Petition calling for Malgapo, Dew-Costa and Verder-Aliga to recuse on cement plant

Large cargo ship unloading at a cement plant

The following was submitted to VIB by Valery Asenjo

 

Clearly Council Members Malgapo, Dew-Costa & Verder-Aliga have an ethical obligation to recuse themselves from voting on the ORCEM VMT application after involving themselves directly with the applicant VMT/Orcem. The Mayor also needs to explain his part in speaking before the MISEDC & the applicant VMT/Orcem. Should he too recuse himself?

There are petitions currently being circulated to recall Malgapo, Costa, Aliga & Davis. 

We are looking to you for answers & Vallejoans deserve answers publicly – no more back room deals from members of City Council.

This is from Voices of Vallejo article on “Shadow  Government”:

http://www.voicesofvallejo.com/#!shadow/c1cv8

Note from the September 2015 MISEDC agenda:

Jess Malgapo states:

“You will recall that we have two goals; one is to search for dredging funds but our second goal is to explore how Mare Island Straits could be transformed into an economic driver for the City of Vallejo and Solano County.

In this regard, let us congratulate our committee members, “Vallejo Marine Terminal / ORCEM” as they reached  a key milestone with their project. ”

I found this searching the net for VMT & the Fettig Bros.

Matt Fettig speaking at the Coastal Conservancy re:

San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail Implementation Meeting #13 March 6, 2015

pages 15 & 16

http://scc.ca.gov/webmaster/project_sites/watertrail/agendas/wt-implementation-meeting-summary-20150306.pdf

Here is what Mr. M. Fettig owner of VMT said about dredging for the VMT site:

Miramontes: Matthew Fettig of the Vallejo Marine terminal is still here, if you have additional questions.

Wells: Need a map of Vallejo waterfront to get a better sense.

(Google earth was accessed from the computer at the meeting.)

Showed location of proposed mitigation site they would improve.

Matthew: They would pull out old docks which are all sitting in mud but not the breakwater behind it. Folks would access the launch from land. Some dredging would be required; Vallejo Marina has a dredging permit that Vallejo Marine Terminals would like to go under.

L. Wilson: Why not create access at Vallejo Marine Terminal?

Miramonte: Can explain. Are seeking ideas for how to address public access for their very large site, which cannot have access on-site due to safety considerations. Are looking for an alternate location that would be open to the public.

Fettig:  Not sure if current location being considered is the best. Another possibility is at an old breakwater south of the ferry terminal (Brinkman’s Marina). A beach could be created in the corner there. Vallejo Marine Terminal would make green cement at its site.

Wells: Brinkman’s Marina is pretty silted in. Would removal of breakwater fix that?

Matt: Don’t know. A local business organization is trying to get the Corps to dredge Mare Island Channel again.

$$$$$$$$$$

It seems that Mr. Fettig /VMT is trying to get the city of Vallejo to pay for dredging at the VMT site & during this meeting proposed that it could be done under the current permit for the Vallejo Marina which is being done by Vortex – Blaise Fettig is CEO of Vortex. Are Matt & Blaise Brothers? A little inside game in which they both profit?

Why is the city allowing VMT to dredge under the COV permit? Why are we granting VMT that special favor? How much money is that saving VMT? How much $ is that costing the COV? By working under Vallejo Marina permit is VMT skirting the permit & environmental process – what other advantages does this arrangement provide to VMT?

Also when Matt tells the Coastal Conservancy “A local business organization is trying to get the Corps to dredge Mare Island Channel again.”  Who is he talking about? Could it be Mare Island Straits Economic Development Committee of which he is a member but fails to disclose that info!?!  I do think so.

Both of these documents point to that. If this is true then the City Council Members are playing a double handed game – 1 hand is actively working for VMT & even providing public funds for dredging the VMT site – while the other hand on City Council puts up the appearance of being impartial & not knowing if they are going to vote yea or nay for the Orcem Proposal. Malgapo, Drew-Pippin & Alida-Verga in fact are actually working to benefit VMT/Orcem right now & should not be allowed to vote to approve the Orcem Project proposal that will com before city hall & be the definitive vote to allow Orcem to be built in Vallejo. This is a definite conflict of interest.

This questions need to be asked so we can find out if our City Council has been working back room deals to by pass community input. I have also sent this info to Voices of Vallejo.

http://vallejo.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=1635

At the end of the last Council Mtg Pippin Dew-Costa starts speaking at 5:56 about her part in the dredging of Mare Island Straits & says that it was not meant to be “secretive” – she ends by saying Jess Malgapo will speak more on this subject at the next council meeting. Now would be the time to let City Council know if you think Malgapo, Costa & Aliga should recuse themselves from the Orcem vote

Now is the time to write to City Council & inform them that Malgapo, Costa & Aliga should recuse themselves from the Orcem Vote.

Share this post! Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on TumblrDigg thisShare on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditEmail this to someone

'Petition calling for Malgapo, Dew-Costa and Verder-Aliga to recuse on cement plant' have 56 comments

  1. December 16, 2015 @ 10:42 pm Anon-e-mouse

    They won’t recuse, and we need to get them recalled.

    Reply

  2. December 17, 2015 @ 8:20 am Marble

    Watched it, Pippin seems like a cry baby who can’t handle the heat of being scrutinized.

    Reply

  3. December 17, 2015 @ 9:01 am Doug

    This particular Recall effort is nothing but a power-play that solves very little, completely overblown, waste of money. Vote No on a re-call!

    We should very much expect the direction to recuse coming from the City Attorneys Office. To not recuse would be to an open garage door to litigation.

    Reply

  4. December 17, 2015 @ 9:05 am Anonymous

    Blake Fettig is Matthew’s father.

    Matt Fettig, project manager, economic development committee member, and freelance screenwriter?
    https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-fettig-44035118

    Reply

  5. December 17, 2015 @ 1:55 pm wharf rat

    An investigation , including voting record and any potential conflicts / violations might be prudent , if no others found there are many established methods to restitute ! including , ethics training – rarely imposed fines – censorship – recusal – removal via vote from office . Clearly this can not be handled in house and must be adjudicated by a unbiased third party such as Judiciary & Jury who can place witnesses under oath to elicit sworn testimony . While I can find some aggrement with Doug there are considerations that suggest a more current and proven Candidate could better serve our community other than the next highest vote getter of the last election of 2013 . The recall process (while highly controversial and debated) does have a ”real time” democratic electorial element but is somewhat moot if no qualified – respected Candidates are commiting to run for any vacated seats well before the final filing process . The final analysis should be whats best for the community ! since both options have an imbeded democratic process , recall has some advantages if for instance Liat were to be elected to fill a recalled seat we could be ensured of quality representation due to her proven track record of working for All of our community . Please see the 2013 election results below . Considering the damage done to our community and it’s institutions this Latin statement resonates with this rat .

    “Victus quoque rationem ad aegrotantium salutem pro facultate, judicioque meo adhibebo, noxamvero et maleficium propulsabo”

    Member, City Council CITY OF VALLEJO
    Vote for no more than 3
    JESS MALGAPO . . . . . . . . . 7,266 20.25 1,505 5,584 177
    KATY MIESSNER . . . . . . . . . 6,458 18.00 1,421 4,882 155
    PIPPIN DEW . . . . . . . . . . 6,219 17.33 1,400 4,673 146
    ANTHONY “TONY” SUMMERS . . . . . . 5,253 14.64 1,199 3,871 183
    LIAT F. MEITZENHEIMER . . . . . . 4,144 11.55 1,038 3,003 103
    CHRIS PLATZER . . . . . . . . . 3,216 8.96 746 2,408 62
    HERMAN WOODY BLACKWELL . . . . . . 1,714 4.78 345 1,324 45
    TONY MAPALO. . . . . . . . . . 1,444 4.02 297 1,098 49
    WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 162 .45 42 113 7
    Over Votes . . . . . . . . . 480 36 420 24
    Under Votes . . . . . . . . . 7,309 1,655 5,387 267

    Member, City Council CITY OF VALLEJO
    Vote for no more than 1
    ROZZANA VERDER-ALIGA. . . . . . . 6,353 46.68 1,327 4,870 156
    JOANNE SCHIVLEY . . . . . . . . 5,024 36.91 1,176 3,705 143
    RONALD J. JOHNSON JR. . . . . . . 2,168 15.93 548 1,563 57
    WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 65 .48 18 45 2
    Over Votes . . . . . . . . . 155 18 132 5
    Under Votes . . . . . . . . . 790 141 606
    note: got a D in Latin , hope this posted ok .

    Reply

  6. December 17, 2015 @ 3:05 pm TheTruthisOutThere

    Should you also demand that Bob Sampayan recuse himself on the same grounds? After all, he was quoted in the North Bay Business Journal in June 2014:

    ‘Vallejo Vice Mayor Bob Sampayan said the U.S. is bringing back elements of sustainability: manufacturing and facility reuse.
    “Economic development like this will rebuild our community, take us into the future and provide jobs for our youth,” he said.

    Read more at http://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/industrynews/4185361-181/orcem-plans-green-cement-plant#L8Gds6xgOFrwr6Jp.99

    This is a slippery slope, folks. I hope you will do your homework and consider the Orcem product and practices on its own merit.
    Orcem is not concerned with our petty politics, even though we are passionate in Vallejo. Both sides are flinging mud and using Orcem as a football. If we are to attract newcomers and new business, whatever it is, we need to bring back civility. Also, be careful to whom you listen to and evaluate everything that is said…is it truth? Is it sensible? Is it respectful? What is the motivation of your self-proclaimed guru…is he setting himself up to run for office and manipulating you by using this as an issue to gather you?

    Reply

    • December 17, 2015 @ 4:30 pm wharf rat

      Exactly who would be the self proclaimed guru you reference running for office ? furthermore the DEIR is so full of un-truths as are the statements of the proponents made in public that it would almost be laughable had not malfeasence infected our City Government
      on almost every level associated with this project . If a PIR (political impact report) were done it would read like a municipal murder mystery with a body count increasing by the day . Civility would be to have the consious and inteligence to not locate a cement plant on our waterfront and adjacent to a residential neighbourhood . This project has been a botched job from the get-go , bad idea and worse project management , The existing soil contamination will further the demise of this ill thought waste of money , the rudimentary clean up was not done well and subject to regulatory oversite that could cost millions of extra $ to remeadiate , while no signifigant permits have been issued to date , 3 years and no permits exemplifies poor project management and little hope for a viable facility ever .

      Reply

      • December 18, 2015 @ 4:05 pm The Truth is Here

        The prior council-unanimously-approved the initial permitting /lease. Including Gomes, Brown, Sampayan, McConnell, Sunga and Davis. 2012. Why?
        Hannigan absent.

        Reply

        • December 21, 2015 @ 9:10 am Anne C

          When the project was first proposed, the applicants conveniently neglected to mention the downsides, e.g., hundreds of big rigs tearing up residential neighborhoods, carcinogenic toxins like hexavalent chromium in the cement dust, the “option” to produce Portland Cement with all its toxins, the fumes from diesel ships idling at the docks, the fact that the two operations only guarantee “up to” 50 jobs between them, the fact that the max the City receives is $360k a year — not enough to keep the roads repaired for such heavy use.

          In short, when the lease was initially approved, the full picture of the operation and its consequences was not known. Now that an initial Draft Environmental Impact Report has been filed, more is known — more than enough to see that this operation is NOT green, that it will poison S Vallejo, and will severely limit any sustainable econ dev along the waterfront.

          Reply

    • December 21, 2015 @ 4:51 pm Peter Brooks

      Come on now…your Zell is showing.

      Reply

  7. December 18, 2015 @ 7:41 am John_K

    This is pure speculation, but I think the Three Shadows were trying to do something good for Vallejo, with visions of the sugar plums of economic development dancing in their heads. Not only would their economic blockbuster be a good thing for Vallejo, it would also be a Great Thing for the trade unions who would enjoy a 15 month spree of construction work. Two birds, one stone. Good for The City, Good For Jump Start. I think they meant well, but hindsight shows they may have made a huge mistake. They behaved as it they did not understand the implications of their official positions as elected representatives of Vallejo residents. Brings to mind the Mayor Of The City Of Vallejo, telling the New York Times that Vallejo’s gay population was doomed to go to hell. Naturally, it was understood that Hizzonner The Mayor was speaking as a private citizen, expressing his own personal religious beliefs. In the same sense, maybe Pippin, Jess, and Rozz were listed at the top of the MISEDC agenda as private citizens, not as Councilmembers hobnobbing with private industry special interests.

    Is it likely that any of the three, Pippin, Jess, or Rozz, would recuse themselves voluntarily? Without the blessing of the City Attorney? I think they are caught between the rock and the hard spot because their iPhones will be smoking with messages from their Jump Start sponsors. But will the City Attorney advise them to recuse? Like she did with Rozz and the Ozz with respect to their vote on their own taxpayer funded vacations?

    Perhaps our City Attorney has no fear of litigation, yet she is required to give accurate legal advice or she could become a target of litigation. And it may turn out there are no legal grounds for recusal, but still, I would think that a respectable elected official would voluntarily recuse herself/himself from voting on the issue, if for no other reason than to avoid the appearance of impropriety. But when their iPhones start buzzing with the Jump Start sponsors demanding a vote in support of VMT-Orcem and their 15 months of temporary construction jobs, they will have to make a choice. Are they free to vote as they see best for Vallejo? Or will they feel obliged to show loyalty to their JumpMasters?

    As for the City Attorney giving advice concerning recusal, I have to wonder if she was in the loop with the MISEDC meetings. Does she have enough information to advise the Councilmembers? Rumor has it that Ms. Quintana will be hosting a fact finding meeting at City Hall on January 12 to shed some light on MISEDC and their work. If it’s a public meeting, it will likely draw a sellout crowd. Standing room only. Get your tickets early, as they may not be available at the door.

    Reply

    • silasbarnabe

      December 19, 2015 @ 6:52 am silasbarnabe

      We’ll soon learn if Ms. Quintana is wise about litigation issues or not. In this case Baykeepers and The Sierra Club oppose this project and one way that might stop it is to have the majority of Jumpers recuse. The last time this City went up against Baykeepers legally they got their behinds whipped.

      I have no doubt Baykeepers will seek litigation if the vote is allowed, the question is as you raised John K, is Ms. Quintana foolish enough to recommend no recusal?

      Reply

    • December 19, 2015 @ 11:33 am Doug

      Good synopsis, I too would speculate they meant well. For me, the real problem is not with them, we must focus on the bigger picture if we want change. Some are just after blood, let us not get wrapped up in the hype.

      Reply

      • December 20, 2015 @ 1:38 pm Anonymous

        When poor little Doug finds a lone piece of trash blown into the water, he blows a gasket, but never a word about real corruption nor does he care about others’ civil rights. Yes Doug, other people live here, not just white old males like yourself. You, like the GOB network members continually find yourselves in the minority. Not to worry, you’ll continue to find yourself marginalized, just as you advocate for others.

        Reply

        • December 21, 2015 @ 8:58 am Anne Carr

          I disagree with this mean characterization of Doug, and I also disagree with spinning a disagreement into a personal attack. That’s not what this forum is about; I would argue that any personal attacks should be pulled.

          I don’t always agree with Doug’s positions, but I welcome his courage & honesty in expressing his point of view. He’s a strong advocate for Vallejo in the arts & environment; we are lucky to have him.

          Reply

          • December 28, 2015 @ 12:45 pm carol

            thank you, anne. you’re a shining example of how i’d like to be when i grow up.

      • December 21, 2015 @ 4:23 pm Anon

        How much of a bigger picture than improving our tax revenues is there?

        Reply

        • December 21, 2015 @ 5:04 pm Doug

          This proposed project does not do enough to increase our tax revenue, better off with MMDs than heavy industrial that does not fit in with our climate action plan and so much more. The bigger picture I refer to, is why this even got this far (business as usual). The bigger problem/picture is how we have and continue to do business in Vallejo. Process, Policy, Direction and Transparency have always seemed to be of little concern to staff. The 3 council members are nothing but scapegoats here.

          Reply

          • December 21, 2015 @ 8:07 pm anon

            “climate action plan”? Where can that be found?

            “better off with MMDs than heavy industrial” an opinion not shared by all.

            Actually, that just sounds ridiculous

          • December 21, 2015 @ 8:38 pm anon

            Doug: “This proposed project does not do enough to increase our tax revenue, better off with MMDs”

            by way of example: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/0115%20Local%20Government%20Distribution%20Report.pdf

            The above is the State of Colorado Local Government Distribution 10% Retail Marijuana State Sales Tax January 2015 Sales Reported in February 2015. There is nothing, by way of example, that makes MMD’s look like a major contributor to our local tax revenues. Denver has a population of 600,000+ and brings in $219,000 in local tax. Scale it down to Vallejo’s population (115,000) and we bring in $42,000. That cannot be more than the proposed VMT/ORCEM project.

            The multiplier effect from heavy industry, as well, will certainly have more impact than our local MMD stores. The happy projection with MMD’s is more smoke and some mirrors

          • December 22, 2015 @ 7:45 am John_K

            ANON: (on marijuana tax revenue) “…Scale it down to Vallejo’s population (115,000) and we bring in $42,000. That cannot be more than the proposed VMT/ORCEM project.”

            I believe the Denver figure is for the month of January? A bit of googling shows that the figure improved for February, but if you assume $42K to be a monthly average for Vallejo, then yearly would be in the neighborhood of $500K. Compare that to the estimated VMT-Orcem revenue projection of $400K. It pains me to have to say this, but… MMD sales will probably pay for more police officers than the VMT/ORCEM project.

          • December 22, 2015 @ 10:52 am anon

            Then why not do both? Is it the health argument? Smoked marijuana seems to go directly to the cannabinoid receptors in the brain within seconds. Unlike smoking, eating pot takes a lot longer to get high. Compared to tobacco, smoking pot resulted in 5 times the amount of absorption of carbon monoxide and four to five times more tar being retained in the lungs. Furthermore, one of the most potent carcinogens in tobacco smoke, benzo(α)pyrene, is present in even greater amounts in marijuana smoke. Careful scientific analyses have identified at least 6,000 of the same chemicals in marijuana smoke as are present in tobacco (Iversen, 2008).

            The polution argument by the VTM opponents has no scientific basis, just hype and opinion. Marijuana has certain unavoidable impacts on health. Including the rise in illegal marijuana sales due to the lower cost of black market weed.

            In any event, why not use both as a tax revenue stream?

          • December 22, 2015 @ 3:42 pm John_K

            I would prefer neither, but Doug is right. With or without MMDs, VMT-Orcem does not do enough to increase our tax revenue.

          • December 22, 2015 @ 5:05 pm Anon

            It gets us closer than nothing. It is sustainable. Trains, ships and cement will be used and operating well past our great grand children’s lives.

        • December 22, 2015 @ 6:32 pm Charles

          I’m fairly sure the ‘Anon’ commenter does not understand what ‘sustainable’ means in this context. Hint: Think environmentally sustainable.

          Reply

          • December 23, 2015 @ 7:50 am anon

            “this context”? There is a qualifier to “sustainable”? Is there any scientific basis to believe that VTM/ORCEM is not environmentally sustainable?

            Furthermore, Doug says: “This proposed project does not do enough to increase our tax revenue” What environmentally sustainable project do you have in mind that will “do enough to increase our tax revenue”?

          • December 23, 2015 @ 3:48 pm anon

            Basically the world’s standard definition of environmental sustainability is sustainable development, which means sustainable economic growth, which is an oxymoron. No form of economic growth can be continued indefinitely. Furthermore, all economic growth today is terribly environmentally degrading.

            Thus it’s impossible to be sustainable and achieve economic growth at the same time, now and for at least the next 50 years or so.

  8. December 18, 2015 @ 6:57 pm AHQZB4

    Passing along posted email received from the City Attorney:

    Mxxxxxx,

    Earlier this week you sent me correspondence which alleged that the City had violated the Brown Act and asked for an action to cure. Please be aware that the City intends to have a public hearing in which the Council as a whole will consider the allegations that the Brown Act has been violated. After a review of the applicable documents and correspondence, it is not clear to me that the Brown Act has been violated. Nevertheless, in an overabundance of caution the City will act to cure the alleged violations pursuant to California Government Code Section 54960.1©(2). At this moment, we are aiming for a special meeting on January 5, 2016 at 7pm. for this hearing. We have not yet heard back from all councilmembers regarding their availability. As soon as the hearing is confirmed, I will communicate that to you. There will be a staff report that sets forth the City’s position and reasoning, and that document will be publicly accessible with the packet. The staff report will incorporate the correspondence generated by each of you.

    Please let me know if you have any questions.

    Have a great weekend!
    _____________________________________________________________________
    Claudia Quintana
    City Attorney
    City of Vallejo | City Attorney’s Office
    (707) 648-4545 | Claudia.quintana@cityofvallejo.net

    Reply

  9. December 22, 2015 @ 12:17 pm curious

    anon, while your facts about the toxicity of marijuana to individual users may be true, they are not relevant to the situation. medical marijuana dispenseries are not spewing marijuana smoke over schools, homes, businesses, etc. do you realize how much weed would have to be smoked by how many people to even begin to equal a cement plant? get over your emotional reefer madness mind set. it interferes with your ability to think rationally.

    Reply

    • December 24, 2015 @ 7:51 am Anon

      I can assure you I do not have a “reefer madness mindset”. My point was that there is no scientific data that shows there will be an increase in parts per million exceeding CARB standards from the VTM/ORCEM development. On the other hand the pot proponents are quite cavalier regarding the know documented dangers of smoking a tobacco product. Probably a subset of the group that wants to deny a perfectly acceptable indusrty

      Reply

      • December 24, 2015 @ 11:00 am wharf rat

        @ Anon , you must be smokin slag or something ? even the proposed project area is within a non AQ atainment area and a cancer corridor ! as it stands today with no project . The estimated AQ impacts in the DEIR are to the extent they will require buying air credits to off set , this will not help the nearby residents who will be poisioned by the cement plants polution . Now that the onion that is this proposed project is – is being peeled the core looks far from green, it smells fettid . And btw most pollutants are reported in parts per billion now and for the last 20 years .
        So slag away !.

        Reply

  10. December 24, 2015 @ 10:46 am Anon

    [medical marijuana dispenseries are not spewing marijuana smoke over schools, homes, businesses, etc. ]

    Where is the proof that VMT is “spewing”. The I80 corridor and Sonoma Blvd are the main contributors (x1000 greater than the increased Lemon St. Traffic) to South Vallejo. The ferries, tugs, commercial shipping to the refineries and delta ports render the additional VTM traffic insignificant as far as additional PPM.

    Reply

    • December 24, 2015 @ 11:13 am wharf rat

      The proof is in the DEIR , in their very own words , big difference is that most people in the bay area ”air basin”
      do not have ships , tugs , trains and trucks passing through their back yards spewing very signifigant pollutants
      jeeze read the DEIR , it is in it’s own right a project killer , and the main reason so many community members are up in arms . This proposed project is by virtue ”self destructive” and in sooo many ways .

      Reply

      • December 24, 2015 @ 3:33 pm anon

        The DEIR is a bit complicated. I found this: “Under various state and local regulations, an incremental cancer risk greater than 10 in a million due to a project is considered to be a significant impact on public health.”

        What is the cancer risk from this project? Greater or less than 10 in a million? (page and paragraph)

        Thank you

        Reply

      • December 25, 2015 @ 9:59 am John_K

        Yes, the DEIR seems to complicate matters. It looks like the VMT-Orcem “model” for air quality is a large scale model that takes into consideration the Bay Area and beyond, with global mitigation, but does not focus upon the local neighborhoods of South Vallejo, other than to provide a theoretical “cancer map” (Figure 3.2-1). Actual air quality monitoring will not be performed. Diesel smoke from ocean-going ships, cement trucks, trains, and other VMT-Orcem sources could settle, accumulate, and build up to a significant equilibrium in local neighborhoods during “Spare The Air” temperature inversion days, but will be “monitored” by a BAAQMD station on Tuolumne Street. With no air quality monitoring at the facility or any sampling of air that would be representative of the exposure to immediate neighborhoods, the VMT-Orcem environmental wizards appear to be trying to create a “Brockovich Zone” in South Vallejo.

        Reply

        • December 25, 2015 @ 10:59 am anon

          Thais John K, but none of what you said answers Warf Rats assertion: “The proof is in the DEIR , in their very own words”?

          Reply

        • December 26, 2015 @ 7:41 pm John_K

          ANON, what proof are you looking for? As you admit, the DEIR is a bit complicated, so you might do the rest of us a favor by recusing yourself from this topic till you are up to the challenge and can read the DEIR for yourself.

          Reply

          • December 27, 2015 @ 9:49 am wharf rat

            @ John K , your comments re the DEIR are true and insightful , yes with this proposed plant running 24/7/360 south Vallejo will be subject to huge health impacts ! as you state with temperature inversions the impacts will far exceed any data in the DEIR or any AQ model made public . Word on the street is the proponents only hope to achieve any permits will be to purchase AIR CREDITS, this will do absolutely nothing to mitigate or lessen the AQ impacts on the south Vallejo population , they are in effect being considered as a SACRIFICE ZONE , ”their health sacrificed for the profits of the applicants” . Were Council to approve this ”sacrafice” it could begin a new era of community involvement – never before seen ! the era of ”collateral damage” is over as will be the political careers of those approving this proposed project . Iregardless of the Council outcome this ill conceived project has become a ”political sacrifice zone” with at least one political career gone , how many others will follow ?.

  11. December 26, 2015 @ 12:51 pm AHQZB4

    Malgapo has his hands in a lot of pies: schoomzing, kissing, mover, shaker back room double dealing leaves his fingerprints all over him using Vice Mayor of City Council to cheerlead & profit the polluting cement factory Orcem and the private industrial port VMT?

    Also points out not to have 4 at meeting to avoid a quorum – he knows exactly what he is doing & how to skirt the law deftly. In her apology Dew-Costa even mentions Malgapos excitement in MISEDC as drawing her in. He needs to recuse and/or resign immediately:

    http://www.timesheraldonline.com/governm

    http://www.voicesofvallejo.com/#!the-sha

    Reply

  12. December 27, 2015 @ 5:30 pm wharf rat

    This past article was most profetic and well researched , if after reading anyone has any doubt as to the history that has been rumored then I think this will clear the air . As to motive – well thats up for speculation as is the IQ of a certian Council member who has a history of being a scofflaw and now a serial brown act violator . wr

    10/30/13
    By Marc Garman

    Documents received today via FOI request, show that Vallejo City Council candidate Jess Malgapo acted as Chairman of the Vallejo Indian Gaming Committee when the group presented a report to the city in March 2012 pressing for consideration of a casino in Vallejo.

    In a conversation with Malgapo this evening, he indicated that he no longer serves in any capacity with the pro-casino group (since prior to his appointment to city council) and that the group is defunct.

    For clarification purposes: The idea of a casino in Vallejo, on Mare Island or elsewhere in the city is a polarizing one. There can certainly be arguments made for or against such a project. VIB is taking NO POSITION for or against this idea at this time. In his remarks, Malgapo indicated that he is willing to “consider any source of revenue,” citing his emphasis on hiring more police.
    Ultimately, Malgapo’s advocacy for a casino in Vallejo may convince some to vote for him, others against, but his indistinct answers to previous direct inquiries prompted VIB to request the information. Now you know where he stands.
    View the paperwork from Malgapo (pg. 3), related email correspondence from city staff etc. below.

    http://ibvallejo.com/docs/casino_malgapo.pdf

    Reply

    • December 27, 2015 @ 6:26 pm wharf rat

      March 18 Vallejo City Council (ties in to the above MG article) wr
      3/20/14
      text by Anne Carr
      At Tuesday’s study session on North Mare Island, the Council considered 5 formal proposals, plus a couple suggestions from the podium (6 formal proposals had been expected, but one apparently didn’t get their documents in). The good news is that these proposals were unsolicited, reflecting a higher level of interest and activity than a year ago. Further, in addition to the 5 proposals submitted, Vallejo has had other inquiries that haven’t reached the proposal stage.

      Among the stronger ideas considered were a proposal for a high tech incubator campus, and 2 different proposals for casinos. As you might expect, the high tech campus got a lot of support, but the developer apparently hasn’t had much experience with same. The casinos got a range of responses from “too controversial” (Katy), to Malgapo’s enthusiastic visions of dollar signs — but perhaps the very best result of the study session is that the Council decided to open up the process by making a formal call for proposals. Bravo for not being seduced outright, as the casinos are dangling big money while they simultaneously downplay the long gestation period for casino approvals (up to 10 years). Also absent from the discussion was mention of the social costs of casinos, although there was one suggestion for offering Gambling Anonymous meetings on site.

      The City will send out and advertise a RFQ — Request for Qualifications, which is apparently less intimidating than a formal RFP, and likely will get more responses from capable parties. Deadline for submissions will likely be Sept timeframe, exact timing tbd. The idea is that now that the economy is improving, there may be more options out there than just the unsolicited proposals that had already come in.

      Podcast: by Anne Carr and Edinator Marc Garman
      http://ibvallejo.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1886
      Good podcast in total re: north MI development or skip to 9:12 for some Casino history re above .
      Thanks Annie and Marc for your community service ! .
      in awe
      wr

      Reply

  13. January 19, 2016 @ 10:23 am tramky

    You gotta love the way some opponents of the VMT/Orcem proposal so desperately demand that several members of the City Council ‘recuse’ themselves from any voting on the subject. Well, since City Council are theh ONLY elected officials in the City of Vallejo, they are demanding that the only ‘voices of the people’ be taken out back and procedurally shot. These zealots can NOT be permitted to have their way on this. Their strident calls for ‘recusal’ or ‘recall’ are even more absurd. The naked bias of these ‘opponents’ is visible for all to see. Tney actually think that this is politics, but it is simply abject stupidity.

    By the way, one police officer in this town carries an annual cost to the City Budget of over $200,000 per year–essentially forever–and that is rising fast as CalPers is demanding its pound of pension payment flesh up front now, and that poundage is rising up to kilos very fast.

    The City Manager has already warned City Council that the upcoming City Budget for the next fiscal year is likely to include a $3.5 million structural deficit that likely will NOT be covered by more shifting of existing reserved funds since those have been drained covering the structural deficits since the City emerged from bankruptcy. The City has already hired several police officers–permament position that carry the most costly compensation in this town–using temporary sales tax money (Measure B). It is unsustainable. If that sales tax is NOT renewed, all of that police compensation will drive directly to the General Fund, where the impact on City services will be fast and hard. Paving streets? Fuhgettaboutit.

    Reply

    • January 19, 2016 @ 5:15 pm silasbarnabe

      @Tramky,
      Thanks for your condor, and with revenues in mind this project will not bring in enough revenue to fund one police officer…..

      Reply

      • January 19, 2016 @ 5:33 pm silasbarnabe

        Candor that is…

        Reply

      • January 21, 2016 @ 2:02 am tramky

        Well, this project may not garner millions of revenue dollars for the City of Vallejo, but neither will new City Landmarks that sit empty by the river for decades, and neither will a park or trail.

        Grain silos and a nondescript, uninteresting and large building that once was a grain mill is NOT a landmark for anything in this City. And does THAT proposal actually call for a crumbling, rotting, derelict dock and pilings to be established as a City Landmark?!! Well, THAT’s a good symbol for the future of Vallejo and a proud marker of its past!

        Of course, the transparency of what the City Landmark proposal is really all about is quite, well, transparent. Just another desperate ploy by the usual suspects in this town to block a commercial development using a bald-faced ploy that is unsupportable and can not be approved by anyone who understands the history and obstructionism of self-professed ‘preservationists’ in this town.

        Reply

        • January 21, 2016 @ 2:23 am silasbarnabe

          @Tramky,
          You prove the usual suspects point, in Vallejo such projects that destroy infrastructure, pollute our air and water, and cost more in city resources than revenue they bring in, shows that palm greasing and special interest benefits outweigh the needs of our residents and taxpayers.

          Reply

          • January 21, 2016 @ 9:30 am wharf rat

            Well said !

          • January 21, 2016 @ 7:26 pm tramky

            Needs of residents and taxpayers? What, precisely are those? And I do mean ‘precisely’. How are those determined? By whom? Your buddies on the Hill? The GOBs about town? Anyone around here who never found someone else’s taxpayer money they didn’t like?

            Needs, by definition, are boundless, endless, and without accountability. Public policy and taxing power based on someone’s ‘needs’ are inherently flawed and likely financially unsustainable.

            So what else ya’ got? Beside ‘needs’.

          • silasbarnabe

            January 22, 2016 @ 2:05 am silasbarnabe

            No ones needs are met, but the corrupt and corruptor when politicians launch revenue losing ventures so they can get campaign contributions and endorsements in the next election.

          • silasbarnabe

            January 22, 2016 @ 5:59 pm silasbarnabe

            No ones needs are met, except the corrupt and corruptor when politicians launch revenue losing ventures so they can get campaign contributions and endorsements in the next election, and Jon Riley getting temporary union jobs. How terrible and what a losing idea for Vallejo that needs more revenue, more Police, Fire, road maintenance, and other basic amenities that other cities receive for less in taxes.

          • January 24, 2016 @ 1:57 pm Garminwontpostme

            No ones needs are met, except the corrupt and corruptor when politicians launch revenue losing ventures so they can get campaign contributions and endorsements in the next election, and Jon Riley getting temporary union jobs. How terrible and what a losing idea for Vallejo that needs more revenue, more Police, Fire, road maintenance, and other basic amenities that other cities receive for less in taxes.

  14. January 21, 2016 @ 11:26 pm wharf rat

    Well Tramky : for a start how about clean air, clean Government , clean politics (if possible) – representative Democracy – reality- accountability -pragmatism – honesty – stewardship – legality – policy – morality – efficiency –
    clarity – honesty – representation – disclosure – brown act – compliance –
    decency – Governance – respect – environment – criminality – Murder – victimization – public health – corruption – cabals – special interests – pac’s -influence – elected – gamers – developers – staff – con artists – dominionists – activists – Artists – conservationists – homeless – associations – religiousness – seductiveness – prejudices – bias – shadows- dereliction denuding , ———-
    Well I could be up till the wee hours if I continued , when a simple Citizen can expose so many deficiencies in their City Government then there must be a problem ! this is just a short list ! pls folks add your words too! . The future of this community rests on the People !!! staff is just a temporary recipient of our wealth …..We need some accountability , how about a warranty ? or bondedness / surety for administrators such as other Cities do ? —– well Keen ? ……. can you get bonded or qualify for a surety bond , and can Council members do likewise ? —— lets institute a requirement as so many other Cities have done , Top Management- Council – City Manager – department heads – Administrators – and others who have cost impacts ——– you need to be bonded , to protect those you profuse you serve ……. ”good enough for other Cities good enough for Vallejo”….. Way overdue …..

    Reply

    • January 22, 2016 @ 8:05 pm tramky

      Well, this is clearly a wild goose chase. Ask for precision and one produces the opposite. OK. But the same questions apply.
      This already hit the dead end. Next.

      Reply

    • January 22, 2016 @ 8:39 pm anon

      You should be happy with all that diversity you have listed.

      Reply

  15. January 22, 2016 @ 8:56 pm tramky

    This town has had homelessness on the streets for years, for decades to one degree or another. And NOW this town, with this stunningly UNIQUE situation involving homelessness that has never been seen or addressed ANYWHERE else in this country by ANY other city, has decided that it needs to have not only some kind of TASK FORCE to develop a strategy to deal with it, but now also a Request for Proposals (RFP) to establish realistic approaches to dealing with it. As though Vallejo’s homelessness just dropped out of the universe from some place in another solar system. My god, this town can’t even tax marijuana dispensaries directly or properly, and THAT goes on and on.

    And while all of this goes on for weeks, months, and years, the lineup of plastic bags, shopping carts, sleeping bags, and heaping piles of ‘personal possessions’ on Georgia Street next to the JFK Library persist through chill, drizzle, and tears. Tears shed over the future of this town. Announcements of big ‘investments’ in downtown Vallejo, investments that are completely negated by the unfortunate spectacle on Georgia Street next to the library. And it IS a spectacle.

    Home much money did the City spend to punch Georgia Street through to Mare Island Way, when it eliminated that large, expansive plaza that once hosted a designed park space, several sculptures, and a vista across the Vallejo waterfront, replaced by an intersection and, later, a parking garage.

    Well, that was then, this is now.

    Wish someone would tell the truth to the public about homelessness. Tell us that the Constitution of the United States guarantees homelessness and vagrancy–defends it, in fact. Tell us that there is ALWAYS a sliver of the homeless population who will NEVER leave the street–they don’t play nice with others, and they can not, quite literally, be in close proximity with other people, they can not comprise any part of group assistance. And NO ONE will use actual financial and human resources to serve their needs, which ARE endless, boundless, and completely without acceptability.

    There IS legitimate homelessness. Stuff happens to people against their will. Family issues, financial issues. People just get caught up short. But there ARE the perennially homeless–the drug addicts, the mentally maladjusted, the mentally ill, the sociopaths, the petty criminals, the sneak thieves, the pathetic individuals who will ALWAYS break your heart and your trust.

    Reply

  16. February 22, 2016 @ 1:00 am lani

    Wherrrrrrrrrre is Erin Borockovich when we need her??? Will we be another Flint Mich.????

    Reply


Would you like to share your thoughts?

Your email address will not be published.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.

Vallejo Independent Bulletin

Copyright © 2015 - All Rights Reserved