Regarding the Jan. 29 cover story, “To rail, or to rail against,” I hadn’t really formed an opinion on this project; if pressed, I would have sided with Phillips.
After I finished reading the article, I find the opposition argument specious at best, which is funny, since they use this exact term to “accuse” Phillips within the article itself. They really give no discernible facts other than the same old “doom and gloom” approach of an impending rail disaster. So there might be a disaster; then again, there might not be one, either.
The other rationales against include air pollution, visual blight, derailments, etc., and are just a retread of environmentalists’ “we hate the modern-world technologies.” I’m curious if they walk to wherever they need to be, like to the refinery to voice concern. If they are driving in any vehicle, they lose this part of the argument.
Last, I’d be curious if these same environmentalists also oppose air traffic into Santa Maria airport or vehicle traffic on Highway 101. Our technologies have been used to make better cars and more efficient emission systems on those cars, but it just never seems to be enough with the environmental crowd. Now is the time to say “enough is enough!” If they do not have any tangible reasons to stop this, then the rail should go through.
This article appears in Feb 5-12, 2015.