the road to hell…part 2

Continuing my exploration of the “culture of yes” that has damaged the democratic process in the City of Tacoma and elsewhere.

Courtesy of Todd Deringer

A major question: how does agency justify bending the rules when it comes to safety and environmental health? Both of which, when broken, have devastating outcomes for human health and well-being.

How do you “bend” a safety rule without breaking it? What are the decision points along the way that would signal someone to stop bending? Who decides that?

There are no safety evaluations of the LNG tank. When asked, the City says that they can’t do a safety evaluation until the plant is built and operational.

The environmental evaluations did not go far enough to adequately protect environmental and human health. The city, as the lead agency, got input from industry and called it good.

Fast tracked the road to hell.

If industry were responsible I MIGHT have an inclination to support a culture of yes, but industry is not.

The opposition to any regulation is manifesting itself at the national level as well as the local level. The fight to avoid paying any fines is standard operating procedure in industry.

So, I ask again, how do you bend a safety or environmental rule without breaking it? And who makes that determination?

From what I have seen, agency relies heavily on industry to answer questions the public puts forth. It could be safely assumed that industry, in all its glorious profit-centric splendor, makes that determination.

More to come later.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.