Anonymously contributed:
At least someone wants LLNL...
Livermore moves forward in bid to annex national labs
By Jeanine Benca
Contra Costa Times
02/26/2011
LIVERMORE -- Livermore hopes to annex the Lawrence Livermore and Sandia California/National laboratories -- one of many steps in a long-range mission to transform the city into a booming technology hub and create thousands of jobs.
The planning commission on Tuesday will consider a proposal to annex 1,022 acres east of Vasco Road, south of Patterson Pass Road and west of Greenville Road. Included is the 1,017-acre area occupied by the two labs; two privately-owned parcels totaling five acres plus a stretch of Greenville Road adjacent to the labs.
The labs lie east of Livermore in unincorporated Alameda County. Annexation would not give the city any more power over the facilities, which are on federal land and therefore not subject to property taxes or local development regulations.
But having the labs within city limits would better align the city limit line with the urban growth boundary. It would also give Livermore more say over impacts on streets and neighborhoods if and when the area around the labs is developed with high-tech companies and other facilities, said Steve Riley, principal planner for the city.
"The primary (goal) is to sort of more formally acknowledge the relationship between the city and labs as we move forward in the future," he said.
Last year, the Livermore Valley was selected by the state Business, Transportation and Housing Agency as one of six future iHubs or Innovation Hubs for Technology Development.
The goal of the program is to foster partnerships among private industry, academia and the labs that will help create jobs and spur the development of green transportation technology.
It also ties into ongoing efforts to create an "open campus" area around the high-security federal labs where private, high-tech business and/or academic development can occur.
If the commission supports the annexation recommendation, it will be sent to the city council for approval. Should the council endorse the project, it will be sent to the Local Agency Formation Commission, which has the final say in all matters involving boundary changes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts you viewed tbe most last 30 days
-
LGBT intolerance problem at Sandia? I was just checking glassdoor.com and noticed several comments suggesting intolerance to LGBT at Sandia...
-
So what do the NNSA labs do under the the 2nd Trump administration ? What are the odds we will have a test?
-
So did you SSVSP and why? Give details.
12 comments:
Hope this doesn't backfire.
DOE is already significantly redistributing the important SNM mission-space to LANL and the emerging Harry-Reid-supported NTS.
Even though NSTech-lead NTS is not competent to support a larger weapons mission-space and LANL is in decline; both benefit from larger, remote locations and much stronger local and congressional support. They are also lead by better strategic politicians.
In the upcoming budget pinch, now hidden by D'Agostino under the disguise of complex modernization, LLNL, facing local opposition, city oversight, tepid and sporadic congressional support, and lacking a local SNM infrastructure faces a continuing uphill battle to keep significant weapons responsibility there.
Will the city's attempted annexation tip the scales toward the remote sites and jeopardize NNSA funding to LLNL?
They may annex an abandoned eyesore.
I believe your fears are justified. With the transfer of weapons programs you mention, that means that with the exception of NIF, NNSA has little or no interest in the rest of LLNL's programs. I doubt NNSA wants to fund another PNL or Argonne. NNSA could view the move to annex non-federal lands around the labs as acknowledgment by the city of its interest in the federal land for future economic expansion, and an expression of readiness for the labs to be closed.
If I were the city, I would refuse to spend a dime near the lab, and would withhold vital, visible support and services nearby until NNSA cut the city a yearly check appropriate to the burden that LLNL places on Livermore by being a big, demanding, nearby, dangerous neighbor.
In fact, I would start by demanding the per capita amount that NNSA gifts to the deadbeat hamlet of Los Alamos.
In no case should city citizens spend an unreimbursed dime, nor annex a liability like the polluted, radiation-contaminated antiquated physical plant without say $50-$100M per year in compensatory tax revenues.
You break it. You own it.
This idea is kinda like a young rutting boy, not checking out his betrothed before saying the vows.
Caveat emptor.
A better strategy is to let it be known the city wants nothing to do with being responsible for any part of lab functions. They know that they can't trust LLNS and can't trust NNSA.
Set the expectation that they demand that NNSA to be a good neighbor, no more damaging to the too nearby City of Livermore than a field of clover.
You don't want either LLNS charlatans nor NNSA liars to have a chance to grasp your checkbook.
Should massive protests hit the lab again as they did in the 80's, if LLNL/Sandia becomes city property does the city's police force have enough manpower to handle the crowds? If not, does the city of Livermore call in the Alameda County Sheriff and the California Highway patrol, and at what cost to Livermore.
Beyond HOPING that commercial (and tax paying) clients start building on/around LLNL/Sandia Ca, what is the motive here? Why the wait of a half century to push this agenda? Possible land for the 2000 seat playhouse if downtown doesn't work?
Why the wait of a half century to push this agenda?
March 1, 2011 8:11 PM
Maybe because NNSA is starting to send signals that LLNL and SNL may be closed soon? And BTW 7:06 pm, why do you think LLNL is a "dangerous" neighbor?? Also, you forgot to mention Los Alamos is a crime-free, excellent school, highest per capita PhD county in the US "hamlet."
Some posters here seem to be unclear on the meaning of Livermore annexing the non-federal lands around the two labs. It is not about the city "owning" the property. Since the property is currently privately owned, that would be impossible. It is simply the city extending its city limits to encompass the labs. For the private property owners, the worst this means is that they might be subject to city taxes they are not currently subject to. It is a symbolic gesture. To all that think the city is trying to "take over" the labs, calm down and get a grip on reality.
Yup, color me unclear. I agree that Livermore will not OWN the property. Livermore pushes the city limits out to include the area that Sandia and Livermore occupy. What is the gain for this acquisition and what are the liabilities?
What is the gain for this [annexation] and what are the liabilities?
At first glance the largest gain is the ability to apply the local business tax to the corporate ventures now operating the laboratory sites. Biggest liability may be police cruisers patroling Greenville Road.
If the gain is the ability to tax LLNS, why would Alameda county be willing to let it go? Or is the fact that it is in an unincorporated area mean that the county is not getting money?
When the SNM leaves town, does East Avenue re-open with the possibility of Livermore police catching speeders thus filling the city coffers? Do they think they are getting a stronger voice in the future of the lab?
March 7, 2011 10:50 PM
Are you asking the blog, which is fruitless and pointless, or asking your elected officials? Which is more likely to get you real answers?
Post a Comment