Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098

Thursday, July 28, 2005

A Breathe of Fresh Air

From the Long Beach Press Telegram:

We want clean air

For politicians and shippers the message is clear
Californians are ready for tougher controls on air pollution. Are their elected officials ready to respond?

The recently released study on state residents' attitudes toward pollution, by the Public Policy Institute of California, has particular relevance to the Long Beach area as it grapples with the rapid expansion of port operations. A majority of Californians cite air pollution as their No. 1 environmental concern, and an even greater majority see cargo ships, trucks and trains as a large part of the problem.


Secondly, the survey indicates that Californians are willing to support stronger steps to protect the environment and reduce air pollution, even at a potential personal cost. About 70 percent of residents, across the political spectrum, favor tougher pollution controls on the shipping industry (mainly cargo ships, trucks and trains) even if it raises the costs of doing business.


Californians may disagree on a great many issues, but we're very united when it comes to protecting our air, water and other natural resources. The PPIC study confirms this, and gives our elected leaders some clear marching orders.

Heres another one again from the Long Beach Press Telegram:

Righting port's course

New L.A. commission now can align waterfront plans with community's needs.


According to documents obtained by the L.A. Times under the Public Records Act, it turns out that a port finance director, Lou Colletta, warned that consultants' estimates were too rosy, and that the project's rate of return could be only a tenth of the projected 5 percent return. (The port's usual policy is to expect a 12 percent return.)

Also, despite a warning from the L.A. city attorney's office that a fuller public process was required, the port pushed ahead with a relatively small part of the project, a $44 million promenade extension, some piers, a parking lot and park space. Last month, port officials were about to proceed with a contract to improve Cabrillo Way Marina and adjacent land despite opposition of the city's chief administrative officer until then-Mayor-elect Villaraigosa asked them to postpone the action.

Further, some local residents, the presumed beneficiaries of a cleaned-up waterfront, don't like everything they see coming. And some were incensed to learn that they had been left out of some of the planning. It seems that members of a port advisory commission didn't know about a report providing a timeline and cost estimates for the waterfront redevelopment until the L.A. Times managed to get a copy of it.

You might say this project has become controversial. And you might say it's time the new mayor start pulling together some of the unraveling pieces.

He did that Wednesday, by replacing all five members of the L.A. Harbor Commission. The five are S. David Freeman, former general manager of the L.A. Department of Water and Power; Jerilyn Lpez Mendoza, an environmental lawyer; Douglas Paul Kraus, general counsel for a bank; Kaylinn L, Kim, a lawyer in private practice; and Joe Radisich, president of the Southern California District Council of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union.

Two of the appointees, Freeman and Mendoza, are outspoken advocates for environmental reform, which is especially good news for the port's neighbors and for the region. (That could be matched by the Port of Long Beach, which just committed $100 million to cleaner air. The twin ports of L.A. and Long Beach are the biggest single source of diesel pollution from ships, trucks, trains and machinery.)


Anonymous noel park said:

Thank you.

Based upon the findings of the Port of Los Angeles "No Net Increase" task force, the number of premature deaths due to Port air pollution, during the 2001 to 2005 period studied, considering all of the control measures currently adopted would be 4869. The associated costs would be $38,489,000,000. This is for the Port of Los Angeles. If the Port of Long Beach is added, these numbers essentially double.

If ALL of the control measures in the NNI plan are adopted, this number would be lowered to 2745 premature deaths and $19,815,OOO,000 for Los angeles, again doubling if Long Beach is added. Clearly (no pun intended), NNI is not good enough, but at least it is a start.

Mayor Frank previously posted the NNI report in its entirety on this blog.

We want clean air.

July 28, 2005 9:26 AM  

Anonymous noel park said:

As to "Righting the port's course". it all goes back to the culture of obfuscation.

Again, read the Times article "Political Issues Cloud San Pedro Seaside Revival", July 26.

Port staff hides material facts from the public and the Harbor Commission. The only way the Times can get the information is through repeated Public Records Act Requests, backed by its legal staff.

The Port's finance director warns that this is "critical information that the board should be made aware of as soon as possible"

For his trouble he is cast out by the culture of obfuscation. Our hats are off to an honorable public employee, punished by a dysfunctional organization for having too much integrity.

July 28, 2005 9:45 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

9:26 Ask David S. Freeman on what he will do instead of fishing in Georgia.

July 28, 2005 10:00 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The mayor wants us to stop driving 2-3 days a week and use public transportation. Well, the day I see him doing what he is preaching too, is the day I follow orders.

Second in command...

July 28, 2005 10:08 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

To all mayors,

It is still stinking at City Hall and LAUSD, and it stinks big, no fresh air here! Read on...

Garcia quits LAUSD panel

Former chairman spent five years on building committee

By Beth Barrett, Staff Writer

Robert Garcia, who recently stepped down as head of Los Angeles Unified's bond oversight committee, resigned Tuesday after five years on the panel, which oversees about $15 billion in construction and modernization projects...

...The alliance anticipates getting $1 million from downtown developer Richard Meruelo, contingent on generating matching funds from other sources, said Antonio Gonzalez, president of the William C. Velasquez Institute, another alliance member.

Gonzalez said he's confident the matching funds will be raised.

"He was the first guy to step up," Gonzalez said of Meruelo. "It's matching-contingent ... we're challenging the stakeholders, public and private to step up."

He said more than $20 million is needed to complete the park, including educational, artistic and cultural programs for an area he said is rich in archaeology and history.

Meruelo emerged during the campaign of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa as the largest individual donor.

His March purchase of 23 acres of Taylor Yards property along San Fernando Road near the Los Angeles River, which the LAUSD had identified as a prized site for a 2,300-student high school, also was raised during the campaign.

Meruelo, who owns real estate throughout downtown Los Angeles, last week declined to confirm the donation to the alliance, saying it was "premature," and describing the negotiations as "very sensitive."

Garcia said Meruelo's anticipated financial backing of the alliance played no role in his decision to step down from the bond oversight committee.

"Neither the center nor I were involved in any discussions with Mr. Meruelo," Garcia said. "We haven't received any funding from Mr. Meruelo."

Garcia added the bond oversight committee never took a position on the Taylor Yards school site. District officials also said the bond oversight committee would have considered a broader package of school projects and general locations, rather than specific sites.

LAUSD recently went to court to get access to the site to do environmental tests after an access agreement Meruelo offered the district was deemed "not acceptable," said Ron Bagel, LAUSD's director of real estate.

Gonzalez said his institute continues to support more schools, including in Taylor Yards.

Beth Barrett, (818) 713-3731 beth.barrett@dailynews.com

July 28, 2005 10:14 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

So AV and his BIG connections at the Hill could not achieve dollars for Los Angeles. No new story here, I knew he could not get the money, it is all talk.

July 28, 2005 10:19 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Noel, you idiot. You put out these numbers as though they are irrefutable, there is disagreement about your numbers, and you neglect to give the other side of the equasion. That other side being the economic impact of the actions you suggest. You are an elitist and your attitude is if the money spent makes it impossible for people further down the economic scale than you are to live in the area, you know the people that have to breath the exhaust fumes from your corvettes and Gunter's diesel Mercedes, it's all the better for you because it will continue to drive your property values up. You and your property developer friends have an obvious dog in this fight and that dog is the big chunks of property that could be developed that could earn you all millions of dollars if you could only drive the shipping companies out of this area. You will not succeed. Eat diesel and die.

July 28, 2005 10:21 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Yea Noel, stop giving us false data and go take an ethics course at your local law school.

July 28, 2005 10:23 AM  

Anonymous Cop Rock said:

Screw you all. We need another Chief Parker post.

Who is the leaker(s)?

I could care less about "Breathe of Fresh Air." Damn, use Blogger's spell check and save yourself some embarassment.

July 28, 2005 10:42 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Mayor ? whoever is available,

What do you think of the contaminated site in Santa Clarita Valley vote which Gloria Molina help vote through for 2,500 home development.

"...Supervisors Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, Mike Antonovich and Gloria Molina voted to approve the project's environmental impact report. A county lawyer said the report would be submitted to the judge overseeing the litigation..."

July 28, 2005 11:12 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:




Thursday, July 28th, 2005 – 6:00 PM
El Sereno Library
5226 Huntington Drive So.
Los Angeles, CA 90032

1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Welcome to Guests & Elected Officials
4. PUBLIC COMMENT – Comments from the public on non-agenda
items within the Board's subject matter jurisdiction. Public
comments are limited to two (2) minutes per speaker
5. Agenda Placing for Next General Meeting of August 3, 2005
6. Adjournment

July 28, 2005 11:16 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Join the Greater El Sereno Chamber of Commerce
LAUSD School Board Member José Huizar
Comedy Fiesta!
Friday - July 29th
7pm - 8pm Social Hour
8pm - 10pm Comedy Show
(Bar and Appetizers available)
El Palmar Banquet Hall
4989 Huntington Drive So.
(1/2 block east of Jack in the Box)
Pay at the door, or call
Alvin Parra at (323) 225-9918
to reserve a table.
Ticket Price
· Regular seating ($10 per person)
· VIP Seating ($15 per person)
· VIP Table of 10 ($250/table) -
Includes one drink per person,
plus one El Sereno 90th Birthday
Commemorative T-Shirt per person!
Alvin D. Parra
El Sereno Chamber of Commerce

July 28, 2005 11:55 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


A Thursday, July 28 public meeting called by the Friends of the Southwest Museum Coalition, an umbrella group representing over 75 organizations, will update
the community on the status of negotiations with theAutryNational Center, now stalled after two years of regular talks, provide a briefing from Los Angeles City Council representatives and etermine a future course of action for community members and other
supporters of the near-century-old museum. The meeting will be held 7 p.m.- 9 p.m. at Ramona Hall, 4580 N. Figueroa Street in Northeast Los Angeles.

July 28, 2005 12:05 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

July 26, 2005
Garcetti/Josh Kamensky, (213) 473-7013
Greuel/Leslie Pollner, (213) 473-7002
Rosendahl/Safiya Jones, (213) 473-7011


Los Angeles City Councilmembers Eric Garcetti, Wendy Greuel and Bill Rosendahl joined election reform advocates from the California Clean Money Campaign to call for a "clean money" law that would get money out of local elections and restore voters' faith in public offices. Following a brief news conference, the three councilmembers jointly introduced a motion to be heard by the council.

July 28, 2005 12:07 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Please join us this Saturday, July the 30th from 10:00 am to 2:00 pm
for a Home Ownership Opportunities Fair at the El Sereno Senior
Center. See attachement for details. Hope to see you there.

What: Home Ownership Opportunities Fair
Where: El Sereno Senior Center
Date: Saturday, July 30th
Time: 10:00 am - 2:00pm

The Greater El Sereno Chamber of Commerce,
the City of Los Angeles 14th Council District, and the
Montebello Housing Development Corporation

Invites Everyone to a
Free & Very Informative


Saturday, July 30, 2005

El Sereno Senior Center
4818 Klamath Place
Los Angeles, CA 90032
10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.

Informative Seminar Topics:
o Getting Started on Applying for Your Home Loan
o Lease to Purchase Programs
o Home Improvement
o Refinance your Loans
o Homebuyer Education Course - Available
o Housing Rights
o First Time Homebuyer Program

For further information please call
Montebello Housing
Development Corporation
at 323-722-3955.

July 28, 2005 12:09 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Good morning.

Please be advised that LAUSD will be holding a PEA Hearing for
Central Region High School #13 (CRHS #13). The preferred site is
Parcel F2 at Taylor Yard. CRHS #13 will relieve overcrowding at
Franklin High School, Eagle Rock High School and Marshall High

The meeting will take place on/at:

Thursday, July 28, 2005 at 6:30 PM
Glassell Park Elementary School
2211 W. Avenue 30
Los Angeles, CA 90065

At the meeting, staff will:

Present draft preliminary assessment findings;
Receive/record community input.

If I can be of service, please e-mail or telephone me at (213) 633-
Thank you kindly.
Fernando Chavarria

July 28, 2005 12:11 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Please join Councilmember Eric Garcetti, Community Members, and City
Officials, in the dedication of the new Community - Senior Center, and
CD13 Satellite Field Office.

Date: Monday, August 1, 2005
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Address: 3700 Verdugo Road in Glassell Park

Refreshments will be served.
Please RSVP with Helen Leung at 323-913-4693

July 28, 2005 12:15 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Please help Congressman Becerra build a crowd for his 8/2
Congressional Forum on Social Security.


Doors open at 10:30 a.m.
If you have further questions, or require special accomodations at
the Forum, please call Congressman Becerra's office at (213) 483-
1425 or visit Becerra.House.gov for more information.

July 28, 2005 12:16 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Is Mary Ellen Padilla who is Treasurer for Fabian Nunez's campaign 2006 related to Alex Padilla?

July 28, 2005 12:20 PM  

Anonymous noel park said:

The numbers are real simple guys. The report has a graph showing the emissions for each year.

The California Air Resources Board report on how they calculate the numbers is also included.

You just pick the pollution levels off the graph for each year and multiply by CARB's factors.

Did the lawyers and lobbyists for the shipping lines and the railroads try to obfuscate these numbers? Of course, it's the culture. The CARB and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency representatives patiently explained, several times, that they have used this methodology since the 1970s, and that it has been accepted by the United States Congress, but the shippers and the railroads said that we need more studies. If you do more studies, you can stall off cleaning up the pollution. If a few more people die in the meantime, tough.

You guys can obfuscate all you want to, but if any policy level people read this stuff, they had better pay attention. Get some experts to check the math? Absolutely. Blow it off with a blast of flak? You had better not. Soon enough, the body count will start to be too obvious to ignore.

July 28, 2005 12:46 PM  

Anonymous noel park said:

"Eat diesel and die"?

Wishing death on your neighbors, now there's a clever way to influence public opinion.

July 28, 2005 12:52 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Mayor Frank has just completed 5 new studies that prove without a doubt new shocking facts.

1. Californians want clean air

2. Californians want to have more money

3. Californians don't like crime

4. Californians would like hungry people to be fed

5. Californians want world peace

Shocking yet more "true" information. Californians say they are willing to sacrifice for these goals but blame government agencies
for these problems not being solved already.

Mayor Frank reports that we can only wait for our savior, Noel Park, to "show the way" once he gets out of tonight's meeting. Mr. Park(e) is expected to ask for more studies, a trip to Baltimore, and a catered meal from Ante's while blaming the Port of Los Angeles for everything.

July 28, 2005 1:53 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Former Mayors Critsobal Aguilar and Fletcher Bowron will be hosting a discussion forum at the LA Richard Riordan Central Library on Saturday, July 30th, on the following topics:

I. Back when hookers were legal in LA by C. Aguilar
II. LA when it was more white by Fletcher Bowron
III. Special guest speaker: Mayor Sam Yorty on how to burn trash and piss off black people

See you then!

July 28, 2005 3:31 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

All I can say is don't beleive what you read in the newspapers. Anyone who has worked in the City of Los Angeles knows that the decisions and directions are from the Commisions and the Mayor's office. Staff is the pawn in this political game.

July 28, 2005 8:42 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

No--the Padillas are not connected or related. One is a very good treasurer for campaigns, the other a semi-corrupt city councilmember.

July 28, 2005 11:00 PM  

Anonymous noel park said:


I have never been to Baltimore, and have no plans to go, least of all on some junket sponsored by the Port of Los Angeles, if that is what you are implying.

I don't even go on their little cruises around the harbor on their yacht, having heard enough of their spin and obfuscation to last me a lifetime already. Some may wonder why the Port of Los Angeles needs a yacht, but that's another issue for another time.

As to catered dinners, alas, you have discovered my terrible secret. I do all of this stuff so that I can fulfill my secret desired to "munch" free pasta once a month while sitting through a 2 1/2 hour meeting with my pals at the Port.

To relieve your anxiety, I have sent an e-mail this very day the the Port Community Advisory Committee Co-Chairs, asking that such food not be provided in the future. Through your superior intelligence gathering apparatus, I would assume that you will see the e-mail in due course.

As to asking the Port to cure problems not caused by them, no such thing has ever been suggested. If they deal with their own 1600 tons of diesel PM and 27,000 tons of NOX this year, their 154 premature deaths, their $1 billion in health related costs, currently externalized on to the public, their traffic, the billions of dollars in costs externalized on to the public as a result of that traffic, their blight, and their Environmental Justice insults to the adjacent communities, others can deal with the rest of society's problems.

While one certainly has to admire your dedication to your work, if you had actually read the Press-Telegram editorials posted by Mayor Frank before starting in to attack any community upstarts who dare to speak out on these issues, you would see that this is the case.

July 29, 2005 9:11 AM  

Blogger ubrayj02 said:

Wow, is Noel Park an elected official? Noel, how could you have garnered such a dedicated opposition?

July 29, 2005 9:27 AM  

Blogger ubrayj02 said:

Noel, I have an idea. You obviously want to stop pollution from diesel exhaust and the burning of the crap they run those big ships on.

Offer up environmentalist ideas that help as many stakeholders as possible to profit (literally, make money) from a reduction in pollutants released into our environment.

Money at the ports flows inefficiently - a lot of money gets made but shipping container throughput and goods movement are often extremely slow.

Instead of focusing myopically on the proximate causes of pollution, go after the ultimate causes of pollution: inefficiency and waste.

Help the entities at the ports profit from cleaning up their act. I don't mean hand out money to polluters - but strategically change the way that money is made at the ports.

Economic sanctions will reduce traffic (and pollution) at the ports. Yet, if they are applied poorly, they will cost our region much more than they will save us in terms of health costs and environmental damage.

In Southern California we treat enivronmental problems the way we treat most "problems". Once something is identified as a problem, a commission or agency is created to address it, and it alone. Problems like pollution from truck traffic, however, are regional problems and deal not just with traffic at the ports - but with land use patterns and globalized commercial interests.

There is a flow of capital that allows the ports to run as they do now. Simply collecting a fee for shipping containers entering the ports, or forcing certain business models on members of this industry, can solve the pollution problem - but at what cost to trade and shipping industry? (Please, lay off the trope about "saved lives" - I get it.)

And who are the "Friends of the Port"?

July 29, 2005 9:51 AM  

Anonymous noel park said:


Nice to have you back.

Well, I'm a Neighborhood Council member, so I guess you could actually say that I am some sort of a JV elected official.

On the other hand, I think that my dedicated opposition is just probably an outgrowth of my charming personality, coupled with the need of thousands of self-interested people to maintain business as usual at the ports.

Thank you very much for making intelligent comments on serious public policy issues. How refreshing.

As to the Friends of the Port, who knows who they are, except that they clearly fit into the description above somehow? They are Anonymous.
I just call them the Friends of the Port (FOP) because it reminds me of the Friends Of Bill (FOB) and gives me a laugh in the midst of the nastiness, and saves some typing on the blog.

July 29, 2005 11:13 AM  

Anonymous Cathy Beauregard-Covit said:

Some one told me last night 7/28/05 to check out this web site, I'd find it interesting.
Very first time I have visited this web site.
I won't return I have a life, children and they are way more important than this Bull Shit.
You guys need to find a life.
If I openly voice my opinions in public and to your face, only a fool would think I'd ever make an annomous post.

Cathy Beauregard-Covit

July 29, 2005 5:02 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Cathy -

As of today, July 29th, what is on here that is so offensive to you? All your nasty posts aren't even on here now, they were deleted early this morning.

You are full of shit, girl, and everyone knows it.

July 29, 2005 6:31 PM  

Anonymous CAthy Beauregard-Covit said:

I entered Noel Park's name in the search, found the article,led me to the site.
Because someone told me someone was pretending to be me,
and the bull that was being said
I felt I needed to set the record straight.
I have NOTHING to hide,
Nor am I afraid to speak my mind or tell you how I feel and attach my name.

This site like all the meetings, probaly are the same people anyway!
Gets my point across
Don't give a Dam wether you believe me or not!

July 29, 2005 7:10 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I thought you weren't going to return.

July 29, 2005 7:14 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Let me try one more time to get through your thick skull. Since you love the dictionary so much, try to understand this.

MYOPIC: lacking tolerance or understanding; narrow-minded.

Noel, please read the following carefully, YOU ARE MYOPIC!!! (of course that's in addition to being a liar and a hypocrite, but I'm trying to not spin you up so much this time.)

Over the past several years you have turned a town that once proclaimed to have "the proudest people on earth" into one, under your decree, should be ashamed of its past, paranoid of its present and terrified of its future.

Why? Because unless government, and specifically the port of L.A. meets YOUR DEMANDS the community, the city, and the entire state will continue to print YOUR horror stories of life in the Harbor Area whether they like it or not!

There is no room to observe the initial implementation of cold ironing, the opening of the port 24/7 to decrease traffic, the award given to the port of L.B. for its environmental work, the studies that have shown the port of L.A. made impressive progress regarding water quality over the past twenty years, the literally hundreds of meetings the Port of L.A. hosted trying to get community input on "building" largely open space parks on the waterfront.

If credit were to be given for recent efforts there might be a dispersion of initiative. The community and particularly the press and political must continue to believe there are "pollution demons" around every corner that want to kill people on a second's notice. I bet you've Farenheit 9/11 a dozen times. You know what Bush was thinking...

Let's not talk about changes in diesel regulations coming up, let's not talk about recent studies on the Port that stated too much money and time was given to PCAC, making the Port less effective in carrying out its legal responsibilities. Like Grieg said, the port serves a larger constituency, and auditors for that constituency said the port was spending too much time on you and the rest of the Noelsters and Gunterettes. Talk like that might dim the spotlight and dictatorial, I mean, leadership possibilities.

I mean, let's be honest, if you were that serious about air quality YOU KNOW YOU SHOULD START WITH A STARE IN THE MIRROR! I won't belabor that anymore, just note it as a starting point. At this point, you're not interested in community organizing, the whole NC thing and the Homeowner Coalition can go to heck in a handbasket, right? Why else would you put a big Villaraigosa sign on the front lawn, knowing all you were doing was pissing off everyone around you. You didn't try to change anyone's mind in town with debate, you just got you and your cadre to pony up for a tremendous payback of influence and watched the blood trickle from the Hahns' backs. All that talk about shipping tycoons and their tactics was just envy in hindsight, wasn't it?

When other community members brought up concerns about the lack of athletic fields in the poor part of town, they didn't understand that they were posing a threat to the spotlight, so you told them that they just weren't a priority, right?

When war widows and their children spoke about their tremendous in moving maritme memorials that served as their missed one's only gravestones, they didn't understand that they were giving the port an opportunity to polish their image when they needed to be shrouded in darkness. I believe you wrote that they were "ignorant" in the paper...real sensitive.

When your NC wanted to pass a motion to support the grocery store clerks in their lockout, you couldn't bring yourself to support it because it was "beyond the scope" of the responsibilities. There are at least two stores in your NC. Do you apply that same criteria when your NC discusses port issues since your NC only covers aportion of the Port or, for that matter, the City of LA? Isn't the real reason is that these labor issues were really cutting into your "face time" with reporters?

Face it, Noelsters, the fight for clean air is the image you all want to protect. The pact that truly binds is the pursuit of political power. There's nothing wrong with that as long as you're honest with yourselves and can still sleep at night. You now must realize that any neophyte that happens to stumble into an NC or PCAC meeting is either to be pitied or eaten alive. The ongoing soap opera there is like trying to watch Twin Peaks for the first time during its third season.... it's just sad and confusing from the outside.

I know Noel could care less, but for the rest of you, is that what you want for the future of community decision-making? It shouldn't be that whoever's gone to the most meetings wins. Why are you letting him?

Noel, for the love of God, please let go for a while. There are good people who work in the port today just like you did for twenty years. They want to implement change. Implemenmtation will require private investment or at least lessor's consent. If you want to be honest you know that what you are demanding has never been done on this scale before and logic portends that it should be tested on a limited basis before it is mandated across the board. Good science sometimes goes awry. You remember asbestos, right?

Please do not continue to portray NNI as simple. We are not all that stupid. IT IS UNPRECEDENTED! IT WOULD BE LEGALLY BINDING TO LARGE MULTI-NATIONAL COMPANIES! It will not be easy and the ramifications are potentially dramatic, especially if the port's fiscal balance continues to go south as the demand for imports continues to grow. It does indeed have national implications.

Noel, you and your merry band have accomplished many positive things regardless of your purpose. Do not continue to tarnish what could be a positive legacy with your collective MYOPIA! Try to work within our community's group of ideas that go beyond your targeted images. In all honesty you know that Wilmington deserves much more attention than San Pedro does. Access to the waterfront for Wilmington will cost a lot of money and require a lot of remediation, both soil and otherwise.

The Council office should go even further north and make the Watts region a higher priority for many reasons. If San Pedro is to continue to change for the better it will require private investment, a strong and expanding community network and public incentives to make them happen.

Please try to think about it. I know I've been long-winded but considered a partial debt paid to thousands that have had to listen to your hot gas.

July 30, 2005 12:07 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

12:07 AM
Has to be a female.

July 30, 2005 12:49 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Has to be Union.

July 30, 2005 8:53 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Okay - I actually read the whole torturous disertation.

Why would you bring Bush into this?

And what on earth is wrong with having pollution measures that are "legally binding to large multinational companies." Air pollution is the excrement of their operation -- don't you think they should clean it up.

Do you want someone shitting in your living room and then expecting you to live with it.

Get real. And get over the Noel fixation. You would serve yourself and your points better by addressing everyone.

July 30, 2005 9:02 AM  

Blogger peter warren said:

Dealing with pollution is part of the cost of doing business in the port. The costs shouldnt be dumped on the public. Otherwise this amounts to the strip mining of Wilmington and San Pedro, and in fact the entire LA Basin by the ports and the shipping companies. Till the No-net-increase plan was announced there was virtually no accountability or effort to restrain rampant degradation of the community's air, health and physical infrastructure.

We need and deserve a vibrant economy. But good economic and environmental stewardship bring more jobs, not fewer. And some of the worst impacts were visited on the poorest communities and their residents.
Let's face it, manufacturers are making vast sums on globalization by moving jobs overseas. Labor and other locals should join together to ensure that the arent also allowed to pass these ancillary costs on to the port and the port communities. It is time for the mayor and the his new port commissioners to stand up for those who live and work in the port, and see that the pollution and grinding effects on our locale ends.
Noel has it right.

July 30, 2005 5:16 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

They are doing something, do you live on another planet,you wouldn't be happy no matter what is done
You don't see all the accomplishments because your to busy drinking with the group and bitching!
Step outside the close minded group of your's and you'd see all that IS being done to clean the Port.
You guys need to get off your soap box.
Do you really think your the only ones who do anything for this town!
Now if you believe that your smoking bad dope!

July 30, 2005 5:24 PM  

Blogger peter warren said:

Dont answer, just accuse folks who dont agree with you of being drunks and potheads; You deserve points for style.
when you have the rocks to post under your own name, come back and debate.

July 30, 2005 5:59 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Anon 5:24

Why don't you list the things that are being done to clean up the port. Let's all have a look.

July 30, 2005 6:16 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

You only have part of the picture Peter. The statement that “Dealing with pollution is part of the cost of doing business in the port” is a great sound bite and satisfying emotionally but fails to convey the true situation. In a perfect world all external cost would be internalized and spread to those willing to pay the price. This would mean that the price for stuff would go up at Wal-Mart and consumers would choose what stuff they would buy and at what price. It works well when all players in the market, in this case the industries in all the west coast ports, are facing the facing the same market forces. The flow of cargo thought west coast ports is depend on a number of factors including, but not limited to, rent and wharfage rates charged in each port, efficiency of cargo movement (tied to availability of labor and adequate infrastructure to not only unload the cargo but move it to the hinterland) and local market size. However, if the cost of shipping goods through the Port of Los Angeles or any other port increases dramatically in comparison its competitors the equation that determine costs of movement and hence how the cargo flows is altered. If the cost of moving cargo thought the Port of Los Angeles is altered sufficiently, then the cargo will not come to Los Angeles. While this would be welcomed by some it other raises other serious issues and concerns. First there is the loss of economic activity that the cargo brings. With that lose of activity comes corollary issues, such as attendant poverty as jobs, and especially high paying union jobs, are lost. Such jobs provide secondary economic benefits as those workers spend their money but also these jobs, especially the ILWU jobs provide health care benefits to the employees and their families. What is the cost to the economic and personal equations from the loss of these benefits.

Second, if the cargo flows to other U.S. or Canadian port, what is the cost, both economically and environmentally, of movement of the cargo to the Southern California market?

Third, if no net increase is fully implemented it is a sure bet that industry will sue, potentially delaying any implementation of clear air strategies. Jim Hahn, those no net increase filled with holes, weak assumption and no consensus, has left the playing field in chaos and exited the stage leaving the new mayor the task of sorting it out. This carries a political risk for Mayor Villaraigosa who has built his reputation on being a problem solver and bringing people together. Ram the program thought and have a hugh fight on his hands or back off to it correctly and face the criticism of the environmental camp and local gadflies.

Fourth, if the costs of goods movement becomes so high as to force the transportation industry “offshore”, in this case to Mexico (see the April 9, 2005 story in the L.A. Times “Major Port Proposed for Baja Region”) with thanks to NAFTA, what are those costs. Consider the cost of Mexican trucks and trains streaming into Southern California and elsewhere in the United States. This raises not only economic and environmental issues but serious security issues given the inability to stem the flow of drugs from Mexico with the current levels of traffic.

It is heartening to hear Mayor Villaraigosa speak of pushing for green measure being applied up and down the west coast. This plays to his strength as a leader who can reach out to others and his experience with State Government. He needs to go further and push at the national and international level. The City of Los Angeles has an international presence and is the bully pulpit for the Mayor to move his agenda for green ports forward. If a level playing field is not maintained this may hamper another policy major goal that of growing the Port of Los Angeles to make it rival the Renascence Venice Italy, the economic and trade powerhouse of the time. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have a long history of powering the economic vitality and growth of the region. If you want a clear indication of this read Steve Erie’s book “Globalizing L.A.: Trade, Infrastructure, and Regional Development” One thing is clear; the economic engine that has kept Southern California afloat during the last recession and fuels a large part of its prosperity could be at risk if the push for green ports is poorly thought out and implemented.

July 30, 2005 7:59 PM  

Blogger ubrayj02 said:

Peter Warren,

This is a rant, so you might want to ignore this and go about your business. That goes for everyone else who reads this too.

It is a well taken point that industries that destroy our natural resources steal from us all.

You went on to say:
"... manufacturers are making vast sums on globalization by moving jobs overseas."

Here is where I stand on this issue (not that it really matters where I stand). If manufacturers, and others, move their operations overseas, then nobody gets hired to work here in the U.S. They do this to exploit wage and operating costs they incur in the U.S.

If we add a lot of costs to doing business through, say, environmental regulations then more manufacturers will move overseas.

However, any reasonable person will tell you that we need environmental regulations that protect our natural resources.

Here is the rub: how do we balance two things like this? Talk to a Chamber of Commerce, and they'll tell you to eliminate environmental regulations. Talk to a Sierra Club member, and they will tell you to shut down lots of industries and development.

I know this is going to sound stupid, but there must be a middle way.

Here is a way to decrease pollution: limit the number of ships, trucks, and trains entering and exiting the two port facilities. Yet, would this have a positive impact on our economy?

What measures would preserve, or increase, the economic benefits of having such massive port facilities while maintaining the health of our natural resource base?

No one seems to be asking this question. Not the shipping industry, and certainly not the environmentalist movement.

How long should it take for a truck to enter and exit our port? Thirty minutes? One hour? Two hours? More? Ask the guys who drive those trucks how long it takes.

How long should a container sit on the docks, taking up space, and slowing everything else down? One day? A week? Six months?

Corporations, companies, small businesses, entreprenuers, union workers, and the state they all pay taxes to benefit from trade at the port.

If a container can sit on the damned dock for 2 months, and all these entities can make a buck off of it, then what would they make if that container got moved off the dock in the first day? Right now, they might end up making less than they normally would.

If a trucker has to sit in a line of vehicles for 5 to 6 hours just to get a container on his bed - and these entities can still make a buck - then what would they earn if he could do it in under an hour? Right now, they might actually lose money if that trucker was able to do it.

The entire damned economy at the ports is built on inefficiency. Money flows through that industry going every which way, except in the direction that makes goods flow through our ports faster, safer, and cleaner.

We don't need "less regulations", we don't need "more regulations", we need the right regulations!

Environmentalists and business people need to unite to restructure the shipping industry's economy in a way that favors both parties.

A mandated time limit for containers at the ports, structured to pass on costs to those who are responsible for moving containers off of ships and onto truck beds, is a start. A Marine Terminal Operator has no business relationship with an individual trucker. So if a trucker has to sit on his hands for 5 hours waiting to get a conatiner - it is no skin off the MTO's nose. Let's flip these bass-ackward business relationships around, and make them work for our community.

Assess a fee for every trucker waiting to get in and out of an MTO that goes over a time limit. Levy that fee against the MTO. If that trucker gets in and out under the time limit, then there is no fee - or better yet, the MTO has its taxes reduced by a set amount.

We don't need to mandate things like "cold-ironing" if it makes business sense for the ships running in our ports to do something else to pollute less and make more money.

The economy at the ports is facilitated by our government reulations and taxes and the de facto laws of doing business there. Currently, we facilitate waste, pollution, and inefficiency.

If we can unite our interests, we can facilitate growth, clean business practices, and efficiency.

July 30, 2005 8:45 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

TL, is that you? Gee, they'll let anyone on this site.

Actually, I appreciate your "intelligence" approach to disagreeing with the environmentally focused posters, rather than the "name-calling" approach..... You could have left the "gadfly" comment out, though.

(Why is it so difficult for those defending the port to do so without insulting those who are critical of the port.)

The perceived need of having an "even playing field" is no excuse for the abuse of the environment and port communities that has gone un-checked for the last few decades.

If this is you, TL, I hope you use your position to find solutions rather than excuses.

July 30, 2005 8:52 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

My previous post was directed to Anon 7:59.

July 30, 2005 8:58 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Ubray - You make some excellent points.

I disagree with your statement that the environmentalists are not looking for ways to preserve the port while at the same time protect the health of our resource base (and citizens, for that matter). That is the only recourse of an environmentalist, since, obviously, the port is not going away. The goal of the environmentalists, as I see it, is to preserve, as much as we can, natural resources and quality of life while living in the reality of an industrialized world.

Ultimately, we will HAVE to figure this out, or we simply will not survive.

July 30, 2005 9:07 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

To 8:52 –

Righting any “wrong” comes with a cost and these costs are more than just economic. It is very simple to beat one’s chest and say save the environment. One needs to make it work in a world that is becoming, for better or worse, a very cutthroat economic environmental. Local measures could possibly be taken but is society ready to accept the consequences. Also, how really committed is society as a whole to the environmental? While opinion polls find support for the environment, how much are people really willing to pay or be inconvenienced to really follow the environmental path as opposed to paying it lip service? Why do most people still drive one to a car? Why is it that mostly poor people ride the buses in L.A. and those who can afford to drive? Why is it that people do not demand and pay the higher prices for domestically made goods manufactured under regulations that reduce environmental damage rather buy the same products of similar quality produced by cheaper, in relative terms compared to U.S. salaries, foreign goods? Why did Wal-Mart change from proudly advertising it bought the goods it sold in the U.S. to touting its cheap prices, of foreign made products, to consumers? As much as I hate to admit it, that bastard Adam Smith was right, the invisible hand of the market place is a mighty thing. If environmental progress can be made while limiting the impact to the local economy, we better look for ways to level the field and making the actions rational. In any political system and especially in the Unitized State, government policy is formed in the “force field” of politics as special interests (note the definition of special interest groups is quite board -- community groups would be considered special interest groups as would any two people who come together to influence the outcome of a political decision to reflect their common interest) jockey and vie for position and to force policy in the direct they prefer to serve their interests. This is not a new concept; Madison recognized and wrote of it in the Federalist Papers in 1787. If we don’t consider the implications of our actions the opposition from special interests, and I do not mean just the shipping industry but other elements of society that see their interests threatened from manufactures, retail business, transportation, unions, people who like to buy cheap stuff, and the politicians elected and influenced by these groups could scuttle any significant progress in environmental improvement.

July 30, 2005 11:06 PM  

Blogger peter warren said:

Let's get real here about the discussion of a port on Baja. It is a scare tactic used by those who want to keep strip mining the LA Port Communities. This idea first appeared more than 10 years ago and has gone nowhere. See LATimes story here:

December 21, 1995, Thursday, Home Edition LA Times.

SECTION: Business; Part D; Page 1; Financial Desk

LENGTH: 653 words




In a bid to improve Mexico's strategic role in international commerce, President Ernesto Zedillo is to announce in Ensenada today a $200-million plan to privatize and expand the city's port, complete with a pivotal 70-mile railroad link to the United States.

The plan for Ensenada, now mainly a tourist stop for Southern California weekend revelers but long thought to have great potential as a Pacific Rim cargo center, will include Baja California's first container-handling facility and a new passenger cruise ship terminal, sources in Zedillo's government said.

Mexico will not pay for the development itself, but will instead seek private investors in what marks the latest phase of privatization for Mexico's state-owned transportation facilities.

And the story cited from this year, talks about basically the same plan -- only its price tag is now 5 times higher -- and makes clear it is less than a pipe dream and years away. As the story itself says, there is no rail line. There is no money for it, and Mexican law bars foreign ownership of the key part of the proposal--the unbuilt rail link, for which no right-of-way exists.

Oh, and dont miss who is behind the talk about the plan--Port operators. It is just a PR scheme used to frighten. These corporate interests trot it out every now and then to cow opponents, divide the community and labor, while they push the real health and infrastructure costs of their business on to residents, truckers, unions and others. They are laughing at us.
(read the correction, too. It shows that when the Times took their PR spin too far about port congestion, their flaks screamed.)

Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times
All Rights Reserved
Los Angeles Times

April 9, 2005 Saturday
Correction Appended
Home Edition

SECTION: MAIN NEWS; Foreign Desk; Part A; Pg. 1

LENGTH: 816 words

HEADLINE: Major Port Proposed for Baja Region;
Shippers want to build in Mexico because of logjams at the complex in L.A. and Long Beach.

BYLINE: Chris Kraul and Deborah Schoch, Times Staff Writers



A coalition of shipping and freight concerns announced plans Friday for a $1-billion port on deserted seaside farmland about 150 miles south of Tijuana on the Baja peninsula. They hope to link the Mexican port to California with a new rail line connecting to the Imperial Valley and compete with the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports for a share of the multibillion-dollar West Coast shipping business.

If it materializes, the Punta Colonet facility would be one of the largest public works projects undertaken in Mexico, requiring the construction of roads, housing, public buildings and other infrastructure where none now exists.

The firms have begun lobbying the Mexican government, telling officials there would be enough cargo traffic and investment dollars to underwrite a major portion of the cost to build the port and a new city to serve it.

At stake is a share of the estimated $200 billion in revenue generated annually by shipping through California.

"We have to get Colonet developed," said Walter J. Romanowski, an executive with Los Angeles-based Marine Terminals Corp., a holding company owned by Evergreen and Yang Ming shipping lines of Taiwan, Hanjin of South Korea and China Shipping of Shanghai, all among the world's largest shipping firms. "There are no other viable West Coast options."

Romanowski said he wanted the right to build a complex of berths, warehouses and cranes that by 2012 could be running 1 million standard container units a year, about one-seventh the current volume at the Los Angeles port. Construction of the proposed Mexican port would take at least five years, the shipping companies say.

Port officials in Long Beach and Los Angeles said Friday that the project was news to them, although rumors have circulated for months about potential new port developments in Mexico.

Traffic at the two ports is so backed up that as many as 50 ships are kept waiting offshore as long as a week at a time. Environmental and other restrictions limit the ports' expansion, and other West Coast shipping terminals are becoming just as crammed.

Shipboard container traffic out of China is growing at an explosive rate -- 15% or more per year -- overwhelming the Long Beach and Los Angeles port complex, the world's third-largest.

Tie-ups at the L.A.-Long Beach ports last year sparked international anxiety when a flood of Asian cargo clogged docks, rail lines and highways, forcing giant container ships to idle offshore.

The logjam was blamed for delaying the delivery of holiday goods nationwide. Now, with January container traffic in Long Beach up 35% over last year, the shippers fear that such blockages could become an annual problem, forcing freighters to less congested ports in Seattle and British Columbia.

Southern California port officials worry about losses in jobs and revenue if shipping traffic shifts to competing regions.

But there is little room for the ports to grow. Expansion of the Los Angeles-Long Beach complex also is complicated by mounting community opposition. The twin ports are the region's largest source of air pollution.

The shipping industry soon will have no choice but to expand out of the Los Angeles Basin, and Mexico is the best alternative, said Al Fierstine, former Los Angeles port business development director who is now an advisor to Marine Terminals Corp.

Mexican Sen. Hector Osuna Jaime said the project would promote much needed growth in jobs and industry in Baja California. A new port, he said, would spur investors to build factories, possibly reversing a trend in recent years that has seen manufacturing jobs leave Mexico for China.

One political hurdle facing approval of the proposed port is the 150-mile rail link to connect with the United States. Mexican laws bar foreign ownership of such a line.

CORRECTION-DATE: April 15, 2005


Baja port -- An article Saturday in Section A about a plan for a new port complex in Baja California suggested that long lines of ships waiting to offload cargo are a constant problem at the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. In fact, lines and wait times vary. Currently, there is little or no wait for offloading, port managers say. Normally, 35 to 50 ships at a time are at the two ports. Last fall, however, as many as 94 vessels at a time were in port or at anchor, causing up to a seven-day turnaround time. The article also described Marine Terminals Corp. as a holding company owned by four Asian shipping firms. In fact, MTC is a family-owned company based in Oakland that has separate joint-venture terminal operating agreements with the four Asian companies.

And what's with the anonymous posts; Don't you guys have names?

July 31, 2005 6:18 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The legacy Janice Hahn leaves with her SUPPORT for PierPass is far from her rhetoric "lessens traffic, congestion and pollution". In reality, the traffic and pollution will INCREASE as more business is funneled through the port day AND night. Who's she trying to kid, or better yet, who's she trying to help? Thanks Janice, you almost fooled everyone, but not me!

July 31, 2005 8:14 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I agree, this Pierpass thing is a nightmare, a vehicle (no pun intended) by which to pollute the area 24 hours a day, with absolutely no relief for the neighboring communities -- especially Wilmington.

This is a bandaid approach, not a solution.

July 31, 2005 10:45 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I guess it is you, TL, well I'll be damned.

Anyway, I read your post and I don't disagree with many of your points. I still think you are focusing on the excuses, not the solutions.

You are seeing the big picture, but not the biggest picture ---which is that people will have to be TAUGHT to make sacrifices in order to protect the environment.

Eventually, these sacrifices will be forced upon us. There will be no other option. The biggest polluters, ie - the shipping industry, need to be first in line for reform. Now is the time to insist on it. No more excuses.

To Peter Warren - I appreciate that you use your name -- I don't recognize it -- are you active in the Port area? One of the reason's I don't use my name is because of the attempts to crucify those who do. You can see some of the personal attacks on this thread.

July 31, 2005 10:56 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


History 101 -

"Anonymous said...
I knew John Gibson. And you sir, are no John Gibson. You are but an uninformed and bitter loser.
July 20, 2005 12:20 AM
……….Let me ask you(Noel) this, do you still profess to represent the majority of San Pedro homeowners, residents, gadflies, or just your personal opinion or organization? Do you think that a community forum that does not include anyone CURRENTLY making money off of port businesses is a place where true conclusions on public opinion can be made? Or is it that you just don't care what the community thinks unless they agree with you. You believe in democracy right?

Your minions have already stated in this blog that business people don't count. Huddle up before you answer.

Nice "loser" comment too, previous anon. Don't you agree, Noel?
July 20, 2005 10:37 AM
noel park said...
If you can't stand the message, attack the messenger.
July 20, 2005 11:12 AM"

Now was Noel;

A) Agreeing that "John Gibson was a loser

B) Giving you guys directions if anyone on this blog got to close to home

C) All of the above


1. ...to make obscure or unclear; to obfuscate a problem with extraeous information


2. a tool to use when trying to avoid the admittance of being MYOPIC

keep spinning, VROOM! VROOM!

July 31, 2005 5:33 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Why do you keep copying the same post over and over again -- don't you realize you are a complete bore.

BORE - To weary by being dull.

DULL - Lacking in intelligence.

July 31, 2005 5:48 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Cathy, you idiot, that's not the definition of obfuscate!

OBFUSCATE - (obfuscation, n.) The set of practices most often utilized by the Bush administration and the Port of Los Angeles.

July 31, 2005 6:10 PM  

Anonymous Grieg Asher said:

Warren is correct in that the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are not going to go away. That Mexico argument is an excuse to do nothing. An action plan for the Mayor is simple really: Implement the 20 or so "agreed upon" reforms from the No Net Increase Report immediately (and continue analysis on the balance); work to move the majority of cargo on the Alameda Corridor (and reduce the trucks on local streets and freeways); expand the programs to measure where the pollution is (and at what levels); dismantle the Harbor Department's "spin" machine and let their actions speak louder than their words; increase the pollution fighting budget; increase the budget for creating greenbelts separating the Port and neighborhoods; improve the honesty in the Port's EIRs; let the local people continue to have a forum for monitoring the Port's behavior (i.e. PCAC), and make Wilmington waterfront access a Priority.

July 31, 2005 7:08 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I hope he has the guts and the brains to do it.

July 31, 2005 7:19 PM  

Anonymous Cathy Beauregard-Covit said:

Before you go calling people names you think your talking to ASSHOLE, check your facts,
Anyone who is anyone could tell you I have been at music by the sea and then the Redman Hall all day, this is the first I have looked at what all you idiots do in your spare time.
I try to live life, not talk all day on a dam computer to a bunch of gadflies.
Really you should give me a break, I told you I don't need to sign in as anonoymous, I'll tell you to your face your an ASSHOLE!
Are you ready to face the fact that I am not the only one in San Pedro who feel the way I do, there are others. But keep believing I am the only one your are talking to.

July 31, 2005 9:43 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

To 10:56 -

Who or what is this TL?

Now, on to your post, “You are seeing the big picture, but not the biggest picture ---which is that people will have to be TAUGHT to make sacrifices in order to protect the environment” I am all for teaching, but some people wish not or can not learn. Or more importantly some may not agree with your viewpoint despite all your teaching. We are a pluralistic society were many viewpoints are held. Must all subscribe to your viewpoint? In the Red States of the U.S. the viewpoint is that G.W. Bush (a.k.a. Shrub) is the greatest thing since Ronnie Reagon while to the rest of the country he is evil incarnate; to loggers of the Northwest the Spotted Owl is bad while to bird watchers it is a good thing to have the owls; to some skiers Mineral King should have been turned into a ski resort while to naturalists it is best to be without the ski resort; to boat operators who book whale watching trips protecting the gray whales is good while for Aleuts hunting the whales is good. Who is right?

From the emphasis you put on teaching people to make sacrifices I question how far would you go to make people see it your way? You seem to believe that the some enviable dawning will occur and that society will rush embrace their earth mother. Human nature being what it is, we all like to believe that each and every human is willing to sacrifice and modify their behavior for the common good. But human history teaches a different lesson. This also begs the question, what is the common good?

August 01, 2005 1:01 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Okay, I won't call you TL.

Again, I don't disagree with your points -- but you are missing mine.

I do not believe that the average human being readily makes sacrifices for the common good, especially in controversial arenas such as environmentalism.

For those who are paying attention to the environment, it is becomming more and more clear that the consequences of Man's environmental interference have the potential to be devastating. There will come a time when environmentalism will become a matter of survival. I believe that time is now.

Our hesitation to make sacrifices will be the curse hanging over our children's, and their children's, heads.

In the case of the Port of Los Angeles, the environmental consequences are far reaching, as the ships travel the globe. Right now, we focus first and foremost on the financial aspects of the Port, but the environmental aspects are just as critical, and they have a financial impact as well.

The financial impacts to the port communities, and globally, of the Port's environmental abuses are compounding, as we sit around tables and debate the issue.

We need to take swift action and stop making excuses.

August 01, 2005 8:07 AM  

Anonymous noel park said:


59 comments and actually serious discussion of the public policy issues!

As someone commented several days ago, maybe this blog really will go mainstream.

August 01, 2005 8:38 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Shut up Noel. You probably didn't hear the REST of the harbor community discussing the issues because you were too busy bloviating, since you like the sound of your own voice.

August 01, 2005 10:41 AM  

Anonymous noel park said:

In response to "Anon 5:24", five years we ago asked the Port to begin keeping a spread sheet with all of the initiatives undertaken to reduce pollution, and the resulting reductions, offset against the increases which result from constant growth, and the contstruction of new projects.

This would provide a running total of the pollution, and whether it is going up or down. The Port has not done this, because they know perfectly well that the reduction projects, whether brought about by the goodness of their hearts or by litigation, have so far only barely slowed the rate of growth of pollution.

Instead we get blasts of PR and spin every time something is done - cold ironing being a perfect example - and steady growth of pollution.

The "No Net Increase" report posted by Mayor Frank, while long, complex, and extremely dense, does show exactly what would be necessary to control the pollution at the 2001 level (not good enough, but a good start).

We have asked for this list and these numbers for 5 years. Show the public the numbers.

August 01, 2005 11:01 AM  

Anonymous noel park said:

In response to "Anon 5:24", five years we ago asked the Port to begin keeping a spread sheet with all of the initiatives undertaken to reduce pollution, and the resulting reductions, offset against the increases which result from constant growth, and the contstruction of new projects.

This would provide a running total of the pollution, and whether it is going up or down. The Port has not done this, because they know perfectly well that the reduction projects, whether brought about by the goodness of their hearts or by litigation, have so far only barely slowed the rate of growth of pollution.

Instead we get blasts of PR and spin every time something is done - cold ironing being a perfect example - and steady growth of pollution.

The "No Net Increase" report posted by Mayor Frank, while long, complex, and extremely dense, does show exactly what would be necessary to control the pollution at the 2001 level (not good enough, but a good start).

We have asked for this list and these numbers for 5 years. Show the public the numbers.

August 01, 2005 11:01 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Who is "we" Noel. Who are you claiming to speak for? Care to list their names?

August 01, 2005 12:05 PM  

Anonymous noel park said:

Who are you? Care to name yourself?

August 01, 2005 2:20 PM  

Blogger peter warren said:

It is quite a laugh to see all these guys called "anonymous" calling names and demanding answers when they wont even put their names on their posts.
The even funnier thing is, they dont see the irony.

August 01, 2005 3:13 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

If we insisted that the Pacific Rim use clean ships, it would cost them more to export their goods. But they would do it, because we, the American consumer, are supporting almost their entire economy.

They would have to raise the price of their products - Walmart crap would cost more - the American consumer would consume less at Walmart.

This would help with the trade deficit and the air pollution.

I don't mean to sound remedial, but doesn't this make sense?

August 01, 2005 3:57 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


How about the irony of knocking down anonymuos posters and praising "Mayor Sam's" blog or "Mayor Frank's" post?

You guys piddle around proclaiming the virtue of "outing" yourselves on a website hosted by an anonymous person(s)? And you guys are the genius decision makers that I'm supposed to put my childrens futures' in?

I'd say "if you don't like it go somewhere else" but that logic was lost a long time ago on you guys.

August 01, 2005 4:16 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Oh, are you one of those port advocates that keep saying "if you don't like it, move," when harbor area residents raise concerns about air pollution?

August 01, 2005 4:43 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Where do the unions stand on this air pollution issue? I would think they have taken some sort of official action to protect their membership.

August 01, 2005 5:19 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

You want to know who I am Noel? I'm your Daddy and you're my bitch.

August 02, 2005 10:08 AM  

Blogger ubrayj02 said:

To Anon 3:57, August 01:

"If we insisted that the Pacific Rim use clean ships, it would cost them more to export their goods."

I think one problem with this idea, while it would reduce pollution (whatever a "clean" ship might be), nothing short of an international treaty would be required for it to ttake effect.

I might be wrong, but I think that serious solutions like this are totally off the board - because they are international issues. The federal government is the one with real say in this type of issue.

If we could get anyone in D.C. to respond to port pollution problems, the first order of business would be to make diesel emissions standards stricter. Good luck with that one, however.

In Southern California, the "low hanging fruit" in the environmental movement is quickly disappearing - and economic growth is outpacing our ability to mitigate its environmental effects. Nothing short of a radical re-working of our economy will work to reduce the burden we put on our natural resources.

To the other Anon who stated:
"Our hesitation to make sacrifices will be the curse hanging over our children's, and their children's, heads."

I think that environmentalists have taken this moral argument for "sacrifice" as far as it can go. The time has come to enumerate specific economic problems created by pollution. Noel Park has done this previously (or attempted to), by citing studies that estimate the cost of providing extra health care, and paid sick days, to citizens hurt by air pollution.

A lack of biodiversity, clean air, clean water, and natural ecosystems can be shown to be bad long-term economic planning. Drop the moral argument and start identifying ways to help our economy through conservation, efficiency and research of living systems.

August 02, 2005 11:20 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

^ This is my exact reason for not voting for AV because he was talking out of his ass.

I remeber during the primaries when the 5 candiates had a debate at LACMA. The only guy who made sense of the issue and explained why that wouldn't work was Hahn. He knew that it would not only effect us locally but have a major effect globally.

I remember that there was a port strike in 2003 that effected the International Economy. So cleaning up the port isn't just a local effort it's going to take National and International Will.

August 02, 2005 11:27 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I don't have a problem with the moral argument presenting itself here, but I agree that we need to identify very specific strategies for change.

I think the rail industry needs to get on board with a willingness to clean up their act too. I would like to see electric rail used to service the port.

I know the cost would be extremely high, but they are talking about spending billions of dollars to expand the freeways that service the port -- why not leave the freeways alone and invest in electric rail instead.

August 02, 2005 1:25 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Electrifying the tracks on the Alameda Corridor from the Port to the main facility in the Inland Empire will cost roughly $6 Million/mile, add about $5-6 million per electric Locomotive that you'll need to shuttle the freight to the main distribution center in the Inland areas. The price is probably cheaper than expanding the 710

August 02, 2005 1:53 PM  

Anonymous noel park said:

As to August 2, 10:08 AM:

Sounds like a pretty good description of what the Port and its clients and surrogates have done to Wilmington and San Pedro for 50 years. Captures their atittude quite nicely.

August 03, 2005 1:06 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home