LBReport.com

UPDATED From Breaking

Council Policy Vacuum on SCIG Railyard Invited Foster Feckless "Mitigation"; Cowering Council Should Agendize Open Vote On Either Relocation In Ports Or "Mitigation" in Neighborhoods



(May 2, 2013, 5:45 p.m.) -- (May 2, 2013) -- Mayor Bob Foster, a student of ancient Rome, is surely familiar with the ancient Latin proverb Natura abhorret vacuum: Nature abhors a vacuum. Long Beach's Mayor is applying that principle to the cowardly Long Beach City Council, which continues to evade taking a publicly voted action on whether to support or oppose an attempt to put a major railyard next to homes, parks and schools in a part of the city they govern where residents already endure some of the most polluted air in the country.

Groups including the West Long Beach Association, Building Healthy Communities/LB, Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma, Coalition for Clean & Safe Ports, Coalition for a Safe Environment, Communities for a Better Environment, Communities for Clean Ports/End Oil, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, Natural Resources Defense Council and Physicians for Social Responsibility/Los Angeles urge a different location for the railyard. They have repeatedly said that railyards belong in the Port, not in neighborhoods. They have urged putting the railyard in the Ports using on-dock rail.

In contrast to the position advocated by these groups, Mayor Foster, unwisely joined by 7th district Councilman James Johnson and Congressman Alan Lowenthal, have proposed to leave the proposed railyard exactly where BNSF wants it...with what the electeds call "mitigation." Things like a so-called "buffer park" and money for various items that can be offered as a sop to residents and as bullet points in campaign brochures.

At its core, we believe this is a moral issue. We doubt very much that Mayor Foster, Congressman Lowenthal or Councilman Johnson (all of whom are dads) would want their children playing in -- or living anywhere nearby -- a so-called "buffer park." In our opinion, it's morally wrong to camouflage -- with shrubbery or monetary sums -- pollutants that health authorities say can bring debilitating suffering and death-hastening cancers and pulmonary diseases.

As of noon today (May 2, 2013), the policysetting Long Beach City Council -- whose primary duty is supposed to be protecting public health and safety -- has still not taken a publicly voted position on whether to support or oppose the putting the railyard where BNSF proposes to put it. Why? We believe it's because cargo and corporate interests, the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce and other likeminded business groups and building trade unions want it where BNSF wants it. Those interests can dispense campaign contributions useful to politicians in future campaigns. In other words, it's a political hot potato.

We are unpersuaded by City Attorney Bob Shannon's explanation for what's taken place, which we published earlier today, indicating that Mayor Foster's discussions were "consistent" -- an interesting term susceptible to differing interpretations -- with what the Council authorized in a closed session.

But what the agendized item stated it was for was to authorize the initiation of litigation, and what the City Attorney told the public that the Council did in that closed session was to authorize appealing the L.A. Harbor Commission's certification of the SCIG's EIR. We are not addressing here whether we believe what took place fits within the Brown (open meetings) Act. We believe at this point there is a better remedy.

In our view, what's taken place isn't an example of a strong Mayor. It's an example of a weak City Council. We believe the public deserves an up or down vote by the Councilmembers they elect -- who have a vote that the Mayor doesn't have -- on whether the City they govern on health and safety matters supports or opposes the SCIG railyard where it's presently proposed.

That's what now-exited Councilwoman Rae Gabelich and still-incumbent Councilman James Johnson sought to do in December 2011...but were derailed by a substitute motion from Councilman [now potential Assembly candidate] Steve Neal.

Week after week thereafter, the LB City Council continued to feed that policy vacuum by not taking a position on the railyard...even after Mayor Foster and Councilman Johnson publicly advanced their so-called "mitigation" measures at the L.A. Harbor Commission's March 2013 meeting. What Foster and Johnson advocated with so-called "mitigation" was never publicly approved in a public vote by the policysetting City Council.

By not filling that policy vacuum, City Councilmembers are "hiding" like ostriches -- with their rear ends sticking up in the air visible for all to see. The entire city (and beyond) can see what their real vision is for parts of Long Beach: a "no man's land" with "buffer parks" and ersatz "mitigation" that at the end of the day delivers what some special interests want.

In our opinion, the negative impacts on Long Beach residents of the proposed railyard can't be mitigated. We believe the railyard should be relocated into the Ports, using landfill if necessary. We urge at least three principled Councilmembers to agendize a recommendation of relocation, not mitigation, for an up or down vote at the May 7 Long Beach City Council meeting. The City Clerk's deadline for doing so is noon on Friday (May 3).

If there is no Long Beach Council publicly voted action on this, on May 8 Mayor Foster will likely stand before the Los Angeles City Council expressing what is basically his personal opinion enabled by a Council created policy vacuum on one of the biggest health and safety issues ever to affect part of Long Beach.

Decades ago, some small Mayors, local officials and Congressmembers reliably delivered what then-powerful tobacco industry interests wanted. They cited "jobs," benefits for the "economy" and what they portrayed as mitigation for smokers via "filters" (that led the users to believe the impacts were less than they were...while users inhaled the deadly fumes).

If there is much difference in moral terms between what they did and what Mayor Foster, Congressman Lowenthal and others likeminded are advocating with "mitigation" for the railyard now, we fail to see it.


Follow LBReport.com w/

Twitter

RSS

Facebook

Return To Front Page

Contact us: mail@LBReport.com






Ad above provided in the public interest by:














Carter Wood Floors
Hardwood Floor Specialists
Call (562) 422-2800 or (714) 836-7050





blog comments powered by Disqus

Return To Front Page

Contact us: mail@LBReport.com


Copyright © 2013 LBReport.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Terms of Use/Legal policy, click here. Privacy Policy, click here