Huber Responds to Landfill Task Force News

Today, The Simi Valley Landfill Expansion Task Force issued the following statement (in part):

“With the current application for expansion of the Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center and the resulting negative impacts on the community, the issue of annexation of the landfill site and contiguous property owned by Waste Management to the City of Simi Valley should be of paramount importance to the City.  Therefore, at the September 20th Simi Valley City Council meeting, Council Member Barbra Williamson will request scheduling for public discussion the annexation of the landfill and adjacent Waste Management properties.”

Council Member Barbra Williamson (a task force member) has asked that the issue of annexing the land for the expansion of the Simi Valley landfill and the proposed commercial development be placed on the agenda of the next city council meeting.

On September 7, Simi Valley Mayoral candidate Bob Huber sent out a press release, which, in part said:

“Today Mayoral candidate Bob Huber called for the immediate start of the process to annex to the City of Simi Valley the land to be used by Waste Management for expansion of their facilities and commercial development.”

“For at least five years the City of Simi Valley has watched the process, yet has not taken any action to make sure the people of Simi Valley have a controlling vote on the use of this property,” said Bob Huber

Once again Huber has opened up an issue, that the City Council could have resolved years ago. In this particular case, more than five years ago.

Currently the County of Ventura has jurisdiction over the landfill expansion and development of Waste Management’s property. Annexation would give The City of Simi Valley jurisdiction over the landfill expansion and development. Thanks to the push by Bob Huber, the City of Simi Valley will consider starting the process of protecting its almost 128,000 citizens by ensuring the City has control, instead of allowing County Supervisors representing cities such as Ventura, Oxnard, Ojai, Fillmore and Santa Paula to control the landfill expansion, added traffic and pollution to our streets, massive commercial and residential development.

Huber said, “City Council needs to be aggressive in protecting the quality of life of Simi Valley–it needs to be pro-active, not reactive.”

13 thoughts on “Huber Responds to Landfill Task Force News

  1. Monday night quarterbacking comes easy for some when you are running for election. All kinds of accusations seem to find their way to local headlines. While I understand the need to be in the headlines, what I don’t understand is why this problem wasn’t taken care of back in 1980 when the then sitting Council Member had a chance to annex the landfill but choose to ignore the elephant in the room. Another issue I don’t understand is where was this candidate when the Task Force was holding all the meetings on the EIR? Where were his questions and input about the content of the EIR? I eagerly look forward to all the help the Task Force can get on the annexation of the landfill; however I deplore grandstanding on the shoulders of a group of citizens who worked for two and a half years because it is expedient for their campaign rhetoric.

    Like

  2. Long Term Resident, Thank you. But I have a problem with anyone who tried to take credit for something they had nothing to do with. Mr. Huber didn’t and hasn’t done anything to push the City Council. Yes, he has written a press release, granted, and he said some pretty flashy words, but where was he when there was work to be done? Where was he when we were burning the midnight oil to get our 32 pages to the County about the EIR and the annexation? And most important, where was he 30 years ago when annexation was discussed?

    Like

  3. Granted Huber has sat quietly until now, but the Councilmembers have sat on their thumbs for the two years Barbra’s Task Force has been shouting about the dump expansion and the need for Annexation. Anyone who claims Annexation is the key to regulating the dump expansion is lacking. Simi Valley can annex until the sun don’t shine, but the dump expansion will be in the hands of the County. The real issue is why hasn’t the current City Council taken a hard stand on the dump expansion over the last two years. It appears that they have been waiting for the City Manager to put up or down a thumb. It is time for the City Council to put forth opinions on the dump expansion!

    Like

  4. zero for Sojka (probably a Brown Act violation if he had, according to the City Attorney) Bob has attend two since his announcement. (which we do appreciate, don’t get me wrong)

    Like

  5. The only Council person to even talk about this since the last election was Barbara now that it’s been placed on the front page by Bob Huber it will be interesting to see what happens next. WM will have pause agreeing to annexation and their valid excuse will be the way Simi Valley treats businesses.

    Like

  6. Ted, when you bring up the Unocal project, be clear that the Council would have let Unocal move forward, IF Unocal would have gone before voters to let voters decide to allow a variance to the Hillside Protection Standards. Unocal wanted the Council to do that. The Council wisely said, no, since the HPS is a voter-approved law, the voters should decide. Unocal did not want to do this. Unocal could have revised their project to avoid the hillsides in question, or gone to voters to let voters approve the variance. They decided to do neither. If the Unocal project was such a great project, perhaps voters would have said OK. We’ll never know. Be honest about your Unocal mentions.

    Like

  7. One thing that keeps surfacing in my mind is, here we have this longtime property owner in Simi, that went through this lengthy costly process fair and square on a proposal, only to have these last-minute ideas and roadblocks thrown at it from all directions. I’m not saying the landfill expansion is good or bad. I don’t know the pros and cons well enough. But I do believe in property rights, and from what I understand Republicans believe in property rights and most of the candidates involved in this debate say they are Republicans. Isn’t Mitch Green the only Democrat running?

    I mean, you have this 30-year owner of a property in Simi Valley, a business owner, operator and large employer, and this is how it is treated? No, I do not work for Waste Management. But if, say, Farmers or B of A wanted to expand, wouldn’t they add traffic to the freeway and local streets also? Would that trigger this type of discussion?

    Of course some will say the landfill is not in Simi Valley, and that’s why we need it annexed. Well, bull-hooey. It is in Simi Valley proper, the geographic Simi Valley surrounded by Simi Hills and the Santa Susana Mountains. “Annexation” is a campaign catchphrase. Simi Valley Landfill has been part of this community as long as most people can remember, regardless where City Limits rests.

    My main point keeps getting back to land use and property rights. It seems supporting additional governmental intervention onto a business’s operations is not something candidates in this election would say they support.

    Just tossing another angle into the discussion. But maybe this is too broad a concept for this election. Perhaps property rights was not polled. Or it did not poll well.

    Like

  8. “Property rights do not apply wether annexation occurs or not.” Huh? Property rights always apply, for all owners of private property, under the U.S. Constitution. It does not matter which governmental agency is considering the proposal. The thrust of my post was, why are certain candidates throwing the concept of property rights out the window in their zeal to claim an elected office?

    I’m actually rather offended by the comparisons of the Reagan Library with a landfill.

    One thing we have yet to hear is Bob Huber’s actual position on the landfill expansion. He has an idea about annexation. What is his position about the actual expansion proposal?

    Like

  9. Simi valley currently has no jurisdiction over the landfill……….and NEVER will. That is a County responsibility assigned to by the STATE……
    Oh and one thing everyone seems to keep forgetting…
    Waste has to AGREE to be annexed..we can’t just say let’s annex, wave a magic wand and its done…

    Like

  10. It is interesting to see the claim that some candidates are using the landfill expansion being used as an issue in order to get elected. Didn’t someone do that two years ago?

    It is interesting that at the last Council they finally decided to talk to WM. It is about time. Regardless of the reasons, at least Barbra has raised the issues and been willing to talk to WM all this time. The whole Council should be been taking an active role on this from the first that the expansion was mentioned.

    I also have to wonder about a conflict of interest with respect to being on the task force and also talking about this while on the Council. It seems like a conflict to me, especially when that person had made statements which do not seem to match the facts, such as claiming that if the expansion is approved that the truck traffic will increase by 600, but since the average number of trips is shown as 500 and the total number of trips will still be under 900, it just does not seem possible unless “new math” is used.

    I am also concerned about those who have already made up their minds about the expansion, but seem to not have investigated it much, if at all.

    I have yet to see any real, not emotional, reasons as to why people are against the expansion. The current footprint is not actually used and the expansion clearly deals with future needs of the public. There are positive aspects and some issues of concern. It seems like some people think that if the expansion is approved that suddenly ALL the land will be covered in trash, instead of only around 7500 sq ft at a time.

    It is interesting that adding jobs is a negative aspect listed in the DEIR. It does not seem that they get that either people in the area will get a job there (look at the unemployment rate) or will commute there. It is doubtful that they will need to purchase a house or need recreation here.

    So, other than people wanting to get rid of their trash, not wanting to pay a fortune and hating landfills, what specific reasons are people against the landfill?

    I saw the fear mongering of the LNG, but I missed the same thing with the CNG for the buses, which it was mentioned that there was increased traffic since Moorpark would also use the facility.

    Like

  11. Jackie Says:
    Barbra, you have already stated on this blog that if we annexed the landfill we would have the power to approve or deny the expansion….
    No Jackie, I said we the city would have control over the land surrounding the landfill. The expansion still falls under the County.

    Ted……..are you sure I have to hold my comments?

    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