Letters to the Editor

We oppose the Phillips 66 rail spur because we understand the cost

A protest against the approval of oil trains coming through San Luis Obispo County was held at Mitchell Park in San Luis Obispo, Saturday July 9, 2016.
A protest against the approval of oil trains coming through San Luis Obispo County was held at Mitchell Park in San Luis Obispo, Saturday July 9, 2016. ldickinson@thetribunenews.com

To suggest that the folks who oppose the Phillips 66 rail spur extension project are an “environmentalist cult” failing to weigh the economic benefits (Matthew Hoy, “SLO County should weigh both the benefits and the risks of Phillips 66 rail spur,” Aug. 6) is simply the comment of those who have not read the Final Environmental Impact Report or the Planning Commission staff report. The staff report identified 11 Class I impacts that could not be mitigated, including five that related to air quality, pollutants and greenhouse gases within the refinery and along the mainline.

A reading of the FEIR will find that jobs are not linked to whether the project is approved or not — it’s simply a scare tactic foisted by the public firm of Phillips 66 — so suggesting that we aren’t concerned with other people’s livelihood is yet another falsehood. In fact, if Canadian tar sands crude is imported, there is a good possibility that the local workers in the extraction industry would lose their job ... so whose jobs are you talking about?

What’s more, stating that those in opposition are “exclusively focused” on a derailment in San Luis Obispo is yet another false statement. More than 31 municipalities up and down the Union Pacific Railroad mainline have written in opposition to the project.

We are not blissfully ignorant. We get it. Perhaps you don’t.

Arlene Shinderman, Nipomo

  Comments