In the Secretary of State's database, BNSF is listed as having given sums to multiple elected officials and candidates (from both parties, and winners and losers) at various governmental levels: state, county and local. To view its contributions as listed on the Secretary of State's website, click here (2013-2014) and click here (2011-2012) LBREPORT.com's information below re Long Beach's current Councilmembers and Mayor is from the Secretary of State's listed sums and materials filed by candidates/officeholders with the Long Beach City Clerk's office. BNSF is also listed as having given sums to (among others, not a complete list) unsuccessful LB Mayoral candidates Damon Dunn, Doug Otto, Bonnie Lowenthal and Gerrie Schipske and Council candidate Carl Kemp. Dunn, Lowenthal and Schipske have previously indicated that they returned the contributions. [Aug. 6 clarifier: Schipske notes that she returned the BNSF check during the campaign.] In a March 23, 2014 article, LBRegister's Joshua Stewart noted that during a Mayoral candidate forum, Garcia said he thought he'd received $200 in sums from BNSF when in truth he had actually already received quite a bit more (mainly to his officeholder account.) (In addition, just one day before Mr. Stewart's article ran, BNSF gave Garcia's campaign committee $750; after the June 3 runoff election, BNSF gave the Garcia campaign committee another $500.) Below are sums publicly listed on the government sources above:
BNSF has proposed to build/operate a 24/7 railyard on land owned by the Port (City) of Los Angeles adjoining/nearby a West Long Beach neighborhood that includes homes and schools. A number of WLB neighborhood groups, as well as environmental and health groups regionally, oppose building the railyard in BNSF's desired location. They argue that railyards belong in the Port(s), not next to neighborhoods. They favor on-dock rail instead of trucked-to-dock rail. And, in a key difference from the City of Long Beach's position, they say the proposed RR's negative impacts can't be "mitigated" at the BNSF-desired location. Others, including some labor unions and cargo/maritime interests, and some neighborhood residents, support the BNSF proposed project. They and BNSF say it will use the cleanest possible current technology, will allow only cargo carried on "clean" trucks that will be routed away from neighborhoods, will mean jobs for residents and bring cleaner air regionally by using rail to move cargo instead of freeway-congesting trucks. The Port of Los Angeles has said putting the proposed railyard in the Port is infeasible on grounds including a lack of currently available land in the Port. To date, despite (or perhaps because of) the polarizing controversy, the Long Beach City Council (under now-exited Mayor Foster) has avoided taking an up-or-down publicly recorded vote on whether to support or oppose BNSF's proposed railyard outright. Instead, a now-former Long Council majority authorized city staff to submit objections (some quite strongly worded) to the Environmental Imapct Report (EIR) alleging it doesn't fully describe the proposed railyard's negative impacts and fails to require sufficient "mitigation" for those impacts. LB's Harbor Commission has also voted to support City Hall's EIR appeal. LB City Hall's position has effectively allowed Council incumbents (and candidates) to say they oppose the railyard "as currently proposed" (or words to that effect)...leaving open the possibility that they might support it, or at least accept it, with additional "mitigation." This position is substatively different than that of a number of WLB grassroots groups and project opponents who say the project can't be mitigated where it's been proposed and should be moved elsewhere. Now-former Mayor Bob Foster has said publicly that he met with BNSF representatives and unsuccessfully attempted to resolve the matter based on BNSF providing unspecified additional "mitigation" (which BNSF at that time declined.) The L.A. Harbor Commission approved the railyard EIR; the L.A. City Council upheld its Harbor Commission action and the LB City Council authorized LB's City Attorney's office to file a court-challenge (under the CA Environmental Quality Act or CEQA) to the adequacy of the EIR. The Long Beach Unified School District has separately filed a legal action challenging the adequacy of the EIR (also not opposing the project outright.) Other groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, are purusing their own separate challenges to the EIR and there is other litigation pending related to the proposed railyard (and the actions have all been consolidated.). Today (Aug. 5) will be the first time LB's new City Council majority takes up the matter collectively. Under LB's City Charter, the Mayor can speak and attend but has no vote. If the Council in closed session takes a voted "reportable" action (specified in the Brown open meetings Act), the City Attorney will report the results of that vote after the closed session. If the Council were [speculation only here] to vote in closed session to settle litigation, that vote would also have to be taken in a subsequent public Council session.
blog comments powered by Disqus
Contact us: mail@LBReport.com |
Need A Plumber, NOW? DrainPros Does It All; Click This Text To See Their Many Services AND Click Below To See Their Current Specials Click for VIDEO and see how Diversified Threat Management private security can help protect your neighborhood and your business. Affordable group rates available. Hardwood Floor Specialists Call (562) 422-2800 or (714) 836-7050 |
Contact us: mail@LBReport.com