The Navy left Treasure Island Naval Station several years ago, and now, understandably, neighbors want to keep their peace.
So when the Treasure Island Advisory Committee issued its report last spring, the result was surprising and encouraging. While endorsing several potential uses for the island, the committee left open the possibility of introducing commercial oil shipment. This was a controversial but courageous decision that took into account both the concerns of the neighbors and the importance of Treasure Island as a regional resource for the entire Bay Area.
Unfortunately, the San Francisco and Oakland city councils succumbed to Not-In-My-Backyard pressure. The councils recently deemed an oil terminal to be an unacceptable use for the former Naval Station.
The cities have no jurisdiction over Treasure Island, a federal facility. But they're trying their best to fend off oil tankers.
USGS took over Treasure Island after the Navy withdrew and is under a directive to erase the facility's $3 million annual deficit. A year ago it put forth a proposal to allow a small scale oil trans-shipment terminal to provide gasoline to the Bay Area. However, after hearing neighbors' objections, USGS put the oil proposal on hold pending community advice.
There are some promising uses for the island that USGS and the communities agree on: a conference center, hotel, and theme park, among others. The advisory committee also believes that at least some of the deficit exists only on paper, and can be erased by USGS changing its accounting practices.
That would be fine, although the point isn't only to balance the numbers or help USGS run Treasure Island more economically. The point is that Treasure Island, as an oil terminal, is precious and irreplacable.
The cities of Oakland and San Francisco have made clear their objection to oil tankers at Treasure Island. Yet the need for petroleum to sustain the region's economy is indisputable. There is no better way to bring that oil to the Bay Area than a modern tanker facility at Treasure Island.
Ruling out oil tankers at Treasure Island, without even considering conditions, may ease political pressures on Mayors Brown and Harris, but it's too hasty a decision.
Federal and State plans both designate Treasure Island as an industrial property. And if USGS were to abandon Treasure Island, say for budgetary reasons, federal guidelines on property use favor it remaining a port facility. The decision on Treasure Island's future would be based on input from nearby communities and the region, not just San Francisco and Oakland. Rather than working with USGS on an acceptable oil tanker plan, the cities could end up being faced with the prospect of other cities in the region such as Sunnyvale and Mountain View, operating a supertanker port at the island to satisfy their voracious appetite for gasoline to fuel their Sport Utility Vehicles.
Everywhere, modern oil tanker ports are a nuisance to neighbors. It's understandable that no one wants to live near an oil terminal. But everyone uses gasoline, and our way of life depends on cheap reliable transportation of petroleum to the Bay Area.
It is irresponsible of the city councils of Oakland and San Francisco
to pander to the whining of a few NIMBYs afraid of the sight, sound, and
smell of oil tankers, occasional oil spills, and a few dead sea lions. To
ignore the growing need for more oil shipments locally is to pretend that
the Bay Area will magically retun to the slower days of the '50s. It won't
happen. Leaving the door open, as the citizen's committee did, is a more
realistic way of planning.
A parody of the San Jose Mercury News' position on Moffett Field