Random Letters 5-16-19 — Renewed Fueling Operations; Re: “Beyond Barr’s Muddling of the Mueller Report”
- Reporters Desk
Renewed Fueling Operations
We are strongly opposed to Alternative 1 which would allow a commercial lessee to potentially expand fueling storage and operations at the Main Terminal of the DFSP, which is bounded by Western Avenue and Gaffey Street on the western and eastern property lines, and by residential neighborhoods, schools and roadways to the north, west and south. Storing large quantities of highly flammable fuel so close to homes, schools, and primary thoroughfares risks major casualties to the public in the event of a fire or explosion, whether caused by accident, earthquake, or terrorism.
We are deeply concerned about the open-ended nature of what would be allowed under Alternative 1. The Executive Summary for the Draft Environmental Assessment states on page ES-2:
Alternative 1 would include limited or full use of the Main Terminal as deemed appropriate by the lessee to meet their and the Navy’s fueling capacity and capability needs. This could include the rehabilitation of existing infrastructure as selected by the lessee as well as potential construction of new infrastructure on previously disturbed land by the lessee. New infrastructure could include fueling-related infrastructure, including but not limited to any combination of aboveground storage tanks; office, industrial, warehouse or storage buildings; outdoor storage areas; and parking areas. (emphasis added)
The DFSP Main Terminal was initially constructed during World War II in a setting that was far different from what it is today. Any proposal for new usage of the facility must prioritize a PURPOSE AND NEED to assure the safety of the residential communities now surrounding the site.
We believe that locating and expanding future fuel operations at the Main Terminal would be reckless and irresponsible given the confluence of several high risk factors occurring at the site.
We are strongly opposed to Alternative 1 because of the open-ended risks cited above. Our preference for the future use of the Main Terminal site would be the completion of remediation of past contamination and then the conversion of the site to open space for habitat preservation, with some portion of the site available for public recreation. Should the Navy be adamantly opposed to that optimal scenario, then a solar installation might be the next best option. Some combination of habitat restoration, recreational use and solar installation might also be considered as an alternative.
Alfred and Barbara Sattler, San Pedro
[Public comment period will be open from April 19, 2019, through May 20. Current documents are from www.cnic.navy.mil/SanPedroEA .]
RE: “Beyond Barr’s Muddling of the Mueller Report”
Very interesting article, about Trump, Mueller, and a multi- year, numerous subpoenas, exhaustive investigations, and your opinion. (RLn, May 2-15. 2019 “Beyond Barr’s Muddling of the Mueller Report, by Paul Rosenberg)
I’m sorry, I cannot see your points.
We had an official of our government, who destroyed evidence, after it was supoena-ed, (proven fact). Helped effect a transfer of a strategic material, to an old enemy. (proven fact…and made money doing it!). Claimed to be for women’s’ rights, but, numerous victims of her husband were either heavily slandered, or were found with two “self-inflicted” gunshots to the back of their heads.
What I want to know from you, is, when will you use the same criteria for judging Trump, as you do for Judging his opponent?
I have been following this very.closely, you seemed to have missed the part where the DNC purposely sent a russian operative to Trump tower…..so, the DNC could claim that Trump met with “the enemy,” (documented). You seemed to have forgotten that everything in the “Steele dossier,” was a fabrication based on various ruses played on the Trump campaign. You also seemed to have forgotten about the people hired to protest outside of Trump rallies, and, some were even masquerading as Trump supporters.( paid by the DNC/Soros) You have also forgotten about the multiple attempts to discredit a man who was actually speaking the truth.
I was around when CBS news showed people dancing on the roofs in new jersey, I saw it too. CBS had scrubbed their archives of this evidence. Too bad they missed a home recording of this exact broadcast, by a citizen who had recorded the entire two days of coverage.
I work all over this country, so far, what I see, is a huge amount of suppression, of good news in California. There is no news agency in California, who is telling the entire truth. Most are incompletely telling the public a line of crap, intending on swaying public opinion, by leaving out facts. That’s not “news,” that’s indoctrination/propaganda.
What’s really funny?…the public is catching on, and, the public is not happy about our “information” sources desperately trying to control a fake public opinion.
Mike Stone, Carson City, Nevada
Dear Mr. Stone,
You state quite a few allegations against Hilary Clinton (without actually naming her) but do not cite the sources of your “facts”. Our article is sourced upon one document that was released by the Department of Justice in a redacted form and is only disputed by some as to its interpretation. The Mueller investigation resulted in some 199 criminal charges, 37 indictments and did not vindicate Trump of conspiracy, those are the facts. It only concluded that “the evidence was not sufficient to charge any campaign official.” In our article we quote all of our sources or the report itself, not Fox News or anonymous Clinton conspiracy theorists.
Prior to this investigation the Clintons separately and together have been investigated more times than almost anyone who ever occupied the White House. And they’ve never been convicted of anything, even about lying about oral sex. On the other hand, Trump lies about almost everything, even when it doesn’t matter. Both the Guardian and the Washington Post have tracked between 7,600 and 9,000 public statements that they consider “lies” just in the last two years. And I suspect that his biggest lies are in his tax returns, so does Congress.
Thanks for writing,
James Preston Allen, Publisher