SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
October 31, 2011· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

Shooting in Canyon Country

By Linda

The Sheriff’s Department reports that two men were shot in the course of a robbery  Monday afternoon in Canyon Country.  Apparently a man arranged to meet some potential buyers of a Nintendo DS but found himself being robbed instead.  He resisted and a Good Samaritan came to his aid with a baseball bat, but unfortunately, the bat was no match for the gun brought by the suspects.  Both victims were transported to Henry Mayo, where the Good Samaritan succumbed to his wounds.

According to KHTS, the Good Samaritan’s six-year-old son was with him when he was shot.  What a horrific Halloween this poor little guy had.

Sheriffs deputies have apprehended four suspects.  According to the Signal, at least two of those suspects are between the ages of 13 and 16.  So many lives ruined over a child’s toy on a night when children are supposed to be dressing up in costumes and stuffing themselves with candy. 

 

Comments (73)

  1. NateOctober 31, 2011 at 9:14 pm
    Nothing new here that wasn’t in the press release –> http://local.nixle.com/alert/4747922/
  2. 4eyedsueOctober 31, 2011 at 9:31 pm
    Friends of mine were in lock down at Santa Clarita Christian School while all of this went on.
  3. CCOctober 31, 2011 at 10:05 pm
    How very sad. Is every 13yr old a tough guy now?
  4. PetzNovember 1, 2011 at 4:10 am
    Without taking away from the immense tragedy – readers without the most basic understanding of the Bible have no idea what the meaning of Good Samaritan is.
  5. NateNovember 1, 2011 at 6:15 am
    A good person from Samaria who helps a Jew he generally dispised. A good story from the Jesus man, a modern equivalent would be a Chrisitian helping a homosexual who needs help. Not very likely today unless prior approval from Dennis Prager allowing the socialism.
  6. AdamNovember 1, 2011 at 7:18 am
    I wrote a big long response to your comment but realized it would not be honorable to talk about in light of this tragedy. Suffice to say your comment is bigoted and not true. I am a Christian and every Christian I know, which is a lot, love and treat homosexuals with the same love and respect they would treat anyone else regardless of their race, religion, or lifestyle choice. That is all.
  7. NateNovember 1, 2011 at 7:29 am
    Ah pulling the reverse Bigot card nice. If only you weren’t the exception and as I said today it is “not very likely.” So tell us what fellowship do you attend that allows homosexuals to be regular members and be treated with the same love and respect as other members? Is this church local?
  8. FredNovember 1, 2011 at 8:01 am
    Without getting too off topic, homosexuals are welcome at our church and are regular members; in fact, one was recently baptized at our church, but of course, he no longer practices homosexuality and recognizes the sinfulness that his lifestyle was. Of course, I expect you to invoke the “no true Scotsmen” fallacy as a response, which is typical in these discussions.
  9. NateNovember 1, 2011 at 8:09 am
    So you decide you are going to pull the straw man fallacy and tell me what I am going to do before I do and and beat it up? I have no doubt you practice the “Pray the Gay away” philosophy. This isn’t the same claim as what Adam said…
  10. FredNovember 1, 2011 at 9:15 am
    Nate writes, So you decide you are going to pull the straw man fallacy and tell me what I am going to do before I do and and beat it up? Yes. As you demonstrated in your very next comment. This isn’t the same claim as what Adam said… It doesn’t matter what Adam said. You asked a specific question, and I responded with an affirmative. It was mostly to show your anti-Christian bigotry, which you demonstrated admirably.
  11. iMagicNovember 1, 2011 at 9:39 am
    It is quite clear you would don’t know what a strawman fallacy is. Statements were addressed which were made Adam can clarify if wishes while you on the other hand refuted statements which were never made, thus a Strawman fallacy. If you don’t like the Christian helping the Gay analogy, How about a Christians helping Muslim one… What is your position on that one? You up for helping a hurt Muslim person, paying for his housing, food and medical bills while he recoveries from his injuries? Or are you like the Religious Person (priest) or Levite who pay him no mind and go about their business? “But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. 6Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that shewed mercy on him.” Luke 10:33–37 Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise…. Doesn’t really sound like a request but the LORD does it? I guess we could say the story is that of a Good Socialist.
  12. 4eyedsueNovember 1, 2011 at 8:28 am
    You don’t have to “practice” homosexuality to still be a homosexual. It’s not the sex act- but the attraction. That seems to be a huge hump for people to get over- it’s not just about sex.
  13. Mr PerezNovember 1, 2011 at 2:01 pm
    You said “hump”! That was my immature giggle for Tuesday.
  14. 4eyedsueNovember 1, 2011 at 3:10 pm
    ; )
  15. 4eyedsueNovember 1, 2011 at 8:21 am
    Hey Nate- while I’ll agree that there are many Christian churches who do not accept homosexuals- there are several denominations that do. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, The Presbyterian Church (USA), and The Episcopal Church all allow ordination of non-celibate homosexuals.
  16. NateNovember 1, 2011 at 8:40 am
    Good stuff.
  17. FWNovember 1, 2011 at 9:28 am
    Hey Nate. I am a rainbow lover. Had about one of the only NO on 8 signs on my lawn in Saugus. My children are raised with the truth, you are born gay or straight and God does not make a mistake. I am a Catholic (Christian). My church accepts you are born gay. I absolutely agree that they are wrong in denying gay marriage, but they do not deny gays. I take my children to my church because it preaches Jesus is love and Jesus is forgiveness. Unfortunately, they do believe the act of homosexuality is the sin. I do have a problem with that, I will admit that. Maybe my church will change, one parishioner at a time. BTW, most, but not all, Catholics I know are on the same page as me. Peace…
  18. PetzNovember 1, 2011 at 7:57 am
    Off topic at this point…take it to the forum. The CC shooting was very sad, and my point was that most youth do not have the basic Biblical understanding to comprehend the meaning of Good Samaritan as used in the article.
  19. 4eyedsueNovember 1, 2011 at 8:33 am
    the three youth at my house have that basic understanding.
  20. Your Web GuruNovember 1, 2011 at 4:43 pm
    Stephen Petzold: Blog Cop!
  21. mikeNovember 1, 2011 at 8:08 am
    What’s up with SCVTV’s tweet? “MON 3PM – Gangsters male blk 17-21 shoot other gangsters in CC PO pkg lot, run down Solamint to AmBty Apts, 1 in custody, 2 not, 2 in hosp” On what basis are they labeling the victims “gangsters”?
  22. NateNovember 1, 2011 at 8:14 am
    Leon is “A Current Affair” style journalist. Gansters and Porn Actress are much more interesting then Promo Girl and 3 Male Suspects.
  23. Phil EllisNovember 1, 2011 at 8:47 am
    Should he referred to them as paragons of virtue?
  24. MikeNovember 1, 2011 at 8:51 am
    The victims?
  25. BertaNovember 1, 2011 at 9:05 am
    I believe the term “gangsters” was used since at least one of the young males was wearing a gang insignia hat according to published reports. Gang activity has become an aggressive deadly cancer in Canyon Country that must be dealt with equally aggressively in order for the patient to have a chance to live through it. The city made an effort a couple of years ago to start a gang intervention program but a certain “community leader” who HAD some credibility at the time put a kibosh on their plans saying the sheriff’s department had no proof of gang activity and that announcing a gang problem would lower property values in Canyon Country. This same “community leader” effectively ended pro-active efforts by city staff and other members of our community to clean up Canyon Country. He accomplished this defeat of early intervention by aligning himself with a group of whiners from Saugus who received code citations, and a then council candidate who made it his campaign platform to defend a few folks who refused to comply with local ordinances and maintain their properties according to the laws on the books. These “upstanding citizens” pressured the Council to stop enforcement efforts citywide to the detriment of our community. The city backed off and here we are now. Good job guys. Are you now going to take credit for the mess we are in too? Did not think so… Canyon Country needs serious help and major intervention efforts from a whole bunch of authorities. We need Community Preservation Officers to get folks living in residences and apartments which are substandard and not in compliance with local codes and ordinances (the broken window syndrome) to clean up those properties, and targeted sweeps by Sheriff’s, Cobra units, probation, ICE, and any other agencies that can help rid our community of these disrespectful lowlifes, gangbangers and wannabes. Many of us in the community are imploring the city and sheriff to come into our community and do whatever needs to happen to regain control of our community. They are listening too, so fair warning to those of you who will scream about property rights, etc. I DO NOT GIVE A CRAP about their rights and I will fight you tooth and nail! Be a part of the solution or get out of my way. Send these little bastards to communities that do not care or are not willing to stand up to these creeps. I want my community back and rid of these vermin, NOW!
  26. iMagicNovember 1, 2011 at 9:07 am
    “least one of the young males was wearing a gang insignia hat according to published reports.” Please produce said reports…
  27. IHeartSCVNovember 1, 2011 at 9:14 am
    Berta, let’s not blame the circumstances that “made” this murder happen but instead blame the people with the gun who pulled the trigger.
  28. BertaNovember 1, 2011 at 9:21 am
    Sorry IHeart but the blame is shared by ALL parties responsible for this situation, not just the triggerman.
  29. IHeartSCVNovember 1, 2011 at 9:24 am
    It really isn’t. A driveway poured two feet too wide or some other silly code violation didn’t “make” this murder happen.
  30. BertaNovember 1, 2011 at 9:31 am
    IHeart when YOU and Ferdman et al start deciding which rules/laws are to be enforced, the problems begin. Everyone should be held to the same standards. It was not just driveway widths, which were problems in Saugus or Canyon Country.
  31. MikeNovember 1, 2011 at 9:21 am
    Al Ferdman: American Gangster
  32. MikeNovember 1, 2011 at 9:20 am
    Reading comprehension fail. It’s just one sentence. Read it again. I’m taking exception to SCVTV labeling the VICTIMS as gangsters. “Gangsters male blk 17-21 shoot other gangsters ” Sure they labeled the shooter(s) as gangsters. Fine by me. Correct it if later if it’s untrue, but not much of a leap. Labeling the robbery victim and the person who came to his aid (and killed for it) as gangsters is one helluva smear if you aren’t absolutely certain of it.
  33. BertaNovember 1, 2011 at 9:35 am
    Mike I did not read that article. The article I read does not make it sound as though the older Hispanic victims were involved in gangs but rather the younger black assailants were.
  34. MikeNovember 1, 2011 at 9:42 am
    Berta, you responded to my comment, where I took exception to what they posted on twitter. I even quoted the entire tweet. It’s as plain as day that I was talking about the victims, not the suspects. Before your next 400-word diatribe, please take a moment to re-read the post you’re responding to.
  35. BertaNovember 1, 2011 at 9:49 am
    Gee sorry Mike if I am a little passionate about the fact that I keep hearing gunshots coming from all different directions the past several weeks from my little house in Canyon Country and my neighborhood has changed from working class to watch your ass. Please forgive me…
  36. Coastal SageNovember 1, 2011 at 9:25 pm
    Berta I am saddened to tell you that I spoke with one of Santa Clarita’s City Council members on Monday night, and they said that “the Sheriff’s Office has done a lot to clean up Canyon Country in terms of gang members”. I trust what you say, and worry that people with a Canyon Country zip code for their home have pressured the powers-that-be to, in reality, slack off on anti-gang enforcement activity for the sake of preserving real estate values. I happened to be in Superior Court way back in 1999 when the L.A. City Attorney’s office successfully argued one of their first motion for an anti-gang injunction, which essentially identifies a gang, where its members live, and prohibits the gang members from congregating outside with eachother, wearing gang insignia, riding in cars together, and the injunction applies to both gang members whose names are known and those which are unknown. It’s my understanding that anti-gang injunctions have stood up to Constitutional scrutiny in the courts. It sounds to me like someone from the City Attorney’s office needs to get the forms from the L.A. City Attorney’s office and get to work. As a bizarre side note, the woman who has been on television lately as the Mayor of Oakland, Jean Quan, ran for election with the legal/economic backing of the law firm which does most of the defense work for violent Oakland gangs who might have been the subject of anti-gang injunctions, except for the fact that when Mayor Quan was elected, she pushed out the door, Oakland’s City Attorney, John Russo. Mr. Russo and his staff were working on getting anti-gang injunctions like they do in L.A. So the gangs rampage in Oakland while, with Mayor Quan’s tacit approval, the Oakland Police focus on hippie protesters. Perhaps the sad-but-true statement for residents of Canyon Country is that things could be worse. You could live in Oakland.
  37. Coastal SageNovember 2, 2011 at 9:56 am
    When I looked up the anti-gang injunction I accidentally saw argued in L.A. Superior Court, when I was there on a case for work, it turned out it was 1993 not 1999. Time flies.
  38. SCVTechieNovember 1, 2011 at 8:49 am
    How many shootings is this now in the recent past (in CC) ? Jeff had a name for that area – something involving ‘Den of’. This area has really changed / been changing. Steadily increasing over the past 5 years. Sort the crime data by frequency and you will be surprised where it is on the list.
  39. ToddNovember 1, 2011 at 9:21 am
    The problem with this area, IMHO, is the fact that it is immediately adjacent to unincorporated county areas which contain the dirth of SCV’s housing… Jakes Way. I made the mistake of living off Jakes (on the far side, past the freeway in what appeared to be a rather nice apartment community) when I first moved into SCV. A few sketchy nights driving home and I quickly realized that Jakes Way is NOT a place you want to be. Because its outside city limits, the county’s budgeted Sherriff’s deputies have to patrol the area, and not the City’s resources. I know that the LASD has done some targeted enforcement in there (parole sweeps, etc) and busted a LOT of people… and I believe that the eventual annexation of that area (which is moving forward, last I checked) will be good, because now its Santa Clarita’s deputies which will work the area and more resources can be assigned to the area. Glad I got the hell outta there while I could. My apartment was nice… but damn it was sketchy.
  40. MikeNovember 1, 2011 at 9:33 am
    Jake’s Way was annexed into the city earlier this year. Hopefully, things will cool down there. The new hotbed seems to be the area around Sierra Vista Jr. High.
  41. BertaNovember 1, 2011 at 9:36 am
    a few blocks from my home…
  42. MikeNovember 1, 2011 at 9:48 am
    While I hardly think the CCAC shares blame in this shooting, I think it is regrettable that Al spent his political capital on an election. If he had remained narrowly focused of issues pertaining the CC, then I think the CCAC would still command the respect and attention before the council that it used to. I don’t live in CC, but close enough. It needs love.
  43. JohnNovember 1, 2011 at 9:56 am
    Mike Jakes Way has not yet been annexed into Santa Clarita
  44. MikeNovember 1, 2011 at 10:01 am
    Really? I thought is was back in the spring. Is it still slated to happen?
  45. ToddNovember 1, 2011 at 11:04 am
    Good to know, I didn’t know if the annexation was complete. Didn’t think LAFCO had accepted. The city’s annexation maps still show it pending.
  46. MikeNovember 1, 2011 at 11:11 am
    Seems I was mistaken. Jakes Way remains an unincorporated freeforall.
  47. ToddNovember 1, 2011 at 12:43 pm
    Mike stands, erected.
  48. Need for Involved CitizenryNovember 1, 2011 at 9:19 am
    We’ve had murders all over this valley and to pretend that Canyon Country is that much worse than other areas is ridiculous. The Bridgeport murders, the Lombardi ATM repair guy in Valencia (unsolved), the other random shooting on Lyons a bit later (unsolved), the Stevenson Ranch Pizza murder (unsolved), the Canyon Country neighbor on neighbor murder, etc. Anytime there is more affordable housing, there is the potential for an unsavory element to come in. These areas are today in Newhall and Canyon Country but as densities increase throughout the City, there will be additional higher crime areas coming to your neighborhood (think Jakes Way). Wow Berta, you really wove a web there to try to hang this on Alan Ferdman. He must be really powerful to keep the City officials from doing what they wanted to do regarding gang prevention programs. Last I heard, they basically ignore his comments and do what they want to do anyway. Perhaps you ought to be targeting Frank Ferry who has tried to sweep our crime issues under the rug for years.
  49. BertaNovember 1, 2011 at 9:45 am
    NFIC he DID have a lot of influence since the Council folks had no way of knowing that he did not speak for the hundreds of folks on the CCAC mailing list he claims that he speaks for. He continues to indicate he speaks on OUR behalf to this day before Council, Planning, etc when he does not. He has lost credibility in part because I believe they have since learned that he speaks only for himself. He certainly does not speak for me.
  50. Need for Involved CitizenryNovember 1, 2011 at 9:54 am
    Well, more often than not, he speaks for me so there, were even!
  51. BertaNovember 1, 2011 at 10:02 am
    Well now, if I recall correctly you have stated you live in the Sand Canyon area, which is SO FAR away from all of these nuisance gang-shooting incidents. We will see if you feel differently about things when it is your neighborhood, shopping area, family, friends, etc being shot up etc on a regular basis.
  52. Need for Involved CitizenryNovember 1, 2011 at 10:29 am
    My kids have gone to Sierra Vista and I have one left at Canyon. I would rather patronize the mom and pops of Canyon Country and Newhall than the national chains found in the other areas of town so it is not like I only go as far as the Vons at Sand. Believe me, I am concerned about crimes THROUGHOUT the Valley. I think LASD should just park a car at the Jack in the Box on Soledad every night. That way, they won’t be far from most of the calls in Canyon Country.
  53. JerryNovember 1, 2011 at 10:23 am
    Need For I agree, Al Ferdman speaks for me also. If we want to talk about someone who speaks only for themselves, we can always count on Berta to beat a dead horse and distort what actually happened to push her purpose.
  54. BertaNovember 1, 2011 at 11:43 am
    Hi Jerry. You beat even my estimate on how long it would take “Jerry” to surface and jump to Al’s defense. So according to you what is my purpose? To discredit Al? Al already has done that all by himself. To gain personal power or influence? I do not need to since I have all the credibility and power I need to be taken seriously by anyone that matters in my life. To gain name recognition so I can win an election? No thanks, not running for anything. To curry favor with the City? Again, I have all the credibility and tenaciousness I need to accomplish something positive within my community and do not need any favors since I follow the rules. The CCAC as a group was doing just fine and making progress cleaning up and gaining additional attention and improvements for Canyon Country until Al decided to take the CCAC and the rest of our community down his personal adversarial positions against the city and exert influence he did not legitimately possess. His influence has not only not benefited us but instead has actually caused our community harm by stopping any efforts by authorities to intervene early on before things got this bad. So what exactly did I misrepresent? Are you saying Al did not go before Council with TBB and “encourage” them to stop proactive code enforcement throughout the city? It is all a matter of public record, review Council minutes or view the meetings on SCVTV. On the other hand, are you saying that Al did not “dissuade” city and sheriff from proactively doing early gang intervention in Canyon Country? Again, it is all a matter of public record since he said so both privately and at a CCAC meeting, which I am sure “Jerry” attended. I am not sure if CCAC meetings were videotaped then or if they are in the meeting minutes which rarely reflect Al’s “statements” anyway but plenty of folks heard his comments besides me. So again, what are my supposed “purposes” and what did I misrepresent “Jerry”?
  55. Alan FerdmanNovember 1, 2011 at 12:23 pm
    Berta Although CCAC meetings were not videoed before approx 1 year ago, all of the Power Point presentations have been saved providing adequate evidence that you are misrepresenting the facts. On Gang issues , we recently had two presentations from the Sheriff Department on their crime related activities and soon you will be hearing about a third. It has been the City’s Anti-Gang Task Force that has been non-responsive to our requests for action. On Code Enforcement, my position was, and still is, to make the program successful; the City needs to provide a method to reconcile new codes to existing neighborhoods. In addition, Code Enforcement actions, for highly visible infractions, should not be accomplished on one side of a street, leaving some residents complaining about similar problems not being addressed within their field of view. I believe these are reasonable positions, supported by a majority of our CCAC Board and CCAC members. But you should know that, you attend CCAC meetings regularly.
  56. FWNovember 1, 2011 at 10:04 am
    Well said. The unfortunate truth to our city is crime of all types is up. Shootings just scare us more. I read daily in the Signal about home robberies, garage robberies, car thefts, heroine use up, etc., in every corner of this valley. Years past, we never really heard of such shootings. This may seem like a bad idea, but the cops around here need to have their hands less tied to police effectively. And yes, maybe there should be more officers in the downtown Canyon Country area for a while. One more thing… hey cops, how bout you guys follow the rules you try to enforce. Knock off that “brass pass” nonsense. Makes you guys look bad.
  57. Need for Involved CitizenryNovember 1, 2011 at 11:41 am
    We’ve had the crime in the past. We just are getting a bit better coverage out of places like KHTS, SCVNEWS and SCVTALK. The Signal which has been silent for oh so many years is finally starting to give crime reporting a bit more coverage. However, when I tried to supplement the Signal article information on the folks stealing bikes that was covered in another report, they deleted my post. I guess they really don’t want to be too helpful regarding reporting descriptions of potential suspects.
  58. Coastal SageNovember 1, 2011 at 9:37 pm
    @Need for Involved Citizenry: I just wanted to remind you that in the City of Santa Clarita’s new One Valley One Vision General Plan, they set a “goal” of having 10,000 new very low income and low income housing units built in the city over the next 10 years. All but one location identified for these projects was in Canyon Country, Saugus or Newhall. Nothing in Valencia, except for identification of a little used parking lot adjacent to the mall. At 2.3 people per housing unit, times 10,000 units, with one parent households, that means a welcome mat for 1.3 times 10,000 young people, with a certain percentage of them being gang members. At the time One Valley One Vision was approved by the Council without any meaningful discussion between the members, I said that as Republicans they’d rue the day they approved the plan with that provision. To me, the plan’s text provides open season for targeted negative mailers and phone banking to point out to voters in parts of Santa Clarita with gang problems the identity of Council members who voted for more of the same. Since it’s unclear how many gang murders have been committed in Santa Clarita so far, lets start the score card at One, with this sad murder being the first. Let’s keep count until the next City Council election, and the one after that, and the one after that.
  59. Need for Involved CitizenryNovember 2, 2011 at 7:38 am
    Sage: I agree that OVOV is a terrible plan. The affordable housing element was necessary because we have many low wage jobs in the SCV and to help overcome the traffic nightmare we will face. Since there are not teeth in OVOV requiring affordable housing, I’d be shocked if many affordable units actually get built and sold. That approach is supported by what has happened with affordable housing historically. That said, we will be facing even worse traffic conditions than predicted by OVOV.
  60. Mr PerezNovember 1, 2011 at 12:08 pm
    Berta and others mentioning the increase in crime, or increase in reporting of said crime, in Canyon Country does not sound like a judgment or request to condemn that whole area to me. It sounds more like they care about that area and a desire to clean up what is turning into from shinola into $hit quick fast. Yes Awesometown has crime but would you really want to compare a family murder/suicide, mall crime, or bicycle theft to gang shootings, murder/robbery, or stabbings? And those last 3 are incidents I remember in the last few weeks. Maybe Valencia and Saugus are just as bad as CC or Newhall but I just can’t say I drive through a neighberhood in either that would makes me think major crimes are the norm as opposed to the exception.
  61. Phil EllisNovember 1, 2011 at 12:30 pm
    Murder, for whatever reason and whomever is involved, still leaves somebody dead.
  62. Mr PerezNovember 1, 2011 at 12:41 pm
    I agree with you that in the end it is still a tragic event. The difference to me lies in who is more at risk comparing the two events. A family dispute can happen anywhere whereas gang activity and other similar crimes tend to occur in specific areas and can be potentially prevented.
  63. Phil EllisNovember 1, 2011 at 3:25 pm
    True, but nobody seems to be closing in on that potential in South Central and other areas of LA.
  64. Mr PerezNovember 1, 2011 at 4:57 pm
    I believe they have if you compare murder rates from the 80s/90s to today.
  65. Mr PerezNovember 1, 2011 at 9:21 pm
    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0104/For-Los-Angeles-fewest-homicides-since-1967.-Why-the-drop
  66. Need for Involved CitizenryNovember 2, 2011 at 11:08 am
    True. And let’s see where these kids are actually from. There is a good amount of crime “imported” from the AV and SFV.
  67. BertaNovember 2, 2011 at 11:26 am
    NFIC yes there are plenty of imported gangbangers but unfortunately our “home grown” numbers are increasing at an alarming rate, especially in our older neighborhoods with so many rental properties. These locals are becoming bolder and more violent and frequently mixing it up with the imports too.
  68. BertaNovember 1, 2011 at 1:11 pm
    What specifically do you claim I am misrepresenting Al? The presentations by Sherriff’s representatives before the CCAC regarding gangs were at my specific request, as you know Al. It is one of the few issues you have deigned to allow my request to place on the agenda. Your adversarial position regarding early intervention regarding both gang activity and code enforcement issues are also well documented so please do elaborate on what I have misrepresented. You are well aware that I was asked to participate by both the city and community center representatives for a gang intervention program here in Canyon Country about two years ago and you personally nixed the idea for Canyon Country saying there was no “proof” and it would further lower our property values. Just as you also met with senior city staff “representing Canyon Country” without asking our input to discuss what codes would or would not be enforced in our area as though you somehow now set policy for Canyon Country residents. When I asked to attend the next scheduled meeting with city staff, you “allowed it” but subsequently said, “I won’t allow you to attend another of MY meetings with staff”. YOUR meetings? Why did you not want me in attendance? Because I disagreed with the direction you were giving city staff supposedly on “our” behalf. You were deciding on your own what codes/ordinances should be enforced and which should be ignored based on your personal preferences and using the CCAC to your advantage. Did I somehow miss your election to the City Council? Are you the only one supposedly allowed to opine on Canyon Country issues? What you and your self appointed board discuss at your secret location closed door meetings I am not privy to, but what you say in public or to me personally I have described accurately here and elsewhere. As I said Al, be part of the solution or get out of my way ‘cause I am taking back my neighborhood with or without your participation.
  69. Alan FerdmanNovember 1, 2011 at 1:35 pm
    Berta You keep referring to the Anti-Gang Task force report that named a zone bounded by 4 streets (the same area selected for the first Extreme Neighborhood Makeover) as the center of Gang Activity in Canyon Country. When I queried both the City’s Anti -Gang Task Force Staff and the Sheriff Department about data to support the allegation, each pointed the finger at the other and no data was ever provided. The assertion was then removed from the City Website. During and after that incident, the CCAC has made numerous requests for an update from City Anti Gang Task Force Management. This year’s goal provided in the Anti-Gang Task Force Report was to provide Canyon Country Outreach. When asking about the Outreach Plan in September the response was, nothing to report, staff is still working on the plan. That dialog (in email) was reported to the CCAC membership. The CCAC has never taken the position of not wanting the Sheriff Department to do all they can to eliminate any Gang Activity from Canyon Country or anywhere in Santa Clarita. We have always stated just the opposite and supported those activities. That being said, there is nothing wrong asking for the justification of statements published by the city or county. Construing those requests for information as “dissuading” the Sheriff Department from doing their job is a gross misrepresentation.
  70. BertaNovember 1, 2011 at 2:17 pm
    Al I stand by my statements and believe I have commented enough on this issue here and elsewhere for folks to have an accurate idea of the issues involved. I am not misrepresenting anything. The only gross misrepresentation occurring that I am aware of is your ongoing comments before Council, Planning, etc identifying yourself as Chair of the Canyon Country Advisory Committee but failing to add the disclaimer that you are speaking your individual opinions and explicitly stating you do not represent an official Canyon Country Advisory Committee position as required by CCAC By-Laws, past and present.
  71. Alan FerdmanNovember 1, 2011 at 2:50 pm
    When the Canyon Country Advisory Committee formed a Board of Directors (called the Focus Group at that time) a call for volunteers went out. Every member who volunteered, including Berta, who answered the call was accepted on that initial board. After a couple of meetings, Ms. Gonzalez’s behavior was so disruptive that she was voted off the board by the sitting board members. Today, application for membership on the board is open to any CCAC member, when vacancies exist new board members are accepted by a 2/3 vote of the existing board. In addition, the current CCAC bylaws contain norms for when an officer can represent themselves as a CCAC Officer. It is the responsibility of the CCAC Board of Directors to ensure the norms are being complied with. At each month’s CCAC Board Meeting the previous month’s CCAC activities are reviewed and commented on. To date, no violation of CCAC Officer norms have been noted.
  72. BertaNovember 1, 2011 at 3:24 pm
    Al I was excluded from board membership only after you constantly interrupted me every time I attempted to speak during the second focus group meeting, which was held in the home of the focus chair who did/said nothing about your outrageous behavior towards me and allowed you to speak at will. You prevented me from speaking precisely because I was trying to join the conversation initiated by others regarding your constant violations of the By-Laws. The others present were/are your cronies, apparently agree with your anti-city agenda, and certainly were not interested in Robert’s Rules of Order or any other democratic meetings norms either. No one who disagrees with you will ever be voted onto the board by a two-thirds majority of current board members since these are your hand picked cronies and they will only vote for each other. The general membership does not nominate, hear or review candidate statements, nor have the opportunity to vote on your self-appointed board. Your board does not complain about your violations since you only allow those who agree with you onto the board, which is why you have blocked my participation. Imagine what you would say if Council behaved in a similar manner and barred any one who disagrees with the majority from holding a Council seat?
  73. Timothy Myers SRNovember 1, 2011 at 4:31 pm
    And the chess club and the mathletes throw down!!!!!

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support