The council right now is entertaining a PowerPoint presentation on the EIR for that new terminal project.
These screenshots from it raise some immediate and serious questions: for one thing, how come there is a perceived toxic air pollution problem with the construction of these two less-desirable alternatives…
But no such danger exists for the big idealized site?
That old Lockheed land is all fucked up with at least 70 years worth of junk. It’s inconceivable that every part of it isn’t overlaid with a toxic stew of trouble. So why are they leaving this problem out of the “adjacent” site study? That construction will drum up lots of toxic material as well.
Here’s another question. How could there not also be a big impact on local “public services” with this new and considerably larger airport terminal, no matter where it’s built?
They’re admitting a significant impact on traffic and congestion, but no impact at all on public services?
Note too the significant impact on air quality. This health problem has been all but omitted from the dialog. It’s a new one to think about, people.
You know, we’re not spending a whole lot of time on this EIR for a good and simple reason: it’s a dead issue for us. No new airport terminal, small is beautiful, leave it alone. Don’t waste your time on it, but do note the all-too-convenient discrepancies in the report nonetheless.
Figures, doesn’t it? They’re all playing down the more intractable and serious problems, and you can see it clearly in staff’s PowerPoint.