening for various illegal voting activities.

   Reply
4. Kristin Hampton says:

   Sunday, Nov 16, 2014 at

   Didn’t hear a word about it. How come?

   Reply
5. Steve Lee says:

   Monday, Nov 17, 2014 at

   This coming Wednesday the Castaic Town Council will vote to change their bylaws. The one thing they want to change it the two thirds vote required. They would like it to be a simple majority.
   At the last meeting a lawyer informed Val Verde residents why the two thirds did not count when it came to voting for the contract with the landfill. The president also informed Val Verde residents how the two thirds vote had never been used before for any decisions. Even when they voted to buy shirts.

   That sent a strong message to me as a resident of Val Verde. Shirts must surely outweigh the quality of life for any resident of Val Verde.

   The votes in section 1 and 3 of Castaic sent a different message. The quality of life for residents near the landfill is much more important than shirts. I want to thank Castaic voters for that message.

   I would like to also that the Val Verde residents who visited friends in the other regions of Castaic and made them aware of the issues. Val Verde is part of Castaic, and they too have a right to quality of life.

   Reply
6. Greg Kimura says:

   Monday, Nov 17, 2014 at

   For those who don’t know, I am on the CATC Board as one of the representatives from Val Verde. I was at the CATC bylaws meeting last week and I would like to clarify the following statements:

   1. The simple majority will be for contracts which pertain to services or purchases and will still require multiple bids, be fully funded, etc, so the change is from 2/3 to simple majority. The reason being that all members of the board may not be in attendance and it should not hamper the ability of the board to move forward with purchases or services. All other contracts will require 2/3 majority and will be a new section – the board feels this is important and needs to be 2/3 majority.

   2. The extension from 2 to 3 consecutive terms is correct, however the first term does not count if that person took over a vacant seat. So theoretically, it could be as high as nearly 16 years. Currently it is 12 years. The reason for this is that it’s sometimes difficult to get someone to run, so if they want to serve that long, they should be allowed to.

   3. The vote to accept the agreement with the landfill has already taken place. The results were 6 for and 4 against.

   The bylaws were being looked into early this year and the Bylaws Committee has done an exceptional job correcting errors and confusion. There are only a few changes to the bylaws that don’t fit into the category of correction/clarification. I don’t feel that this is being rushed, because the old board is going away. I do feel that the bylaws need to be updated and I’m glad that our Bylaws Committee has done so.

   Reply
   • SCVNews.com says:

     Monday, Nov 17, 2014 at

     Greg, when you say the vote to accept the agreement has taken place, you meant to add that it was defeated, right? Since a 6-4 vote is not 2/3, but rather 60%, so it failed, right?

     Reply
7. Greg Kimura says:

   Monday, Nov 17, 2014 at

   45% methane levels are very scary! We know that there are lots of pipes under the trash which are full of methane. I don’t know how they interconnect, but I’m pretty sure they do, therefore if a truck ran over a rock and caused a spark in an environment where 45% methane levels existed and it caused an explosion, we could be looking at explosions in the pipe network and the entire landfill going up. We have residents who are very close to the landfill and an explosion of methane filled pipes sounds pretty dangerous.

   – My question is threefold: how did the methane levels get so high, how long was it that high and why did it take so long to detect?

   – There probably should be a fifth questions: What has been done to insure the residents that this will never happen again.

   Reply
8. Greg Kimura says:

   Monday, Nov 17, 2014 at

   By the way, has anyone heard about the landfill producing those test results they promised, regarding the sludge they illegally took in? I’ve asked and they refuse to provide them. The only reason I’m asking is because John Musella made a public statement that the landfill did test the sludge. If there’s nothing to hide, then why not release the results?

   Why is this important to us?

   – The community asked the county to put a condition on the landfill that they would not accept sludge, which is in the CUP.
   – The community asked for this, because sludge is highly concentrated materials. Much of the water is evaporated out of the material and the leftover is sludge.
   – We know that any trace materials in the watered down mixture is now concentrated when it becomes sludge.
   – We feel that it can’t be good for the community to have loads and loads of sludge dumped in the landfill, right next door
   – We know that the sludge the landfill took in was banned from being accepted by Toland Landfill.
   – We were told that Toland was not allowed to accept the sludge, because the arsenic levels were too high per Ventura County standards.
   – We do not believe the composition of the sludge has changed, or else it would be okayed by Ventura County and dumped at Toland Landfill.
   – We believe the landfill has not been forthcoming with us and they are hiding something, regarding the sludge and what’s in it.
   – We ask that the sludge be removed from the landfill. It should have never been brought in, therefore it should be removed.
   – If not, then show us the test results (all that the landfill has). We want to see the test results from Cater and from Chiquita’s testing.

   – These requests should be honored by Chiquita Canyon Landfill. John Musella has been quoted as saying that they’re a good neighbor. So, be a good neighbor and show us what you’ve dumped next door to us or get rid of it.

   Reply
9. Steve Lee says:

   Monday, Nov 17, 2014 at

   Then it should be 2/3 of the present members at the time of the vote. It is easy to get friends for a simple majority, harder to pull a 2/3 vote. It is also easier to feel that you know what is best for the people when you become complacent on a board for such a long time. You quit talking to your constituents and assume what they want.

   Reply
10. Bonnie Nikolai says:

    Wednesday, Nov 19, 2014 at

    This term limit change is nothing more than a self serving act by the CATC. I am set to join the council in January and I do not feel I need 12 years on the council. If one cannot accomplish what they need to accomplish in 8 years, then that would make them an ineffective leader and they should move on. This is just like congress giving themselves a raise. Greg, I am disappointed you agreed with the change. The bylaws worked for 14 years and now all of a sudden need to be changed because certain council members want to keep their power? Disgusting.

    Reply
11. Greg Kimura says:

    Friday, Nov 21, 2014 at

    Bonnie, I ask that you look at the bylaws and changes and see what you think of them. After seeing the changes, I think you’ll see that there are only one or two that are anything but clarification. A lot of work went into updating the bylaws and I think Sandia did a great job.

    Reply

Leave a Comment