CBFANC Joins East Oakland Stadium Alliance in Rebuttal to Town Business Letter

The language in the letter mimics the press statements and website recently set up by the Oakland A’s to support their lawsuit against DTSC and Schnitzer Steel. This letter reinforces the notion that the A’s are committed to forcing the Howard Terminal ballpark project into an area that is critical to our maritime and industrial jobs base at any cost, and they’re willing to do it without care for honesty, ethics or transparency.

Given that this is just the latest gross misrepresentation by the A’s PR machine in recent weeks, we’re using this letter as occasion to set the record straight.

Oakland Can Have the A’s, a Thriving Port, and Support Recycling
Since the beginning, we have made it clear that we support the Oakland A’s and want them to stay in Oakland. However, the future success of the A’s cannot come at the expense of the working waterfront. The Port of Oakland sustains more than 84,000 jobs in the region and contributes $130 billion to the local economy. Generations of Oakland families depend on the good paying union jobs Port businesses like Schnitzer Steel provide and will be hurt by this blatant attempt by the A’s to attack the work done at the Port of Oakland – this lawsuit is nothing more than an acceleration of the A’s efforts to dismantle the Port of Oakland to make room for their waterfront stadium and luxury condominium development. Moreover, the lawsuit is just one more attempt by the A’s to divert the public debate away from the many shortcomings and unanswered questions surrounding their plans for a massive commercial real estate development at the working waterfront.

Since the A’s have made it their mission to attack one of our oldest industrial employers, we felt it important to share the truth about Schnitzer Steel. Schnitzer Steel is not a waste facility, but rather a critical metal recycler, and has been a member of the Oakland business community for 50 years. Schnitzer operations in the City of Oakland support over 350 good local jobs, over $31 million in annual labor income, and nearly $500 million in annual economic output. The impacts of Schnitzer’s Oakland operations ripple throughout Alameda County and all of California. In 2018 alone, Schnitzer’s Oakland facilities created or induced over 1,700 California jobs and more than $700 million in statewide economic output. Schnitzer values community involvement throughout all parts of its business, and its Oakland facility employees are involved in local causes from fighting homelessness and food shortages, to promoting K-12 STEM and trade school education.
Further, the A’s are focused on old issues and disregard the numerous environmental projects that Schnitzer has completed or that are underway to minimize the environmental footprint of its Oakland facility. In recent years, the metal recycling industry has adopted a range of new technologies and safety protocols that have transformed operations with the goal of improving health and environmental outcomes – and Schnitzer Steel has led the industry in these innovations, consistently developing new technology and raising the industry standard for safety and sustainability, including approximately $40 million in industry-leading resource protection, stormwater management, emission control and other environmental projects at its Oakland facility.
Schnitzer Steel recycles a huge range of items, including end-of-life vehicles, old appliances, decommissioned BART trains, and even portions of the Bay Bridge – keeping them out of landfills and from being abandoned in our communities, and instead helping them become new products. Metal recyclers like Schnitzer Steel are critical to achieving California’s sustainability goals, and the A’s backwards-looking accusations demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of the recycling industry and how it currently operates – as well as the regulations that govern it.
The Lawsuit is an Intentional Misrepresentation of DTSC Regulations
As far as the A’s lawsuit goes, the A’s mischaracterize the metals recycling industry, which is extensively regulated at the federal, state, regional and local level, as well as the purpose of the “f” letters which are issued to Schnitzer and other metal recyclers in the state. The “f” letter allows treated residue to be safely and beneficially used as alternative daily cover at landfills, and reflects DTSC’s long-standing determination that treated residue does not pose a significant threat to human health or the environment. Rescission of the “f” letters as demanded by the A’s is not only inappropriate, but would result in this material piling up at metals recycling facilities in Oakland and across the state, would increase the cost of disposal for recyclers and therefore consumers of recycled materials, and would increase costs at landfills as they would have to replace this material with more expensive daily cover (such as soil to keep garbage and other solid waste at landfills from being blown off site), therefore increasing costs for households across the state.

Howard Terminal is Not Abandoned or Moribund
Finally, we want to disabuse the notion that Howard Terminal is vacant or surplus. I expect that most of your members have not been to Howard Terminal nor have they talked to the thousands of truckers or longshoremen whose livelihood depends on the ability to safely and consistently access Howard Terminal in order to be successful in their jobs. In truth, there are more than 325,000 annual gate moves by trucks at Howard Terminal. Neither the A’s nor the Port have been able or willing to specify where these trucks will go, and the promised Seaport Compatibility Plan has not advanced since last November. There is an underlying assumption that these truck moves would “continue elsewhere on Port property” but in reality, there are no other viable locations. Even if offsetting yards were to be found or made available within the Port, the necessary result of the loss of HT is that a majority of trucks will need to find other private yards and will increasingly find themselves on the freeway and on local roads between container moves. This will significantly increase congestion for residents and cause delays for trucks, threatening the future viability of the Port. Customers don’t adjust to an unreliable or slow-moving port, they simply move their business elsewhere – trucking goods longer distances from other west coast ports.

We know this letter is lengthy but we felt it necessary to correct the record given the extensive list of signers you purport to represent. We look forward to your response and to seeing you correct this clearly unethical conduct at the earliest time possible. Further, we call on the A’s to immediately cease their campaign of attack against the working waterfront and to refocus their efforts on rebuilding at the Coliseum site in East Oakland. Moving forward with the A’s Port plan presents a significant threat to the seaport and the good-paying blue-collar jobs it provides. It threatens the Port’s maritime customers, employees, tenants, and their business partners throughout the supply chain. It will impair truck and vessel access to and from marine terminals with crippling new congestion and significantly constrain the Port of Oakland’s ability to grow future cargoes and to maximize the use of existing marine terminals.

Sincerely,

Insert list of signatures

Cc:       Mayor Libby Schaaf
            City Council President Rebecca Kaplan
            Members of the Oakland City Council


CBFANC Joins East Oakland Stadium Alliance in Rebuttal to Town Business Letter The language in the letter mimics the press statements and website recently set up by the Oakland A’s to support their lawsuit against DTSC and Schnitzer Steel. This letter reinforces the notion that the A’s are committed to forcing the Howard Terminal ballpark project into an area that is critical to our maritime and industrial jobs base at any cost, and they’re willing to do it without care for honesty, ethics or transparency. Given that this is just the latest gross misrepresentation by the A’s PR machine in recent weeks, we’re using this letter as occasion to set the record straight. Oakland Can Have the A’s, a Thriving Port, and Support Recycling Since the beginning, we have made it clear that we support the Oakland A’s and want them to stay in Oakland. However, the future success of the A’s cannot come at the expense of the working waterfront. The Port of Oakland sustains more than 84,000 jobs in the region and contributes $130 billion to the local economy. Generations of Oakland families depend on the good paying union jobs Port businesses like Schnitzer Steel provide and will be hurt by this blatant attempt by the A’s to attack the work done at the Port of Oakland – this lawsuit is nothing more than an acceleration of the A’s efforts to dismantle the Port of Oakland to make room for their waterfront stadium and luxury condominium development. Moreover, the lawsuit is just one more attempt by the A’s to divert the public debate away from the many shortcomings and unanswered questions surrounding their plans for a massive commercial real estate development at the working waterfront. Since the A’s have made it their mission to attack one of our oldest industrial employers, we felt it important to share the truth about Schnitzer Steel. Schnitzer Steel is not a waste facility, but rather a critical metal recycler, and has been a member of the Oakland business community for 50 years. Schnitzer operations in the City of Oakland support over 350 good local jobs, over $31 million in annual labor income, and nearly $500 million in annual economic output. The impacts of Schnitzer’s Oakland operations ripple throughout Alameda County and all of California. In 2018 alone, Schnitzer’s Oakland facilities created or induced over 1,700 California jobs and more than $700 million in statewide economic output. Schnitzer values community involvement throughout all parts of its business, and its Oakland facility employees are involved in local causes from fighting homelessness and food shortages, to promoting K-12 STEM and trade school education. Further, the A’s are focused on old issues and disregard the numerous environmental projects that Schnitzer has completed or that are underway to minimize the environmental footprint of its Oakland facility. In recent years, the metal recycling industry has adopted a range of new technologies and safety protocols that have transformed operations with the goal of improving health and environmental outcomes – and Schnitzer Steel has led the industry in these innovations, consistently developing new technology and raising the industry standard for safety and sustainability, including approximately $40 million in industry-leading resource protection, stormwater management, emission control and other environmental projects at its Oakland facility. Schnitzer Steel recycles a huge range of items, including end-of-life vehicles, old appliances, decommissioned BART trains, and even portions of the Bay Bridge – keeping them out of landfills and from being abandoned in our communities, and instead helping them become new products. Metal recyclers like Schnitzer Steel are critical to achieving California’s sustainability goals, and the A’s backwards-looking accusations demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of the recycling industry and how it currently operates – as well as the regulations that govern it. The Lawsuit is an Intentional Misrepresentation of DTSC Regulations As far as the A’s lawsuit goes, the A’s mischaracterize the metals recycling industry, which is extensively regulated at the federal, state, regional and local level, as well as the purpose of the “f” letters which are issued to Schnitzer and other metal recyclers in the state. The “f” letter allows treated residue to be safely and beneficially used as alternative daily cover at landfills, and reflects DTSC’s long-standing determination that treated residue does not pose a significant threat to human health or the environment. Rescission of the “f” letters as demanded by the A’s is not only inappropriate, but would result in this material piling up at metals recycling facilities in Oakland and across the state, would increase the cost of disposal for recyclers and therefore consumers of recycled materials, and would increase costs at landfills as they would have to replace this material with more expensive daily cover (such as soil to keep garbage and other solid waste at landfills from being blown off site), therefore increasing costs for households across the state. Howard Terminal is Not Abandoned or Moribund Finally, we want to disabuse the notion that Howard Terminal is vacant or surplus. I expect that most of your members have not been to Howard Terminal nor have they talked to the thousands of truckers or longshoremen whose livelihood depends on the ability to safely and consistently access Howard Terminal in order to be successful in their jobs. In truth, there are more than 325,000 annual gate moves by trucks at Howard Terminal. Neither the A’s nor the Port have been able or willing to specify where these trucks will go, and the promised Seaport Compatibility Plan has not advanced since last November. There is an underlying assumption that these truck moves would “continue elsewhere on Port property” but in reality, there are no other viable locations. Even if offsetting yards were to be found or made available within the Port, the necessary result of the loss of HT is that a majority of trucks will need to find other private yards and will increasingly find themselves on the freeway and on local roads between container moves. This will significantly increase congestion for residents and cause delays for trucks, threatening the future viability of the Port. Customers don’t adjust to an unreliable or slow-moving port, they simply move their business elsewhere – trucking goods longer distances from other west coast ports. We know this letter is lengthy but we felt it necessary to correct the record given the extensive list of signers you purport to represent. We look forward to your response and to seeing you correct this clearly unethical conduct at the earliest time possible. Further, we call on the A’s to immediately cease their campaign of attack against the working waterfront and to refocus their efforts on rebuilding at the Coliseum site in East Oakland. Moving forward with the A’s Port plan presents a significant threat to the seaport and the good-paying blue-collar jobs it provides. It threatens the Port’s maritime customers, employees, tenants, and their business partners throughout the supply chain. It will impair truck and vessel access to and from marine terminals with crippling new congestion and significantly constrain the Port of Oakland’s ability to grow future cargoes and to maximize the use of existing marine terminals. Sincerely, Insert list of signatures Cc: Mayor Libby Schaaf City Council President Rebecca Kaplan Members of the Oakland City Council
CBFANC Newsletter - copy of August 2020 - Info Expeditor