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 lastspring, the result was surprising and encouraging. While endorsing severalpotential uses for the island, the committee left open the possibility ofintroducing commercial oil shipment. This was a controversial but courageousdecision that took into account both the concerns of the neighbors and theimportance of Treasure Island as a regional resource for the entire BayArea.
Unfortunately, the San Francisco and Oakland city councils succumbedto Not-In-My-Backyard pressure. The councils recently deemed an oil terminalto 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 adirective to erase the facility's $3 million annual deficit. A year agoit put forth a proposal to allow a small scale oil trans-shipment terminalto 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 communitiesagree on: a conference center, hotel, and theme park, among others. Theadvisory committee also believes that at least some of the deficit existsonly 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 numbersor help USGS run Treasure Island more economically. The point is that TreasureIsland, as an oil terminal, is precious and irreplacable.
The cities of Oakland and San Francisco have made clear their objectionto oil tankers at Treasure Island. Yet the need for petroleum to sustainthe region's economy is indisputable. There is no better way to bring thatoil 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 hastya decision.
Federal and State plans both designate Treasure Island as an industrialproperty. And if USGS were to abandon Treasure Island, say for budgetaryreasons, federal guidelines on property use favor it remaining a port facility.The decision on Treasure Island's future would be based on input from nearbycommunities and the region, not just San Francisco and Oakland. Rather thanworking with USGS on an acceptable oil tanker plan, the cities could endup being faced with the prospect of other cities in the region such as Sunnyvaleand Mountain View, operating a supertanker port at the island to satisfytheir voracious appetite for gasoline to fuel their Sport Utility Vehicles.
Everywhere, modern oil tanker ports are a nuisance to neighbors. It'sunderstandable that no one wants to live near an oil terminal. But everyoneuses gasoline, and our way of life depends on cheap reliable transportationof petroleum to the Bay Area.
It is irresponsible of the city councils of Oakland and San Franciscoto pander to the whining of a few NIMBYs afraid of the sight, sound, andsmell of oil tankers, occasional oil spills, and a few dead sea lions. Toignore the growing need for more oil shipments locally is to pretend thatthe Bay Area will magically retun to the slower days of the '50s. It won'thappen. Leaving the door open, as the citizen's committee did, is a morerealistic way of planning.
A parody of the San Jose Mercury News' position on Moffett Field