Record of Changes:
Change #1: 28 Oct -- adjusts the discussion in section 3, below
Change #2: 28 Oct -- expanded on the process description in subpara. 3.2
Change #3: 29 Oct -- pointed out, in section 2, that the referenced news-article includes a brief bio-profile for the candidates
Change #4: 30 Oct -- added, near the middle of para 3.2, the observation that the Wespac review-process seems to be having an unfortunate side-effect on the election process
Change #5: 31 Oct -- turned para 3.2 into "A SITUATION ASSESSMENT"
Change #6: 31 Oct -- added, in 3.1, "Background -- Some Relevant News Articles
Change #7: 31 Oct -- pointed out, in 3.2, that this is the way the available information adds up for me and am not trying to influence anyone's vote -- I just want the playing field to be a bit more level
Change #8: 2 Nov -- clarified the bases for my opinions in the intro to 3.2 Situation Assessment
To help publicize useful information concerning the candidates who are contending for three of the five City Council seats and the City Treasurer position -- and the major issue, WESPAC.
The two incumbents who are running for re-election to the City Council are Mayor Sal Evola and Vice Mayor Pete Longmire. (See 2, below, for a path to information on ALL the candidates for Council)
Councilmember Nancy Parent is vacating her seat, after over 20 years of devoted service on the Council, to run for City Treasurer and is the sole candidate
2. BASIC INFORMATION
- INTERVIEWS: an excellent East County Times article, by Nate Gartrell, dated 10/3/14 and entitled: "Pittsburg City Council candidates sound off on WesPac oil rail project, development" (please click this title) -- this covers an interview with all of the candidates and the essence of their positions on selected topics -- and contains a brief bio-profile for each.
- SUPPORTING VIDEO: a video presentation of the interview reported on, above -- an excellent chance to meet and hear from all, but one, of the candidates. The one candidate, George Monterrey, who was not videoed, has communicated his position in this basic material.
- MORE: on the City Council Candidates (Google search)
- AND, FINALLY: the City Treasurer -- Councilmember Nancy Parent's Election website; official description of the job and present incumbent (on the City website); and general material (Google search)
3. THE MAJOR ISSUE (In my opinion)
Surely, the most contentious issue, with the most serious, far-reaching consequences for the City's future (and, indeed, for the much larger surrounding area) is the "Wespac" proposal. The new City Council will decide this issue during the upcoming term.
- WHO is WESPAC -- (Corporate Information)
- Corporate website dedicated to the project
- Pertinent Information on the City website
BACKGROUND: SOME RELEVANT NEWS ARTICLES:
8/2/14 -- "Pittsburg: WesPac oil-by-rail storage project remains on hold," by Paul Burgarino, Contra Costa Times
2/26/14 -- "Rail Projects Boosting Oil Flow to California Refineries," Lynn Doan, Bloomberg.com
2/20/14 -- "Pittsburg Council Does the Right Thing in Reopening WesPac EIR for Comments," ForestEthics.org
2/19/14 -- "Pittsburg will reopen public comments on proposed Wespac oil transfer facility," by Eve Mitchell, Contra Costa Times
A SITUATION ASSESSMENT
This is my interpretation of the information which has come before me -- and I believe I am presenting to you a fair, honest, and reasonable approximation of some of the realities in play -- as I understand them.
It, in no way, indicates my personal opinion on the merits of the WesPac proposal -- I'm just trying to help level the playing field, for therein lies the best promise of the best possible outcome -- as in most things in this life. (Much derives from the public, regular City-Neighborhood meetings conducted, several times a year, personally, by the City Manager and staff -- and separate investigations of written materials and interviews of responsible parties -- from all sides in reach)
Besides, I'm no stranger to this subject, having written numerous related bulletins over the past several years, on this very blog.
PRIVATE FEELINGS: Regardless of how Council members and private citizens personally feel about the proposal, the City Government is lawfully obligated to accept such requests and give them fair and thorough consideration. To reject, out of hand, would be unlawful, undemocratic, self-defeating on future growth opportunities, and likely to overlook at least some important considerations, leading to needful thoroughness and proper resolution of the request.
DUE PROCESS: I have become convinced that it would be a premature, unjust, improper, and destructive precedent for members of the City Council to publicly stake out their positions, now (or, in good conscience, EVEN FORMING ONE) -- before the most sensible available process delivers the thoroughly studied proposal for their formal consideration. Akin to a judge passing sentence (i.e. deciding the case), before the case is given to the jury or is even fully heard. Orderly and fair process is the most sensible way to face-down complexity -- no matter how unpalatable or politically sensitive. So, Council Members are constrained (hand-cuffed) from forming their positions, before officially hearing the entire case -- and that case isn't ready to be presented yet.
SIDE EFFECT: In my humble opinion, this SEEMS to have an unfortunate impact on the democracy. The election is to give people the chance to invoke their will. But with the two incumbent-candidates constrained from even taking an official position, until OFFICIALLY presented with all the facts, both the people and they are denied the chance to communicate, meaningfully on the topic. On the other hand, do we, the public, want to decide ourselves, without benefit of the entire story -- or do we choose whom we trust and allow them to do their jobs with the hard decisions -- JUDICIOUSLY?
INCUMBENCY DILEMMA: Their incumbency leaves them vulnerable before candidates who are free to take popular positions -- before the City staff has completely processed the information -- and who are also free to even falsely (or erroneously) attribute to incumbent-candidates, positions they are not even supposed to have taken, yet -- before the case is laid before them in Council session -- and this, in order to maintain fairness and lawfulness, in the manner in which the City conducts its business. It all boils down to whether or not the incumbent -- and the system -- are trusted to make the best decision, when all the facts are heard and weighed. (Further, if the attributed-position doesn't yet exist, then its attribution to a candidate is a fiction which MUST BE CONSIDERED TO BE AN UNFOUNDED ONE -- and not necessarily true and therefore, completely UNJUST.)
ANOTHER WAY: The public record contains explicit and implicit evidence as to the character of the incumbents and the manner of their thinking and is a reasonable predictor of their future performance. Whomever we "hire," we are entrusting them to make the hard choices for us and for which they are accountable.
WHETHER YOU DISAGREE OR AGREE WITH MY ASSESSMENTS, YOU ARE MORE THAN WELCOME TO SAY SO IN THE COMMENT SECTION, BELOW... a democratic procedure, I'd say.This is where we are in the review process, thus far. Many more public meetings are expected, before this finally and officially reaches the Council.
BOILING IT DOWN FURTHER: I might add that such exercises in democracy are edifying to all of us and build civic practice and skills which can be used again and again, to good effect, now and in the future.
By speaking their minds, the citizens are behaving democratically and are helping the process. By weighing ALL the factors, the system is behaving responsibly and safeguarding the orderly process, so it will endure, intact, far beyond any particular term of office or election cycle. (two sides of the same coin being tossed for the City's future).
This also alerts us to the perils of paying insufficient attention to local affairs -- for a constructively experienced, ready, observant, and involved -- but scrupulously fair -- citizenry and government are real assets to the continuous betterment of the precious life-experience -- within the common territory.
It is an undeniable fact that the facility is to be uncomfortably close to a significant number of residences in the west -- and will be a conspicuous presence for a much larger area. A quick glance at the map leaves no doubt.
Here are some concerned civic organizations in opposition
(Google search)
Pittsburg Defense Council (PDC)
(Google search)
Pittsburg Defense Council (PDC)
Those in favor, as I presently understand it, are those who see the economic opportunities as paramount -- and the risks foreseeable and manageable -- such as certain labor unions and corporate stake-holders and their cooperative environments, among others.
4. NEXT STEPS, FOR THIS BULLETIN
As with most of my bulletins, here, I consider this to be a "living document." In other words, it is meant to be an "information-accumulator." As significant information becomes known to me, I expect to update this, at once.
- To be fair and thorough, I hope that those who have something to add will make this known to the rest of us, here. (My own resources for this are spread-thin, by unavoidable necessity -- still a one-man show -- and I could use the help)
- I will signal significant changes by adding a version-number, up in the title of this.
- I hope you will find this to be fair, correct, reasonably thorough, and helpful (or help me make it so).
David Nelson
All Original Content © 2014, The MENTOR Enterprises / ELMS, All Rights Reserved. BUT, I hereby waive those rights, to this extent: You may freely copy and pass this along -- and are urged to do so -- as long as it's all done free of charge, unchanged, you include this statement, AND you inform me as to how it is being used -- at YOUR convenience but, hopefully soonest.
No comments:
Post a Comment