Random Letters: 10-14-21

Pipeline Misery

Re: Oil Terminal Project Highlights Larger Issues, RLN, Sept. 30  by Paul Rosenberg 

I was actually completely surprised at this article that broke last week in RL. However, I was extremely pleased that “someone” was listening and making sense of it all.

The truth is pretty clear that the port, city, county, state, and many other agencies have had a lot of control over the Petrolane/Amerigas/Rancho 25 million gallon LPG storage facility’s existence for many, many years. However, for whatever political reasons at play, no one has taken the leadership to exercise that control in the name of public safety. The port’s Valero lease has certainly been one of those levers that could have historically eliminated the high risk that this site poses to the nearby neighborhoods and communities. Our concerns for earthquake, terrorism, and antiquated 50 yr. old infrastructure have only increased due to the greater likelihood of potential for catastrophe at this site. The urgency of taking immediate action on this high risk and deadly situation is significantly amplified. “Somebody” needs to do something!  But, who will?

The latter half of this article, too, needs to be acted upon. The issue of the Port’s continued policy of “rolling over” long term leases to previous tenants without competitive leasing practices should not be tolerated. Who is benefiting by this practice? This embedded port policy is rife with opportunities for corruption. The end losers in this game are the “people” of the State of California by the revenue that is lost from a lack of competitive bidding. That additional revenue could, at least in part, be used to offset the environmental damage suffered by those living in the shadow of these industrial ports. Never has the environmental damage from these ports been more obvious than at this very moment with the barrage of polluting ships sitting outside our harbors, and the extensive oil spill sitting off our coastline. These types of horrific impacts from industry are not going away any time soon. When will our government officials step up to their duty to protect? Please pick up the slack here and represent your constituencies properly. The “hands-off approach” to the port’s behavior has been embraced for far too long at great public expense. 

Janet Schaaf-Gunter, Member: San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United, INC.

Plains All American Pipeline

Plains all American Pipeline agrees to a multi-million agency settlement in March 2020 of $60 million dollars in penalties for over 105,000 gallons of oil spilled at Refugio Beach (Santa Barbara). The owner was held responsible for economic damages and criminal neglect. The pipeline in question is over 123 miles and goes into 3 different counties. The pipeline broke on May 19, 2015, and it took 5 years to reach a settlement!

The State was paid $22 million for leasing the State Land. The State Land Commission said it will cost the State $375 million to plug the abandon oil wells that feed the pipeline. This is tax-payers money!

In the meantime, Plains reported $143 million in net income in the third quarter of 2020 and held $24.2 billion in assets. If you look at all environment and wildlife damaged that was done, you wonder why the penalties were not higher?

Plains and their affiliates and partners have a history and reputation for escaping and avoiding rules and regulations. Rules do exist, but the agencies are not responsible and do not enforce the laws.

Big oil companies are willing to pay the fines, as it is just part of playing the game as it is considered part of their operating cost. They pay the fines and that gives them permission to do it again.

The most recent oil spill happened in Huntington Beach on Oct. 4, 2021, as another broken pipeline spilling 126,000 gallons of oil affecting 25 miles of prime coastline. This oil spill is from “Beta Offshore” which is a subsidiary of Houston-based “Amplify Energy.”

John Winkler, San Pedro

Government Secrecy Must Not Be the Legacy of Mass Shooting

A 2018 mass shooting at a Southern California nightclub left 13 dead, including the shooter and a law enforcement officer who responded to the scene. As the story unfolded over the following weeks, journalists covering this horrific event sought public records, including autopsy reports.

It’s the grim work of reporters to review death records and inform their readers about a community’s darkest moments. But in the case of the massacre at the Borderline Bar & Grill in the Ventura County city of Thousand Oaks, those records have remained secret. 

The reason for the secrecy is unacceptable. A judge blocked their release based on the prospect of a future law change. That threatens the integrity of the California Public Records Act. Now we are asking a California appeal court to undo this alarming decision, which has kept the public in the dark for too long.

FAC, joined by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the California News Publishers Association, filed an amicus brief urging the Second District Court of Appeal to rule in favor of transparency. In our brief supporting the Los Angeles Times, Ventura County Star and Associated Press, we explain that the reasoning for ongoing secrecy is simply wrong — incorrect as a matter of longstanding California law and therefore a violation of the public’s fundamental right of access to government records.

A judge granted an injunction sought by families of some of the deceased based solely on the existence of proposed legislation — legislation that never became law. Whether such legislation is good public policy — and we contend it is not and worked with press and civil liberties groups to combat a flawed bill — matters not. Injunctions cannot be granted based on a potential future law change.

Autopsy reports have long been subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act. While there are reasons agencies may delay or deny the release of certain information or images, that’s not what happened in the Borderline case. Here, the trial judge blocked access completely and indefinitely, depriving the public of information that could shed light on the government’s actions in an unspeakable tragedy.

There are real conversations to be had about privacy versus the public’s right to know, but that’s not what’s happening in the case decided by Ventura County Superior Court Judge Henry Walsh. We hope the Court of Appeal sees that.

Read our amicus brief in the Los Angeles Times et al. v. Housley, B310585. And find more information on our website.

David Snyder, Executive Director, First Amendment Coalition