The Port of Oakland has rejected three maritime proposals for the now vacant Howard Terminal, clearing the way for local businessmen to bring forward their plan for a waterfront ballpark there for the Oakland A’s.
Last month, you will recall, Coliseum City was in the spotlight, with a developer telling 150 sports fans at Oakland Airport Hilton that big money from Colony Capital and Hayah Holdings in Dubai will fund a plan for three sports facilities to keep the A’s, Raiders and Warriors in Oakland. See our report here.
Mayor Jean Quan has kind words for both sites, even if Oakland can only afford one venue for sports teams. Howard Terminal’s 50 acres near Jack London Square can only handle one stadium, and that is a one mile walk to the closest BART station and brings a bunch of environmental and maritime issues that Port staff say will cause significant problems for a non-compliant (stadium) use.
The port’s Board took a 7-0 vote to reject three proposals: Bowie Resources wanted to build a bulk coal shipping facility; California Capital & Investment Group (CCIG, Phil Tagami’s company) and Kinder Morgan wanted to build a bulk facility but no one was sure what it would export; and Schnitzer Steel, which owns land adjacent to Howard Terminal, wanted three acres on a long-term lease to build a maintenance facility. The Sierra Club, CREDO and other environmentalists made up most of the 26 speakers who addressed the board. Speakers were limited to one minute each.
A port staff member summarized why each proposals should be rejected: Bowie Resources coal export was not compatible with state emphasis on renewable energy sources, CCIG did not provide enough information on what kind of bulk exports they want at their proposed facility, Schnitzer’s bid was for only a small portion of Howard Terminal site with a long-term lease.
What no one discussed at the board meeting were all the reasons the port staff specifically endorsed maritime use of Howard Terminal rather than a non-compliant use, like a stadium, in their report to the Port Board on September 26.(Note: If you use a Safari browser, this report may come up garbled, try the url http://bayplanningcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Item-5.1.pdf in a different browser, it's worth it!)
Blogger Marine Layer at newballpark.org has enumerated on these issues – contaminated soil and groundwater, long distance from nearest BART station, Bay Coastal Development Commission requirements for maritime use of the terminal, Tidelands Trust covenants for maritime use – in recent posts.
In fact, the meeting and speakers did not mention Oakland A’s, professional sports teams or the political quandary that Mayor Jean Quan and city officials face with two competing proposals where only one offers a solution to keep all three teams in Oakland. See our report from the February 6 meeting that sports fans had with the Coliseum City developer.
The board room could not contain the spill-over crowd of perhaps 100 people. Jessica Laurie, who described herself as a Sierra Club attorney, told the board she was part of a group who had fought battles over six coal export proposals in the Northwest. She said they had defeated three of the proposals there, and now the companies wanted to bring their proposals to Oakland. She promised many more supporters will show up if the board considered any proposal for exporting bulk coal, not just Bowie Resources.
Most of the opposition focused on environmental issues, and one opponent Kate O'Hara of EBASE, went out of her way to encourage the board to keep maritime uses on the site compatible with a working port. After the meeting, she said she wanted maritime uses at Howard Terminal, as opposed to a stadium, because EBASE wants to create the best long-term job opportunities for the port.
None of the speakers or board members mentioned the possible stadium proposal. Board member Alan Yee said a Howard Terminal Subcommittee of the board will meet next week to look at other ways for using the site, so the A’s ballpark proposal may surface then.
After the public remarks, Board member Michael Colbruno, running for City Council District 2, and Bryan Parker, running for mayor, trotted out expected campaign appeals. Colbruno wanted to reiterate his opposition to coal, and said it would breach the sacred trust the board holds for the well-being of the community. He said the port was the agricultural hub of the universe, so let's ship almonds and wine. Parker wanted to ensure fairness in all RFPs and to make sure the port is open for business.
Colbruno is an interesting figure wearing many hats, and the TrashRecology.com site recently published a letter from an Oakland resident that raises questions about his relationship with Mayor Quan, and about his and her roles in deciding where Oakland’s professional sports teams will stay or move.
According to public records and the TrashRecology site, Colbruno is co-chair of Mayor Quan’s re-election campaign, a port commissioner, he was a lobbyist for Recology while he was city planning commissioner and even reported last August after Quan appointed him to the port board that he had lobbied four city councilors on Recology’s behalf. Now he wants to run for Oakland City Council in District 2.
Colbruno spoke piously about “breach of trust” to the community if the port board were to support coal exports. Now the port board approaches a bigger decision on whether to approve a non-maritime use of Howard Terminal for the Oakland A’s, despite the urging by its own staff report to pursue only compliant maritime use. In this context, Colbruno’s piety could be called into question.
An Oakland resident pointed out to Trash Recology how Colbruno’s different roles raise questions of public interest and propriety:
“Is this kind of cross-over from the private to public sector well known and accepted as proper? How does one in such a role separate public responsibilities and personal/professional interests (what some people might call a conflict of interest?) Has any of this lobbying by city officials on behalf of private companies been investigated before? Do newspapers simply accept that companies can have monopoly contracts, that they can hire city officials as lobbyists, that these city officials can be appointed to decision-making positions that directly impact on the private companies they (in a lobbying role) were trying to help, close to and possibly at the same time that they were supposed to be acting in the public's interest.”
Watch this space.
No comments:
Post a Comment