June 24th, 2009 06:41pm
Dutra silliness
A follow-up on the heightened tenor of the debate over the proposed Dutra Materials asphalt plant in Petaluma. The proposal was the subject of a column June 15.
The debate, as the column noted, was punctuated with obscenities and personal attacks, and so was the aftermath, it turns out.
One person who spoke in favor of the high-tech plant that would support 1,000 construction jobs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions because of shorter truck trips reportedly returned home to find it littered with TP. One can presume it wasn’t other supporters who would act so boorish.
Why would you presume there’s a connection between the two, and why wouldn’t you question the motivation of the person who informed you? Do you have any evidence that someone opposing the project was responsible? As for the benefits you cite, you’re ignoring many facts:
1. The plant’s overall impact would be to increase GHGs – the single point they cite for reducing GHG’s is based on one local scenario for expanding 101 between N. Novato and S. Petaluma. Are we to presume Dutra will only be sending asphalt locally? If so, why would they need such a large scale plant?
2. There are currently three existing asphalt plants in our region – all of which are currently operating under capacity. How can a new plant necessarily “support 1,000 construction jobs” simply be offering more supply? And where is the evidence to suggest that these “1,000 construction jobs” will be lost if the plant doesn’t proceed at Haystack Landing?
And what about the potential job losses at competing plants? GIven the current lack of demand, why should we assume that these jobs will remain.
3. Regarding “high-tech”, why would Dutra decide it’s not unimportant to use a better filtration system that what is currently proposed? Bag filters will only trap particulates – there will still be concerning emissions which are particularly hazardous with rubberized asphalt production. The answer is because it’s cheaper – this is the same answer as to why Dutra was all too happy to pay a $750,000 fine for violations in Marin – it’s cheaper to violate and pay a fine than it is to behave responsibly. Same answer as to why they chose to operate in Petaluma without a permit – it was “too expensive” to put in the best available control technologies for their emissions.
I understand you favor this project. As a local business person – I’m keenly aware that there are many North Bay business people who disagree with you. This isn’t about being pro or against development. This is about smart growth and recognizing the need for balancing legitimate community interests with the desire for companies to profit making asphalt. We need asphalt and we need a scenic corridor at our gateway. We need construction projects and the workers who develop them, but we also need to preserve important wetlands habitats. We have business parks that have played by the rules and have not asked for re-zoning amendments and noise level exemptions – why should they suffer because Dutra has decided to develop a plant at a location that wasn’t zoned for it? We have housing developers who have invested in the area – unaware that Dutra would be able to dramatically change the value of their properties. Let’s not forget the impact of tourism and how little has been done to fully explore the potential drop in visitors when they drive by our City and are initially greeted with 70′ high asphalt stacks.
I’m very disappointed with your lack of balance in discussing this issue. To imply that those who are against are not concerned about business, unaware, or mischievous is incredibly misleading and lacks journalistic integrity. Your comment also implied there was profanity by one of the Dutra opponents – it was the Supervisor who used a four letter word. Did you know that someone vandalized a sign made by someone from the Friends of Shollenberger Park just before the public forum hosted by Assemblyman Jared Huffman? They intentionally changed the time and date in a manner reminiscent of some people in Florida during the 2000 election – intending to confuse people who were invited by our Assembly member to learn more about the issue. I doubt anyone mentioned this to you, but if you are going to make a generalization and suggest a Dutra opponent TP’s someone’s house, I can even more easily suggest that a Dutra proponent vandalized the public hearing sign.
Sincerely,
Jason Davies
by Jason Davies