Why "Dan's the One"

by Jon Van Landschoot

Dan Smith is a true Public Servant. His efforts on behalf of our community and youth reach back nearly 20 years.

In 1992, Dan was the leader of the volunteers that built the wonderful Play Ground of Dreams. This park continues to be used, daily, by scores of our families.

Dan , as a past member for several years of the Youth Action Task Force, has long been a strong advocate for the Scouts and youth activities in our town. He was, and remains, a champion for helping our schools maintain and improve their sport fields.

Dan has chaired the Tri-City Open Space Citizens' Committee. This group actively seeks to promote a county-wide Regional Park System . Also, he was a driving force behind saving Sky Valley from being developed ( Measure " K " in 2003.) Dan is a big supporter of the efforts to make our First Street Green into a truly spectacular and inspiring waterfront venue. To Dan, Open Space is a cause, not a convenient campaign slogan.

Open Government is the essence of our Democracy. Dan pushed for, and voted into existence, our " Open Government " Commission in 2005. Not all members of the present Council supported such a commission. Nor, did the same council members support and sign the recent "Clean Elections " petition this past Summer. This effort was greatly aided by Dan's vigorous efforts to collect signatures to limit the money spent to influence our local elections. The current election limits are a direct result of the efforts of Tom Campbell , Dan and other concerned citizens .

The State Parks were "saved" recently , but still remain underfunded and in danger of cuts in the future. Dan was with the group who campaigned last year and this to "Save Our Parks ". He will not relent until the State parks are fully funded .

While on the City Council, Dan voted to create the Historic Preservation Review Commission , and helped Benica seek Certified Local Gov't status. Long a supporter of Historic Preservation in our quaint town, Dan continues seeking protection for our many assests that will enhance our draw as a tourism haven.

The City's budget is currently being hit by Sacramento's grabbing a lot of our share of local property taxes. Dan has long stressed the importance of a sustainable budget process and voted to require a 20 % General Fund Reserve. This is still the standard to which Dan holds firm. Past salary contracts passed during the reign of the former mayor have made the city's legacy cost rise dramatically . According to a Contra Costa Times article in September, we rank in the top ten of regional cities whose employees make over $100,000 annually. Dan is convinced that this path is not sustainable.

And finally, the Seeno Project ! Dan remains a tireless crusader for an environmentally sentive 21st Century project with an enforcible Development Agreement. None of the other candidates is so committed to " Getting it right " . Just remember who on the Council voted for the flawed Environmental Impact Report & Project each and every time . Dan opposes the removing of the hills and the massive traffic and pollution problems this unrefined project could bring to our town.
Dan stands with the community !

Dan is the " One " candidate who acts on his commitments all the time, not just around election time ! You often see Dan at civic events around town seeking to maintain and improve our life style.

In the Benicia City Council race, Dan is truly the " One ".

Seeno project is the difference

by Norma Fox, Oct. 16, 2008

Wondering what’s the difference between the three leading candidates (Hughes, Schwartzman, and Smith) in the upcoming City Council election? They’re all well-meaning competent citizens with years of service to Benicia, so what’s the big difference?

The Seeno project is the difference!

When the Seeno project is developed (528 acres of open land, zoned industrial/ commercial, in the north corner of Benicia near Lake Herman Rd.) it will forever change the character of Benicia – for good or ill – depending on the degree of environmental and public health standards that our Council members insist upon.

Over that past couple of years, Mr. Seeno brought forward various versions of a mediocre Business Park plan, one that lacked any serious public transportation component for employees, and which would have snarled our traffic and vastly increased the extreme health-damaging effects of ozone in the air we breathe.

Throughout that process – while knowing that Benicia’s ozone levels are already fourth worst in the Bay Area, and knowing that Mr. Seeno’s plan would greatly exceed government established ozone thresholds – the two incumbents (Schwartzman and Hughes) were consistently willing to approve that project, demanding only cosmetic tweaks and non-binding promises from the developer.

Their response to the issue of increased ozone in our air (an invisible gas which instigates and aggravates everything from allergies to asthma and emphysema) was simply that it’s just an inevitable result of large developments and we just have to accept it.

By contrast, candidate and former Council member Dan Smith would attend those Council meetings and warn them not to vote for such a poor project, and urge them to require Seeno to go back to the drawing board and bring forward a fundamentally redesigned project, based on sustainability principles, that would not compromise our public health and our environment.

Early this year Mr. Seeno put the project on hold, but we can be sure he will be back with a new project proposal in the near future. And when that project becomes active again, Dan Smith is the only one in the choice of candidates who can be counted on to refuse to approve any elements of the Seeno project that will sacrifice our public health, our environment, and our quality of life on the alter of economic development.

Dan knows that we do not have to settle for less! Mr. Seeno can still turn a profit on a high quality “green” Business Park, one that conforms to Benicia’s rightful need for clean healthy air and respect for our environment.

Dan Smith answers Times-Herald

Dan Smith, Candidate for City Council on Nov. 3, answers the Times-Herald questionnaire.
Dan's Website ; Dan's Blog
_____________________________________________________

1. Why are you running for Benicia City Council?

My most important reason for serving on the City Council again is that I am committed to Benicia being the best that it can be. That means working to achieve a safe, healthy Seeno project that won’t destroy our downtown; finding new ways to fill vacant storefronts downtown; protecting Benicia’s small town charm; preserving the historic Arsenal and protecting businesses there; and keeping my promise to youth and seniors for the Mills Community Center.

2. What are the most important issues facing Benicia and how would you address them?

I don’t think the Seeno project offered to Benicia this year was a good deal for the community. We didn’t have a development agreement or a project labor agreement. We didn’t have a solid mechanism to ensure Benicia taxpayers don’t pay to build another fire station. Still, the incumbents voted in favor of it. I want a project that pays for itself and doesn’t make East Second Street a mess of traffic and air pollution.

3. How will you work to assure the city maintains financial stability?

I was on the Council when we approved a mandatory 20 percent level for our General Fund reserve. That, combined with prudent spending on capital improvements and investment in our Industrial Park infrastructure, assures our financial stability. My record of service and vision for the future are reasons why I am endorsed by the Mayor, our County Supervisor, the County Democratic Party and numerous past or current members of the Council, Planning Commission and School Board.

4. How do you propose approaching future growth in the Arsenal district?

Developers in town have been proposing various dense housing proposals for the Arsenal. I don’t think those are appropriate for that area, and one reason is because of the industrial pipelines and existing businesses there. The Arsenal is not the place to address needs for our housing stock. We need to revise and recirculate the Arsenal Specific Plan and its Draft Environmental Impact Report to get the right uses out there.

5. What will you do to address economic development?

I want to develop the Benicia Business Park on the Seeno land, and I want to increase revenue by increasing the effectiveness of our tourist economy, particularly heritage tourism about military and railroad history in Benicia. We have the best Civil War history site on the west coast. It’s a place where the Pony Express stopped and trains crossed a river on the world’s largest ferry. These assets need to be marketed and showcased more effectively.

A Solution to California's Debt Crisis

Toward a Solution to the Debt Crisis in California: The State Could Walk Away and Create Its Own Credit Machine

By Ellen Brown
Published in OpEdNews, July 13, 2009
http://www.opednews.com/articles/From-Sunshine-State-to-Sub-by-Ellen-Brown-090713-321.html

Four Wall Street banks, which received $15-25 billion each from the taxpayers, have rejected California's IOUs because the State is supposedly a bad credit risk. The bailed out banks would seem to have a duty to lend a helping hand, but they say they don't want to delay an agreement on further austerity measures. State legislators are not bowing quickly to the pressure, but what is the alternative?

In the latest twist to the California budget saga, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and JPMorgan Chase (which each got $25 billion in bailout money from the taxpayers) and Bank of America (which got $15 billion) have refused California's request for a loan to tide it over until October. Until the State can get things sorted out, it has started paying its creditors in IOUs ("I Owe You's" or promises to pay bearing interest, technically called registered warrants). Its Wall Street creditors, however, have refused to take them. Why? The pot says the kettle is a poor credit risk!

California expects to need to issue only about $13 billion in IOUs through September, and all its Governor has asked for in the way of a loan from the federal government is a guarantee for $6 billion. Total loans, commitments and guarantees to rescue the financial sector and stem the credit crisis have been estimated at $12.8 trillion. But California has not been invited to the banquet. The total sum California needs to balance its budget is $26.3 billion. That is about the same sum given to Citigroup, Wells Fargo and JPMorgan in bailout money; and it is only about one-tenth the sum given to AIG, a mere insurance company. Corporations evidently trump States and their citizens in the eyes of the powers controlling the purse strings. California has a gross domestic product of $1.7 trillion annually and has been rated the world's eighth largest economy. Its 38.3 million people are one-eighth of the nation's population and a key catalyst for U.S. retail sales. When the California consumer base falters, businesses are shaken nationwide. If AIG and the other Wall Street welfare recipients are too big to fail, California is way too big to fail.

Fitch Rating Agency has downgraded California's municipal bonds to junk bond status,triple B. Why? AIG and Lehman Brothers had A ratings right up until they declared bankruptcy. California has never defaulted on its bonds, and it cannot arbitrarily decide to default; the State Constitution mandates that debt principal and interest must be paid as promised. California bonds lost their triple A rating only when the municipal bond insurers (Ambac and MBIA) lost theirs. It was these insurers, not the State of California, that got into hot water gambling in derivatives. The State Attorney General has opined that California's IOUs are valid and binding obligations of the State. In rejecting them, however, Wall Street may have ulterior motives. A lower credit rating can justify investors in demanding higher interest rates. The interest offered on the IOUs is substantially lower than the interest banks can get on triple B rated municipal bonds.

There may be deeper motives than that. Considering the enormous importance of the California economy to the country, and the relatively small sum it needs in loans, the refusal to support the State financially seems highly suspicious, especially when much more has been given to less creditworthy private institutions. The banks say they want to keep the pressure on California legislators to work it out among themselves, but what does that mean? The options are even higher taxes, even more cuts in services, or even more fire sales of public assets; in short, the sort of austerity measures expected of supplicants reduced to Third World debtor status. State legislators are understandably reluctant to crawl into that debt pit. Governor Schwarzenegger has refused to approve higher taxes, while Democratic leaders say further cuts in services could leave some Californians starving in the streets.

The Sun Could Shine Again on the Sunshine State

There is an alternative to that dark future, and perhaps it is to keep the public from waking up to it that arms are being twisted to accept the new burdens quickly. If Wall Street and the Feds won't extend credit to California on reasonable terms, the State could simply walk away and create its own credit machine. California could put its revenues in its own state-owned bank and fan these "reserves" into many times their face value in loans, using the same "fractional reserve" system that private banks use. Many authorities have attested that banks simply create the money they lend on their books. Congressman Jerry Voorhis, writing in 1973, explained it like this:

"[F]or every $1 or $1.50 which people, or the
government, deposit in a bank, the banking system can create out of thin air and
by the stroke of a pen some $10 of checkbook money or demand deposits. It can
lend all that $10 into circulation at interest just so long as it has the $1 or
a little more in reserve to back it up."

President Obama himself has acknowledged this "multiplier effect." In a speech at Georgetown University on April 14, 2009, he said:

"[A]lthough there are a lot of Americans who
understandably think that government money would be better spent going directly
to families and businesses instead of banks; where's our bailout?,' they ask,
the truth is that a dollar of capital in a bank can actually result in eight or
ten dollars of loans to families and businesses, a multiplier effect that can
ultimately lead to a faster pace of economic growth."

If private banks can leverage deposits into multiple amounts of "credit" on their books, a state-owned bank could do the same thing, and return the profits to the public purse. One State already does this. North Dakota boasts the only state-owned bank in the nation. It is also one of only two states (along with Montana) that are currently able to meet their budgets. The Bank of North Dakota was established by the legislature in 1919 to free farmers and small businessmen from the clutches of out-of-state bankers and railroad men. By law, the State must deposit all its funds in the bank, and the State guarantees its deposits. The bank's surplus profits are returned to the State's coffers. The bank operates as a bankers' bank, partnering with private banks to lend money to farmers, real estate developers, schools and small businesses. It makes 1% loans to startup farms, has a thriving student loan business, and purchases municipal bonds from public institutions.

North Dakota is not suffering from unemployment or feeling the pinch of the economic downturn. Rather, it sports the largest surplus it has ever had. If this isolated farming State can escape Wall Street's credit crisis, the world's eighth largest economy can do it too!

_________________________________________________

To sign a petition that will go electronically to Governor Schwarzenegger and to elected officials in your State, click here. http://www.change.org/actions/view/help_the_terminator_save_california

You could also try faxing this article or a letter to Governor Schwarzenegger at 916-558-3160. See http://gov.ca.gov/interact#contact.

Ellen Brown is an attorney and has written eleven books, including "Web of Debt," "Forbidden Medicine," "Nature's Pharmacy," and "The Key to Ultimate Health." Her websites are http://www.webofdebt.com and http://www.ellenbrown.com .

Report on air ties refinery to ozone woes

By Tony Burchyns/Times-Herald staff writer
Posted: 05/08/2009 , Vallejo Times Herald
http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_12325742

BENICIA - An air-quality study tied to the Valero refinery has revealed that Benicia was fourth worst in the Bay Area for ozone levels in 2008, according to results made public this week.
But even though the refinery daily emits ozone precursor gases, which combine with heat and sunlight to form ozone in the atmosphere, its exact contribution to ozone creation is unknown, officials said.

"It is nearly impossible to determine on any given day what amount of ozone was formed due to emissions from a particular industry," said Eric Stevenson, an air-monitoring manager for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

Stevenson said some ozone precursor gases are produced locally, mainly by auto traffic, Valero and the Benicia port. But some drift in from other areas and get trapped in Benicia's micro climate, he said.

According to the report from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Benicia - at a high of 75 parts per billion - was the fourth worst ozone offender in the Bay Area, right behind Bethel Island, Livermore and Concord.

The ranking was based on yearly averages from 23 Bay Area monitoring stations. The health effects of ozone exposure include respiratory damage and heightened sensitivity to allergens.

Benicia's ozone levels still met national standards for both 2007 and 2008, Stevenson said. The results were shared Wednesday night at the Valero Benicia Refinery Community Advisory Panel meeting at the Benicia Public Library.

Among those in attendance was refinery vice president and general manager Doug Comeau. Although Comeau did not speak about the ozone data, he did apologize publicly for last month's release of hydrogen sulfide at the refinery. The release produced a pungent "rotten egg" smell that could be detected as far away as Marin County.

Valero could be forced to pay a public nuisance fine in excess of $10,000, depending on the conclusion of an ongoing investigation into the cause of the incident, air district officials said this week.

Officials at the meeting also discussed creating a community air-monitoring system similar to one established in Rodeo in the 1990s.

The system would differ from the air district's measurements by detecting and reporting short-term air-pollution events on a local level, in real time on the Internet, said Don Gamiles, a principal at Argos Scientific, who spoke at the meeting.

"The air district does measurements based on state and fed standards," Gamiles said. "By definition, a community monitoring system is a different beast."

The 18-month air district study, partly funded by Valero under an agreement with the community, concluded in December.

Currently there is no ongoing, independent air-monitoring in Benicia. But Valero is working toward installing air-monitoring equipment purchased from Argos in 2005 on Tennys Drive near East Second Street. The station is expected to be running inside of two months.

Gamiles also discussed the possibility of installing what he called a "fence line system," which would analyze air quality at the edge of the refinery using light beams. The system, which his company sells, would cost about $35,000 to install, he said after the meeting.

Rodeo, which borders the ConocoPhillips refinery, has used a fence-line air-monitoring system for more than a decade.

see the report from Bay Area Air Quality Management at this link: http://bit.ly/7A16l9

Seeno changes his mind

After Albert Seeno III begged the City Council to rescind their Nov. 18 denial vote on his Benicia Business Park application, insisting that he really wanted to work collaboratively with the community and was eager to get started building a green, sustainable, cleantech business park that the community would be proud of, no sooner had he signed the final agreement resolution in early March, than he came back to the City on March 19 and informed city officials that he had changed his mind about proceeding with the project "due to the downturn in the economy" and he has decided to put the entire project on hold until 2010 at least, "if it makes economic sense to do so."

(It should be noted that by getting the Council to rescind their denial vote on his project application, Mr. Seeno has saved himself at least two and a half million dollars in project impact fees. When he resumes the project in 2010 or later, he will not have to pay the City's current rates on project impact fees, but rather the rates that were in effect when he opened the original application.)

Council approves stiff resolution on Seeno project application

After community comments from many citizens and long discussions and negotiations between Council members, the City Council voted unanimously on Feb. 17 to approve a revised resolution which rescinded their previous Nov. 18 denial of the Seeno project application and set many stiff requirements that must be adhered to in order for a new project plan to be developed and eventually approved. The resolution requirements, which will put the city and community in charge of the project visioning and planning process, include provisions such as a Project Manager, a Citizen's Oversight Committee, a community-based Specific Plan process, a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, and a legally binding Development Agreement between the developer and the City. The costs associated with all of these provisions will be funded by the developer.

It also calls for a signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the developer and the School District to ensure that the District's health and safety concerns relating to Semple School will be adequately addressed and protected, and to compensate the District for attorney fees that they incurred as they sought expert advice on how to protect their interests. This issue of the MOU with the School District was not resolved at the Feb. 17 Council meeting and negotiations are continuing, due to the fact that Mr. Seeno balked at paying more than twenty percent of the District's attorney fees.

Assuming that the School District and Mr. Seeno are able to arrive at a mutual agreement on an MOU, the next step will be for the City to initiate a public process for the selection of a Project Manager, and for the City Council to appoint a Citizen's Oversight Panel. The Oversight Panel and the Project Manager would then work together to interview and select a professional consulting firm which would conduct the community-based Specific Plan visioning process and the Subsequent EIR.

After community workshop on Seeno project, Council votes to rescind denial vote

On January 7, 2009, the City held a community workshop at Mary Farmer Elementary School to discuss the elements in Albert Seeno's Nov. 24 proposed Agreement Letter and to give community members a chance to express their concerns and their wishes for the Benicia Business Park development. All the community comments were recorded on a Wall Board and later summarized in a brief report.

To view an image of the Wall Board comments, click here.

To view the Summary Report, click here.

On January 23, Mr. Seeno submitted a revised Agreement Letter addressing some of the concerns heard at the community workshop.

CLICK HERE TO READ MAYOR PATTERSON'S EDITED VERSION OF SEENO'S JAN. 23 REVISED AGREEMENT LETTER.

CLICK HERE TO READ STAFF MEMO & TIMELINE REGARDING SEENO'S JAN. 23 REVISED AGREEMENT LETTER.

[Here is Mayor Patterson's Feb. 2 Commentary on the proposed Seeno Agreement]

Dear Reader,

Your attendance and attention is very much needed for Tuesday's council meeting at which the council will consider rescinding its "no" vote on the Seeno Project.

The Seeno Corporation has taken important steps to keep its current application active. A vote of this council to rescind its November 18, 2008 “no” vote on the current project would keep the application active.

We have some common ground in the community about the development of the Seeno site. It is fair to say that there is agreement on a project that provides jobs for a progressive green economy with clean tech and green tech research and development, a training center and possibly manufacturing.

We agree that the quality of life for our residents should be protected and enhanced. We do not want to degrade neighborhoods and Semple school environment, especially air quality, for economic gain.

There are two paths we can take: one path is the one begun after the “no” vote in November. At the November 18th meeting, staff was directed to propose options to the council for moving forward with a specific plan process. That path is still available and is preferred by me for several reasons.

The other path is the Agreement letter – the item on the agenda for Tuesday, February 3rd. Let me be clear that there is nothing in this Agreement that the city could not do without the agreement. This agreement has been advocated by some because a) the developer would stay at the table, b) the development may qualify for the federal "stimulus package". On both counts there is little substance. First, the developer is at the table. They own the land. Second the stimulus package is actually small for the whole country and we are not nearly as ready or needy to qualify in a very competitive era.

I do note the progress that has been made since 2002 whereby Seeno at long last agrees to a Specific Plan, and subsequent EIR to evaluate a future project in context of AB 32, and SB 375 as well as air quality, traffic impacts – including East 2nd below the freeway and potential urban blight for our downtown and impacts to Semple school and neighborhoods.

But more work needs to be done to make this agreement the kind of document our citizens can feel confidence and trust in - in us - your elected representatives - the city and ultimately the developer.
FROM MAYOR ELIZABETH PATTERSON, Feb. 2, 2009

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FOLLOW UP NOTE ON FEB. 3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING:

At the February 3 City Council meeting, the Council voted their intent to rescind their previous denial vote on the Seeno project (the vote was 4-1 with Mayor Patterson voting no). But their vote did not mean they were agreeing to the terms of Mr. Seeno's January 23 Agreement letter. Instead, they instructed the City Attorney to prepare a resolution for the Feb. 17 Council meeting which would include all the language changes and additional elements that were raised at the Feb. 3 Council meeting by members of the public, and by Mayor Patterson's revisions to Mr. Seeno's Jan. 23 letter. It remains to be seen whether the Council will be able to agree on the terms of the Resolution that is brought forward on Feb. 17, and whether Mr. Seeno will agree to it.

Community workshop to be held before reconsideration of denial vote

On Dec. 2, the City Council briefly discussed the circumstances and terms of the Nov. 24 Seeno agreement letter (terms of the agreement arranged by Councilmember Mike Ioakimedes). They voted to hold a facilitated community workshop in January to allow the community to add their input to the process of refining and augmenting the terms of the agreement, and to dialog and negotiate with Seeno on those revised terms. The Council also voted to agendize, for the Feb. 3 City Council meeting, a reconsideration of their Nov. 18 project denial vote, and take a vote on whether to rescind that denial vote . Their reconsideration decision will be based on the terms of the revised agreement that will evolve out of the community workshop. In the meantime, their Nov. 18 project denial vote remains in full force.

The current version of the Seeno agreement has many pros, but also many cons. Some of the language is vague, or contains loopholes; some important provisions are not mandated, only suggested "if Council so desires;" and many important provisions are not mentioned. Please read the letter carefully and submit your comments and proposed additions to the City Council members. (If you email your comments to acardwell@ci.benicia.ca.us they will be forwarded to all Council members.) And please plan to attend the public workshop in January when the date is announced, as well as the Feb. 3 City Council meeting.

Council to discuss reconsideration of Seeno denial vote on December 2

There will be a crucial discussion and vote at the City Council meeting Tuesday, Dec. 2, concerning the future of the Seeno Project in Benicia.

After the Council voted to deny the project on Nov. 18 (following up on a previous denial vote on Oct. 7), the property owner, Albert Seeno III, wrote a letter agreeing to major concessions and modifications to the current version of the project if the Council would reconsider and rescind their Nov. 18 denial vote. There are many pros and cons to this choice. Please read the Seeno letter and decide for yourself. (The letter is also posted on the city website as a link to item XI. on the City Council Agenda.

The discussion of the Seeno letter and a vote on whether to reconsider their Nov. 18 denial vote is scheduled (item XI.) on the City Council agenda to begin approximately 9:20 p.m. on Dec. 2. Please try to attend this meeting if you are able; inform yourself about this important decision that will greatly affect the future of Benicia and let the Council hear your wishes.

If you cannot attend the Council meeting, please email your comments to the City Council members. If you email your letter acardwell@ci.benicia.ca.us , it will be forwarded to all Council members before the meeting.

This Nov.29 Vallejo Times Herald article provides some additional details about this recent new turn of events. You can also read background information about the Seeno project and the process that has brought us to this point at http://www.beniciafirst.com/

On companies doing business with the City of Benicia...

by George delaCruz

An editorial on the relationship of City Staff and companies in Benicia...
[in response to a newspaper article revealing that Nationwide Auto Auction is delinquent in $300,000 in back fees owed to Benicia.]

Regarding the issue of Nationwide Auto Auction, is it incompetence? Is it collusion? Just what is it that allows our City Staff to go merrily on its way? It seems to have its head in the sand. All the while companies doing business in Benicia fall behind on fees or don’t follow through on promises made to the City so they would be granted the right to conduct certain business operations in our fair city. Nationwide Auto Auctions is just one example of our City staff’s complete lack of oversight. Is it incompetence or is it corruption? Amports is another example. It has broken more agreements then you can count. It pays nothing to operate the Port of Benicia which is owned by the City. No business tax. No port tax, nothing. And then, of course, there is Valero, and Seeno and who else, may I ask? Do some in City Government have their hands out? Or does it just seem that way? Or do they just look the other way?

Nationwide should be held accountable for all agreements made with the City. As for Amports and Valero, I must again raise the issue of a port tax. Every other port operation in the United States collects a fair tax, based either on a tonnage or per unit basis for all cargo handled through that port. I would estimate that Amports alone avoids between $5 and $10 million in taxes per year which would go directly to the City of Benicia. Valero pays no port tax on the 40 to 50 thousand barrels of oil it processes daily at our port. At other ports in the U.S., these quantities are taxed, be it petroleum products, automobiles or any other item that crosses the docks, either in import or export. I suggest the City could use a formula similar to the ones in use in Oakland, San Francisco or Los Angeles to apportion these taxes because they have already been litigated. This tax money would go a long way to help this cash strapped City, especially with the present state of our economy. These companies are not paying their fair share, nor, in fact, in many cases, they are not paying any share at all. But for some reason, our City government is unwilling to make these firms pay their fair share.

But then, the question arises: Are our City employees, our City government, unduly influenced or are they in some way compensated by these companies? If there is any suspicion of fraud, then the Solano County Grand Jury must become involved. If it is just some mis-begotten, ill conceived, unfair influence from these companies, who then should or could, investigate and deal with the problem? Perhaps we could hire a team of forensic Bureaucrats to dig into our City government?

The failure by Nationwide to pay over $300,000 in fees brings up another question Did Nationwide pay the City for the equipment or automobiles it sold on consignment on our behalf? If not, why not?
But then, I remembered that Benicia, rather than taxing companies doing business in the City, would rather collect revenue from the tickets motorcycle officers are writing. Something seems out of whack here. Our self-serving City Staff, which won’t go after a source of revenue most Cities would cherish, instead go after our citizens who are already overburdened with taxes.

When City Staff takes responsibility and changes a vote of our City Council, I suggest something is drastically wrong at City Hall. If our City Staff cannot enforce rules or if it is inappropriately connected to businesses in Benicia, some should certainly be fired. It costs our community too much in salary and benefits to have incompetent or corrupt City employees. Perhaps a good old fashioned house cleaning is needed...

Corporate development vs Community rights; who wins?

by Will Gregory, Oct. 2008

" Voting no on Seeno is the right first step."
Nicole Byrd–Greenbelt Alliance, Fairfield. (Bencia Herald. 9/24/08)

I noticed in the Vallejo Times Herald that Mayor Elizabeth Patterson stated to reporter Jessica York that she did not consider the " no " vote on Oct. 7 a victory.
" This was, take a deep breath and get back to the drawing table." Patterson said.
(See: Seeno plan flawed for Benicia: Council votes 3-2 to bar development. VTH. 10/9/2008)
I was confounded by this comment. With all due respect to the Mayor, in my estimation this was a victory.
A project as the Mayor has said, has been flawed, from day one.
The community has been waiting for this moment, this vote, for years.
Individual activists as well as collectivist clubs - Benicia First ; Green Gateway Group have worked tirelessly to secure this decision- one that favors the community over a recidivist corporation.
Using every means available the community was made aware of this corporate entity's criminal justice record, disregard for the environment and influencing peddling at the local government level: Newspaper/editorial accounts; documented records from the past; and eye-witness stories. This was a victory for community activism.
When you consider that this project would take over 20 years to complete, and as Vice Mayor Tom Campbell has stated, would cause "... traffic, grading, view, watershed and air pollution problems make the present Seeno Project unacceptable to Benicians."
(See: Inside Benicia.. City Coucil Update. April/2008.) ...this was a victory for our environment.
This was a crucial victory for the" rule of law. " In our esteemed and well thought out 1999 General Plan-the principal policy document for guiding future conservation and development in Benicia-one of the primary goals of the GP as stated on page #33-listed as Goal 2. PRESERVE BENICIA AS A SMALL SIZED CITY.
Policy 2.1.1: states- Ensure that new development is compatible with adjacent existing development and doesn’t detract from Benicia’s small town qualities and historic heritage.
This was a victory for a community vision by diversifying the city’s portfolio-(see: http://www.greengatewaygroup.org/) that will enable the city of Benicia to become the leader in Solano County for green growth, green jobs and a green future. This is the A+ project Mayor Patterson has been fighting for our " little town."

Still there are cheerleaders for Seeno..
The recent Vallejo Times editorial.(10/10/2008) asks "What message was city trying to send Seeno?" Is the VTimes seeking increased circulation and advertisers by this message? The local newspaper's editorial uses the tired rhetoric of fear-in this case, revenue stream for the city vs the values and character of our community.
Growth friendly, council members Alan Schwartzman and Mark Hughes voted in favor of the project. That is their right. Even though they both promised in their campaigns for council in 2005 that they wanted to protect our small town atmosphere. When it comes my turn to vote next November, I’ll be voting for candidates that keep their words about our special small town. I won’t vote for folks that have ties to the chamber of commerce or unscrupulous corporations. That is my right.
Other cheerleaders for Seeno included- (our) non-elected city staff : or more appropriately a pro growth shadow government. City Manger Jim Erickson; City Attorney Heather Mclaughlin; and Community Development Director Charlie Knox have been leading the charge for this project. The only prop missing- is the pom poms!
What is galling, here, is that these public representatives through their advocacy and strong influence have been avid supporters of a private corporation over and beyond their concerns for the public they are suppose to serve. I think it is fair to ask: What does the city staff not understand about the 3-2 vote? Has our city staff been coopted by the forces of growth promotion? Never a word about Seeno’s development history in Contra Costa County in general or more specifically its record in Pittsburgh influencing elections and politicians. Or how Seeno was involved in our own elections, here in Benicia.
See: "Connecting the Dots". Inside Benicia. City Council Update. Elizabeth Patterson.. April/2007.
It is important to note: that our well-paid public employees Ms. Mclaughlin ($189 thousand) lives in San Ramon and Mr. Knox ($158 thousand) lives in El Cerrito. Mr. Erickson ($197 thousand) lives in Benicia . (Source: Human Resources Dept., City of Benicia) Interesting, how some of these folks won’t have to deal with the ramifications of a decades long project that they are demanding- but won’t have to live with.
Now, these same folks, in today’s Vallejo Times Herald (See: "Staff asks council to delay Seeno vote." 10/19/08.) want another round of talks with our elected officials. After the final 3-2 vote! This is unprecedented in Benicia politics.
According to the Green Gateway Group web site- members received an earlier copy of the staff report. Activist Mr.Roger Straw had these cogent remarks:
" Let me say that [City] staff’s Report and Recommendation is an apparent effort to try and save the Seeno Project in its current form after the council's NO vote of Oct.7. [City] staff seems to be heavily invested in getting Council to approve this project. They believe it is a good project."
Mr. Straw continues.. " this can only be interpreted as an attempt to entice Council to reverse its vote of Oct. 7. [City ] staff has received Seeno’s o.k. on the plan to once again extend conversation- "
" ... many (citizens) are wondering if it is appropriate for [City] staff to recommend continuance, and to encourage project approval, given the council’s meeting of 10/7. It borders on [City] staff advocacy, or perhaps crosses the line.

Council votes to deny Seeno project; City Manager tries to keep it alive...

At the October 7 City Council meeting, the Council voted to deny the Seeno project (527-acre Business Park in north Benicia). After hearing the results of a traffic study, and much deliberation, three of the five Council members remained unsatisfied with the sufficiency of the proposed mitigation measures which attempted to address the project's harmful impact on air quality and public health caused by excessive traffic.

Around 1 AM, Council took a vote on a Resolution to Approve the EIR Addendum (which was necessary in order to approve the project). It failed, 3 No votes (Patterson, Campbell, Ioakimedes), 2 yes votes (Hughes, Schwartzman). Therefore, the project could not be approved. City Attorney was instructed to bring forth a Resolution to Deny the project at the next Council meeting.

At the Oct. 21 Council meeting, City Manager Erickson submitted a report recommending that the Council “continue” the Seeno Item until the Nov. 18 City Council meeting because one of the five Council members (Campbell) was absent. He also produced several resolutions for their consideration. In addition to producing a resolution to deny the project and the EIR Addendum (as staff had been instructed to do), he also presented a resolution to approve the project (!) and he made a recommendation that the Council enter into “facilitated” discussions with the Developer to consider additional project requirements that might enable project approval.

Lacking a fifth vote, the Council did not act on the various resolution, and instead voted to "Continue the Item" to the Nov. 18 Council meeting.

With that as background, Roger Straw submitted the following column to the Benicia Herald:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rebuilding Eroded Trust
By Roger Straw
Benicia Herald, Guest column, October 29, 2008


In recent statements before and during the October 21 City Council meeting, I believe that our City’s professional staff exercised their authority in a questionable manner.

Prior to the meeting, City Manager Jim Erickson, Community Development Director Charlie Knox and City Attorney Heather McLaughlin submitted a Staff Report that many feel ignored the will of the Council. Many feel that in bypassing the will of our elected representatives, staff has thwarted the will of the citizens of Benicia, who elected the Council.

The record will show that on October 7, Council voted 3-2 in a very clear and difficult decision, to not go forward in considering the Benicia Business Park as proposed by Seeno and Discovery Builders.

After the motion and before the vote on October 7, Councilmember Ioakimedes said, “I have a question for the City Attorney: the motion that's on the floor right now is the resolution that is on [page] B45. There will be another motion for B47?”

McLaughlin replied, “No. There'll be another motion if you approve B45, to approve the resolution that's on page 183.” She went on, “The part that's on 47, and the part that's exhibit B, which is on page 110, will be included as part of the resolutions, so you don't need a separate action on those.”

Ioakimedes then said, “But if there's a vote to deny, then there isn't any subsequent vote, is there?”

McLaughlin: “Right.” Ioakimedes: “Ok. That's ... Thank you.”

Mayor Elizabeth Patterson then called upon Councilmember Alan Schwartzman.

Schwartzman, addressing McLaughlin, said, “…Ok, so if the one we've got on the table now passes, we can go back to the table, and think about other conditions. If the one that we have on the table now fails, we don't go any further, we're done. Is that the way I understand it?”

McLaughlin: “Well, then I would suggest that we do a Resolution of Denial. You all could direct me to go back, using the model from June 3rd, with the findings or whatever you came up with.”

I find this record explicit, and without loopholes. The vote to approve CEQA documentation failed, 3-2, under deadline to pass, and the city attorney was directed by the mayor at the end of the meeting -- and agreed -- to return to the next meeting with a formal “Resolution to Deny” to conclude the rejection of the Seeno project.

Contrary to staff’s suggestion on October 21 that a “no” vote on a motion to approve leaves wiggle room for more consideration, the reason for a formal Resolution to Deny is not to state positively an affirmation which was not yet voted. The resolution is a formal statement with legal findings to solidify -- for the record and for legal reasons -- that a no vote has been taken.

Benicia needs to sit up and take notice of all this. Not only because of the stakes in approving or denying the current Seeno project, but for reasons of good and trustworthy government.

It is my understanding that staff brought forward its controversial recommendation on October 21 based not only on its rather manufactured reading of Council’s action on October 7, but that certain comments were conveyed in writing by Ioakimedes after the vote that could have been interpreted – or misinterpreted – as a wish to keep the current proposal open for discussion.

At issue here is not whether City staff should be fired, but how to regain trust after a major blunder. The human heart does not regain trust easily, and the public, having come to a high degree of respect for all five Council members despite their differences, now faces a huge hurdle in understanding the motives and honor of those who serve the Council, and by extension, the public.

Over the course of the next month, we are told that all stakeholders will be invited to sit down in professionally facilitated meetings to discuss the project, in hopes of agreement and approval at Council’s November 18 meeting. One of the outcomes of those meetings is likely to be a regained sense of trust among us all, or a further erosion of trust.

Roger Straw is a member of Benicia’s Green Gateway Group. For more information on the group, visit www.greengatewaygroup.org.