A Breach Of Trust
Posted October 28, 2009 in Curbing Pollution
To follow up my blog post of October 19, 2009, here is the text of a letter that was sent today by the following organizations to the Port of Long Beach:
California School Employees Association, Long Beach Chapter; Coalition for Clean Air; Coalition for a Safe Environment; Communities for a Better Environment; Communities for Clean Ports; East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice; Greater Long Beach Interfaith Community Organization; LAANE; Long Beach Coalition For A Safe Environment; Natural Resources Defense Council; San Pedro Democratic Club; Sierra Club Angeles Chapter, Harbor Vision Task Force; Students United for Justice, CSU Long Beach; and Teachers Association of Long Beach.
Re: Unlawful Settlement with the American Trucking Association
Dear Commissioner Sramek and Members of the Commission:
On behalf of the undersigned organizations, we write to protest the unlawful and unwise back room deal that the non-elected members of the Long Beach Harbor Commission struck with the Virginia-based American Trucking Association (ATA) without any hearing or ratification by the Long Beach City Council. We request that the Port withdraw itself and the City of Long Beach from this agreement because of the harm it will bring to the residents of Long Beach and the entire region.
At the outset, we are exceptionally disappointed that the Port bound itself and the City of Long Beach into such a dangerous deal. To make matters worse, the public had no opportunity to review this agreement before it was filed with the court. Even elected representatives from the City of Long Beach did not formally approve the arrangement struck with the trucking lobby before these City Council members were bound by its terms.
Beyond the disregard for public process exhibited by the Port in entering into this agreement, the agreement itself is flawed in many ways.
- This ATA-approved trucking plan erodes the Port's ability to enforce environmental, security, and safety measures in the harbor area. The Port's surrender of its traditional police powers and its ability to protect residents of Long Beach from harmful truck impacts leaves us little confidence in the Port's ability to ensure a sustainable trucking system-a system which is a foundation for Port expansion.
- The agreement unacceptably delegates the City Council's and the Port's decision-making power to address impacts from harbor trucking to industry lobbyists. The veto power that ATA now has under this arrangement will seriously undermine current and future efforts to control harmful impacts from port trucking.
- Approaches to problems devised in back room deals with industry groups have a negative history in the harbor and are likely to engender more litigation rather than resolve conflicts. The jointly developed Pacific Merchant Shipping Association-Port of Long Beach fuel incentive program was a flop; lackluster participation rates allowed this industry to burn its filthy fuels to the detriment of the community. Now, with little assurance that trucking companies will be held accountable, there is reason to question the Port's assumption of future pollution reductions.
- The Port's execution of the settlement agreement raises serious legal issues under the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Tidelands Trust, and the Long Beach City Charter. At a minimum, we do not believe these issues have been vetted in a legitimate public process. The agreement also calls into question the viability of the mitigation monitoring plan for the Middle Harbor development as well as the air quality assumptions for upcoming Port and regional projects. It is a shame that the Port was willing to potentially jeopardize port growth to cater to a single industry association.
When the Port of Long Beach entered into the Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP), it entered into a contract with Long Beach residents that the Port would stand up to industry's opposition to cleaning up the harbor, and that it would do all it could to clean up one of the unhealthiest parts of California. Based on these promises, we supported the CAAP; many of us participate in the Joint-Mayors CAAP task force. We thought we were part of the decision-making process, but the Port tossed the community to the side in entering into this settlement.
The public statements issued by the Port of Long Beach and the trucking lobby that this agreement is a "boon for clean air" are Orwellian. It is an unsavory giveaway to a trucking advocacy group that has long fought against air pollution clean up efforts. The Port's public health, environmental, and economic impacts impart tremendous responsibility on the City and the Port to protect the surrounding community, and it is clear to us that the Port's settlement violates this duty.
For these reasons, we urge the Port to rescind its approval of the settlement agreement and remain true to the promises it made in the CAAP.
Sincerely,
David Pettit
Director, Southern California Air Program
Natural Resources Defense Council
Mary Brown
President, Long Beach Chapter
California School Employees Association
Martin Schlageter
Campaign Director
Coalition for Clean Air
Jesse Marquez
Executive Director
Coalition for a Safe Environment
Bill Gallegos
Executive Director
Communities for a Better Environment
Ryan Wiggins
Campaign Associate
Communities for Clean Ports
Angelo Logan
Executive Director
East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice
Patrick Kennedy
Greater Long Beach Interfaith Community Organization
Patricia Castellanos
Director, Clean and Safe Ports Project
LAANE
Gabrielle Weeks
Executive Director
Long Beach Coalition For A Safe Environment
David Greene
President
San Pedro Democratic Club
Tom Politeo
Sierra Club Angeles Chapter, Harbor Vision Task Force
Hailee Didio
Chair
Students United for Justice, California State University Long Beach
Michael Day
President
Teachers Association of Long Beach
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
JDF — Oct 29 2009 11:16 AM
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but, when you say “stay true to the promises made in the CAAP” I assume you mean cleaning the air in the port. Once again, please correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to recall both ports declaring that they will achieve their goal of reducing truck emissions at the port by 80% TWO YEARS AHEAD OF SCHEDULE. Both ports even stated in press releases readily available on their websites that the suit with the truckers in no way impacts clean air initiatives or clean air successes. Now the City of Long Beach and the truckers have settled a disagreement over an issue that has nothing to do with clean air or achieving emissions reductions. It seems to me that the city should be applauded for saving tax payer money. Instead, you want to use tax payer dollars to fight truckers simply because they are truckers. That doesn’t seem fair or an appropriate use of public money.
mhr — Oct 29 2009 11:53 AM
I continue to be confused by the NRDC's position on this issue. It seems to me that both ports are cleaning up the air pretty quickly and doing it with a great deal of help from industrial port stakeholders.
How is this bad?
NRDC would have us believe that it's bad because we continue to allow independent truckers to serve the port of Long Beach and Los Angeles. Apparently, only putting indpendent truckers out of business will satisfy NRDC.
How is it fair to put independent truckers out of business when they are making the investment in new trucks every day? The short answer is that it isn't fair, which is why the courts enjoined the ports from taking this drastic course of action.
Why should NRDC care if the truckers are small independent busiensses or big trucking firms with employee drivers? Since when has NRDC supported big business over small business? This notion that we have to put people out of business to ensure sustainability or economic justice is just bunk.
Where's the economic justice in putting an independent contractor out of business so that that big trucking companies can come in and take over the market?
Kudos to Long Beach for recognizing the value of small independent trucking firms and their willingness to make the investment in clean trucks.
dbruce — Nov 4 2009 03:18 AM
Wow. The comments by JDF and mhr are an important consideration. However the NRDC was not complaining about the agreement itself. The problem is in the shady back-room deal that does not harbor (excuse the pun) trust. Do the ends justify the means? If you are Nixon perhaps.