As of dawn today (May 14), the Los Angeles City Council has spent more time publicly discussing the health and safety aspects of that Long Beach impacting railyard than has the Long Beach City Council.

The governing board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, none of whom currently live in Long Beach, has voted to oppose that railyard as presently proposed, marking the first time in the agency's entire history that it has opposed any project. In webcast screen save photo below, SCAQMD Exec. Officer Dr. Barry Wallerstein showed the L.A. City Council an air monitor filter from near WLB's Hudson Elementary School, showing what residents already endure under current conditions.

Yes, the Port of Los Angeles (which wants BNSF RR to build the railyard) says that it forecasts that the facility will improve two key pollutants, a conclusion with which AQMD says it disagrees. (See full LBREPORT.com coverage of the May 8 hearing here.)

As of dawn today, the Long Beach City Council -- whose primary duty is supposed to be protecting public health and safety -- has to its embarrassment failed to take a publicly voted policy position to support or oppose that Long Beach impacting railyard as presently proposed.

LBREPORT.com urges Councilmembers to resist any attempt today by their colleagues to try to go beyond the narrow scope of today's closed session item to discuss supposed "mitigation" for the project which the Council still hasn't publicly voted to support or oppose. The Council has thus far only voted to challenge contentions in the project's EIR and accordingly, that should be the limit of what the Council should discuss today: whether to authorize the City Attorney to file a lawsuit to pursue that matter.

In our opinion, timely filing the lawsuit is the key to ensuring the City of Long Beach's place at the table that could shape the outcome of long term impacts for Long Beach.

BNSF RR and self-interested special interests understandably want to prevent this. The special interests include "Building and Trade" unions whose leadership has already shown historically poor judgment (amnesia file follows here) in backing a corporate-backed attempt to stick an LNG plant in the Port on grounds it would provide construction "jobs." (If you want a nuclear waste dump next door, or a manure plant with perfume sprayed as "mitigation," the building and trade unions will likely do a fine job building it.)

In our opinion, it would be very unwise for Long Beach Councilmembers not to authorize the City Attorney to timely file a lawsuit enabling the City to pursue the legal process in the EIR matter. We believe not doing so could relegate the City of Long Beach to a permanent seat at the back of the bus while others drive and decide where Long Beach will end up. In our opinion, authorizing that lawsuit should be the limit of what takes place today.

We urge Councilmembers to resist any attempt to use today's closed session to discuss so-called "mitigation" for the railyard. We believe this would exceed what the Brown Act allows, particularly when the Council through its own inaction has evaded public discussion and a public vote on this health and safety policy setting matter. Thus far, Mayor Foster has filled the policy vacuum by substituting his opinions -- eloquently stated but without a vote -- because Councilmembers who have a vote have been too cowardly to use it publicly.

The public has a right to know -- without further evasions and delays -- where its elected Councilmembers by their publicly stated positions and publicly voted actions put the goal post on his health and safety impacting matter. That item should appear on the next available City Council agenda.

If there is voted action during today's closed session, we're confident that the City Attorney will report it publicly after the session as required by law...and we'll report it here on LBREPORT.com.