Also notable is that trash station theater has been continued to July 16. If the organizers on both sides turn out their crowds, this could be an epic meeting - starting at 6 p.m. (one hour early), but with possibly hundreds of speakers - and all without the city council realizing that, if they go too late, that legal action will be taken on the decision.
Competing visions of the same facility.
Oh, and I did misspeak - after further review, the statement of overriding considerations is not subject to referendum. But there are enough grounds for CEQA and Federal Title VI lawsuits to keep this project bottled up for years to come (assuming someone can pay the lawyers).
10 comments:
Having sat through 11 hours of the Trash Drama at the Planning Commission last year, and another 3+ hours of comments on Monday night, I find it very disturbing to hear the huge assortment of lies that come out of the opponents of this issue; many of the speakers profess their religious beliefs, or their credentials as teachers and activists for the poor. When did honesty become such a easy victim to be discarded when opposing anything. This "say whatever it takes, distort whatever you need to, in order to win" mentality is shameful at best, and gives me downright disgust for their cause because of it.
Anon, could you give us some examples? And are you sure they are lies rather than mistakes? I'm interested in hearing your take on things.
What would they possibly have to gain by lying?
If you ask most of the people protesting the so called "trash station, most of them have no clue to what it actually is; many don't even know where it is supposed to be built. Throwing nasty keys words out like cancer, NOx emissions, 610 truck trips with no explanation of what that means, kids dying, 13 cities coming into Pomona, all of these with no information as to what these things really are, is basically lying. I challenge them to look at the Environmental Report, which has been vetted twice, and explained over and over, to really understand what is going on. What could they possibly gain by lying? Lots of ignorant people signing up for something they don't understand, that's what. Throwing up nasty things and seeing which ones stick to the wall is easy. "Gee , who would be for cancer, and big ugly trucks, and chasing business out of town, and Pomona being a "Trash city". Yet these people to me are hypocrites. Not a word about our current transfer station, which IS a filthy nasty thing next to a school. They say "we already have a transfer station" when the truth is it is a very small operation of 125 tons, which doesn't come close to covering our city needs, yet currently pollutes a lot more that the new, enclosed one ever will. That is why I call them liars and deceivers. Shame on them.
So, since they're lying, their end goal is to spend countless hours getting people to sign petitions and show up to meetings for no reason? Seems like you've really thought this through carefully.
David Perez, is that you?
There are real concerns about the trash station. But what is overlooked is the facilities that could be built there by right, such as a grocery distribution warehouse, which would generate similar amounts of big rigs. The trash station requires a CUP, but a lot of the warehouse projects along the railroad corridor, that generate similar diesel truck traffic, don't. One day when I have time I'll roll through the concerns of the critics, and highlight which ones are legitimate and which ones are scaremongering.
Despite my general disagreement with Arturo Jimenez, I think he did his homework on the trash station. The email postponement of the meeting, and subsequent nondisclosure of its existence, is of concern and I've encouraged those aggrieved to file a complaint with David Demerjian of the DA if they are so inclined. But the EIR was comprehensive and comparable to the First Street EIR and other EIRs, trash stations exist in places like Santa Monica, Downey, and Paramount in similar proximity to residential neighborhoods, and all waste transfer is to be held inside closed doors.
You know me...always a stickler for details. Just wanted to clarify the pictures at the beginning of this column.
One is obviously from the inside. One is obviously from the outside.
I would expect them to look different, in fact I would demand it! Wouldn't you?
Most newer manufacturing or industrial buildings look significantly different from outside to inside. Even if we like sausage, we probably don't want to watch it being made...
The definition of a Transfer Station given is actually not of a Transfer Station, but of a Material and Recovery Facility, more commonly called a MRF. A Transfer station is where they take the trash from our trash trucks, and put it into much larger trailers, so that only one truck gets on the freeway to the landfill instead of 2 or 3. There is little, if any actual sorting.
Our voters voted down a MRF many years ago. The current proposal says that only recyclables easily recovered would be removed. "The solid waste transfer facility shall not operate as a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). The project shall not utilize or install any sorting belts, hand picking or assembly line formats of refuse sorting or recyclable material removal."
The quote is from the Conditions required of the project by the City, should it be approved.
I have not decided whether I support the project or not. I was the only one to support the last one, but it was much smaller, in a much better location as far as the City is concerned, and designed primarily to handle just Pomona's Trash. Like this proposal, it would have limited its availability to only clean-burning fuel trucks.
This project brings more jobs to the City than the other, and initially at least, probably about the same money in potential franchise fees. Of course, this building is much bigger, and has the possibility of becoming more of a regional resource in the future.
Lots to consider
No, I am not David Perez. And just because these people are willing to do all of this stuff to stop the project does not make them right or righteous in their cause. Truth should be sought, and maybe some compromise. But they will have none of that. And beside all the time involved, using scare tactics is the easiest way to achieve their results. And it is such a shame. They profess to be working for cleaner air, safer neighborhoods, and many other noble sounding reasons. Again, I say there is a lot of hypocrisy in that movement. If the efforts were directed at cleaning up that section of the city and the current pollution that this city lets go by, there would be a huge and dramatic change in the environmental aspects of that area. I say make this project THE model for improving that area; it should be a shining example of what a good project should be, and the future standard that other businesses strive to be. This is what a forward-thinking city should be doing;thinking of the possibilities and positives. We all have been burned by bad projects, but don't let our eyes get clouded by past mistakes. Make your judgements based on truth and not the court of misguided public opinion.
I'm willing to bet that the proponents of the waste transfer station will not have to live a few blocks from the proposed massive facility. I'm sure their perspective would be a little different if a facility of this scale was going in by their house. Nearly all the people and institutions that have public supported the project either have gained or stand to gain financially from the company. One of the business men that I sat next to at the Planning Commission meetings apologetically told me that he's supporting the project for "selfish" reasons. I told him that I was speaking against it for the same reason. My property value and the health of my family is at risk.
Post a Comment