Opposition to Pipeline

I wholeheartedly agree with Steve Mena who states that it would be a double standard to oppose the Pacific Pipeline Systems Inc. proposal but not other pipelines that run through our community (Letters to The Valley Edition, Oct. 20).

Mena indicated that the pipeline that exploded in Mission Hills [Jan. 17, 1994] is still in use. It is not, largely as a result of my strong opposition. I held a public hearing and two community meetings, and held Arco’s feet to the fire for a commitment not to reopen it for oil transport.

It is important that we make a distinction between genuine community enhancement and a sophisticated public relations campaign. Pacific Pipeline has attempted to persuade the community that having a hot crude oil pipeline running through their neighborhood is the best thing since buttered toast. My decision to oppose the pipeline is based on safety first. . . . An oil pipeline through densely populated earthquake territory is simply a poor idea.

The bottom line? Why would anyone want to have a pipeline in their neighborhood? I am convinced that those few so-called community representatives who support the Pacific Pipeline have ulterior motives and are less concerned with community safety than self-promotion.

There is a fundamental difference between Pacific Pipeline and all of the other pipelines: The others are already in place. The question before us is whether we need to build a new pipeline. There is no compelling need for a new line, therefore, I argue that we should use existing lines and improve their safety while we transition away from fossil fuels. No contradiction, no double standard.

RICHARD ALARCON

Alarcon is District 7 city councilman.