July 28, 2010 – Daily Brief

Co-Tangent

Pardee homes presented the Skyline Ranch project to the Canyon Country Advisory Committee several times. They listened to concerns raised by our members, made appropriate changes and returned to show the improvements. Several of the aspects of this project were very well received by our members. The fact that a buffer was being provided around the project and residential streets were not being connected to existing adjacent neighborhoods translates to NO CUT THROUGH TRAFFIC will be generated for their neighbors. As you are well aware, this has been a major problem for Benz, Canvas, Ermine and many other neighborhoods. Skyline Ranch will provide it’s own collector road from Whites/Plum to Sierra Highway. Besides providing this additional access it assures that no existing residential streets will be burdened with additional traffic. Pardee has designated 80% of the property as Open Space ensuring no further development will take place on that site. Density of the design is 3 homes per acre, well below the zoning density. The project will provide a public park, elementary school, bike paths and trails. So you have to wonder what aspect of this project is Ms. Gonzales upset about? Or is she just using this issue to forward an agenda of her own.

Hello Allen, I live near Whites/Plum Canyon, where is this development going to be?

drive66 Skyline Ranch will be located between the top of Whites/Plum Canyon and Sierra Highway. The new collector road, named Skyline Ranch Road, will connect the two streets and provide access for the project. Homes will be located on the South end of the property with the remaining property to the north being deeded as Open Space. If you need additional information please email me at ferdmana@gmail.com . If I do not have the information readily at hand I will be happy to get it for you.

Al I know you can read so you must be aware that I never said whether I was opposed to or in support of the Skyline Ranch project. You are trying to change the subject again and it is not working. I clearly said you presented your PERSONAL opinion regarding the Skyline Ranch project without clarification that it does not represent any official CCAC position or the “neighbors”. I mentioned a presentation by the developer. Even if we witnessed 1,000 presentations, without a vote to agree to take any position in support or opposition by eligible voting CCAC members present and following all the approved CCAC rules, it is ONLY YOUR OPINION and you have no right to indicate otherwise. You certainly have absolutely no authority to speak for the “neighbors” either. You are free to state your opinion IF you state clearly that is YOUR opinion, something you consistently fail to do intentionally. I asked you privately to stop doing this many months ago but you refused despite acknowledging rules regarding spokesperson authority YOU feel are no longer relevant. I told you your habit as Chair of misrepresenting your personal opinion as that of the CCAC position(s) is unethical and could not continue. You told me to “do whatever you feel you have to” so I am. You do not want to follow any kind of democratic process, approved policies and rules, Code of Ethics, etc. You have destroyed the credibility OUR committee enjoyed for many years. It is a community committee Al not your personal forum. You do not get to decide everybody else’s opinion. Certainly not mine since you don’t want to hear it. You do not get to skew information to guarantee acceptance for your position(s) without opportunity for rebuttal or other presentations offering balance. You do not get to recruit only the people who agree with you. You do not get to exclude any Canyon Country people from participating whether you agree with them or not. You will not succeed and get me to give up due to your nastiness, lies and rudeness. It worked on others but not on me. If anything, I am even more determined to stick around. You high jacked the CCAC and morphed it into a group where anyone from any area who wants to bitch about the City gets your backing to increase your personal sphere of influence. Benz, Bonelli, Calgrove, opposing Extreme Neighborhood Makeover, North Oaks, Special Standards Districts, and the list goes on. Most of the original members do not even attend anymore since it is the “Al Ferdman Show” and things have gotten so far off track. We had a good thing going with the City and others. Collaborative relationships and goodwill, which you destroyed by your actions and with your arrogant duplicity. Yet again, you are trying to make the City and me the bad guys in your narrative. The City may not respond but I sure will Al. You can try all you want, I am not going away. You don’t speak for me or many others in Canyon Country. Especially since, you do not want to hear what we have to say. I appreciate all of the improvements the City has made in our area and do not feel the need to insult and rage at City Council meetings on behalf of everyone else with a gripe. I want to work to make Canyon Country better as we identified in both our Vision and Mission statements. We can’t accomplish anything if we are always pissing everybody off Al. Your ego has gotten too big and is driving your actions. I am not keeping quiet. The gloves came off between us when you abused your position as Chair yet again and made your untrue personal comments about me as part of your presentation before the assembly at the July CCAC meeting but would not permit me time to rebut your statements. Please let me know if I have still not made the issues clear enough for you. You have my home/office phone number, cell and email address information. One more thing, after 12 years of seeing my name, you might want to look at the spelling. It is GONZALEZ and my first name is not Birdu either.

Mike led the charge, the others just fell in line

That’s a fact. And McLean’s Kellar-esque try to get support for a $50 increase with a show of hands did not go the way she hoped. It was 150 to 2 in the opposite direction. After that they had nowhere to go but to follow Antonovich’s lead.

Re: The chloride disaster ..and make no mistake on what a disaster it is. It’s going to have an impact on existing families and business in the SCV now, but that pales in comparison to the impact it will have on any new businesses wanting to come into the SCV. Want to start a restaurant here? Forget it, unless you are part of a chain with enough capital to shell out thousands of dollars for a sewer hookup. It actually makes me really sad to think about the impact this will have on small, locally owned, businesses. I will be surprised if we don’t see a noticeable impact from this. I am really disappointed in our Sanitation Board. From what I understand (and please do correct me), they really let us down. I attended the meeting last night and as the Board spoke I was struck by how ill prepared and reactionary all of their comments were. We should have been exploring these options (legal, legislative, etc) back in 2008 when the MOU was signed, or even before. They’ve really backed us into a corner by not being more pro-active on this. Did anyone else have that impression? Yes they were angry and had all the right emotion, but we should have had a strategy to deal with this two years ago and raising hell with state legislatures. If whatever governing body didn’t want to do additional tests, we should have funded the damn tests. I highly doubt the cost of doing that would be any more than a small fraction of what we are forced to pay now. I don’t know if it’s a lack of competence/underestimating the issue or just playing politics, but I can’t help but be struck at how none of this happened until after the city council elections. I have the upmost respect for the city staff; they have received numerous deserved praise from both inside and outside the city. However, I am shocked at how under prepared they seemed to fight this issue. I know it isn’t exciting work, but we count on the staff and council to keep abreast of these issues. This shouldn’t have come as a “surprise.” I don’t blame the farmers in Ventura wanting to protect their own self interests. They had the smarts to think long term and lobby for what they wanted while we avoided the conversation. I place the blame right here in the SCV for not being on top of this. When are we going to stop playing checkers and start playing chess?

I agree! Inattentive and distracted drivers are far and away more dangerous than +5 or 10 mph over the limit speeders! Those rolling roadblocks are also cause for many people going for a risky breakout. Please pull over, unless your real point is to create a parade behind you of pissed off people!

Let’s see. Let me guess either Tony Natoli from Benz Road in Saugus who brought his issue to the CCAC even though there is a Saugus Action Committee but I like Tony and anonymous is not his style. More likely Nadine Teter who I hear is a pretty good shot and joined the CCAC because of the Canvas/Linda Vista issue to get support for what SHE wanted despite the protests of other neighbors. Ya, its Nadine.

Berta: I am appalled at your ill manners! The fact you would even joke, or make comment about Nadine and what she has been through is inexplicable….”heard she is a good shot”. What the heck is THAT about?! I can only hope you will NEVER have to experience the same ordeal she has…though some may feel differently and think it would teach you a lesson!

I am also appalled that people threaten me! Moreover, you have no idea what I have experienced either so you can be appalled all you like.

Hi Sterling. Al Ferdman did not start the Canyon Country Committee, others and I did. He joined a couple of years after we were already established, had a Vision, Mission, Membership requirements, area represented and had achieved some success as a group. I stepped away for a time for personal reasons and returned to find a different committee. Al has discouraged me from continuing to participate. I tried many times to address this and other issues with Al in private. If he does not want to discuss it, it is not discussed period. He controls the agenda, the guests, the website, presentations, topics and discussion. He has brought people into the group who exclusively support his views, many of which are in direct conflict with our founding principles, goals, etc. He does not encourage and support an exchange of differing viewpoints, especially mine. I asked him multiple times to place the very issues I discussed here today as well as others on the agenda and he refused each time. I asked for meeting minutes taken during the time I was absent since I never received any during that interval. Al promised they would be forthcoming. I am still waiting. I believe in an inclusive democratic meeting process above board and fairly run. I do not sit quietly when anyone behaves in a dictatorial manner and then is a hypocrite to boot. I am not willing to have my views ignored and then see Al presenting his opinion and attaching the support of the CCAC when it was never asked for nor given in the manner still in vigor per CCAC rules. He made it personal by using (abusing) his Chair position to make a presentation maligning me personally by making several false statements about me at the July CCAC meeting before everyone and then refusing to allow me to rebut his false statements. You would not put up with that behavior if directed at you Sterling. I have given Al Ferdman many opportunities to correct his behavior or bring the issues raised before full committee for open and thorough discussion. He refuses. He also refuses to abide by any existing rules or Code of Conduct and most of the current members do not even realize they exist. Ferdman told me after I persisted to bring it up at the next Steering Group meeting and when it was brought up by someone else , promptly shut me out of the conversation making it appear to the others that I was the one out of order. After that meeting, Al found yet another way to excluded me from attending special meetings by holding them in a private home, invitation only. I remind you this is a Canyon Country community committee, which is supposed to be inclusive and participatory. None of this crap is ok with me especially when decisions and statements made affect my home, neighborhood, community and me personally. Sterling I think you have me beat as a firecracker and I gladly cede you the title. It is personal now. Thank you for your kind words.

Ms. Gonzalez-Harper: I am a newer member of the CCAC (about two years now) but a lifetime resident of the SCV. During the last two years Mr. Ferdman has been nothing but supportive, polite and informative. The knowledge he has regarding the policies, processes and political history of the City is impressive. He has never once been forcefull with his opinion or even become the slightist bit offensive when I have questioned that opinion or the information he was supplying. I can understand your need to voice YOUR OPINION, but find the manner in which you do it extrmemely rude and volatile. As a neutral bystander, I am always interested in hearing all sides of an argument, but do not want to read a slanderish post in which name calling and accusations seem to be the primary goal. If misinformation was conveyed about you, by Mr. Ferdman, may I suggest you list those issues (in this blog or maybe another?) and clarify/correct them? Name callling and accusing should be done in private and the community blog should be used to convey accurate information we could all benefit from. Oh, and to not offend: The above is my opinion only.

I do not have the time to provide the entire list you request today but will do so in the near future but I will respond to one item now. CCAC meetings are supposed to be participatory in nature not a lecture from the podium with only Al or his invited speaker allowed to comment. If Al is facing the audience, I raise my hand. If he keeps passing me over which sometimes happens, eventually I do “chime in”. I know he does not want to hear what I have to say. Tough nuggies. If he makes an incorrect statement with his back turned to us, I state the correct information. I don’t yell it out, I say things in a voice where attendees can hear me since I don’t have benefit of the microphone as does Al. If I said it under my breath, you would criticize that too. The agenda is usually so jam packed that there is no time for open discussion from the floor and as I have already commented before, anything I request placed on the agenda for discussion NEVER is. Al seems to have your permission to say anything he wants to about me or anything else before the CCAC. You seem to have no problem that he will not allow a member to respond to his personal attacks or ask questions. On the other hand, is that the case only if that member is I? You single out my commenting on various issues as is my right but I notice you have never said anything about Tony, TBB, Spence and many others making corrections, jokes, etc from the floor so you are not as “neutral” an observer as you profess. I will get back to you on the other list.

I have not been to a CCAC where I have heard you speak out (or even any of the others for that matter)…Nor have I seen Al ignore your raised hand or concerns. I am not able to attend all the CCAC meetings as somtimes I play co-ed softball on Wednesday evenings. However I get to as many as I can. Quite frankly, I didn’t even know there was this civil war going on…until I read your posts today. I guess that proves 2 things: I need to start attending more meetings because, like a hocky game, a fight might break out..and that is interesting! And two, I am not embedded as deeply into the politcal arena as you are. Kudos to you…seriously as I just don’t have the patience. So because of this I have no idea who TBB, or Spence is, (I think the Tony you are referring to is on Benz…right?) I don’t know what you are talking about when you say I allow Al, et al to speak about your or ignore you. I have my own views and tend to share them freely and rarely does anyone “speak” for me But hey, if Al happens to be singing the same tune, why kick him out of the band? In my opinion he is doing a good job. I like facts-not

Shannon I have to prepare for a meeting so can’t give you an in depth response. You might want to read my post under the July 29th Daily Brief comments. If you still have questions, I am in the phone book. Thanks.

Berta you sure it wasn’t me? Every other post you don’t like is me, so why not this one?

Nate: This one is easy. I know it is not you because my HAIR is not mentioned once, you unequivocally support Frank Ferry, and my comments address his opponents.

You have a right to your opinion and to follow and support anyone you choose. Others throughout history have also exhibited complete loyalty to a leader who sided with them or their cause without concern for the damage he or she does to others. Mr. Ferdman has said and done many things I agree with, but he has also said and done many things that have been detrimental to OUR committee, community, and me personally. He and I parted ways when he decided his agenda is the only important one and any normal democratic process for chairing and running the CCAC is irrelevant and at his sole discretion. We as a committee implemented rules, which Al has unilaterally discarded, to avoid exactly what has happened. The chair and a few loyal supporters push their personal agendas to the exclusion and detriment of other stakeholders. It is clear part of Al’s agenda is to foment an anti-city dialogue within the CCAC. I leave it to others to determine what they think is his motivation. A perfect example of this is the Bonelli issue, which is not a Canyon Country issue, but Al made it one and now counts complaining Bonelli folks as his supporters on the CCAC. Al completely skewed presentations, invited guests, made comments to favor the 19 residents who complained despite my protests and without the input of the 111 or so other Bonelli residents or City Staff to provide the other side of the issue. He addressed Council in support of Bonelli and gave them the false impression he spoke on behalf of the CCAC. He pushed Special Standards Districts for anyone who had received a notice to fix up their property claiming it would relieve them of making City requested improvements. My repeated requests to agendize and have a fair and impartial discussion of the issues were not honored since “the agenda is too full” for months on end. No time allotted for open discussion either. Somehow, there was always time for his pet peeve, signage or “surprise” guests like the Bonja’s from the Bonelli Tract but not any of the issues I want discussed. The Bonelli issue has had a direct negative effect on MY NEIGHBORHOOD in Canyon Country. Al also decided to tell the City we do not have a gang problem in Canyon Country without any open discussion of this issue. Al decided to falsely tell people coming to him with citations in my neighborhood that I was responsible. He knows I cannot disprove his accusations and lies since the City does not divulge the complaining party’s names. I could go on and on. Al like you thinks he gets to decide for all of us what happens here. He does not. He has his opinion and vote, but not mine. If you want to give him Carte Blanche to say whatever he wants on your behalf, fine. I choose to retain my own voice and opinion and insist on my right to express it despite Al’s attempts to shut me out. I have the right to at least have my vote cast AND counted indicating whether I support or oppose HIS position while officially representing the CCAC before Council, Planning, City Staff and others. You know why I mentioned your being a good shot. I have been threatened, retaliated against, called names, and had my reputation maliciously impugned. It was to let you know, I will not be intimidated. No one will stop me from speaking out. My loyalty is not to Ferdman or anyone else on the CCAC but to my community of Canyon Country and the values of fair play I believe in. Before Al arrived on the scene, we had already accomplished quite a bit and many positive results you see in Canyon Country today are a result of my individual efforts and this community working in partnership with the City and others. We did not take up the cause of everyone with a gripe against the City. Neither does the Saugus Action Committee to this day. We had numerous subcommittees and NO ONE who was eligible and wanted to participate and contribute was excluded or disrespected. Approved Rules and Policies were followed and it was a credible, functioning, inclusive, successful (by any standards) City sponsored committee. That is no longer the case because Al decided to go rogue. Most of the original members decided it was not worth arguing with Al and friends and being subjected to his nastiness and no longer attend, and new recruits were brought in as a result of Al’s supporting THEIR issues, like Benz, Bonelli, Canvas. You and others came into the committee while I was absent and changed the CCAC into something it was never intended to be. I can send you the Mission, Vision, operating rules, membership and voting requirements, etc. There are plenty of things here in Canyon Country that need attention. Full participation should be encouraged of all area residents. Especially those who are willing to work towards positive change. Those of you who support Al, but do not insist that a democratic inclusive process as approved by members is followed by the chair and all other members of the CCAC, are part of the problem. You are fine because you are part of the invited click. Since Al supports YOUR cause and includes you, it is ok to exclude others and not give them a fair opportunity to participate. If the situation were reversed and you were the recipient of Al’s dismissive and exclusionary tactics, I assure you I would still be speaking up even though I am perfectly aware you dislike me personally. The right thing to do does not change based on whether it involves your friend or your foe.

I do not speak for the City and I am sure many other considerations came into play but from my perspective, this divorce was inevitable as there are irreconcilable differences within the relationship that have been a couple of years in the making. One party chose not to honor the commitments made to the partnership, and abuse the others willingness to pay the bills and try to work together. The other party finally had enough and decided to break up with the unfaithful partner not willing to play fair. There was no other alternative that did not create even more problems or that could renew the lost trust and good will so it became necessary to sever the relationship altogether in order to end the drama and the abuse. It seems simple to me. You played the role you selected.

Hi, Brook. Thank you for taking the time to read my lengthily post. When I have something to say, I will say it. Some things I can say in just a few words, others require a more in depth response. My name is always listed at the top of the post. If you have no interest in what I have to say or do not want to read a long post, please just skip past it. If you choose to read on, thanks for your time.

I understand that you have formulated your opinion and are not interested in hearing anything that does not validate that opinion, so I will not waste your time or mine.

WARNING LONG RESPONSE! Hello “anonymous”, no I do not believe I am. As I said before, I do not think you want to hear anything that does not validate the opinion you have already formed and expressed. In case I am mistaken here goes: I am not falsely accusing anyone of anything. I am not excluding anyone from anything. I am not abusing my position as chair of any group to give the false impression I speak for others. I am not deciding for all the residents of Canyon Country what is important to them without allowing them to “chime in”. In order to manipulate perceptions against my neighbor, I am not falsely telling my other neighbors that the neighbor I disagree with is calling thousands of code complaints into the City when in fact I am the one complaining. I am not calling in complaints on one neighbor I do not like, then defending another I do like with the same violations and issues, and fraudulently attaching the credibility of the CCAC to my complaint or support. I am not running a community committee like a dictatorship where my hand picked supporters and I get to make all the decisions despite rules to the contrary. I am not abusing my position yet again by getting up before the CCAC, and making a PowerPoint presentation on a large movie screen spreading more lies about my neighbor that disagrees with my tactics to inflame members against her further. I did not prevent the target of my defamation from responding to my comments. I am not encouraging my supporters to attack “anonymously” a member with a different point of view. I do not yell at him stating he cannot come to “MY meetings with City Staff regarding Canyon Country issues”. I am not the one who refuses to follow any ratified CCAC rules, or a Code of Conduct and Ethics. I am not the one who attempts to silence anyone questioning my practices. I do not personally have supporters who would anonymously call Mr. Ferdman and threaten “I’ll shoot you in the head if you don’t shut your mouth” or “ you go to lots of meetings that end after dark, accidents happen”, “I know where you live”, and so on. These are not accusations against Al Ferdman. They are facts. You can disagree with my methods if you choose and I am ok with that. I am not keeping quiet or acquiescing to threats to intimidate me either. I am stating the facts that resulted in this now very public disagreement, however unflattering they may be to Mr. Ferdman and friends, and presenting my side of the issues. Al left me no other viable options. I tried to address these issues privately with Al many times. Most of you are newer members, and we no longer have a member roster as we used to for direct communication. PowerPoint presentation of meeting minutes are not always reviewed and discussed, are never provided in hard copy or via email for all previous meetings upon request, posted anywhere, and do not include all conversations, objections or requests at meetings anyway. If a specific amended copy is requested, it is never provided. There is not always an agenda item or time left for open discussion, and even when there is, who is permitted to speak is at Al’s discretion. If he does not like what I have to say, he cuts me off. Private conversations have no record, I do not know you newer folks personally, and Mr. Ferdman does not permit me to address these issues at any CCAC meetings. He could have easily avoided all of this by complying with the approved rules, or placing this and other issues on the agenda for discussion as I have requested several times within the past two years. I also believe Al has intentionally portrayed the City unfairly, a recurring theme, in this instance regarding withdrawing support for the CCAC. There are several other problems but, if the City continues to provide free meeting space, insurance and now must add security for “Al’s group”, then the City must do the same for ANYONE asking for meeting space for their group. Any and all other groups like the Tea party, Minutemen, Amnesty for All, Terrorists United, Berta Against Misogynists, etc. can demand free meeting space, insurance and security on City owned property. The budget for insurance and security alone would be astronomical and we all pay for it! Al and friends are the ones who ruined the longstanding partnership of the Canyon Country Advisory Committee and the City of Santa Clarita and put all the residents of this city in a vulnerable legal and financial position. He also has created a hostile environment, not the City. The City is protecting the resident taxpayers. “Al’s group” can meet anywhere they want including a private residence where they can continue to “invite” anyone they want and exclude anyone they do not want like me but they cannot continue credibly saying THEY represent the COMMUNITY of Canyon Country because they do not. Many of us appreciate the effort, staff time and taxpayer dollars allocated to make our area better and stand by and want to return to our collaborative partnership with the City. So you see it is about Canyon Country. I do not appreciate our opinions being ignored or misrepresented by Al Ferdman and friends. If you want more facts and hard evidence “anonymous”, I am sure you know how to reach me.

OK “anonymous”. I am not covering the same ground yet again. I do not believe anyone can be that obtuse. Have it your way. So please consult your new member packet provided at your first CCAC meeting which includes Founding Principles, Mission and Vision Statements, committee area boundaries and membership eligibility, voting privilege information, Code of Ethics and Conduct, Officer names/duties/terms of office, grievance procedure, Minutes, By-Laws, spokesperson authority, etc. Thanks!