L.A. mayor won't support port container fee

Villaraigosa wants the revenue from the port levy to help pay for bridges' replacement.

Antonio Villaraigosa is withholding city support for a state bill that would impose a container fee in the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach aimed at easing congestion and air pollution, insisting it be changed to help with the $1.5-billion cost of replacing two major bridges.

With the bill by state Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) up against a legislative deadline this week and facing widespread opposition from retail, shipping and other business groups, supporters worked feverishly -- but without success -- to negotiate a compromise with the mayor.

"He carries a great deal of weight," said Melissa Lin Perrella of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "His support would be helpful."

A similar bill was approved by the Legislature last year but was vetoed by the governor, who worried that it would harm California businesses. SB 974, which is scheduled for a crucial committee vote today, would put a $60 fee on each loaded 40-foot container that moves through the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland.

The fee would raise up to $394 million annually for projects to reduce air pollution and improve the movement of containerized cargo from those facilities.

Much of the money would go to railroad improvements and grade separation projects that would allow cars and trucks to go under railroad tracks. Advocates of the plan say air pollution would be reduced if vehicles did not have to idle at busy train crossings.

Villaraigosa has objected that the bill would not allow the money to be spent on the replacement of two large bridges that serve the ports. He has indicated that he will withhold his and the city's support unless the measure is amended to allow money for replacement of the Gerald Desmond and Commodore Schuyler F. Heim bridges.

"While the mayor supports Sen. Lowenthal's efforts to bring needed private participation to environmental mitigation and infrastructure projects, he is concerned that the bill, as currently written, excludes certain highway projects from funding," said Matt Szabo, a spokesman for the mayor.

The bridges have been designated as "distressed" by the federal government, "and present a serious safety concern if left to deteriorate," Szabo said.

"The mayor believes that these critical projects must be eligible for funding under SB 974, in addition to grade separations, rail projects and other categories of infrastructure projects statewide," he said.

The city is considering imposing its own fee.

Lowenthal said the legislation may be the most important bill for the environment that he has carried in his nine years in the Legislature.

He downplayed the differences with the mayor.

"My sense is that there will be continuing discussions, but it will pass out of Appropriations tomorrow," he said.

The bill proposes that half of the money raised by the fee go to the California Transportation Commission to fund projects to improve cargo movement and half to the state Air Resources Board for projects to reduce pollution caused by the movement of cargo throughout the state.

The fee would be imposed beginning Jan. 1, 2009.

The mayor's lack of support may not be enough to hold up the measure, but his hard line has added momentum to the concerns raised by industry groups, including the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce.

"This sounds like a tax, and we don't know where the money is going," said Gary L. Toebben, president and chief executive officer of the chamber. "It's one more example of where we get to pay the bill down here and the money is sent to Sacramento and we have to grovel to get it back."

The bill also has been opposed by more than 130 companies and trade groups including Target, Home Depot, the California Farm Bureau, California Grocers Assn. and the Pacific Merchant Shipping Assn.

They say it is bad for business.

Opponents question whether the state can legally impose what they see as a tax on interstate commerce.

"It would drive up the cost of merchandise and ultimately drive the container business to other ports," said J. Craig Shearman, a vice president of the National Retail Federation.

The Heim bridge is among 228 structures on the state's recently released "Priority Structurally Deficient Bridge" list. The Gerald Desmond Bridge in Long Beach, which is used by port trucks going to the 710 Freeway, is in such bad condition that crews have had to wrap it in wire nets to prevent chunks of concrete from falling into the water and onto streets below.

Villaraigosa argues that the bridge projects are consistent with environmental aims.

"Repair of these bridges furthers the goals of the Clean Air Action Plan adopted by both ports and will be subject to rigorous environmental review," Szabo said.

The environmentalists behind the bill don't buy that.

"It's a real shame," said Martin Schlageter, of the Coalition for Clean Air, regarding the mayor's position.

"It's a concern that the withholding of support could affect the approval of the bill. But I don't think it warrants putting something in that undermines the integrity of the bill."

The Port of Long Beach also has withheld support for the bill unless it is amended to allow money for the two bridges.

Source: Los Angeles Times
August 30, 2007

<back