Commentary
Time for the Mayor and the City to stop the Madness and Settle the Coal Dispute
A new developer, JMB Capital, has acquired the project and has offered to sit down with city officials to discuss the potential to not ship coal through the terminal despite having won the court fight over the matter. Unfortunately, officials in the Schaaf administration have not accepted invitations to meet and try to resolve the dispute.
We need the City Council to be the adults and step in to settle the controversy surrounding the Oakland Army Base once and for all.
For nearly a decade, the city has been fighting about the potential shipment of coal at a proposed bulk commodity terminal at the former Oakland Army Base, under a development agreement that it awarded to California Capital Investment Group (CCIG).
A new developer, JMB Capital, has acquired the project and has offered to sit down with city officials to discuss the potential to not ship coal through the terminal despite having won the court fight over the matter. Unfortunately, officials in the Schaaf administration have not accepted invitations to meet and try to resolve the dispute.
The consequences of failing to voluntarily settle the coal issue could be financially devastating for the city. Already, the federal courts have indicated that the city cannot deny the right to ship coal.
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal upheld a May 15, 2018 ruling by US District Court Judge Vince Chhabria that the city of Oakland failed to prove that the transportation of coal posed a health and safety hazard to residents. Judge Chhabria found that a report presented by the city’s expert consultants, Environmental Science Associates (ESA), was “riddled with inaccuracies, major evidentiary gaps, erroneous assumptions, and faulty analyses.”
Thus, it appears that the city has already lost on the issue of whether it has the right to ban coal. Now the city attorney and city administration hang their hats on a sketchy pending state court case where they argue that the master lessee of the property, CCIG, lost the lease because they failed to commence construction of the terminal within the timeframe specified in the development agreement.
The likelihood of the city prevailing on that argument is very slim. The City caused a delay in the completion of the terminal when they denied CCIG’s permits to resume construction and then claimed that the developer did not act in a timely manner. Now the developer asserts it is ludicrous for the city to claim that it did not act in a timely manner.
I do not understand the city’s refusal to welcome a chance to resolve the issues short of a court decision. If Oakland loses, the terminal will be allowed to ship as much coal as it can handle over the next 66 years. In addition, the city likely will be on the hook for millions of dollars in losses caused by their dilatory maneuvers. More important, the proposed terminal is a major revenue producer for the city and will create hundreds of jobs handling non-coal commodities and products and related financial benefits. As the city dawdles, Oakland residents lose.
By entering into a discussion with JMB Capital it could lead to a no coal agreement that gets the terminal built. But, by refusing to talk it could lead to unlimited coal shipments and significant financial losses. Why, then, doesn’t the city meet and try to come to a no coal agreement?
Some suggest the problem is the Mayor’s ego and a desire for revenge, or her plans for future political positioning. In reality, it doesn’t matter. Under the city charter, the City Council holds the ultimate power to decide whether to settle and resolve the issues on terms most favorable to the city.
As I see it, if the city meets with the developer and reaches a no coal agreement, everyone benefits. But if the city doesn’t even try, and the courts rule against the city, the result will likely be a loss that the city will suffer for the next 66 years.
I urge the City Council to intervene and stop the nonsense. It has the duty and authority to protect the city from major losses and take advantage of a golden opportunity it seems determined to ignore. Please end the madness and direct the City Administrator to negotiate a no coal settlement in good faith and get this case behind us.
Do it now, because if the city leaves it to the courts to decide, and they lose, there will be nothing left to negotiate after a court decision is made. Oakland residents will be stuck with the results of the city’s refusal to meet for decades to come.
Commentary
Harris Dominates First Presidential Debate as Trump Struggles to Defend Record
NNPA NEWSWIRE — Vice President Kamala Harris positioned herself as a problem-solver, taking on issues like housing, childcare, and the economy. In her opening statement, she outlined her “opportunity economy” plan, which focuses on bolstering the middle class. “I was raised as a middle-class kid, and I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan that is about lifting up the middle class and working people of America,” Harris said. She detailed a $6,000 child tax credit as part of her plan to support young families.
By Stacy M. Brown, NNPA Newswire Senior National Correspondent
Vice President Kamala Harris decisively took control of the first presidential debate against former President Donald Trump in Philadelphia on Tuesday night, delivering a performance that put Trump on the defensive for much of the evening. Moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis of ABC News kept a tight handle on the debate, significantly improving from CNN’s June handling of Trump and President Joe Biden.
The debate began with a surprise as Harris approached Trump to shake his hand and introduced herself as “Kamala Harris,” an unusual move that set the tone for the night. Trump’s trademark scowl stayed in place throughout the debate, as Harris pressed him on his legal woes and diminished his record. Displaying her prosecutorial skills, Harris consistently turned the conversation toward Trump’s convictions, his business fraud case, and his role in the January 6 insurrection.
Harris positioned herself as a problem-solver, taking on issues like housing, childcare, and the economy. In her opening statement, she outlined her “opportunity economy” plan, which focuses on bolstering the middle class.
“I was raised as a middle-class kid, and I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan that is about lifting up the middle class and working people of America,” Harris said. She detailed a $6,000 child tax credit as part of her plan to support young families.
Trump, by contrast, criticized the Biden-Harris economy, calling it “the worst period of time” he had seen. He defended his tariff policies and took aim at Harris, labeling her a “Marxist” while also accusing her of copying his economic policies. “I was going to send her a MAGA hat,” Trump quipped.
Abortion rights were another major focus of the night. Trump, when asked if he would veto a federal abortion ban, declined to answer directly, stating, “I won’t have to,” and arguing that the end of Roe v. Wade had satisfied everyone. Harris, in turn, vowed to restore Roe’s protections through federal legislation if elected.
“I pledge to you: when Congress passes a bill to put back in place the protections of Roe v. Wade as President of the United States, I will proudly sign it into law,” she said.
As the debate went on, Trump repeated several conspiracy theories, including a claim that migrants were eating pets in U.S. cities, which Muir quickly fact-checked. Trump doubled down, citing “people on television” as his source. Harris largely let Trump’s more outlandish statements pass, opting to stay on policy while allowing the moderators to address his factually inaccurate remarks.
In one of the most heated moments, Harris invited viewers to attend a Trump rally for themselves, commenting, “He talks about fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter and windmills causing cancer. You’ll notice people start leaving his rallies early—out of exhaustion and boredom.”
Trump, visibly irritated, retorted that he holds “the most incredible rallies in the history of politics,” but the debate soon returned to more substantive issues like crime and inflation.
The night clearly contrasted Biden’s earlier debate with Trump, as Harris managed to keep Trump on the defensive. Trump continued to fixate on conspiracy theories and past grievances, while Harris stayed focused on presenting her vision for the future.
With fewer than 60 days until the election, the debate sets the tone for what will likely be a hard-fought campaign. As the debate ended, Harris closed with a message to the American people: “This is about who we are as a country. The choice is clear—between chaos and leadership, fear and hope.”
Commentary
Opinion: In First Presidential Debate, Harris Exposes Trump’s Inadequacies
She’s still calling herself the underdog, but the biracial woman from Oakland, half Black and half Asian American, just changed the race for the presidency of the United States. If you ever doubted Kamala Harris’ ability to be our nation’s leader, everyone who watched Tuesday’s debate saw how fully capable she is of the job. She belongs in the White House.
By Emil Guillermo
She’s still calling herself the underdog, but the biracial woman from Oakland, half Black and half Asian American, just changed the race for the presidency of the United States.
If you ever doubted Kamala Harris’ ability to be our nation’s leader, everyone who watched Tuesday’s debate saw how fully capable she is of the job.
She belongs in the White House.
Harris not only bested Donald Trump in arguing the facts; she showed how totally inadequate Trump is to again be our country’s Commander-in-Chief.
Harris deftly made her case on issue after issue, while baiting and manipulating Trump on the economy, on abortion, and on immigration.
Imagine how Putin and other world leaders play Trump. Harris exposed Trump for all to see. It wasn’t exactly an “emperor has no clothes” moment. It was more like “the twice impeached, convicted felon on 34 counts” has no business running for president. Trump is unfit mentally for the job, if not unfit morally.
It must have been a disappointment for deep MAGA to see their candidate so incapable of holding his own against Harris. At one point, she had him defending the crowd size at his rallies after she said people were leaving because he was boring.
And then instead of real policies that impact our lives, the former president spoke passionately about… his crowd size.
When that happened, I think everyone could see: Harris ate his lunch.
Going into the debate, the consensus in this tight race was that it was a virtual tie with Trump one point ahead.
But after their first meeting ever in a head-to-head-match up, CNN’s instant poll showed Harris winning the debate well beyond any margin of error, 63 percent to 37 percent.
There’s more distance between the two than previously understood. The debate exposed that.
TRUMP’S LIES
At the beginning of the week, I said the only way Trump could win the debate was if he “played nice.”
But the bully just couldn’t do it.
Acting presidential was just one lie Trump couldn’t pull off in another debate night mired in Trump lies.
Did his administration really do “a phenomenal job in the pandemic” when over a million Americans are dead? Is Kamala Harris “a Marxist and everybody knows it”? And what about those cat-eating immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, where every local official confirmed to news organizations that the story was false. There was even a lie on that Trump lie, when the former president said the immigrants were eating cats AND dogs. No, it’s just one lie. Just cats is enough.
And all that was just a fraction of the lies Trump told in the 90-minute debate.
Still, even with all that, I wouldn’t say Kamala Harris “whooped” Donald Trump.
It was more like general domination.
In fact, she had him at “Kamala Harris.”
When Trump seemed to dismiss the possibility of an opening handshake, Harris forced the issue. She walked toward Trump’s podium, reached out her hand, and introduced herself by name.
That gesture put Trump on the defensive all night.
About the Author
Emil Guillermo is a journalist and commentator. See his micro talkshow on YouTube.com/@emilamok1
Activism
‘Respect Our Vote’ Mass Meeting Rejects Oakland, Alameda County Recalls
The mass meeting, attended mostly by members of local Asian American communities, was held in a large banquet room in a Chinese restaurant in Alameda. The Respect Our Vote (ROV) coalition, consisting of concerned community members and groups, is organizing meetings in Oakland and around Alameda County leading up to the November election.
By Ken Epstein
A recently organized coalition, “Respect Our Vote – No Recalls!,” held a standing-room only mass meeting on Sept. 14, urging residents to vote ‘No’ on the two East Bay recalls funded by conservative billionaires and millionaires with the help of corporate media and instead to support the campaign to protect residents’ democratic right to choose their representatives.
The mass meeting, attended mostly by members of local Asian American communities, was held in a large banquet room in a Chinese restaurant in Alameda.
The Respect Our Vote (ROV) coalition, consisting of concerned community members and groups, is organizing meetings in Oakland and around Alameda County leading up to the November election.
Speaking at the meeting, prominent East Bay leader Stewart Chen said that local leaders, like Alameda County D.A. Pamela Price and Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, worked hard to get elected, and our system says they get four years to carry out their policies and campaign promises. But rich people have “broken” that system.
Within two months after they took office, they were facing recalls paid for by billionaires, he said. “(Billionaires’) candidate did not get elected, so they want to change the system.”
“(Our elected leaders) were elected through the process, and the people spoke,” said Chen. “It’s the entire system that the billionaires are trying to (overturn).”
“If a candidate does something wrong or enacts a policy that we do not like, we let it play out, and in four years, we do not have to vote for them.
“The democratic system that we have had in place for a couple of hundred years, it needs our help,” said Chen.
Pastor Servant B.K. Woodson, a leader of the coalition, emphasized the diversity and solidarity needed to defend democracy. “We need each other’s wisdom to make our nation great, to make it safe. We are deliberately African American, English-speaking, Latino American, Spanish-speaking, and all the wonderful dialects in the Asian communities. We want to be together, grow together, and have a good world together.”
Mariano Contreras of the Latino Task Force said that people need to understand what is at stake now.
The recall leaders are connected to conservative forces that will undermine public education, and bilingual education, he said. “The people behind (the recalls) are being used by outside dark money,” he said. The spokespeople of these recalls are themselves conservatives “who are wearing a mask that says they are progressives.”
In 2017, Oakland passed an ordinance that gave teeth to its “Sanctuary City” policy, which was brought to the City Council and passed because it was supported by progressive members on the council.
“That would not be possible anymore if the progressive alliance – Sheng Thao, Nikki Fortunato Bas, and Carroll Fife – if they are pushed out,” he said.
Elaine Peng, president of Asian Americans for Progressive America, said, “I strongly oppose the recalls of Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao and Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price.”
Citing statistics, she said Alameda County’s murder rate was higher when Alameda County D.A. Nancy O’Malley was in office, before Pamela Price was elected to that position.
“The recall campaign has been misleading the public,” said Peng.
She said Oakland is making progress under Thao. “Crime rates are falling in Oakland,” and the City is building more affordable housing than ever before and is creating more jobs.
Attorney Victor Ochoa said, this recall is “not by accident in Oakland – it is a political strategy.”
“There is a strategy that has been launched nationwide. What we’re seeing is oligarchs, (such as Phillip Dreyfuss from Piedmont), right wingers, conservatives, who can write a check for $400,000 like some of us can write a check for $10.”
“They aligned themselves with so-called moderate forces, but they’re not moderates. They align themselves with the money, and that’s what we have seen in Oakland.”
Ochoa continued, “You got to put up signs, you’ve got to talk to your neighbors, volunteer whatever hours you can, have a house meeting. That’s the way progressives win.”
Pecolia Manigo of Oakland Rising Action spoke about what it will take to defeat the recalls. “This is the time when you are not only deputized to go out and do outreach, we need to make sure that people actually vote.
“We need everyone to vote not just for the president, but all the way down the ballot to where these questions will be. Remind people to fill out their ballot, and mail it back.”
Former Oakland Mayor Jean Quan, who had herself faced a recall attempt, said, “In this recall, they used a lot of money, had paid signature gatherers, and they moved very fast. I talked to many of the people gathering signatures. They didn’t know what was going on. Many of them didn’t live in Oakland. It was just money for them.”
“Sam Singer, the guy who is their spokesperson, is a paid PR guy. He has media ties, so they’ve swamped the media against Sheng,” Quan said.
‘Oakland is… a city that implemented some of the first rent control protections in the country. So, developers and big apartment owners would love to get rid of rent control,” said Quan.
“We also established ranked-choice voting, which allows people with less money to coalesce and win elections,” she said. “That’s too democratic for people with big money. They would rather have elections the way they were.”
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Jaylen Brown and Jason Kidd’s $5 Billion Plans
-
Activism4 weeks ago
OPINION: Why the N-Word Should Be Eliminated from Schools: A Call to Educators, Parents and Students
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of September 11 -17, 2024
-
Community4 weeks ago
President Dixon’s Vision for College of Alameda
-
Arts and Culture3 weeks ago
San Jose Jazz Fest ‘24: Fun, Food and an Unforgettable Frankie Beverly Farewell
-
Bay Area4 weeks ago
District 3 Councilmember Carroll Fife Kicks Off Reelection Campaign
-
Bay Area4 weeks ago
Congresswoman Lee Celebrates Federal Green Transportation Investments for California
-
Bay Area4 weeks ago
Libby Schaaf, Associates Stiff Penalties for ‘Serious’ Campaign Violations in 2018, 2020 City Elections