Val Verde has had an agreement with the Chiquita Canyon Landfill for years. Val Verde residents live by this contract, but as of last week, landfill representatives informed the residents of Val Verde it is not a contract per se, but a term sheet.
When does a contract lose its definition? The definition of a contract is to enter into a formal and legally binding agreement. That is what Val Verde has with the landfill, or at least what Val Verde was led to believe it had for the last 19 years.
Months ago, the Castaic Town Council told Val Verde residents: “You should take some of your funds and get a lawyer.” Well, the only fund Val Verde has is through the Community Benefits Funding Committee, and that money has rules on how it can be used. “It would be a breach of contract to use the funds from the CBFC,” the landfill bosses informed the Town Council on that very same night.
So, if Val Verde wanted to use the money to hire a lawyer to read the draft environmental impact report, that would be a breach of contract. If they wanted to use the money to buy equipment to test the air, that would be a breach of contract. If they wanted to use the money to run tests on the sickest of the sick in Val Verde, that would be a breach of contract.
Why would it be a breach of contract? Well, in Section 8 of the contract, it states: “Val Verde Civic Association agrees no funds received at any time as a result of approval of CUP89-081 shall be used in any manner against the good name or activities of The Newhall Land and Farming Co. and its subsidiaries, the landfill operator, and/or landowner, in any way.”
If we did anything such as lawyer up, run tests or make a connection to one’s health and the landfill, we would then be in violation of a contract.
Every option Val Verde has looked at has been weighed against the contract we have with the landfill.
You might ask: Will they honor the contract just as much as Val Verde honors it? That would be wishful thinking.
I guess when it is the landfill and their action then it is considered a term sheet. “Term sheet” is something new to the residents of Val Verde. The first time we heard the term was at the December meeting of the Val Verde Community Advisory Committee, when the landfill called it that.
For 19 years they have called it a contract, but now that they want to weaken Val Verde’s argument against an expansion, it is suddenly a term sheet.
Section 9a: “The Landfill shall not accept sludge or sludge components at any time.” Section 12d: “The composting operation shall receive no more than 560 tons per day of green waste and no waste water biosolids,” e.g., sludge or sludge components.
Well, they took sludge; when they got caught, they changed its name to inert earth, but all of the paperwork they took in labels it sludge. You might think that is a violation of a contract, but you would be wrong; it is just a term sheet, and the landfill would not be legally bound by that. See my thinking here? Term sheet is what the landfill does to Val Verde and its surrounding communities.
The landfill eventually did stop taking in the sludge. The county issued them a stop and decease order. They stopped. The Castaic Area Town Council praised their stopping, saying, “once they knew they were taking in sludge and it was against the contract/law they stopped, like good neighbors would.” Wouldn’t it be nice if our legal system worked that way? We would not have overcrowded prisons. Once someone were caught by the law, they could just stop doing it and then we let them go.
Section 20i: “The landfill operator shall provide four free quarterly clean-up days to residents of Val Verde, showing proper identification and proof of residence at the landfill entrance.” The landfill added a little on the last dump day. When you pulled up to the gate, you showed your ID and proof of residency. Then you had to go to another area where you were asked to sign cards of support for the expansion. Some people here in town are surprised that they signed cards of support; they swear they were told to just sign it without any definition. They were under the assumption it was part of a new process. Is it a violation of the contract? Well, it is a “term sheet” when referring to landfill actions.
Section 9: “Laidlaw (name of company that owned landfill at that time; any buyer has to assume the contract) agrees to provide the Community Advisory Committee with any and all reports, data, and information provided to the District from the landfill and/or provided by the District to the landfill within 5 working days.” All violations to date have been found by much research from private residents. Some violations were found months and years later. The landfill has never informed any committee of them. Is that a violation of the contract? Well, no, it is not a contract; it is a “term sheet” because it was the landfill doing something to us, not the other way around.
Section 9g” “Nothing in this condition shall permit the maximum landfill capacity of 23 million tons to be increased.” The landfill says it can always ask. It is asking now. Here in Val Verde, we say, “NO. We had a promise, a contract with you, that this would be the last time.” Well, I guess Val Verde was wrong 19 years ago. We thought we were signing a contract when in fact it was just a term sheet. I find it hard to believe Val Verde residents would do that to their own town. One original resident who signed the contract swears it was a contract with a promise to close; there would be no more expansions. The same thing they told us at the last VVCAC meeting – that this coming expansion will be the last one. How many “last ones” can we take here in the Santa Clarita Valley?
It is now a term sheet, according to the powers that be at the landfill. I think the definition of a “term sheet” must be, “You follow the rules the way they are written, but the money gets to make or break the rules at any given whim.”
Val Verde will probably lose this fight, especially since landfills have a lot more power than anyone would know. In Tennessee, a landfill was successfully closed. Until the landfill went to court, that is. The landfill won the case on the grounds that the people were listened to. We are no longer a country by the people and for the people; we are morphing into a society where the rich do, and we are allowed to blink in disbelief.
I have slowly blinked to the belief that any county or official can be bought, and the needs of those who suffer are just dismissed.
Steve Lee is a Val Verde resident.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
REAL NAMES ONLY: All posters must use their real individual or business name. This applies equally to Twitter account holders who use a nickname.
26 Comments
If you continue to let the landfill operators define the law, you are going to continue to be at their mercy. Get a lawyer and do what you have to, and pay the lawyer in any way you can. Your homes and your health depend on it.
Thanks for highlighting this. We must all come together to fight this expansion and hold them to their original contract. I mean, term sheet.
Val Verde will not lose this fight. This fight is for the entire Santa Clarita Valley. Forty years is enough! We cannot fight Elsmere Canyon dump and win than let that fight be meaningless because we allow this legal commitment to be violated. Elsmere Canyon was in the county when the City of Santa Clartia took up the battle to defeat it at tax payers expense. It is up to the public to hold those same elected officials to the same standard now.
Lawyers don’t come cheap. This is not Valencia it is Val Verde. They picked this area on purpose because it is a low income majority neighborhood. It has been 42 years of suppressing this town and it does not appear to be stopping any time soon. Val Verde did exist before the landfill.
Oh well…Val Verde is a town of disposable people per anyone who supports the expansion. After all, it is all about the money and it is not in their backyard.
Great Article!
I know lawyers are not cheap. Read the contract/term sheet and find out if the losing party has to pay attorney fees. If they do, some attorney might be interested in looking at the problem.
Yes, the term sheet. I would be very interested to know what a Judge might think about that little issue.
Everyone can read this article about the definition and purpose of a term sheet here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_sheet
For more information and to see the items mentioned please see this web site
http://www.chiquitalandfill.net/
This is a web site the citizens of Val Verde have for reference for anyone who wishes to see the documentation for our concerns.
What’s upsetting about this is how they call a contract a term sheet. Here’s what a term sheet is and how it’s typically used. A term sheet is used in business transactions where there will be quite a bit of negotiating. The negotiations get to a certain point, then a term sheet is written up. The term sheet lists the terms agreed to up to this point and both parties sign it. This does two things: it clears up any confusion about what has been agreed to and it also keeps both parties in the negotiations. It’s typically not a legally binding document and is not meant to be one, however there are rare instances where one party sues another. It most certainly is not the final contract which both parties sign.
So, if Mike Dean from Chiquita Canyon Landfill truly believes that the document is a term sheet, then why does he reference the document as a contract when it’s to the landfill’s benefit? For instance, he said that the CBFC funds cannot be used for a health study, as it would be a violation of the contract. Or that the contract says that CBFC funds cannot be used by the community to hire a lawyer to sue the landfill.
In my opinion, downplaying the importance of a contract to a mere term sheet should not have been done, but it was. Some will say it’s another game by the management of the landfill. Others will say it’s normal negotiating practices and all part of the battle. Still others will say it’s the job of a PR firm to do things like this, so stop complaining. Either way, the document is not a term sheet; it’s a contract and I will continue to treat it as such.
Thank you.
Greg
Great article Steve. To the point with facts to back yourself!
Will you allow the landfill reps to respond?
I hope SCVTV allows their comments, if they do. I would love to see them respond to this.
I hope that their comments are actively solicited. We can then see if they have the guts to say publicly what they have apparently been saying semi-privately.
Thank you msc545, after reading the Term_sheet definition, I am convinced it was a contract, since we followed it to the tee.
I am not sure if it is or is not a contract – a lawyer would be needed to determine that. However, if it is a contract, and if you followed and they didn’t, that might be meaningful. Again – you really NEED a lawyer!
If Mike Dean says its a term sheet, That means we can take the CBFC funds and get a lawyer
I don’t live in Val Verde, but I have an interest in the problem because I do live in Santa Clarita and I don’t want this to end up happening to my neighborhood too.
Eventually you folks are going to need to hire or persuade a lawyer to help you, or you are going to get stuck with that landfill expansion. There really are no alternatives since the landfill people are not going to back down on this.
Is Mike Dean a lawyer and qualified to state if it’s a contract or not ?
Kevin, I’m afraid you went back in time and killed your grandfather. ;)
I am sure anyone can reply.
At the VVCAC meeting, I arrived late, but I heard that Mike Dean had called some residents “blatant liars”. Can someone verify this?
Mike Dean is the Division Vice President for Waste Connections and was present at the December VVCAC meeting.
The following comes from Chiquita Canyon Landfill.
.
Apology to our Val Verde neighbors
Chiquita Canyon takes very seriously its commitment to minimize odors from the waste received at our facility and we offer our sincerest apologies to our neighbors in Val Verde for the situation that occurred on the morning of December 20, 2014.
It appears we received a number of green waste loads in the morning from one of our regular customers. We routinely receive material from this company and it has a “normal” green waste smell. Unfortunately, we were unaware that our customer had a mechanical problem with his green waste grinder that prevented him from moving the green material through his facility last week. As a result, the green waste sat in his yard for much longer than usual before being processed. By the time their machinery was operating properly the green waste had a very strong odor. This customer delivered the ground green waste to us on the morning of December 20, 2014. Because the green waste was being used as mulch for erosion control it was placed away from our active working face, so our operators did not notice the strong odors coming from the green waste. We became aware of the odor issue in Val Verde only after AQMD arrived at our site on Saturday.
We discontinued accepting this “old green waste” and have taken steps to neutralize the odors coming from what was placed on Saturday. I have spoken with both the customer and personnel at the landfill to establish procedures so that this will not happen again.
This was a singular event. We offer our sincerest apology to our neighbors in Val Verde.
Mike Dean – Division Vice President
.
This sounds great and it’s appreciated, however that same evening, Mike Dean called the residents of Val Verde “blatant liars” at the VVCAC meeting. Also, on December 24th (2 days after the apology), the residents of Val Verde again made complaints to the AQMD, regarding the same type of odors coming from Chiquita Canyon Landfill. So, what gives?
Let’s see – placing the blame on someone else, denying any responsibility for the problem, referring to it as a”singular event” as if it had never ever happened before, and having yet another run-in with AQMD.
This guy is going to keep doing his shuck and jive routine with you people until you get it together and throw him and his company out of your neighborhood with a successful lawsuit.
Greg – and the additional stink/smell on December 24th – Christmas Eve – many of those calls were verified as well by AQMD, but due to the holiday the inspector received many of those calls over three hours later and had already left the area. We had the joy of a horrific smelling holiday with headaches for us all to enjoy, but these kind words from the landfill should give everyone comfort, right? They are NOT a good neighbor. If they were such good neighbors our property values would sky rock and everyone would be trying to live here – LOL :-)
I was the one Mike Dean called a “blatant liar” and then he denied it. When I suggested his stenographer read it back, everyone froze. I am positive of what I was called. Mike Dean’s apology was NEVER sent to me. Mike Dean does have my email address as I sent him a link a day after he called me a “blatant liar” about people who have died from green waste toxicity in the last 4 years.
I do not see the DUMP as being a good neighbor!
I have a big question for Mike Dean and the Chiquita Canyon Landfill….if you are so sorry why did you not make this apology more public? You could have written it as a commentary and I am pretty sure it would have been published. If Greg Kimura had not posted your apology, U would never have known you did apologize. So, Mike Dean, why did just a few receive your written apology?
Does anyone from Val Verde really expect that Mike Dean or anyone else from The Chiquita Landfill will deal with them honestly and in good faith? These people are out to make money, and they won’t let any of you stop them unless you do it by legal means. They don’t care about any of you in any way, and that includes your health and your homes. Money is far more important.