First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Billy Bob

Vallejo, CA

#1 Nov 12, 2018
You lost the election, and now the DOJ just weighed in.......... why don't you pack your bags and go home and save the rest of us having to spend any more time shutting this down.

https://www.timesheraldonline.com/2018/11/12/...

Sammy, hows that Blue Collar working for you?......
DOJ fries Orcem

Vallejo, CA

#2 Nov 13, 2018
Billy Bob wrote:
You lost the election, and now the DOJ just weighed in.......... why don't you pack your bags and go home and save the rest of us having to spend any more time shutting this down.

https://www.timesheraldonline.com/2018/11/12/...

Sammy, hows that Blue Collar working for you?......
(From the DOJ)
One of the more unsettling portions of the letter addresses the DFEIR’s revised Air Quality Analysis, which, according to Ganahl, suffers from significant analytical flaws.

Ganahl cites a particular flaw with the amount of proposed diesel pollution expected to be generated from the engines of docked ships.

“Based on these faulty assumptions, the Revised Air Analysis estimates an excess lifetime risk of 18 per million (unmitigated) or 9 per million (with mitigations),” she wrote.“But using the appropriate assumptions, the excess lifetime cancer risk from the project would be 627 per million, nearly 35 times the unmitigated risk and 70 times the mitigated risk disclosed in the revised analysis.”
Annonymous

Martinez, CA

#3 Nov 13, 2018
DOJ fries Orcem wrote:
<quoted text>

(From the DOJ)
One of the more unsettling portions of the letter addresses the DFEIR’s revised Air Quality Analysis, which, according to Ganahl, suffers from significant analytical flaws.

Ganahl cites a particular flaw with the amount of proposed diesel pollution expected to be generated from the engines of docked ships.

“Based on these faulty assumptions, the Revised Air Analysis estimates an excess lifetime risk of 18 per million (unmitigated) or 9 per million (with mitigations),” she wrote.“But using the appropriate assumptions, the excess lifetime cancer risk from the project would be 627 per million, nearly 35 times the unmitigated risk and 70 times the mitigated risk disclosed in the revised analysis.”
Sounds like another give them more time motion is on the horizon.
so happy so

Windsor, CA

#4 Nov 13, 2018
This is time for the use of our new definitions option. What was important becomes indecipherably so cute that it cannot be identified, and so we chose as we are directed. More shards in the mayo, plz.
more bs

Vallejo, CA

#5 Nov 13, 2018
jobs not mobs
Joes Mama

Vallejo, CA

#6 Nov 13, 2018
more bs wrote:
jobs not mobs
(from the DOJ report) "...the project will emit toxic air contaminants, including approximately 18 times the amount of lead disclosed in the revised analysis.”
Jesse Lu

Vacaville, CA

#7 Nov 13, 2018
agree....we would like some jobs......more than the local fast food joint. Hiring out of area trucking companies doesn't count...... tick tock tick tock time is money......how much more money you think Orscum will want to dump into a failed project when the DOJ is lining up to spank them?

Fetigs just lined up there default payday with some sucker..........feel that swirling motion sam?
rourke

Benicia, CA

#8 Nov 13, 2018
vmt/orcem are going to sue the ass off vallejo if they are denied after getting sixty year lease renewals under present heavy industrial zoning.
Big Blue

Manteca, CA

#9 Nov 13, 2018
rourke wrote:
vmt/orcem are going to sue the ass off vallejo if they are denied after getting sixty year lease renewals under present heavy industrial zoning.
And after what the AG said, 1) Orcem/Vmt will lose their butts, PLUS 2) the far left liberal AG will sue VMT/Orcem big time for lying (fraud) about their projects. If those applicants are smart they will negotiate their losses and gets the heck out of dodge. Remember it was city staff (Ms, Reynosa no less) who refused to tell council the identity of the sub tenant of VMT because it was "proprietary information" that Orcem didn't want the public to know. They have been lying to the public, the city, the staff, the council, and even labor since day 1.
Joes Mama

Benicia, CA

#10 Wednesday Nov 14
Maybe CoV can revisit the lease agreements so Orcem can sell the property to a developer that will build what "everybody" wants and cross their fingers that such a developer will be dumb enough to speculate on a commercial venture in South Vallejo that does not include increased traffic, noise or lights. Another big development is now close being driven off like all the others that weren't right for the new Vallejo.
rourke

Benicia, CA

#11 Wednesday Nov 14
the new vallejo has secured a reputation of business unfriendly, filthy, illegal dumping grounds, homeless mecca, low real estate values (aka affordable), poor schools, and understaffed police department. vmt/orcem should cut their losses and let south vallejo continue to rot.
Luther Adler

Windsor, CA

#12 Wednesday Nov 14
may be we gotta change the name, get a new zip and a diff area code...then LIE about the place and offer big tax breaks, interest free loans and zonker secks if they build huuge staddiumss that employ thousands who have to be imported from haiti because we will not need no jobs once our boaqt comes on in the new canal.
I Got Your Pause

Benicia, CA

#13 Thursday Nov 15
Now with the CM instituting yet another delay, VMT/Orcem has all they need to sue us into oblivion for jacking them around for three years after the city extended their leases, knowing full well what the properties would be used for. Why zone it heavy industrial, renew leases based on same, then work like hell to stop them? This is going to cost us a bundle in court costs and punitive awards.
rourke

Benicia, CA

#14 Thursday Nov 15
why should the cm care if we get sued? he'll get his fat pension either way.
Jesse Lu

Vacaville, CA

#15 Thursday Nov 15
No one to blame here other than the applicants. They were inept, fraudulent, and do you really think they want their "ownership" of the property to go under a microscope in a law suit? Had they dropped it years ago THEY would not be out the money. THEY chose to appeal, cook their reports, hire unqualified people to work for them , etc........ Put it to a jury trial and they will get SPANKED back to Ireland.
rourke

Benicia, CA

#16 Thursday Nov 15
Jesse Lu wrote:
No one to blame here other than the applicants. They were inept, fraudulent, and do you really think they want their "ownership" of the property to go under a microscope in a law suit? Had they dropped it years ago THEY would not be out the money. THEY chose to appeal, cook their reports, hire unqualified people to work for them , etc........ Put it to a jury trial and they will get SPANKED back to Ireland.
when were they fraudulent? nobody is claiming fraud but you. first time we heard that. example?
Fat Lady Singing

Vallejo, CA

#17 Thursday Nov 15
Can't you read? The link in post #1 is pretty clear from the AG's office.

“The DFEIR fails to adequately disclose, analyze, and mitigate the significant environmental impacts of the project; the EJA improperly concludes that the project would not disproportionately impact low-income communities of color, and thus misleads decision makers and the public by minimizing the projects significant environmental justice concerns."

Sugar Coat it all you want. Bottom line, applicants paid to cook these reports to push thru their plan.....then they got caught. Ooops......my bad.....sorry doesn't work. Flush this ill conceived project and move on.
rourke

Benicia, CA

#18 Thursday Nov 15
yes! let south vallejo stay as it is!! to hell with south vallejo! we can do better, right? i hope orcem cleans vallejo out!!!
Jerry

Somerset, NJ

#19 Friday Nov 16
Fat Lady Singing wrote:
Can't you read? The link in post #1 is pretty clear from the AG's office.

“The DFEIR fails to adequately disclose, analyze, and mitigate the significant environmental impacts of the project; the EJA improperly concludes that the project would not disproportionately impact low-income communities of color, and thus misleads decision makers and the public by minimizing the projects significant environmental justice concerns."

Sugar Coat it all you want. Bottom line, applicants paid to cook these reports to push thru their plan.....then they got caught. Ooops......my bad.....sorry doesn't work. Flush this ill conceived project and move on.
The City's hired professional consultants prepared the DEIR and EJA. And the City staff approved them for publication.
Stormi

Benicia, CA

#20 Friday Nov 16
I hope a casino is put there.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Napa Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
story for the times 8 hr Wortzer Schwartz 6
Immigrant Get Out Policy 8 hr hAPPeN sTAnCE 12
News Former General Mills site in Vallejo may become... 9 hr fedup2 5
JumpSuit goofs on "Osby Brown" mailer Wed Jerry 29
about google Dec 12 fairness 1
News Child pornography crackdown nets one Vallejo man Dec 11 Janice 3
is the truth racist Dec 11 read learn 1

Napa Jobs

Personal Finance

Napa Mortgages