At its December 16, 2003, meeting, the Richmond City Council will be asked to vote on three major public policy documents that could seal the fate of publicly-owned Port of Richmond properties for the next decade. With the 16th being the last meeting of 2003, the agenda is already jammed, and predictably the City Council will be urged to limit debate and act fast ” or hastily.
Although the City Council will have had less than four days to study the documents, their adoption could result in the general fund securing a loan for nearly $5 million in Port improvements for a specific tenant, the construction of an open aggregate distribution facility within a few hundred feet of upscale Marina Bay developments, and a long term lease for 52 acres adjacent to Brickyard Cove and Seacliff Estates with giant mast-type lighting glaring into homes all night long. Not to mention a substantial potential increase in rail traffic through Point Richmond and Marina Bay”s already impacted grade crossings, curtailment of ambitious Bay Trail plans and postponement of plans to develop Rosie the Riveter WW II/Home Front National Historical Park.
These three actions include, a renegotiated Exclusive Right to Negotiate with Hanson Aggregates, a lease of up to ten years for at least 52 acres with Auto Warehousing Company and a bond to finance improvements for Auto Warehousing Company. The City Council is being asked to set all of these in motion with an evaluation of all environmental impacts under CEQA to be postponed to an unspecified later date. The City Council is also being asked to move forward quickly without the full economic impacts of these actions being available. There is almost an air of desperation that seems to be driving these decisions rather than a careful analysis and a long-term plan.
A couple of years ago, the Port of Richmond prepared a strategic plan and floated an RFP for a master operator. There were no responses. The Port is so desperate to stem its lagging business that it may be pursuing long term contracts that will bring in cash quickly but may not be in best interest of the City five or ten years from now. The Port”s most recent spasm was a $100,000 study for an Indian casino at languishing Terminal 3, the prospects for which seemed to have vanished for a variety of reasons that could have been predicted.
If the Port of Richmond had a successful history of such business deals, perhaps we could take it on faith that what is being proposed is essential for the long term economic health of the City. Unfortunately, however, the Port of Richmond has an almost uninterrupted 100-year history of business failures.
I maintain what I believe is a healthy skepticism that the Port of Richmond is the cash cow that will save our city in these challenging times, and I believe that the City Council has not been provided sufficient information on which to base a hasty decision in the pending matters.
For more a detailed analysis and background, refer to the attached PDF files.