Reading the Gazette’s interview with Katie Hill was a bit stunning with “You have something sitting there for three years. Then we get the letter issued, then we get a response within two days … you’re telling me that happens to be a fluke”? She declared “There was no way that is so fortuitous when we’ve been waiting on a decision for three years”. The article goes on to say that “Hill took credit for finishing the job”.
Rep Hill’s comment would lead one to think she swept into office and within about two months resolved the monumental issue of Cemex.
Cemex has been a (negative) issue with the City of Santa Clarita since about 1996 or 1997; the battle has continued for over two decades. Originally, Rep. Buck McKeon tried to get bills passed in the House to stop Cemex’s mining and when he left office, Rep. Steve Knight continued on with the efforts. As an aside, Knight was successful in getting a bill passed into legislation that will forever bar any mining at the subject site. That is of immense importance to the City and all residents.
The final report of the Interior Board of Appeals (IBLA) is 46 pages long and was issued after about two and one-half to three years of the appeal process. That being said, it is highly unlikely that one letter, a month ago, accelerated the matter to conclusion.
The City of Santa Clarita has spent millions and millions of dollars fighting the mining project and has sent city representatives to Washington D.C. numerous times—two dozen would be a conservative estimate—to talk to U.S. Senators such as Dianne Feinstein, (then-Senator) Barbara Boxer and Joe Manchin, as well as testimony over five years ago before a Senate Resource Committee.
Rep Hill’s effort in signing and sending a letter to the Department of IBLA is laudable and recognized as a positive but any conclusion or declaration that it sealed the deal is unrealistic. Any due credit for the outcome would have been placed with whomever had the House seat at the time.
Betty Arenson, Valencia
Just read Ronnie Nathan’s column (he pretends to be an extreme Centrist). Not true. He wants anyone but President Trump. Really? All those 20 socialist/communist leaning radical leftist Democrats you want over Trump? Couldn’t you have at least made the case for a respectable Democrat alternative like a real extreme centrist like Joe Lieberman? Would you actually vote for one of these foolish Democrats who would be really bad for America and ruin the great accomplishments of this President. The great economy we are having. You never mention that. The lowest employment levels for women, black and hispanic Americans, and practically everyone else. You are definitely not an extreme centrist. You never were and never will be. I for one will be proudly voting for President Trump in 2020. No socialism. Never.
I’m happy to hear that Mr. Nathan is conservative on many issues. I have a different opinion on President Donald Trump. He may or not be guilty of those negatives Mr. Nathan stated. But these are strange times. After then namby pamby George W. Bush who never seemed to retaliate to those who criticized. Or the Anti-American 8 years with Barack Obama, there is a force to deal with in this President.I feel there is “Devine Providence” involved here as there was with our first President George Washington. Would we have won the Revolutionary War without him? Donald Trump is brilliant. A shrewd businessman. Consider his stand on trade. He WANTS free trade. No tariffs for any country. Trade hasn’t been fair as far back as I can recall. If we had it consider what it would do for US?
Bob Comer, Valencia