Mitch Green on Landfill Expansion

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.

89 thoughts on “Mitch Green on Landfill Expansion

  1. Barbra, do you realize how you look to everyone? Your behavior is unacceptable. Personally, I think that you should be removed from the City Council.

    Such statements by you show that you have nothing to say and that you have been caught in having a bad view of things. Backed into the corner with no defense, so you have to resort to childish comments in the hope that you won’t get called on it again.

    Like

  2. Barbra does not want to talk about that since she is giving information which appears to be false. Also, it seems that the Simi Valley Landfill seems to be fear mongering as shown at the last City Council meeting. Due to this, she would rather make her non-relevant comments wanting me to go away because she does not like getting called on the issues.

    I also hope that you are willing to speak out regarding her violation of the Code of Conduct.

    Like

  3. Mitch, you have read and understand the DEIR on the landfill so can you please TRY to educate Mr. Sandberg on the “issues” regarding the landfill? He just doesn’t get it. Thanks Mitch.

    Like

  4. On 07-Dec-2009 the Simi Valley City Council passed an ordinance redefining what a firearm is in terms of discharging it. This ignores a State preemption on firearms laws, but more importantly it makes no sense. They defined that a firearm is any projectile device, including a bow and arrow, airsoft gun, etc. Most people don’t realize that BB guns, pellet guns, airsoft guns, etc. are considered a firearm and may only be used at an established indoor range. A straw with the paper on it could be considered discharging a firearm since the paper is a projectile and pressure is used. A Nerf gun is specifically exempt.

    Mr. Sandberg……you need to get your facts straight…as usual. I voted no on this ordinance.

    Like

  5. Barbra, please stick to the truth and not be deceptive. I have read the DEIR and understand it, so your statement is FALSE. Did you bother to listen to what Lou said? Perhaps not, but it is interesting that it is claimed that the taskforce is not against the expansion, or at least that is what was said. One could ask about the danger of the CNG facility, which is closer to people.

    You said that I need to get my facts correct, but my facts ARE correct. Please point out exactly what is incorrect about the facts regarding the change in definition of what a firearm is. There is a song called “You’re So Vain”, perhaps you should listen to it. Where did I say how you voted on it? I said the City Council, do you think that YOU are the City Council or what?

    What is you comment “Me thinks Ken ran into a can of RAID…..” supposed to mean? Some people have a life, others it seems does not. This is just another example of your attacks, which reflects poorly on you personally, as well as on the whole City Council.

    There is also not much to discuss in this thread since it was said that Mitch is against the expansion.

    Like

  6. Yes Ken, I am against the current dump expansion plans. That is what this thread is about. It’s not about the change in defining what a “firearm” is (If I recall, its a change in what a dangerous weapon is, not what a firearm is; but beyond that I’m conflicted – I gave an opinion prior to the latest change]; and its not to stalk sitting council members, whether you agree with them or not.

    Now, if you do want to start a thread about what is or is not a firearm; or what you do or don’t like about certain council member’s conduct; or for anything else that comes to your mind, just crank out 5 to 8 paragraphs of your choice of topics, e-mail them in to Mike, and you too can have a thread that others can then come in and hijack to discuss just about anything other then the topic at hand.

    Like

  7. Mitch, look who brought up the issue of what the Council did regarding “firearms”, it was your friend Barbra, not me. I just replied stating that her statement was false.

    I am not sure of what you reference so stalking is about, please explain that.

    You should also complain about the childish comments that a certain person seems to love to post.

    Is there anything in the expansion plans which you consider to be good? Do you know of anything which will be bad if the expansion does not occur?

    Like

  8. I have some comments, Ken.

    I do know that part of the landfill expansion includes putting the trucks and refill station at the main site and off of Easy Street, which should reduce some amount of traffic up and down Madera Road. I consider that to be good. The bad would consist of how the landfill might become visible from the freeway as it gets closer to capacity if the expansion isn’t approved, though this is likely a few years away.

    I might have to take the landfill tour again. It’s been 2 years now and I’d like to refresh my memory on all of this. Unfortunately, the topic has very little momentum when compared to others.

    Like

  9. There is also more electric power that will be generated, but the fact is there is some good aspects, it is not all just bad.

    One thing that was interesting is that a letter to the Editor in The Acorn said that they should have a composting facility there. The problem with that is the smell, but I guess the person did not consider that aspect.

    Like

  10. Ok Ken, let’s give this a try, I can’t go back and see what you’re referring to when you speak about “firearms” and my comments, so would you mind clarifying? Thank you

    Like

  11. Ken, What I said, or meant to say is when that topic came to the City Council for a vote, I was the only member who voted no because I didn’t agree and if memory serves me correctly I though it was a duplication of something already on the books only written a little different…that is what my comment was about.

    Like

  12. Barbra, you need to apologize for incorrectly stating that I need to get my facts straight since I never said anything about how you voted on the firearm issue, just that the City Council passed it, which would actually include a straw with paper on it as a firearm (projectile with air pressure).

    Your statement is offensive and false:
    “Mr. Sandberg……you need to get your facts straight…as usual. I voted no on this ordinance.”

    You imply that I do not get my facts straight “as usual” is completely false and violates the Code of Conduct for a City Council Member. Such a false statement, especially since it could be viewed as an attempt to affect an election, is unacceptable and shows very poor judgement.

    Like

  13. Ken, In your statement regarding the City Council passing this ordinance, you gave the impression the entire council passed this when in fact it was a 4/1 vote. When you make a statement like that, you need to include ALL the facts, which you didn’t, hense you didn’t get the facts straight…as usual.

    Like

  14. Barbra, don’t play games and don’t be deceptive. You want to claim that I did not get the facts straight, but that is a false claim on your part and you refuse to admit your mistake. I did not state what the vote was (it is not easy to find after the fact). You can read it how you want, but it is a fact that the Simi Valley City Council passed it. There is NO additional information needed. I do not need to specify how long it was talked about, who said what or anything else. The simple fact is that the City Council passed it.

    If you want to play that game, then there is much more that you need to include when you say things, especially about the landfill.

    Your claim that I did not get the facts straight, as usual, is false and unacceptable.

    Like

  15. Come on Barbra, try to say something reasonable and intelligent or don’t bother saying anything at all. You just make yourself look bad when you behave so poorly.

    Like

  16. You are like a small child always wanting to get his way and have the last say. Communicating with you is like having a conversation with a self centered 3 year old on Prozac. It’s a no win situation, so Shoo Ken, shoo, annoying little nat, shoo.

    Like

  17. It is amazing that a person on the Simi Valley City Council would be willing to say the things that she says. it clearly shows that she lacks the judgment, ethics and integrity to hold such a position. I can only hope that she does not run in the next election, does not get reelected or that she gets recalled.

    Barbra is unwilling to actually discuss the facts and when she gets called on her deceptive/false statements she resorts to name calling.

    Now, she makes additional false statements claiming that I have to get the last say (clearly not on the topic, just calling her out for her inappropriate actions) and going beyond her usual childish comments to claim that it is like having a conversation with a 3 year old on Prozac. I wonder how she would know that, is it something that she has experience with?

    I have heard from others what they think of her behavior and none of it is positive.

    Perhaps she does not like the fact that she is the only one found guilty of illegal campaign contributions and whined that she could not understand the law, even though she was on the Council in 2001 when it was voted on.

    Barbra, you can “win” if you be honest, not deceptive, and stick to the issues and stay away from the childish comments. It does not matter if we agree or not, that is part of an adult discussion. You can not win if you want to be dishonest and/or deceptive as you will get called on it. The choice is yours.

    Like

  18. Mitch, are you really trying to claim that *I* am stalking anyone? Considering that stalking is a crime and you are an attorney, I am sure that you would not suggest such a thing since that could be considered libel. I am calling Barbra on the statements which she is making which are either not true or deceptive. She is free to claim that I am incorrect and show why her statements are actually correct and not deceptive, but instead she just resorts to childish comments.

    Also, you made statements towards me regarding the Council’s change to what a firearm is with respect to discharge, but you have not apologized since you should have directed the comment at your friend Barbra since she is the one who brought that up here, not me.

    So, do you care to explain or not?

    Like

  19. Ken, in forumese, one who follows another from post to post to badger away at them is clearly a forum stalker. You not only nip away at a certain poster on this thread, but on others here in the same forum. That is stalking. And it is down right disturbing to watch.

    As far as apologising to you about “the Council’s change to what a firearm is . . .;” I have no idea what you are referring to.

    Ken, why exactly are you in the council race? What do you stand for? What do you intend to do if elected? That’s what you should be writing about.

    Instead, I see a disturbing pattern of you going after a certain poster, again and again and again. For what? I think she doesn’t want to discuss anything with you anymore.

    Like

  20. Mitch, first off about the firearm issue. Look at your post of 06-Sep-2010, you said “That is what this thread is about. It’s not about the change in defining what a “firearm” is”. You addressed that comment to me, but I was just responding to what Barbra posted, yet you ignored that. Why is that?

    Mitch, to be quite honest I am disappointed in your comments. You seem to be promoting Barbra’s childish actions and a lack of discussion of the issues. You seem to have bought into her Landfill propaganda and don’t seem to want to look at it objectively. You need to look at the laws and definition of stalking, as an attorney you should know better.

    I do not follow Barbra. I am responding to issues and calling her on her false/deceptive statements. She has NEVER wanted to discuss the actual issues. For example, she claimed that if the landfill expansion is approved that there would be 600 additional trucks going in, but the current permitted trips is 822 and under the expansion it would be 892, for an increase of 70 trips. It is also said that the average number of trips currently is 500. So, it is IMPOSSIBLE to increase the number of trips by 600. The total tonnage is not changing under the expansion either, although the mix will. There will be reduced traffic on Madera since all the trash trucks would be parked at the landfill. When I responded to her comment, she can only say “shoo”.

    I read the DEIR and I find it interesting that creating new jobs is a negative. It does not take into account that if there are unemployed people in Simi Valley and those people get a job there, there is no need for additional housing nor recreation.

    What I am about is honesty and open communication. I have seen the Council violate the law, yet nothing is done about. For example, the vote to force the Miller’s get HOA approval for their CUP, when City Staff, Assistant City Attorney and the City Attorney all said that could not be done. I think that the change to S.V.M.C. 5-22.01 Firearm defined is absurd and shows a clear lack of common sense.

    Just look at the EVerify issue. There is currently a requirement that contractors hire legal workers, but there is a huge resistance to using a tool which helps to ensure that. Then, to add to that, but really to try to have an excuse to vote against it, there is the claim that there are high costs because if you require EVerify, then the City would have to Audit all the contractors. Well, if there is already the requirement that they hire legal workers and if there is no current audit requirements, then why suddenly is there is requirement that they audit it? There is NO change needed in the audit requirements.

    We could also talk about the ban on wood fences and the attitude that the Council knows better than the residents what they should do.

    I personally think it is quite interesting that the City Council just recently decided to talk to WM about the expansion. This should have be done when the issue was first raised, which at least Barbra seems to get.

    So why are you running?

    Are you willing to look objectively at issues like the landfill or are you going to continue to make decisions before hearing all of the facts? Personally, I have not made a decision, but there are positive and negative aspects to the expansion. I do think it is interesting that there is a view that trash coming from 30 miles in one direction is ok, but trash coming from 20 miles in another direction is not. Also that using the byproducts of OUR trash is dangerous, but that a similar facility closer to people is not.

    Like

  21. Mitch, I do have another question for you. You stated that the way that the Council is getting all the benefits is by defining the position as full-time. You, as an assistant City Attorney, were aware of this and also aware that the position is part-time, so why did you wait until you were running for office to bring this up? It seems to me that in that position, you had a duty to ensure that those types of things did not occur. What other things are you aware of that is going on like that?

    Like

  22. So, Ken, why are you runnning? Is it your mission to trash those not running and those running?

    What do you stand for?

    What do you propose for change?

    Try to step away from negative campaigning for second and tell us about you and why we should vote for you.

    Like

  23. I am tired of the corruption in the City Council. Before you react, look up the word, it is about not following the rules. When the Council voted to force the Miller’s to get HOA approval, the Council violated the rules, that is corruption. When it was last heard and one of the Council members voted against it, after two others listed the requirements, because he fundraising friend, who moved out of the area and who wrote a letter stating that it was not about the cows, that is corruption. The list foes on.

    One of the first things that needs to change is the ability of the public to provide more feedback and to have the information easier to access. 3 minutes to talk BEFORE the Council talks is not good enough and does not provide the opportunity for the public to respond to comments made by the Council which just don’t make sense (see EVerify audit comments).

    My first goal is to try to get people to pay attention to what the Council is doing and to give their feedback. It does seem that the current Council does not want everything to come out.

    Listen to the talk with the incumbents with respect to appointments. Does it seem to you that they don’t get the appointments go against the democratic process?

    You think that I am trashing you by asking if you have investigated the landfill expansion before making a decision? I am not “trashing” anyone. Your friend is the one doing that, but you don’t want to call her on that. I post a message about the various boards, and she responds with her childish comments. You claims that I am trashing people is false and just a negative attack on your part.

    Yes or no questions:

    Have you visited the landfill to see the operation?

    Have you looked over the expansion plans?

    Do you consider Barbra’s “shoo” and other comments acceptable?

    Contrary to your claim, I am not negative campaigning. I am trying to bring out the truth. Why don’t you get Barbra to explain how her claim that if the landfill expansion occurs that there will be over 600 additional trips. That is completely false since currently the average is 500 and under the expansion it will only increase by 70 trip, still remaining under 900, so it is impossible for that claim to be true.

    Perhaps you don’t like that I pointed out the problem with your making a decision about the landfill before it comes before the Council and before, it seems, you have all the facts and heard from both sides.

    Like

  24. I have read Robert’s Rules of Order. It is not the only way to run a meeting, but it also does not deal with the issue that I am talking about allowing the public to give more feedback and better timing of their feedback.

    What is wrong with allowing people to talk a short time after the Council members talk? To be able to correct them in mistakes that they have made.

    While in the Council meeting 3 minutes might be enough, overall it is not. It is too limiting for the people to be able to speak their concerns.

    The annexation issue is easier to answer. I would not have a problem with this, IF the Council was different. You already have one Council member and a couple of candidates stating that they are against the expansion. WM would be insane to want/allow the annexation to Simi Valley. To me, this seems to be the main issue, but the reality of this issue is about the money.

    There are many aspects to the expansion which are good, but there are also issues which are a concern. Overall, it seems like a positive thing. Getting the trash trucks off of Madera and Easy St would be good. Generating more power rather than just burning the gas would be better. One thing that I don’t think that most people realize is that the expansion does not mean ALL the land will instantly be covered in trash. It also means that the trash will stay further away from the freeway for a longer period of time.

    Using the methane to power vehicles is also a good thing, rather than wasting it.

    I was shocked to discover that the total area that is being used to dump trash is around the size of a residential lot and that it has to be covered each night.

    I would love to see all landfills disappear, but until we, the people, stop having trash, that is not going to happen. The trash and the methane from the trash are OURS, from us and because of us. WM is dealing with it for us, for a price, but it does not mean that once we pay that we are not still responsible for the creation of the trash.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s