Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Chevron pressures the Richmond city council
Chevron's freedom to pollute vs. Bay Area residents' right to breath
On Tuesday, July 29th, I went to the Richmond City Council meeting where the council was to make a decision on a proposed expansion of the Chevron Refinery. The City Planning Commission approved the expansion, but with conditions that Chevron didn't want to accept. So Chevron appealed it to the City Council.
It was held in the large Richmond Auditorium to accommodate an expected crowd of Bay Area residents (and paid-by-Chevron speakers), 15,000 of whom were sent to the hospital following the huge refinery explosion in 2012. Chevron mobilized several hundred employees to attend the meeting, wearing blue and white pullover shirts, and waving signs saying "A Modernized Refinery" and "Richmond Proud" -- slogans from Chevron's PR campaign. The blue & white shirts made their supporters very visible, and at first it appeared that they overwhelmingly outnumbered people of the Richmond Progressive Alliance (RPA).
The RPA was indeed outnumbered, but not as badly as it had at first appeared. Judging from the amount of applause that speakers from each side received, I could tell that there were a sizable number of people there to support the RPA or who supported their position.
For the past two decades, the RPA has been standing up to Chevron, which has always dominated Richmond. At this hearing the RPA called for the City Council to affirm the Planning Commission's conditions to impose environmental standards and limit pollution.
There were about 80 speakers. A friend and I stayed only for the first two hours. Most of the speakers during this time expressed concern about air quality and health problems; these included Asian community members who had been hospitalized as a result of inhaling toxic fumes during the refinery fire. Some of the refinery's critics wore signs saying: "I'm not paid to be here." -- that was in reference to reports that Chevron supporters at the previous meeting had been paid to attend. A reporter from KPFA found a woman with a clipboard checking off names of Chevron's acolytes. The clipboard lady of the previous week was also at this meeting. Another KPFA reporter got a photo of her.
The people sitting around us included people from both sides. Interestingly, several times I noticed some of the people in blue and white applauding speakers who pointed out the environmental hazards created by the refinery. That surprised me; I didn't know what to make of it, or what it might imply.
We left at about 8:30 p.m., before the city council made its decision. Afterwards I heard the news, that the council acceded to Chevron's demands. Mayor Gayle McLaughlin and Vice Mayor Jovanka Beckles abstained over the failure to fund the hospital which had treated people during the 2012 Chevron fire.
Richmond has been a company town throughout its existence. First it was a Standard Oil town. When Standard Oil was broken up, it became a Chevron town. During the 1980s and 90s it spread less money around, probably because of corporate tax breaks making it less tax wise, and that made an opening for the RPA. When the RPA made gains and Chevron realized they'd lost control, Chevron began a campaign which included spreading money around as part of a "community benefits" agreement -- one way that Chevron gets nonprofits on their side. It left me wondering if Chevron might've also invested some of its PR budget money in KPFA, encouraging the clique who run the station to take Andres Soto off prime time. Andres had been a very effective show host of KPFA's Morning Mix; and an RPA activist with Communities for a Better Environment. He often focused on news about the Richmond refinery and its environmental effects -- the 2012 refinery explosion and resulting pollution which sent 15,000 people to hospitals, as well as the hazards of the dirty crude which was being brought into the town in railroad tank-cars. He was also tuned into Chevron's affect on Richmond politics and talked about who is in Chevron's pocket. Andres Soto's show is hardly something that Chevron would care to have broadcast across Richmond as they try to reclaim it as the company town it was before the rise of the RPA
DANIEL BORGSTRÖM
Ann Garrison and Steve Gilmartin contributed to this article.
http://danielborgstrom.blogspot.com/
For more information:
http://danielborgstrom.blogspot.com/
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Wow—after reading this report from the two night Richmond City Council meeting I would hardly recognize that it was the same meeting I attended—from start to finish on both nights (for a total of about 13 hours) and not the meeting that Mr. Borgstrom attended for only two hours.
On the first night the head count was about 440 people (I take photos of the crowds as well as take actual head counts). On the second night the head count was about 675.
While Mr. Borgstrom wrote that there were about 80 speakers, between the two nights there were 213 that signed up to speak. [Many did not speak either because it got too late for them or because they failed to show p the next week for the continuation. I was #109 and spoke at 11:13 on the first night.]
And while there may have been someone with a clipboard keeping track of the people who came to support Chevron, I also know there were people keeping track of RPA/CBE/APENN “volunteers” but I wouldn’t dare suggest that they were paid to be there—mostly because I DON’T KNOW. Yes, many of them on both sides were given shirts to wear so people could tell which team they were on and many were also fed. Does that constitute being on the payroll when you take clothing and food for being there?
Why is there always this assumption that if someone disagrees with someone else they must be paid to disagree? Can’t people simply have a difference of opinion? If I like vanilla and you like chocolate, am I in the pocket of the Vanilla Bean Growers of America? Here in Richmond we hear this constantly: if you’re against people coming into your home to tell you you’re not allowed to consume sugar then you must be in the pockets of the soda industry; if you want to see Point Molate developed to bring jobs and tax revenue into the City then you must be in the pockets of the casinos; and if you want to see the Chevron refinery modernized, then you must be employed by Chevron. Really? You can’t just like freedom of choice, ice cold Dr. Pepper, jobs and City services and a more modern refinery?
Between the speakers and the distinctive clothing, I would guesstimate that it was about 75% pro modernization and 25% anti Chevron. That’s a very rough guesstimate, though, since there was no show of hands or a straw poll taken.
I’ve only lived in Richmond for the better part of 60 years so I can’t speak to Richmond being a “company town” before I got here.
Typically, when we tag a place as being a company town we usually mean that the people live in the company owned homes, get paid in company script and buy their food and goods at the company store. Many miners used to be like that and even a few miles away in Hercules that was the case when the dynamite factory was there.
Perhaps someone can show me where the old company homes and company store in Richmond were located and I’d love to see some of that of Chevron script. You can do that, can’t you?
Or maybe you were just using a very negative phrase to suggest that Chevron had influence in Richmond because they were, for a time a long time back, the largest employer in Richmond.
In all of the time I’ve lived here I’ve watched as Chevron gave back to the community in one way or another. Whether it was sponsoring youth sports teams, providing books, supplies and lab equipment for the local schools, sending their employees into the community to refurbish parks and rebuild homes or even setting up health clinics and career training centers these all may be public relations propaganda but it still helps the community, doesn’t it? Doesn’t both sides get something out of it?
I’ve been heavily involved with Richmond politics for more than 40 years and I’ve yet to see Chevron be able to order anyone to do anything—even most of their employees. They may use their financial resources to support candidates that support their issues—just as Labor Unions do, just as the Sierra Club does and just as the NAACP does—but that is not the same as “being in the pocket” of Chevron (Or as a representative of the United Steelworkers representing the refinery workers said earlier this week that they couldn’t support any candidate that had Chevron tattooed on their a**”.)
Perhaps you did not fully read what the deal was that the Council cut. In exchange for not being required to change out all of the pipes immediately or replacing the clamps immediately (instead of replacing worn pipes and the clamps during regularly scheduled maintenance turnarounds before the end of 2017 as the agreement calls for) Chevron agreed to many of the terms from the City and also agreed to provide the City with $90 million in a community benefits package. [Does that put all of Richmond’s residents in the pockets of Chevron for accepting this bribe?]
And before you reply, I have never been in the employee of Chevron and have often been verbally attacked by Chevron. But at least they have not threatened my life or well being like some members of the RPA have publicly done. Chevron has never gone on TV to accuse me of being a liar or of being mentally unstable as RPAers have. And Chevron has never gone on record accusing me of bribing elected officials as RPAers have. But the night is still young.
On the first night the head count was about 440 people (I take photos of the crowds as well as take actual head counts). On the second night the head count was about 675.
While Mr. Borgstrom wrote that there were about 80 speakers, between the two nights there were 213 that signed up to speak. [Many did not speak either because it got too late for them or because they failed to show p the next week for the continuation. I was #109 and spoke at 11:13 on the first night.]
And while there may have been someone with a clipboard keeping track of the people who came to support Chevron, I also know there were people keeping track of RPA/CBE/APENN “volunteers” but I wouldn’t dare suggest that they were paid to be there—mostly because I DON’T KNOW. Yes, many of them on both sides were given shirts to wear so people could tell which team they were on and many were also fed. Does that constitute being on the payroll when you take clothing and food for being there?
Why is there always this assumption that if someone disagrees with someone else they must be paid to disagree? Can’t people simply have a difference of opinion? If I like vanilla and you like chocolate, am I in the pocket of the Vanilla Bean Growers of America? Here in Richmond we hear this constantly: if you’re against people coming into your home to tell you you’re not allowed to consume sugar then you must be in the pockets of the soda industry; if you want to see Point Molate developed to bring jobs and tax revenue into the City then you must be in the pockets of the casinos; and if you want to see the Chevron refinery modernized, then you must be employed by Chevron. Really? You can’t just like freedom of choice, ice cold Dr. Pepper, jobs and City services and a more modern refinery?
Between the speakers and the distinctive clothing, I would guesstimate that it was about 75% pro modernization and 25% anti Chevron. That’s a very rough guesstimate, though, since there was no show of hands or a straw poll taken.
I’ve only lived in Richmond for the better part of 60 years so I can’t speak to Richmond being a “company town” before I got here.
Typically, when we tag a place as being a company town we usually mean that the people live in the company owned homes, get paid in company script and buy their food and goods at the company store. Many miners used to be like that and even a few miles away in Hercules that was the case when the dynamite factory was there.
Perhaps someone can show me where the old company homes and company store in Richmond were located and I’d love to see some of that of Chevron script. You can do that, can’t you?
Or maybe you were just using a very negative phrase to suggest that Chevron had influence in Richmond because they were, for a time a long time back, the largest employer in Richmond.
In all of the time I’ve lived here I’ve watched as Chevron gave back to the community in one way or another. Whether it was sponsoring youth sports teams, providing books, supplies and lab equipment for the local schools, sending their employees into the community to refurbish parks and rebuild homes or even setting up health clinics and career training centers these all may be public relations propaganda but it still helps the community, doesn’t it? Doesn’t both sides get something out of it?
I’ve been heavily involved with Richmond politics for more than 40 years and I’ve yet to see Chevron be able to order anyone to do anything—even most of their employees. They may use their financial resources to support candidates that support their issues—just as Labor Unions do, just as the Sierra Club does and just as the NAACP does—but that is not the same as “being in the pocket” of Chevron (Or as a representative of the United Steelworkers representing the refinery workers said earlier this week that they couldn’t support any candidate that had Chevron tattooed on their a**”.)
Perhaps you did not fully read what the deal was that the Council cut. In exchange for not being required to change out all of the pipes immediately or replacing the clamps immediately (instead of replacing worn pipes and the clamps during regularly scheduled maintenance turnarounds before the end of 2017 as the agreement calls for) Chevron agreed to many of the terms from the City and also agreed to provide the City with $90 million in a community benefits package. [Does that put all of Richmond’s residents in the pockets of Chevron for accepting this bribe?]
And before you reply, I have never been in the employee of Chevron and have often been verbally attacked by Chevron. But at least they have not threatened my life or well being like some members of the RPA have publicly done. Chevron has never gone on TV to accuse me of being a liar or of being mentally unstable as RPAers have. And Chevron has never gone on record accusing me of bribing elected officials as RPAers have. But the night is still young.
Thank you Don Gosney for your comment, which I very much appreciate, though I do not at all agree with what you are saying.
Daniel
Daniel
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$330.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network