View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

UPDATED: Wilk, Knight ask McKeon to use another tactic to halt the Cemex mine

Posted: May 6, 2014 3:26 p.m.
Updated: May 6, 2014 6:57 p.m.
 

While legislative options to resolve the longstanding Cemex mine issue remain ongoing, two Santa Clarita Valley representatives are urging local Congressman Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Santa Clarita, to try a different tactic to halt the mine.

Assemblyman Scott Wilk, R-Santa Clarita, and state Sen. Steve Knight, R-Palmdale, sent a letter, dated Tuesday, to McKeon urging him to submit an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act declaring Highway 14 to be a “national defense asset.”

The National Defense Authorization Act is a federal law that outlines the budget and expenditures for the Department of Defense and the national security programs of the Department of Energy, according to the website for the House Armed Services Committee, of which McKeon is chairman.

Inserting such an amendment would effectively ban the mine from moving forward, according to Wilk and Knight.

“He’s in a position where he can actually deliver a win for his constituents,” Wilk said Tuesday. “And I encourage him to do so.”

Cemex’s mining contracts authorize the removal of 56 million tons of sand and gravel from a site on hundreds of acres in Soledad Canyon in Canyon Country.

“As you know, at its pinnacle the Cemex mega-mine will generate 700 truck trips per day on Highway 14,” the letter to McKeon reads.

“State Highway 14 is an important transportation corridor that serves as a link between L.A. Air Force Base and Naval Base Ventura County to Edwards Air Force Base, China Lake Naval Weapons Center and the defense and aerospace prime contractors headquartered at Plant 42 in Palmdale.”

Wilk said McKeon has tried this tactic before.

“This is not unprecedented; he actually did this back in 2001,” Wilk said. “The bill language was accepted. However, it was stripped out when it went to conference committee.”

Wilk and Knight said McKeon’s position as chairman of the House Armed Services Committee could help ensure the amendment stays in the bill this time around.

“This being your final year in Congress, it is your last chance to protect the people who have sent you to represent them over the last twenty-two years,” the letter concludes. “Do the right thing and put your constituents first.”

Knight said Tuesday that he signed on to support the idea because it “makes sense.”

“I think this is timely and it is certainly an important issue for the Santa Clarita Valley,” he said.

Knight, a Republican state senator, is seeking McKeon’s seat in the upcoming congressional elections this year.

So is Democrat Lee Rogers, who joined with Wilk and Knight on Tuesday in calling for McKeon to take the action aimed at foiling the Cemex mine.

“Over McKeon’s career he’s made a lackluster attempt to address this overwhelming concern among his constituents,” Rogers said in a statement, endorsing the Wilk-Knight call to action.

McKeon announced earlier this year that he would not seek re-election at the end of his current term.

Wilk represents the 38th Assembly District, which covers most of the Santa Clarita Valley as well as Simi Valley and the northern section of the San Fernando Valley.

Knight represents California’s 21st Senate District, which includes communities in the Antelope, Santa Clarita and Victor valleys.

Lmoney@signalscv.com
661-287-5525
On Twitter @LukeMMoney

 

 

Comments

listenup: Posted: May 6, 2014 3:35 p.m.

Again, Buck has to be told to do the right thing. Hold his feet to the fire. Good job Steve and Scott.


scvsoccermom82: Posted: May 6, 2014 3:38 p.m.

FINALLY someone is putting some pressure on this issue. Our DC rep is not looking out for us!


peoplesvoice: Posted: May 6, 2014 3:41 p.m.

I am glad to see that some of our elected officials are at least fighting the awful mine!!!! McKeon has been dragging his feet for years and it is time for him to actually do something to help his district!!!! he has lined his pockets with DC money for years the least he could do was go out with some dignity and help his District win a battle that seems to have been going on forever!


EgbertSouse4U: Posted: May 6, 2014 3:59 p.m.

Thank you, Mr. Wilk and Mr. Knight!! Refreshing to hear some officials actually going to bat for their constituents.


TruthSquad: Posted: May 6, 2014 4:13 p.m.

I appreciate Senator Knight and Assemblyman Wilk calling out McKeon on this issue. My question: why hasn't McKeon done this since 2001? McKeon's been Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee for at least four years.


PatriotUSA: Posted: May 6, 2014 4:33 p.m.

This is great news!! At least if Buck does not have the courage to do it we can elect Steve to Congress and it looks like he would have the guts to fight for us! I would love to hear Buck's response to this.


Lotus8: Posted: May 6, 2014 4:33 p.m.

Please do the right thing here Buck. Make this happen and your legacy will be spoken of with kind words and appreciation.


lars1: Posted: May 6, 2014 5:17 p.m.

everyone, don't count on anything major going to happen.

Cemex mega-mine will generate 700 truck trips per day on Highway 14,
from the mine to newhall land and farms 20,000+ home development "newhall ranch".

it will be done because our "leaders" are bought off by big business and developers. this is why nothing final has ever been done.


OldReliable: Posted: May 6, 2014 5:26 p.m.

Seriously, this proposal makes no sense at all. How many other so-called vital thoroughfares would require the same designation? Besides that, this issue reeks of a political agenda.


Rocketeer: Posted: May 7, 2014 11:51 p.m.

Did NO ONE read the article before commenting? This tactic was originally Buck's idea.

He's the chairman (not the dictator) of a committee of 63 people, 29 of whom are Democrats and oppose anything Buck does on partisan principal.

Buck tried this tactic, it failed, and he saw nothing change since that would lead him to believe it would succeed. These other politicians are hopefuls for his seat- they're proposing he try something everyone knows is doomed to failure merely to drum up some publicity for themselves. That's why Democrat Lee Rogers has said "me too!"

Cemex is the Democrats punishing Santa Clarita for being conservative, same as the chloride regs they've inflicted upon us.


ricketzz: Posted: May 7, 2014 6:11 a.m.

If the cement trucks were going to Newhall Ranch they wouldn't have to go on the freeway. They can cut through Agua Dulce.


Lotus8: Posted: May 7, 2014 9:50 a.m.

He doesn't have the power, nobody will listen, we are being punished by democrats, sounds like it won't work, it doesn't make any sense...boo hoo. Losers make excuses. Winners get results. Make it happen, Buck. The valley overwhelmingly backs the effort to prevent the mine from opening. Intent and well wishes are worthless without results.


NoLawAgainstCommonSense: Posted: May 7, 2014 7:15 p.m.

EgberSouse, are you kidding me? Your comment makes sense only as sarcasm. What could possibly be construed as "refreshing" about this desperate idea being drug up out of the septic tank by the vote-hungry? All they did was write a letter throwing a dead man under the bus for the sole purpose of promoting themselves.

Never mind the fact that this idea makes no sense whatsoever. Declare the freeway a national security asset and then somehow, the cement companies can't go on there with a truck? So then we accomplish our goal of having no cement to build schools with?


Allan_Cameron: Posted: May 8, 2014 11:31 p.m.


When you are committed to victory in a war, all tactics are considered. If what Wilk and Knight are suggesting can help, only good things can come from giving it an all out try.

As Safe Action for the Environment. Inc. Andrew Fried described in a column a few weeks ago, the Federal Bureau of Land Management would like to have the CEMEX mine proposal be the first in what would become over 100 years of sand and gravel mining on a titanic scale in Santa Clarita Valley.

Regardless of the legacy Buck McKeon thinks he will leave, it will be forever defined by what he does, or does not do to stop this mega-mine.


NoLawAgainstCommonSense: Posted: May 8, 2014 7:27 a.m.

Allan_Cameron, you are committed to victory in a war which was already lost, at great cost to you and your fellow citizens, and was not at all worth winning in the first place. Zealotry and a "by any means necessary" attitude does not advance the interests of the truth.

From the very first page of the state report "Aggregate Sustainability in California 2012":

The building and paving industries consume large quantities of aggregate and future demand for this commodity is expected to increase throughout California. Aggregate materials are essential to modern society, both to maintain the existing infrastructure and to provide for new construction. Therefore, aggregate materials are a resource of great importance to the economy of any area. Because aggregate is a low unit-value, high bulk weight commodity, it must be obtained from nearby sources to minimize economic and environmental costs associated with transportation. If nearby sources do not exist, then transportation costs can quickly exceed the value of the aggregate.

Transporting aggregate from distant sources results in increased construction costs, fuel consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, traffic congestion, and road maintenance.

To give an idea of the scale of these impacts, from 1981 to 2010, California consumed an average of about 180 million tons of construction aggregate (all grades) per year. Moving in 25 ton truckloads that is over 7.2 million truck trips per year. With an average 25 mile haul (50 mile round trip) that amounts to more than 360 million truck miles traveled, almost 47 million gallons of diesel fuel used, and more than 520,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions produced annually. If the haul distance is doubled to 50 miles (100 mile round trip) the numbers double to 721 million truck miles traveled, almost 94 million gallons of diesel fuel used, and over 1 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions produced.

Read the full report here:
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/information/publications/ms/Documents/MS_52.pdf

Side note:
The tactic which Knight and Rogers pretend to advocate (not for themselves of course, but for the dead man walking, Buck Mc Punching Bag) is what is referred to in politics as a "dirty, sneaky little trick." Usually they don't send their plans to do those to Luke Money at the SCV signal. The fact that they did is proof positive that they think you and others like you in the SCV are dunces whose votes can be bought for almost nothing.


NoLawAgainstCommonSense: Posted: May 8, 2014 8:12 a.m.

Rocketeer, I have a question about your conspiracy theory that Democrats are using the CEMEX mine to punish you for being a Republican. This deposit of stone is the result of geologic forces from millions of years before mankind existed.

Are you suggesting the Democrats are to blame for the forces of geology?

In 1986, when the deposit was designated by our state scientists as "regionally significant", that meant that it is critical to the economy of the region and the state as a whole. In other words, we can't afford not to have this mine. The impacts are on a scale which takes a little bit of time and thought to truly comprehend.

As a conservative, how can you advocate for strangling the economy by polluting the air? Truck trips would be reduced if the mine were to open. Greenhouse gas emissions resulting from our need for aggregate would be reduced by about half. We consume a lot of aggregate, is that the fault of the Democrats as well?


OldReliable: Posted: May 8, 2014 8:22 a.m.

As though California environmental laws would be ignored. Sheeesh...


JoJoinscv: Posted: May 9, 2014 12:01 p.m.

Safe Action for the Environment wrote an excellent article on the proposed mine… http://www.safe4environment.org/SAFE/Home_files/SAFE_CEMEX_April2014_v4.pdf
Also, many do not know that sand and gravel was not considered by the State of California to be a "mineral" included in property reserved mineral rights until sometime in the early 1980's. I like Curtis Sand and Gravel's "new mountains" of old concrete waiting to be crushed back into aggregate instead of tearing up land mining virgin aggregate. This is how urban areas should be required to meet their constructions need for aggregate. There is no shortage of old concrete plus it will reduce the bulk in our landfills.


NoLawAgainstCommonSense: Posted: May 9, 2014 3:00 p.m.

JoJoinsvc, you mention that you "like" Curtis' revolting pile of rubble next to the freeway. What's to like about that eyesore? How long has it been sitting there? If it were economical to crush and sell it for any purpose, don't you think Curtis would have done that by now? It's a God awful mess which the taxpayers will have to clean up someday.


JoJoinscv: Posted: May 10, 2014 7:06 a.m.

NoLaw, if you think the Curtis man made hills of used concrete waiting to be crushed is ugly, just wait 'till you see what Cemex does to that 2000' mountain just to the east! Really, sand and gravel ops are ugly, MEGA mines are mega ugly. I think ugly should be spread around. If each urban area has to meet its own needs for cement by recycling its old cement within its boundaries the local jurisdictions will make sure their "ugly" is managed and disguised. As a property owner out here since 1977 I have become so weary of proposal after proposal from urban areas to the south who want the biproducts of their urbanity shipped "out in the desert" where they don't have to look at it...


NoLawAgainstCommonSense: Posted: May 11, 2014 9:34 a.m.

JoJoinscv,

While your recycling idea may sound good in theory, in practice it is not able to overcome it’s ugliness by being feasible. It’s a bit like saying we no longer need the Gulf of Arabia because you gave up driving and now ride a bike. What is really ugly to me is a regional aggregate shortage causing huge economic and environmental damage, to everyone’s detriment and for no benefit, since the mine doesn’t pose a hazard to anyone.

To quote the state report Aggregate Sustainability in California,
“Because aggregate is a low unit-value, high bulk weight commodity, it must be obtained from nearby sources to minimize the dollar cost to the aggregate consumer and other environmental and economic costs associated with transportation.”

To give you an idea of just how inadequate the recycling idea is, imagine you started a company called “JoJo’s Custom Crushed Concrete.” Let’s assume someone gives you a one ton truck and a loader for free. Let’s also assume that to save money, you do not get a contractor’s license or pay for any business licensing or insurance, and ignore all OSHA and other regulations. From various jobs around town, you accumulate a ton of discarded concrete, which you load by yourself into the truck with the loader. Once you have a ton, you haul it 30 miles to a crushing plant owned by a friend, who crushes it for you for free. Let’s also assume a purchaser is sitting at the plant waiting to buy the finished product. For all your good luck, you would then be able to sell your ton of “JoJo’s Custom Crushed Concrete” for around $16.

Naturally occurring sand in a massive deposit, moved and processed by a zero emission, 100% self-generating electric plant, makes a lot more sense. The modern equipment is a lot different than that which was being used in all the local mining plants you bought property next to back in 1977. Because we need so much of the stuff (LA County alone consumes 34 million tons per year, more than half of the total allowed at the Cemex mine over a 20-year period) the difference between these two options is huge. We would reduce our regional emissions by the total amount of annual CO2 generated by about 20 or 30 small countries combined.

I don't think there's any basis for comparison between the pile of mixed trash and the mineral deposit. One is in the middle of town, sits literally in the river channel, is useless at best and probably toxic, and ugly as sin. The other is 2 miles away from town and as you say, on the other side of a 2000' mountain where it can't even be seen, well out of the river, and is very valuable both economically and environmentally.


FunTimeSportSharks: Posted: May 11, 2014 10:54 a.m.

Things seem to only happen right around election time. I hope this is not a dog & pony show being put on to get elected by Wilk & Knight and I hope Wilk & Knight are sincere about the pressure they are putting on ole Buck (they need to keep the pressure on after the election is over too).

Hopefully, CEMEX will never happen. Traffic is only a small amount of the issue, the main concern is the impact on our health. The dust blowing around the area from this site on windy days would be horrific (similar to that of the areas off the 210/605, 210/15 & 15/61, 15/90 FWYS).

I still would like to know the following:
1) The type of rock being crushed? Is it serpentine (containing asbestos), silicates (containing granite), etc... ?

2) The particulate size (how big the gravel is to be, the more crushing the more dust/particulates are generated). Water shouldn't be wasted to "water down" their dust (especially during drought years).

3) What type of air emission/dust controls, etc...? From a health impact standpoint, serpentine rock is a huge health risk, not to mention the health threat from the exhaust of 100's of diesel gravel trucks driving back and forth to and from the place near so many residential neighborhoods.

4) Do we know where they are at in regarding the air permitting and EIR process? CEMEX needs to go through the AQMD permit and EIR process (which usually takes several years). This process includes a detailed evaluation of various impacts: health, traffic, light, noise, etc.... The possible health impact to the community is a big part of this. These processes require significant public review and input. If this process is currently going on, it would be great for the public to know about it so those of us sentenced to live next to it can voice our concerns and fight it.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: May 11, 2014 6:13 p.m.

The poster calling herself (himself?) No Law Against Common Sense must be a person relatively new to the Santa Clarita Valley.

He/she writes as if all the quite technical issues about the suitability of this Mega mine in Santa Clarita are somehow unknown to those of us who have fought this economic and environmental holocaust for over 15 years.

In this fight, we gave not been alone. Here are just a few of the organizations that are officially on record in opposition to this outrage:

(Bear in mind that I am in the real estate development business)

1. The California Association of Realtors
2. The San Fernando Valley Association of Realtors
3. The Santa Clarita Valley Association of Realtors
4. The Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of Commerce
5. The Santa Clarita Valley Industry Association
6. The William S. Hart Union School District
7. The Santa Clarita Valley Community College District
8. The Castaic Union School District
9. The Newhall School District
10. The Saugus Union Elementary School District
11. The Sulphur Springs Union Elementary School District
12. The Acton/Agua Dulce Unified School District
13. The Castaic Lake Water Agency
14. The Newhall County Water District
15. The Santa Clarita Water Division
16. The Signal Newspaper
17. Radio Station KHTS
18. The Los Angeles County Castaic Area Wide Town Council
19. The Los Angeles County Agua Dulce Town Council
20. The Los Angeles County Acton Town Council
21. The City of Glendale
22. The City of Lancaster
23. The City of Palmdale
24. The City of Santa Clarita
25. The California Democratic Party
26. The Democratic Party of Los Angeles County
27. The Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley
28. The Santa Clarita Valley Republican Assembly
29. The Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission
30. The National Sierra Club
31. The Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club
32. The City of Piru
33. United States Senator Barbara Boxer
34. United States Senator Dianne Feinstein

Please see next post. This partial list is only one third of the formal opponents to this mine.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: May 11, 2014 7:00 p.m.

(Continuing with more of the formal opponents to this mine0

35. The Los Angeles County West Ranch Town Council
35. The Sand Canyon Homeowners Association
36. The Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association
37. The Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment (SCOPE)
38. The Clean Air Coalition
39. Friends of the Santa Clara River
40. Safe Action for the Environment, Inc.

If built, this would be the largest sand and gravel mine ever proposed to the Federal Bureau of Land Management in United States History. It is NOT Curtis Sand and Gravel, circa 2016 and beyond.

Perhaps if the poster listed under the name of "no law against common sense" had a copy of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)/National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) extensive report on this outrage, and had actually read it, her/his comments would perhaps be far, far different.

I have read these documents. Moreover, I am in the real estate development business. I have, in my company archives, hundreds of CEQA and NEPA reports, all of which I have read during my 34 years in business.

This project is both an economic and environmental disaster.

CEQA and NEPA both allow a significant "loophole" to be employed for a project to be approved if the damage to the environment cannot be prevented, or reduced to a level of insignificance through "mitigation" measures. This "loophole" is known as a "statement of overriding considerations of public benefit".

This "SOC" device is one of the most abused provisions of both the State law (CEQA), and the Federal law (NEPA).

It allows degradation of the environment to proceed, if there is a so called "overriding benefit" to the public that somehow outweighs the damage.

It also allows all of the damage to the environment to happen, uncorrected or prevented.

For this mine outrage, the "SOC" statement was adopted for the following areas of degradation:

1. Air Quality
2. Land Form degradation
3. Traffic Congestion
4. Effect on Identified Wild Life Corridors

Astute readers will notice that the mega mine outrage was formally opposed by all the professional realtor organizations that had jurisdiction or interest, including the State Wide organization.

They did so because of the extremely negative economic effect the mine would have on property values, new development being willing to locate in Santa Clarita, and the catastrophic effect of mandatory disclosure on property sales all over northern Los Angeles County.

Those who know and understand oppose the mine.

Those who know and understand support Senate Bill S771.




NoLawAgainstCommonSense: Posted: May 12, 2014 10:35 a.m.

Allan, the unabated fears outlined in your lengthy and very frothy post are not significant in the cold light of day. The worst impact you would experience if the mine were to open would be a bruised ego.

Your position is similar to that of someone who is willing to cause a radioactive dust cloud which will wipe out a hundred square miles of life, including their own, in order to remove a speck of fly feces from their kitchen counter. No item of disinformation from the SAFE website you repeat can change the fact that longer haul distances cause increased economic and environmental costs. These effects are so much bigger than the fact that a few tractors will be operating 2 miles away from town. As a real estate developer, it really behooves you to gain an understanding of this.

You say you have read lots of things about the mine. You then state non-facts and don't support anything you say with an official document of any kind. Why not take a look at the state report which is only about 16 pages of text?

http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/mlc/Pages/index.aspx

Ask yourself if the air quality impacts of having a freeway in our town are "less than significant." Try to put it in perspective and realize that the freeway generates hundreds of thousands of times more impact than a couple tractors at a mine. Why not advocate for demolishing the freeway in order to artificially inflate property values? There is no way to make sense out of the nonsense you purvey.

Let's not try to make it about who has been here longer. I am fairly certain the minerals, and the fact that this has always been a mining town, predates us all. It's not all that hard to understand that this is because there are minerals here.

As for property values, you are looking at it backwards. The value of property next to a mine is already affected by that fact, if it has any effect. By advocating for cancelling the mine, you are looking to create an increase in the value of property to line your own pockets at the expense of the region.


NoLawAgainstCommonSense: Posted: May 12, 2014 11:35 a.m.



Allan_Cameron, you list the SCV Signal as being on record as opposed to the mine. Are you sure about that? They do publish Andrew Fried's letters to the editor. But when I read articles written by Luke Money or any of their other actual journalists, I don't see them interjecting opinion, just reporting things they have learned. Certainly nothing as hyperbolic as your calling a gravel mine "an economic and environmental holocaust."

That type of comment does a disservice to those who actually experienced the holocaust, and I think you should apologize for making such a disgusting remark.

Here's another article which apparently has escaped your attention during your 14-year campaign against Common Sense.

From the Los Angeles Times:

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jan/21/local/me-15126


Allan_Cameron: Posted: May 13, 2014 11:19 p.m.

I am working to save everyone from the holocaust of this mine. "common" in his (her?) several posts attempting to justify the mine, negates the only thing of any value from the WWII tragedy.

That is the concept of "never again".

As the Simon Wiesenthal Center will be happy to verify for anyone who asks, the concept of "holocaust" is, tragically, applicable to many events in the past, and all through out human history, up until the present time. The events of WWII are frequently known as "THE holocaust". While the effects of the mine cannot be compared with "THE holocaust" of WWII infamy, it is clearly in terms of its documented effects, "A holocaust".

My use of the term is not at all disgusting.

It, based upon the facts, accurate.

Unfounded insults are the last refuge of the frustrated and defeated.

"common" asks if the Signal "is really on record" against the mega mine.

The Signal has been, and is, on record against the mega mine. Just call the paper at 661-259-1234 and ask for City Editor Lila Littlejohn. Ask "Is the Signal Newspaper formally on record in opposition to the TMC/Southdown/CEMEX sand and gravel mine?"

I specify Lila, because all the rest of the Signal Staff, including the Publisher and Editor were not around when the Signal adopted it very sober, principled stance of formal opposition.

"Common" does not (yet) question the veracity of the other 40 listed, public, formal mine opponents. If such questioning awaits, please let me know now, so I can complete the list out to the more than 110 organizations who joined the cause. Please see next post.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: May 13, 2014 12:08 a.m.

"Common" does not appear to be at all curious or interested in the massive California Environmental Quality Act= Environmental Impact Report (CEQA EIR), and the National Environmental Policy Act= Environmental Impact Statement (NEPA-EIS) that were issued on this mine proposal.

Were "common" to read these two documents, she/he could clearly perceive why the opposition to this mine has been so dedicated, comprehensive, and steadfast.

Post review of these documents, why the term "a holocaust" is so appropriate would be easy to understand.

As just one example among hundreds, in these documents, the Chief Air Quality Analyst for the Los Angeles Unified School District, acting as a consultant for Safe Action for the Environment, Inc. (SAFE, Inc.), and the City of Santa Clarita, detailed at length the deadly serious health effects on school children from the mine. These effects, (of course) apply not only to the kids who live and attend schools nearby, but to kids all over northern Los Angeles County. These effects could not be "mitigated".

Someone would have to actually read these documents, of course, to know of this.

"Common" states that I have not validated my position with any documents. Last time I checked, the EIR/EIS, which lends itself to weight training, qualifies as more than just "a document".

"Common" also refers to "just a couple of bulldozers" as being on site in the mine, and how these "two" do not compare to the pollution from a freeway.

Again, research would be the key to the avoidance of embarrassment.

The project studied in the EIR/EIS revealed many vital details. Such as:

The mine proposed to operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week.

The road to the mine needed to be widened to four lanes from two to accommodate the thousands of huge trucks per day that would access the mine, and them travel (so the report said) to Las Vegas, Orange County, and San Diego and Ventura Counties. (One of many falsehoods. These areas have their own sand and aggregate resources.)

A huge fleet (20 or more) of skip loaders, scrapers, trucks, and bulldozers would be on site and operating at all times. Please see next post.


Allan_Cameron: Posted: May 13, 2014 12:49 a.m.

As mentioned, "common" has chosen to resort to personal insults on this "thread". Just a friendly tip. Insult is not argument or fact.

If this is to continue, however, please note the following:

1. This "thread' has now been removed by the Signal from the easy to locate sections of its web site, and placed into the "archives".

2. This means that the "readership" of these comments has dwindled to an audience of 2. Allan Cameron, and "common".

3. "Common" knows the following about me.
a) My Real Name
b) The overall nature of my profession.
c) Something of my background.
d) And now, a phone number where I can be reached. 818-634-8669.

4. If insults from "Common" are to persist, and mine support further attempted, then the following would be appropriate:
a) "Commons" real name.
b) A summary of "commons" background, so that this unusual (to say the least) mine advocacy can perhaps be given some context.

5. All who post under a false name forfeit all hope of being regarded seriously.

Of course, standing up for what one says, bolstered by ones identity, takes a degree of personal courage. (Not really a great deal, however. Facebook has one billion posters. All use their real names.)

So, I herewith invite "commons" to give me a call at his/her convenience. Real communication, (since readership of this thread is now 2) is far superior to "post posturing".

If "common" chooses to decline this modest request, however, than a disclosure as suggested above would longer be needed.

The refusal would, in of itself, reveal all that is necessary.



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...