Daily Brief – April 6, 2007

All the SCV news that's fit to print, packaged up with a pastel-colored bow, ready for your consumption. It's your Daily Brief, after the jump.

News

Caught with 17lbs of pot, Moorpark man headed for jail: Corpus has the scoop on the I-5 stop that lead to the arrest of one William Perez, 33, of Moorpark, who was pulled over for speeding and was found to have five duffel bags full of marijuana.
Santa Clarita men plead guilty in Oregon Department of Corrections bribery case: Guilty are Michael Levin, 52, and William Lawrence, 48, both of Santa Clarita, who owned L&L Inc, a food business that sold products to the Oregon Department of Corrections. They plead guilty in Federal court on Thursday. Levin & Lawrence bribed an Oregon Department of Corrections official named Farhad "Fred" Monem to buy foods they could not sell elsewhere. Lawrence and Levin will be sentenced on June 27; they could face up to 13 years in federal prison, but prosecutors say they will seek shorter sentences if the pair continue to cooperate with the feds. Fresno Bee story.
Magic Mountain attendance down, way down: Dobuzinskis has the story on Magic MOuntain's attendance last year. 2.5 million people visited the park, off some 10 percent, which makes the Mountain the 20th most visited theme park in the country. Magic Mountain says that the decreased attendance was due to the news that Magic Mountain might be sold.
NorthLake under consideration at Regional Planning Commission: The Castaic Town Council is concerned about a lack of parks, traffic, and the water runoff system in the 3,900 home development east of Interstate 5. Katherine Geyer has a full report.
Portion of Cross Valley Conenctor set to open: Jon Dell at KHTS reports that a portion of the CVC connecting SR 126 and I5 to Copperhill and Rye Canyon will open April 23 at 10 a.m.
Newhall Community Center popular: Judy O'Rourke reports that the city's Newhall Community center has increased its membership some 40%, from 1,600 to 3,000 participants.

Blogs, websites and more!

Bossert issues mea culpa, gets muzzled by Town Council: You knew this was coming. Just one week after writing this inflammatory post about crime in Canyon Country, West Ranch Town Council President Dave Bossert has issued an apology on his blog. Thus sprake Bossert:
That includes the furor that was unleashed this past week over some, in hindsight, poorly worded statements. I’m sorry! Yes, I apologize for offending the many good folks in Canyon Country by making such insensitive broad statements about their community. I have personally called Santa Clarita City Councilman Bob Keller[sic] and City Manager Ken Pulskamp to apologize. They were appreciative of the call and have accepted the apology.
That's where the story ends, right? Wrong! The Signal put hot-shot political reporter Katerine Geyer on the case, and she got the skinny on what went down after the Town Council's meeting Wednesday night:
Little was said about the controversy at Wednesday's West Ranch Town Council meeting, but following the meeting, town council members met with Bossert to discuss the problem with him. "We were not happy," said councilman Don Fleming. He said council members had a long talk with him and that Bossert issued an apology to Santa Clarita city officials. snip "Those views do not represent the entire West Ranch Town Council. They're Dave Bossert's views and his only," Fleming said.
And finally, perhaps mournfully, Bossert's future posts on WestRanchBeacon.com will have to go through a committee ringer before they are released. Could this be the end of Bossert's much celebrated colorful adjectives? Don Fleming says if Bossert wants to post about annexation or the west side's relationship with other communities, it will have to be reviewed by him and other Town Council members first. It should be noted that Bossert is a valued volunteer on the west side, and has spent a lot of time working on issues affecting his community. At times he's prone to grandiose language, hurtful invective, and colorful word-use (who can forget the Fish Wrap rants?), but I hate to see him get beat up too much over this topic. Here's hoping that this marks a fresh start for WestRanchBeacon.com, which always has some good insight into what's going on west of the 5.
Signal website bytes: Count Sauguslavsky says in Friday's Escape: "The Signal's website has been more than popular, garnishing 1.1 million hits - per month..." Boston should stick to writing witty prose, he's obviously an internet newbie. "Hits" in internet lexicon indicate anytime a file on The-Signal.com's server is downloaded to a remote computer. So every graphic, link, and bit of text on the Signal's homepage count's as a hit. 1.1 million sounds impressive, but according to my research, the Signal gets about 5,000 to 10,000 unique visitors a day. Sometimes they'll get as high as 20,000. Boston also bragged about the Signal's new "Tell it to the Signal", "the SCV's bonafide original -and best- chat room," and said that the newspaper would soon start hosting flash videos uploaded by Signal readers. If the Signal's new TITTS forum reminds you of anything, check out SCVTalk.com's forum. Both sites use phpBulletin Board, an absolutely free software package you can download from the internet. In fact, all of the Signal's software is free, open-source Linux software; their new IT manager is no doubt saving the paper some money in its online endeavors.

McKeon may not run in 2008?

California Democratic blog says he may not: I've saved the best for last. According to the California Majority Report, a Democratic blog for the Golden State, Congressman Howard "Buck" McKeon is on a list, puportedly created by Karl Rove's office, of Congressmen nationwide who's seats are vulnerable in 2008. The list is buried in a 28 page scan of a PowerPoint presentation given to the Government Services Administration. McKeon's name is listed on page 25 on a slide headlined with the words "2008 House GOP Defense." His name has an asterisk next to it with the footnote explaining "Member may not seek re-election." The other side of this story is why McKeon is on a list of "vulnerable" seats at all? Assuming he is running, why would he appear on this list? Is CA-25 trending blue? The blogger, Sherry Greenberg, says she is surprised by McKeon's inclusion on the list, and says that "Buck has not indicated a desire to retire nor have I seen vultures circling." Buck is 68 years old and is in his eighth term as a representative of CA-25. Before his service in the House, he served on the City Council and the Hart District Board. I'm not sure how reliable this blog is, or if the scanned documents are real, so take this report with a healthy grain of salt. That's it for the week! Happy Easter or Passover or whatever you celebrate!

Comments (9)

ChrisAApril 6 at 9:01 AM PT

Magic Mountain really thinks that attendance was down because of news they might be sold? How about the increase in season pass prices (up to $59.99 from $39.99) and the near doubling of parking - $15, up from $8. They also eliminated the parking ticket book. There was a group of us who had season passes to Hurricane Harbor, and had had them for years. We would have paid the increased amount for the season passes, but to have to pay $15 for parking each time we went was just too much. Certainly other long term season pass holders had felt the same.

PaulineApril 6 at 12:20 PM PT

It's about time Dave Bossert was reined in. I hope this "committee ringer" will also monitor Dave's outrageous attacks on people ("outside agitators," to quote him) who "dare" make any pro-annexation comments. Members of annexation committees should be neutral on the issue of annexation and "neutral" is not an adjective that would describe Dave Bossert's views on annexation. From a Dave Bossert annexation commentary, regarding how he views people from this valley who take an interest in the West Ranch annexation issue: ".....The outside agitators that are not residents or stakeholders should let their elected representatives do what they are tasked with which is allow for the dynamic and fruitful process to proceed to conclusion. It’s time to trust the process....." I would like Dave to define "outside agitator." This is the Santa Clarita VALLEY. I live in this VALLEY, which includes more than just the City of Santa Clarita, and as a resident of this VALLEY, I am most definitely a stakeholder when it comes to ANY issues affecting this VALLEY. I live in Newhall, but that didn't stop me from fighting the mega-mine at the other end of the valley in an unincorporated area near Canyon Country. Living in Newhall didn't stop me from working on the Canyon Country Stonecrest annexation when Cemex and L.A. County joined forces to prevent that annexation. Dave says, when condemning all us outside agitators, "It’s time to trust the process....." Well, Dave, freedom of speech will always be part of any "process" in the United States of America. And anyone who lives in this VALLEY as a resident is also a stakeholder regarding anything going on in this valley. Although the West ranch Town Council voted to oppose Cemex, I am surprised that Dave never personally condemned Cemex, a foreign-based company, for their attempts at preventing the Stonecrest annexation. Boy, if anyone could be considered an "outside agitator," Cemex would be the perfect example. I would think Dave would scream bloody murder that a Cemex lawyer from the San Fran-based law office of Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro was present at the final Stonecrest ratification meeting with L.A. County. So, since Dave doesn't seem to mind foreign-based Cemex working with L.A. County to prevent the Canyon Country Stonecrest annexation, I don't think Dave should be referring to residents of this VALLEY as "outside agitators" for taking an interest in the West Ranch annexation/cityhood issue. The outcome of this issue will certainly affect this entire VALLEY, making every resident in this valley a stakeholder in the West Ranch annexation/cityhood issue. And God bless freedom of speech! Pauline Harte.

honeystartpackingApril 6 at 1:53 PM PT

I agree that the censorship of Bossert's blog is taking things a bit too far. There will always be controversy in the SCV, and there will always be those who either comment on it or put their twist on it. Not that I agree with Bossert or his commentary, but blogs are the new "free speech movement" and censorship is generally not productive in that environment. What Bossert really needs is an education on what is appropriate for a Town Council President to be stating in public, whether on his blog or in any other public arena. He certainly has succeeded in making the West Ranch Town Council look like a bunch of buffoons lately! Rather than giving in to the censorship, perhaps Bossert should step down from his position on the West Ranch Town Council and take more of a backseat approach to his community involvement. Maybe in replacing him they'll have a "real" election this time instead of the July 4 farce that put Bossert and others on the West Ranch Town Council in the first place?

MorningstarrApril 6 at 2:11 PM PT

You mean there are other people on the West Side Town Council besides Bossert? Well, will wonders never cease. Who would've thought it. He has made more damage than improvements to the rep of the West. It was good entertainment while it lasted HAHAHAHA. Anyway, the news about McKeon is just tooooo good to be true.

BillApril 6 at 3:39 PM PT

Dave, here is an old proverb for a fortune cookie I just wrote, “If you want to be believed you can not make unbelievable statements.” Gee, not bad, and I’m not even Chinese.

ChrisAApril 6 at 4:47 PM PT

I think Dave Bosserts comeuppance was well-deserved. He has been spewing insults and misinformation for quite some time. Even though there is has been a disclaimer recently that his views do not necessarily reflect that of any organization he is affiliated with, nonetheless he is reflection of the town council. I think he has been purposely trying to derail annexation (up until recently) by disparaging the City at every opportunity, and by trying to sell the residents of the west side on the idea that if they annexed, the City should pay off their Mello-Roos. Interestingly enough, I first ran into Mr. Bossert at the Stonecrest annexation meeting with the County, when he stood up and talked disparagingly about the City. It is curious that he was always mad that myself & others, who did not live on the west side, had opinions about annexation, and yet there he was at the Stonecrest meeting, working against annexation of that neighborhood - even though the Stonecrest situation bore absolutely NO resemblance to the west side's. With no town council, no revenue centers, and only 630 homes on the far flung east border of the city, Cemex or no, this was a neighborhood that should annex. He sure had an opinion about that, yet no one else should weigh in on west side options. I stumbled across his blog a few days later, and I was apalled that he could write things that were just plain wrong that I decided I had to take him on. My first post went up in July of 2006, where I basically said why the City should not pay their Mello-Roos and explained why. I thoroughly reserached annexation, even spoke to LAFCO, and determined that the City couldn't pay off their Mello-Roos - even if they wanted to, which they didn't. I wonder if there are residents over there who are still thinking that their Mello-Roos might be paid off if they annex. No, I'm not an expert on annexation, but I am well-researched. I do know what I am talking about, and have presented facts to back up my statements. I do not need to live on the west side to be knowledgable about annexation - it's about depth of knowledge, not geographic location. When he would respond, he would say that I didn't know what I was talking about, but never did he present facts to back up his side of the case. That was his style - insult and denegrate his opposition, instead of presenting a solid case behind his reasoning. I will miss his colorful adjectives.... like comparing annexation to dating, or things like the 'cornucopia of crime'. They were just so much fun to twist around in my responses! So, I don't feel too sorry for him. I do think he needs to bear in mind that he is always representing the town council & the residents of the west side, whether he puts a disclaimer on it or not.

mikeApril 6 at 5:07 PM PT

Clearly the silly little council is in no position to muzzle him, nor should they be. It's probably some face saving measure due to other people contemplating more serious remedies. I'm just speculating. I'm also puzzled as to what sort of organization has Don Fleming as its moral center. Join or Die, Shelbyville!

PaulineApril 6 at 9:52 PM PT

I don't think anyone is trying to muzzle Dave, I believe they want his comments to be more responsible and more courteous, since he holds an elected position and every public comment from Dave reflects on the town council as a whole. Dave himself is a huge offender when it comes to trying to "muzzle" people. Dave throws heaps of personal insults at people who have offended him with pro-annexation comments, so any kind of rational discussion is ended. Dave even accused me of being a "borderline scary" person with this silliness from him: ".....The constant use of my name throughout your rant is borderline scary......" First of all, not once did I rant, as was plainly obvious by what I wrote. The entire disussion is from this commentary, March 13th, on The West Ranch Beacon and as all can plainly see, the only one ranting invectives was Dave. He even started new commentaries just so he could rant some more about all us Santa Clarita Valley "outside agitators." Accusing me of trying to scare him by using his given name is just a sleazy form of intimidation meant to run off the opposition. His name is Dave Bossert, what other names should I call him? He also brought my husband into the discussion, attempting, I guess, to infer that the Harte's have something to gain from a West Ranch annexation. More intimidation tactics; since I am the one posting to him, my family members should not be mentioned anymore than Dave's family members should be mentioned, as my family members have nothing to gain from any annexations. My husband's only position with the City of Santa Clarita is an appointed position on the Newhall Redevelopment Committee, and as Dave Bossert knows, a West Ranch annexation to SCV will not benefit us or that committee in any way. So why would Dave mention my husband? Being an SCV community volunteer for a couple of decades and an SCV Man of the Year makes my husband guilty of what when it comes to his wife discussing the West Ranch annexation? When I see my family members being brought up in a debate that has nothing to do with them, well, THAT intimidation tactic is downright scary, and there's no "borderline" about it! The motives that should be questioned regarding a West Ranch annexation are Dave's - considering what he is terrified of losing, it is obvious why he is always so combative and insulting to all of us who support annexation. Clearly, Dave Bossert should not be allowed on any committees dealing with annexation. Oh, and Dave should really read up on the Revenue Neutrality law. Pauline Harte.

pinkyApril 7 at 12:42 AM PT

I was surprised to read that the proposed high school will not be the subject of Wednesday’s hearing, although Ray Pearl , vice president of forward planning and governmental relations for SunCal Cos. ‘expects that the importance of the high school with regards to the project may be discussed.” Mr. Pearl, I just received a personal invitation that was sent out to Castaic residents by SunCal representatives urging me to attend the hearing -scheduled for Wednesday April 11, 9 am- if I support the Northlake Plan and the local benefits it will bring-including a new Castaic high school. If I could not attend the hearing, SunCal was considerate enough to include a reply card (to be emailed to eskeie@suncal.com) which read as follows: “Approve NorthLake, Bring Castaic its Own High School! Signature Date Name Address City State Zip To the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, Please approve SunCal’s plans for NorthLake, which includes land designated for Castaic’s first high school. SunCal has designed a balanced plan that will provide many local benefits and a nearby high school will mean Castaic students will be able to attend elementary, middle school and high school close to home. I encourage you to support the NorthLake plan when it appears before you.” *** Send reply cards to eskeie@sunacl.com *** The name included in the cover letter which went along with this reply card, is Mike Walline Santa Clarita/Ventura County Division President SunCal Companies Needless to say, the cover letter mentioned nothing negative about this project. Mr. Pearl, according to the Signal article you say that you ‘EXPECT the importance of the high school with regards to the project MAY BE DISCUSSED???? “ My good sir, it appears that SunCal may be planning to make sure that high school discussion not only takes place, but overshadows the major objections our community has against this project as it stands. Please, stop trying to pit neighbors against neighbors, parents against environmental groups and anyone else you can try to get to fight your fight for you. Enough is enough...Please understand-we want a high school- we need one- but not at the price you folks are asking our community to pay . This type of negotiation you are engaged in with our community borders on extortion.

ChrisAApril 6 at 9:01 AM PT
Magic Mountain really thinks that attendance was down because of news they might be sold? How about the increase in season pass prices (up to $59.99 from $39.99) and the near doubling of parking - $15, up from $8. They also eliminated the parking ticket book. There was a group of us who had season passes to Hurricane Harbor, and had had them for years. We would have paid the increased amount for the season passes, but to have to pay $15 for parking each time we went was just too much. Certainly other long term season pass holders had felt the same.
PaulineApril 6 at 12:20 PM PT
It's about time Dave Bossert was reined in. I hope this "committee ringer" will also monitor Dave's outrageous attacks on people ("outside agitators," to quote him) who "dare" make any pro-annexation comments. Members of annexation committees should be neutral on the issue of annexation and "neutral" is not an adjective that would describe Dave Bossert's views on annexation. From a Dave Bossert annexation commentary, regarding how he views people from this valley who take an interest in the West Ranch annexation issue: ".....The outside agitators that are not residents or stakeholders should let their elected representatives do what they are tasked with which is allow for the dynamic and fruitful process to proceed to conclusion. It’s time to trust the process....." I would like Dave to define "outside agitator." This is the Santa Clarita VALLEY. I live in this VALLEY, which includes more than just the City of Santa Clarita, and as a resident of this VALLEY, I am most definitely a stakeholder when it comes to ANY issues affecting this VALLEY. I live in Newhall, but that didn't stop me from fighting the mega-mine at the other end of the valley in an unincorporated area near Canyon Country. Living in Newhall didn't stop me from working on the Canyon Country Stonecrest annexation when Cemex and L.A. County joined forces to prevent that annexation. Dave says, when condemning all us outside agitators, "It’s time to trust the process....." Well, Dave, freedom of speech will always be part of any "process" in the United States of America. And anyone who lives in this VALLEY as a resident is also a stakeholder regarding anything going on in this valley. Although the West ranch Town Council voted to oppose Cemex, I am surprised that Dave never personally condemned Cemex, a foreign-based company, for their attempts at preventing the Stonecrest annexation. Boy, if anyone could be considered an "outside agitator," Cemex would be the perfect example. I would think Dave would scream bloody murder that a Cemex lawyer from the San Fran-based law office of Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro was present at the final Stonecrest ratification meeting with L.A. County. So, since Dave doesn't seem to mind foreign-based Cemex working with L.A. County to prevent the Canyon Country Stonecrest annexation, I don't think Dave should be referring to residents of this VALLEY as "outside agitators" for taking an interest in the West Ranch annexation/cityhood issue. The outcome of this issue will certainly affect this entire VALLEY, making every resident in this valley a stakeholder in the West Ranch annexation/cityhood issue. And God bless freedom of speech! Pauline Harte.
honeystartpackingApril 6 at 1:53 PM PT
I agree that the censorship of Bossert's blog is taking things a bit too far. There will always be controversy in the SCV, and there will always be those who either comment on it or put their twist on it. Not that I agree with Bossert or his commentary, but blogs are the new "free speech movement" and censorship is generally not productive in that environment. What Bossert really needs is an education on what is appropriate for a Town Council President to be stating in public, whether on his blog or in any other public arena. He certainly has succeeded in making the West Ranch Town Council look like a bunch of buffoons lately! Rather than giving in to the censorship, perhaps Bossert should step down from his position on the West Ranch Town Council and take more of a backseat approach to his community involvement. Maybe in replacing him they'll have a "real" election this time instead of the July 4 farce that put Bossert and others on the West Ranch Town Council in the first place?
MorningstarrApril 6 at 2:11 PM PT
You mean there are other people on the West Side Town Council besides Bossert? Well, will wonders never cease. Who would've thought it. He has made more damage than improvements to the rep of the West. It was good entertainment while it lasted HAHAHAHA. Anyway, the news about McKeon is just tooooo good to be true.
BillApril 6 at 3:39 PM PT
Dave, here is an old proverb for a fortune cookie I just wrote, “If you want to be believed you can not make unbelievable statements.” Gee, not bad, and I’m not even Chinese.
ChrisAApril 6 at 4:47 PM PT
I think Dave Bosserts comeuppance was well-deserved. He has been spewing insults and misinformation for quite some time. Even though there is has been a disclaimer recently that his views do not necessarily reflect that of any organization he is affiliated with, nonetheless he is reflection of the town council. I think he has been purposely trying to derail annexation (up until recently) by disparaging the City at every opportunity, and by trying to sell the residents of the west side on the idea that if they annexed, the City should pay off their Mello-Roos. Interestingly enough, I first ran into Mr. Bossert at the Stonecrest annexation meeting with the County, when he stood up and talked disparagingly about the City. It is curious that he was always mad that myself & others, who did not live on the west side, had opinions about annexation, and yet there he was at the Stonecrest meeting, working against annexation of that neighborhood - even though the Stonecrest situation bore absolutely NO resemblance to the west side's. With no town council, no revenue centers, and only 630 homes on the far flung east border of the city, Cemex or no, this was a neighborhood that should annex. He sure had an opinion about that, yet no one else should weigh in on west side options. I stumbled across his blog a few days later, and I was apalled that he could write things that were just plain wrong that I decided I had to take him on. My first post went up in July of 2006, where I basically said why the City should not pay their Mello-Roos and explained why. I thoroughly reserached annexation, even spoke to LAFCO, and determined that the City couldn't pay off their Mello-Roos - even if they wanted to, which they didn't. I wonder if there are residents over there who are still thinking that their Mello-Roos might be paid off if they annex. No, I'm not an expert on annexation, but I am well-researched. I do know what I am talking about, and have presented facts to back up my statements. I do not need to live on the west side to be knowledgable about annexation - it's about depth of knowledge, not geographic location. When he would respond, he would say that I didn't know what I was talking about, but never did he present facts to back up his side of the case. That was his style - insult and denegrate his opposition, instead of presenting a solid case behind his reasoning. I will miss his colorful adjectives.... like comparing annexation to dating, or things like the 'cornucopia of crime'. They were just so much fun to twist around in my responses! So, I don't feel too sorry for him. I do think he needs to bear in mind that he is always representing the town council & the residents of the west side, whether he puts a disclaimer on it or not.
mikeApril 6 at 5:07 PM PT
Clearly the silly little council is in no position to muzzle him, nor should they be. It's probably some face saving measure due to other people contemplating more serious remedies. I'm just speculating. I'm also puzzled as to what sort of organization has Don Fleming as its moral center. Join or Die, Shelbyville!
PaulineApril 6 at 9:52 PM PT
I don't think anyone is trying to muzzle Dave, I believe they want his comments to be more responsible and more courteous, since he holds an elected position and every public comment from Dave reflects on the town council as a whole. Dave himself is a huge offender when it comes to trying to "muzzle" people. Dave throws heaps of personal insults at people who have offended him with pro-annexation comments, so any kind of rational discussion is ended. Dave even accused me of being a "borderline scary" person with this silliness from him: ".....The constant use of my name throughout your rant is borderline scary......" First of all, not once did I rant, as was plainly obvious by what I wrote. The entire disussion is from this commentary, March 13th, on The West Ranch Beacon and as all can plainly see, the only one ranting invectives was Dave. He even started new commentaries just so he could rant some more about all us Santa Clarita Valley "outside agitators." Accusing me of trying to scare him by using his given name is just a sleazy form of intimidation meant to run off the opposition. His name is Dave Bossert, what other names should I call him? He also brought my husband into the discussion, attempting, I guess, to infer that the Harte's have something to gain from a West Ranch annexation. More intimidation tactics; since I am the one posting to him, my family members should not be mentioned anymore than Dave's family members should be mentioned, as my family members have nothing to gain from any annexations. My husband's only position with the City of Santa Clarita is an appointed position on the Newhall Redevelopment Committee, and as Dave Bossert knows, a West Ranch annexation to SCV will not benefit us or that committee in any way. So why would Dave mention my husband? Being an SCV community volunteer for a couple of decades and an SCV Man of the Year makes my husband guilty of what when it comes to his wife discussing the West Ranch annexation? When I see my family members being brought up in a debate that has nothing to do with them, well, THAT intimidation tactic is downright scary, and there's no "borderline" about it! The motives that should be questioned regarding a West Ranch annexation are Dave's - considering what he is terrified of losing, it is obvious why he is always so combative and insulting to all of us who support annexation. Clearly, Dave Bossert should not be allowed on any committees dealing with annexation. Oh, and Dave should really read up on the Revenue Neutrality law. Pauline Harte.
pinkyApril 7 at 12:42 AM PT
I was surprised to read that the proposed high school will not be the subject of Wednesday’s hearing, although Ray Pearl , vice president of forward planning and governmental relations for SunCal Cos. ‘expects that the importance of the high school with regards to the project may be discussed.” Mr. Pearl, I just received a personal invitation that was sent out to Castaic residents by SunCal representatives urging me to attend the hearing -scheduled for Wednesday April 11, 9 am- if I support the Northlake Plan and the local benefits it will bring-including a new Castaic high school. If I could not attend the hearing, SunCal was considerate enough to include a reply card (to be emailed to eskeie@suncal.com) which read as follows: “Approve NorthLake, Bring Castaic its Own High School! Signature Date Name Address City State Zip To the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, Please approve SunCal’s plans for NorthLake, which includes land designated for Castaic’s first high school. SunCal has designed a balanced plan that will provide many local benefits and a nearby high school will mean Castaic students will be able to attend elementary, middle school and high school close to home. I encourage you to support the NorthLake plan when it appears before you.” *** Send reply cards to eskeie@sunacl.com *** The name included in the cover letter which went along with this reply card, is Mike Walline Santa Clarita/Ventura County Division President SunCal Companies Needless to say, the cover letter mentioned nothing negative about this project. Mr. Pearl, according to the Signal article you say that you ‘EXPECT the importance of the high school with regards to the project MAY BE DISCUSSED???? “ My good sir, it appears that SunCal may be planning to make sure that high school discussion not only takes place, but overshadows the major objections our community has against this project as it stands. Please, stop trying to pit neighbors against neighbors, parents against environmental groups and anyone else you can try to get to fight your fight for you. Enough is enough...Please understand-we want a high school- we need one- but not at the price you folks are asking our community to pay . This type of negotiation you are engaged in with our community borders on extortion.