-
Tom Butt for Richmond City Council The Tom Butt E-Forum About Tom Butt Platform Endorsements of Richmond Councilmember Tom Butt Accomplishments Contribute to Tom Butt for Richmond City Council Contact Tom Butt Tom Butt Archives
-
E-Mail Forum
RETURN
Comments and Corrections
May 17, 2002
The E-FORUM gets a lot of comments and corrections. Here are some that came in the last few days:

Regarding “SIX YEAR EFFORT TO FIX SEWAGE DISTRICT CULMINATES IN AWARD OF CONTRACT TO U.S. FILTER:”
• The vote was 7 yes (Butt, Bates, Penn, Griffin, Rogers, Bell & Anderson) with 2 Abstains (Belcher & Viramontes) Tom, I would recommend your emails include how individuals voted on an item you are discussing to better inform the public. The public should not be guessing how the City Council voted.

Regarding “POINT RICHMOND STROLL TOMORROW:”
• This year the Pt Richmond Business Association decided not to co-sponsor with the Chamber. They chose to do the Stroll by themselves. Sorry.

Regarding “ALIEN LANDING PAD DISAPPEARS IN WIN-WIN RESOLUTION OF TOXIC MOUND STANDOFF:”
• Nice summary, Tom but you got the year wrong. I think it was 1998, not 1968.
• I will forward a copy of the e-mail to Bill [Bottoms]. It was a nice, even handed summary.
• the residents took a very active role in this including gathering samples of residual contamination of various and sundry toxic materials and the DTSC formed a Community Advisory Group that met regularly with DTSC and others in reviewing options for this resolution and helping push for the ultimate outcome. Kay Walker was very active in this and many professionals in the Point Richmond Neighborhood took the time to volunteer in this program. The point being that good stuff can happen when an organized voice takes charge of their own and the community's future.

• You’re right. That really was a Richmond success story but not quite as you’ve stated. Bottoms Butte was there for a couple of years before a Brickyard Landing person discovered that it was deteriorating and that whatever was inside was leaking out. He took the time to go to the City offices to find out what the strange structure was. That’s when we became informed and, consequently, outraged. A solution began when, almost accidentally, we discovered asbestos scattered all over the surface of the Bottoms Butte site as well as the adjoining Seacliff Estates site. That was really too much. Not only was there a leaking toxic containment site, but now on the surface of the property was a hazardous material which had been blowing around for who knows how long. After having the suspected asbestos material lab tested to make sure they were right, a group of local residents then brought their findings to the DTSC. The Richmond Environmental Defense Fund became involved and from that sprang the Citizens Advisory Group which [former Neighborhood Council President] Rod Satre referred to. The City of Richmond deserves very little credit for the removal of that deteriorating toxic mountain. It was Nancy Wakeman-Strauch who came up with the idea of using the port site and it was the citizens themselves, through the CAG, who managed to have the DTSC force a remediation. Had the citizens not rallied and forced removal, that environmental disaster would still be there. Certainly the landowner was quite indifferent to the danger. And until we acted the City was quite willing to keep its collective head in the sand and hope it would all go away. It was a success story all right but the credit should go to the citizens, not to the City.

Regarding “RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL CUTS A FAT HOG FOR CHEVRON:”
• This is infuriating. Maddening. Damn! We’re a one horse town and Chevron’s in the saddle.

Regarding “WIGWAG UPDATE:”
• I think Dion’s idea is a good one. Why not seek abandonment of the street crossing? The railroad did promise that with the completion of the parkway they would reorganize their yard so that switching would occur on the north end of the yard. The city went to additional expense to expand the overpass at the Parkway so that this goal could be achieved. Doug Lord when he lived here found a PUC rule that appeared to forbid train switching for the purposes of making up or breaking apart trains using street grade crossings. If the PUC requires the RR to make this large investment in the street at grade crossing the RR will expect to recover its investment by continuing to use this at grade crossing for the purpose of rail yard switching indefinably. This appears to be contrary to PUC policy. For my self I would like to get the trains out of the Point. Wig Wags don’t mean much to me one way or the other.
 
RETURN