APEN Voter Guide for Nov 4, 2008

Download the APEN Voter Guide in PDF format

November 4th is a national General Election to help elect candidates, like the next US President and city council members. The other part of your ballot includes 12 state propositions and several local measures (county and city). It’s a very full ballot and we acknowledge how it can be difficult—almost discouraging—for the democratic process.

APEN is a community-based environmental justice organization, with a primary mission of organizing for the rights of Asian immigrants and refugees to have healthy environments. We have membership bases in Oakland (Power in Asians Organizing) and Richmond (Laotian Organizing Project).

APEN values democratic participation, where community members can fully engage in decisions that affect their lives and hold governments accountable to community interests. We believe in community rights and services, a green economy that meets community needs, government and corporate responsibility, and having healthy and safe environments where residents can thrive. It is with this lens that APEN compiled recommendations for the ballot initiatives. APEN’s staff, members and board review ballot initiatives and make recommendations on those we feel strongly, as seen in this voter guide.

ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES
As an environmental justice (EJ) organization, we look at solutions to the ecological crisis with how it will particularly improve the most impacted communities—low income communities of color over-burdened by toxics, poverty and unequal protection from hazards. We agree with immediately switching to cleaner energy sources, but Prop 7 and 10 raise EJ concerns about allowing deceptive polluting projects (trash burners, natural gas) to be called clean, with the probability of putting them in low income communities of color. Measure WW will help the East Bay Regional Parks District acquire land for parks to prevent urban sprawl. The East Bay will be served well by Measure V V which will increase mass transit funds for youth, seniors and disabled bus riders. Richmond’s initiative to tax manufacturing industries like the massive Chevron refinery will boost funds to ailing City services like healthcare and education.
Vote No on Prop 7, No on Prop 10, Yes on VV (Alameda-Contra Costa County), Yes on WW (Alameda County), Yes on Measure T and D (Richmond).

PRISON AND PUNISHMENT INITIATIVES
We understand that crime is a big problem in our community but we should not solve it by targeting low-income families, immigrants and communities of color. Prop 6 will try 14 year olds as adults and redirect billions more dollars from the state general fund to build more prisons. For those in prison, Prop 9 will worsen inhumane conditions by creating additional hurdles for release, while Prop 5 will help address underlying problems of addiction and invest in rehabilitation and treatment.
Vote Yes on Prop 5, No on Prop 6, No on Prop 9.

WEDGE ISSUES
Some well-funded initiatives appear on the ballot to divide our communities by preventing us from focusing on the real problems we need to solve. They include two propositions that attack the civil rights of women, lesbian and gay communities. Prop 4 tries again, for the third time, to limit women’s right to make choices regarding reproductive health, by attacking young women who are pregnant. We cannot accept discrimination against anyone, including Prop 8 which denies basic rights to gay (LGBT) people.

EJ Groups Sue City of Richmond Over Chevron Refinery Expansion

Flawed Environmental Review Endangers Public Health and Environment

(Richmond, CA) Environmental justice groups filed a lawsuit challenging the Richmond City Council’s approval of Chevron’s refinery expansion project today.

At issue is an environmental review that concealed that the project would result in much higher pollution. Communities in Richmond, particularly low-income and communities of color, are severely overburdened with industrial pollution-related health problems, including high rates of asthma and cancer. Chevron’s refinery is the largest industrial polluter in the region.

The expansion would allow heavier and dirtier crude oil to be processed at the Richmond refinery, which would increase releases of mercury, selenium, toxic sulfur compounds, and greenhouse gases. The City Council approved the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Conditional Use Permit for Chevron’s expansion project despite the fact that the impacts of refining dirtier and more polluting oil were not disclosed, analyzed, or mitigated by the EIR.

“Chevron’s project would lock in a fundamental switch to dirtier oil refining that increases toxic and climate-poisoning pollution drastically when avoiding these impacts is feasible,” said Greg Karras, a senior scientist with Communities for a Better Environment (CBE). “The City violated the community’s right to know about and act on this information,” he said.

“The City Council failed its legal and moral obligation to protect our health,” said Richmond resident, Torm Nompraseurt, of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network. “Those dangerous chemicals are going to affect me, my family, and my neighbors but the City didn’t even look at what Chevron is really going to be doing.”

Hundreds of residents jammed the City Council hearings in July demanding the City Council limit the refinery from processing dirtier crude oils and re-do the Environmental Impact Report that failed to analyze the project Chevron actually plans to build. Community groups also advocated for Chevron to pay into a “Fund for Richmond’s Future” – a community-controlled fund to support the development of a cleaner and greener economy in Richmond.

Instead, Chevron made a multi-million dollar offer in exchange for project approval with weakened environmental protections and less public review of future refinery projects. Chevron valued its offer at about $61 million. City and Chevron officials negotiated a proposed contract to execute the deal without public input, and presented it at the City Council’s hearing on the project without public notice. The Council accepted the deal and approved the project without completing the environmental review needed to identify, analyze, and lessen or avoid its significant environmental impacts.

“Chevron must stop its toxic assault on poor people of color in Richmond. The City Council is selling out our community, but our health is not for sale,” said Henry Clark, executive director of the West County Toxics Coalition. “We will fight this until we achieve environmental justice.”

“The California Environmental Quality Act requires government agencies to look before they leap by analyzing and mitigating all significant environmental impacts” said Will Rostov, an attorney for Earthjustice, who represents the environmental justice groups in court. “The City’s environmental review fails in its most basic purpose.”

A poll conducted by David Binder Research indicated that an overwhelming majority (73 percent) of Richmond voters supported the City Council delaying a decision on the Chevron expansion until the environmental and health impacts of refining heavier crude oil were fully reviewed. In addition, 75 percent of Richmond voters said it was very or extremely important that any projects or funding between Chevron and the City Council be determined in an open public process.

The lawsuit was filed today in Contra Costa County Superior Court on behalf of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN), Communities for a Better Environment (CBE), and the West County Toxics Coalition by attorneys from Earthjustice and CBE.

Read the poll results on the Chevron refinery expansion by David Binder Research (PDF)

Link to Petition (PDF)

APEN is hiring!

APEN is growing! This is an exciting time for APEN as we develop more capacity to fight for environmental and social justice. We are looking for enthusiastic and committed individuals to join our organization. The following positions are open:

Contract Grant Writer - submit applications by September 15, 2008

Please contact Timmy Lu at (510) 834-8920 x301 or timmy[at]apen4ej.org for more information.

Chevron among top 3 polluters in Bay Area

Refineries are top polluters in Bay Area
By Mike Taugher
02/21/2008

Tesoro's Golden Eagle refinery near Martinez was again the Bay Area's top polluter in 2006, according to data on toxic releases made available Thursday by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The refinery, which is the second largest in the region, reported releases of 1.8 million pounds of toxic chemicals to air, water or land. That figure was down from 2.5 million pounds in 2005.

Overall, the EPA said toxic releases in 2006 from 1,357 facilities in California were down 2.8 percent to 45.2 million pounds from the previous year.

Tesoro's refinery has historically lagged behind the other refineries in installing upgrades. It was the region's biggest polluter every year since at least 2003, according to an EPA toxics database.

Mike Marcy, a Tesoro spokesman, said most of the toxic material reported by the refinery was ammonia that air quality regulators require to control smog.

A $575 million upgrade that is scheduled to be done this year will slash toxic pollution from the Tesoro refinery to about 500,000 pounds a year, according to Marcy.

"This is replacing 1950s technology that was here when Tesoro bought the refinery in 2002," he said.

The second largest polluter in the Bay Area was Valero's refinery in Benicia, which released 1.7 million pounds of toxic chemicals last year. That refinery, with a 144,000 barrel-per-day capacity, is the fourth largest of the Bay Area's five refineries.

Valero spokesman Chris Howe said most of the increase in reported emissions in 2006 -- double the figure reported the previous year -- were due to revisions that were made after tests of ammonia releases from some stacks showed higher emissions. He also said the refinery reported higher releases of nitrates to the water. The refinery also disposed of lead and other metals as part of routine maintenance done in 2006, which inflated the number.

Asked why the region's fourth largest refinery would have the second highest emissions, Howe said it was difficult to say but suggested the possibility that the other refineries might have more recent upgrades.

The Benicia refinery, at nearly 30 years old, is the newest of the five. The older refineries have had to perform upgrades, and when those upgrades are done newer pollution control equipment is installed. He said the Benicia plant "is just now coming up to be able to do," those upgrades.

Chevron's Richmond refinery, meanwhile, is by far the largest in the Bay Area with a capacity of nearly 243,000 barrels a day. It is also the oldest. It reported 1.2 million pounds of toxic releases in 2006, making it the third largest polluter in the region.

"We're one of the most energy efficient refineries in the U.S.," said Chevron spokeswoman Camille Priselac.

The Toxics Release Inventory is a database of emissions from large industrial sources. The EPA has collected the data since 1987 as part of a law that was passed after a Union Carbide chemical chemical plant in 1984 leaked poisonous gas and killed thousands of people in Bhopal, India.

Mike Taugher covers natural resources. Reach him at 925-943-8257 or mtaugher@bayareanewsgroup.com.

Bay Area top 10 toxic polluters in 2006:
Tesoro refinery, Martinez, 1.8 million pounds
Valero refinery, Benicia, 1.7 million pounds
Chevron refinery, Richmond, 1.2 million pounds
Shell refinery, Martinez, 772,000 pounds
ConocoPhillips refinery, Rodeo, 595,000 pounds
Clean Harbors, San Jose, 371,000 pounds
New United Motor Manufacturing, Fremont, 370,000 pounds
United State Pipe & Foundry, Union City, 337,000 pounds
Criterion Catalysts & Technologies, Pittsburg, 240,000 pounds
Tyco Electronics, Menlo Park, 217,000 pounds

http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_8327467?source=email

A SF Chronicle column on Chevron profits and Richmond

Time for Richmond to stand up to Chevron

Chip Johnson

Friday, February 8, 2008

Roll on, Big Oil.

In the 30 years since California voters limited property tax increases by passing Proposition 13, the Chevron oil refinery in Richmond has negotiated a lower tax rate at least a half-dozen times - rolling over any opposition from local government.

To this day, the oil company has always gotten its way, said Gus Kramer, the tax assessor in Contra Costa County.

"They do a $150 million addition and we run the numbers, calculate the added value and send them a bill - and in November they file an appeal," he said of the company's practices. "Heavy industry has the best lobbyists money can buy, and over the years they have changed the tax codes and made it harder to assess the value of a modernized plant."

The company has used the tax appeals - and legal system - to argue that replacing obsolete systems is more akin to replacing a crumbling garage with a new, upgraded structure, Kramer said.

Consequently, the tax windfalls that some county officials had hoped to reap from the upgrade were not to be.

"There will be a slight increase in their tax base, but it's not going to be anything to write home about," Kramer said.

After negotiating its tax rates with county officials in the past, Chevron for the first time has gone to a county tax appeals board, which is scheduled to hear the case next month.

At the same time, the company is seeking Richmond's approval of its latest upgrade, which would allow the refinery to produce about 5 percent more gasoline. The company cleared its first hurdle last week, with the city's approval of the project's design.

The next step is the approval of a permit from the city's planning commission, which is expected to list the item on its agenda next month. If the commission approves the project, only an appeal to the City Council - a near certainty - can derail it.

Historically, council members have been a bunch of pushovers for the oil company, which has done everything from entering sweetheart deals with them to buying them off individually to win their support.

In one county tax appeal case, Chevron officials cut a side deal with Richmond city officials to keep paying the portion of property taxes that went directly to the city - if city officials would stay out of the county tax fight. They did.

In 1994, the city's planning commission approved another retrofit at the plant, with a requirement that the company put $50 million into a fund to pay claims from a refinery disaster. Chevron appealed the decision and picked off individual council members with $6 million to pay for pet projects.

Nearly 14 years later, the council has new leadership and a messy recent history with the company that has left some council members fed up with Chevron dictating the rules to the city.

A little more than a year ago, Chevron officials told the city that the company had recalculated its utility-user tax rate - and began paying the city about $4 million a year less.

"Things have changed - they have angered everyone on the council," said longtime Councilman Tom Butt. "If we can just hold the council together, we have an opportunity to get the absolute maximum in mitigations to the community."

Meanwhile, state Attorney General Jerry Brown has notified the city that any Chevron project it approves will also require a reduction in greenhouse gases emitted by the plant, Butt said.

Dean O'Hair, a Chevron spokesman, says the company is only acting within the law to protect its rights just as any citizen would. But that doesn't place the issue in proper context. The difference between most citizens and Chevron is that most citizens don't have an unlimited legal war chest belonging to one of the most profitable companies in the history of the world.

It's just tough to watch Chevron, which posted a record profit of $18.7 billion last year, pulling the purse strings tight at a time when it's doing so well and its host city is in such dire straits.

Richmond's homicide rate is already so high this year that officials have called in officers from the California Highway Patrol to help patrol the city at night.

Chevron isn't responsible - or accountable - for the social ills in Richmond or any other city where it operates facilities, but finding tax loopholes while making more profit than ever just looks bad.

From every viewpoint other than that of the corporation, such tactics can't help but promote the notion that giant companies make the rules and anyone without the spirit, resources or organization to fight back is an easy target for manipulation.

Over the century that the plant has operated on the city's waterfront, it has spewed emissions, spilled toxic substances that require people to evacuate their homes and presented an environmental challenge to everyone living around it.

In order for Richmond citizens to finally receive their fair share of funding from Chevron - something like a community mitigation fund would be a good start - the council needs to stand up to the pressure like it's never done before.

"The question is whether the council will hang together, hang tough," Butt said, "or just sell out individually like the council has in the past."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/08/BAQ9UUIGQ.DTL

Oakland Rising Electoral Training

Hi, my name is Elaine and I'm a new volunteer with APEN! I am volunteering for APEN because I am interested in the intersection between the "environment" and human values, and passionate about solving environmental problems that disproportionately affect poor, disenfranchised urban communities. When I came across APEN on the Internet, I was excited about working with them and joining their cause. This entry is about Oakland Rising's electoral training and APEN leaders' participation in it.

On December 1, APEN and PAO members met in a relatively cold and danky townhall for an elections training meeting as part of a broad-based coalition of social justice groups called Oakland Rising. This was my first exposure to the coalition and the meeting was rousing, informative, and, at the end, occasionally hysterically funny (as I will describe later on). The meeting began with informal introductions to the work of Oakland Rising's member organizations: APEN, EBASE, the Ella Baker Center, Just Cause Oakland, ACORN, and Urban Habitat. Oakland Rising's collective goal is to bolster our political influence, particularly in the upcoming 2008 elections, to advance our progressive vision and values. We are all striving for a healthier, safer, and more prosperous Oakland in which old and young can prosper, and in which we can support our communities of color.

We were briefed on the importance of electoral politics. One particularly fun, but startling, presentation involved all staff members and leaders, each representing "percentages" of Oaklanders, sitting and clustering into voting and non-voting blocs. I learned that though approximately half of all Oaklanders are registered to vote, very few in fact make it to the polls, and even fewer vote in the direction that we would like (which may sound obvious, but is an important point to make, I think). Thus, the goal of this campaign season is to register eligible voters and talk to them about our progressive values.

The last hour of the event allowed individual organizations to discuss in small groups. Our PAO members were introduced to major California propositions on the table for 2008 and had, what I should emphasize, a loud, boisterous debate. We discussed each proposition at length, describing the major pros and cons of each and taking positions for each. Individual members brought up salient objections and questions, often raising their hands in unison, if not their voices, or nodding in silent agreement. More often than not though, they booed in disagreement. All of the discussion was held in Cantonese, which at times, I barely understood. The translator did the most incredible job of keeping up with the hare-like pace of the discussion, and often "softened" the hilarity of language used. I believe that, in the end, despite the overall Chinese banquet-like quality of the discussion, PAO voters walked away a little more confident and knowledgeable about the voting process.

Photos courtesy of EBASE

Growing Our Roots Extending Our Reach

OUR VENUE HAS CHANGED TO JACK LONDON AQUATIC CENTER!
Asian Pacific Environmental Network

Growing Our Roots
Extending Our Reach
Building Community Power for Environmental Justice

Thursday, October 18, 2007
6:00pm Reception
7:00pm Program
Hors d'oeuvres will be served

New Venue: Jack London Aquatic Center
115 Embarcadero, Oakland (see directions below)

Join APEN’s members, board, and staff as we celebrate the legacy of the environmental justice movement and move forward with a bold plan to strengthen our local work and make statewide impact.

MC: Martha Matsuoka, APEN founding board member, Assistant Professor at Occidental College

Keynote speaker:
Richard Moore has been a national leader of the environmental justice movement for more than 30 years. He is currently the Chairperson of the US-EPA's National Environmental Justice Advisory Council. He is a founding member of the Southwest Organizing Project (SWOP) and the Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic Justice (SNEEJ). He currently serves as Executive Director of SNEEJ, an organization made up over 60 community based grassroots organizations working in communities of color in six southwestern states and Northern Mexico.

Musical Guests:
O’Nami Taiko

Silent auction of visual art about and by Asian-American and Pacific Islanders, featuring art by:

York Chang
Binh Danh
Daniel Fleckles
Lora Jo Foo
Matthew Kurtesz
Mari Rose Taruc
Tran Khanh Tuyet

Special artworks by APEN members

Please RSVP by calling 510.834.8920 x307 or e-mail haibinh*AT*apen4ej.org

Directions to Jack London Aquatic Center, 115 Embarcadero, Oakland
(use these directions as google maps and other online services are incorrect)
From San Francisco/West:
I-80 EAST to the Bay Bridge. I-580 EAST/DOWNTOWN OAKLAND. EXIT toward Hayward/Stockton. I-980 WEST EXIT towards downtown Oakland. JACKSON STREET EXIT, staying RIGHT at the fork in the ramp. The exit will drop you on 5TH STREET. Stay on 5TH STREET until you reach OAK ST. Right on OAK ST., OAK ST. becomes EMBARCADERO after crossing the railroad tracks. Go approximately 3/10 mile on the EMBARCADERO, turn RIGHT into the entrance to Estuary Park and JLAC. Immediately after the JLAC entrance there is a small bridge on the EMBARCADERO; if you go over the bridge, you’ve gone too far.
From Berkeley/Richmond:
I-80 WEST toward Oakland. I-580 East/Downtown Oakland (CA-24) toward Hayward/Stockton. I-980 WEST EXIT towards DOWNTOWN OAKLAND. JACKSON STREET EXIT, staying RIGHT at the fork in the ramp. The exit will drop you on 5TH STREET. Stay on 5TH STREET until you reach OAK ST. Right on OAK ST., OAK ST. becomes EMBARCADERO after crossing the railroad tracks. Go approximately 3/10 mile on the EMBARCADERO, turn RIGHT into the entrance to Estuary Park and JLAC. Immediately after the JLAC entrance there is a small bridge on the EMBARCADERO; if you go over the bridge, you’ve gone too far.
From South of Oakland:
I880 North, 5TH AVE EXIT. Right onto the EMBARCADERO. Go approximately 2/3 mile on the Embarcadero, over a small bridge, and immediately after the bridge turn LEFT into the entrance to Estuary Park and the JLAC parking lot.